Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC & SA Regular Agenda Packet (1) 04-12-2016
01Y r Ll�NTE LStI� (-)1k:E City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda City Council BRIAN TISDALE, MAYOR ROBERT MAGEE, MAYOR PRO TEM DARYL HICKMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE MANOS, COUNCIL MEMBER NATASHA JOHNSON, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT YATES, CITY MANAGER LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:00 PM Cultural Center CLOSED SESSION at 5:00 PM PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at City Hall on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.Lake-Elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 674-3124 Ext. 269, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. CITY VISION STATEMENT The City of Lake Elsinore will be the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work and play, build futures and fulfill dreams. City of Lake Elsinore Page i Printed on 41812016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Property: APNs 374-174-013, 374-174-016 Agency negotiator: City Manager Yates Negotiating parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Thomas Anthony Martin DBA The Wreck Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code § 54956.9) Leibold. v. Coon Superior Court Case No. RIC 1603718 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code § 54956.9) Coon v. Leibold Superior Court Case No. RIC 1603819 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code § 54956.9) Western Riverside Council of Government vs. City of Lake Elsinore Arbitration - REF# 1120012917 [AALRR-Cerritos.006243.00005] CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code Section 54956.9: 1 potential case PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 4/8/2016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS Proclamation Declaring April as Donate Life California Month Recognition of the Lakeside High School Girls Basketball City Champions Recognition the Elsinore High School Boys Basketball City Champions CLOSED SESSION REPORT/CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CITY MANAGER COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council meeting and tum it in to the City Clerk. The Mayor or City Clerk will call on you to speak.) CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Council Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) 1) Warrant List dated March 31, 2016 Recommendation: Receive and File the Warrant List dated March 31, 2016. Attachments: Warrant - SR Warrant - Exhibit A Warrant - Exhibit B 2) City Investment Reports for December 2015, January 2016, and February 2016 Recommendation: Receive and file the Investment Reports for December 2015, January 2016, and February 2016. Attachments: City Investment - SR City Investment Report 2015_12 - Exhibit A. City Investment Report 2016-01 -Exhibit B City Investment Report 2016-02 - Exhibit C 3) Waive Further Reading and Adopt by Title Only: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 16.22 REGARDING VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance. City o/ Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 4/8/2016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 4) 5) 6) Attachments: CC Ordinance - Ch 16 22 Voluntary Mercier of Contiguous Parcels Amendment No. 1 to Increase Award Amount for Endresen Development a General Contractor Service Agreement Recommendation: 1. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1, Increasing the $30,000 Contract with Endresen Development, for General Contractor Services, to $60,000, in Substantially the Form and in Such Final Form as Approved by the City Attorney; and, Authorize the City Manager to Approve Work to be Performed Not to Exceed the Contract Amount of $60,000. Attachments: Endersen Development Agreement - SR Endresen Development Agreement - Exhibit A Agreement Endresen Development - Exhibit B -Amendment No. 1_ Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement With Albert A. Webb Associates Recommendation: 1. Award Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Professional Services with Albert A. Webb Associates for a Feasibility Study and Road and Bridge District (RBBD) Formation Services; and, 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $124,500, in Substantially the Form and in Such Final Form as Approved by the City Attorney, and, 3. Appropriate $124,500 in Fund 205, Traffic Impact Fees. Attachments: Webb RBBD - SR Albert Webb PSA Amendment No. 3 - Exhibit A Albert Webb Original Agreement and Amendment No 1 Albert A. Webb Amendment PSA No. 2 - Exhibit D Proposal East Lake - Exhibit E1 Proposal La Strada Gap --Exhibit E2 PfODosal Railroad Canyon Interchange -Exhibit E3 Agreements for Contractor Services for the City's Hazardous Vegetation and Rubbish Abatement Program Recommendation: 1. Award an Agreement for Contractor Services to Daniel Broz dba Southwest Fire Protection and Land Management District to Provide Inspection Services for the Hazardous Vegetation and Rubbish Abatement Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Not to Exceed $65,000 per Fiscal Year in 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18, Subject to Minor Modifications as Approved by the City Attorney. 2. Award an Agreement for Contractor Services to Smith Tractor Service, Inc. to Provide Abatement and Clearing Services for the Hazardous Vegetation and Rubbish Abatement Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Not to Exceed $300,000 per Fiscal Year in 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18, Subject to Minor Modifications as Approved by the City Attorney. City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 Printed on 4/8/2016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 Attachments: Staff Report - Agreements for Hazardous Vegetation Rubbish Abatement Servic Agreement with Southwest Fire Protection and Land Management District Agreement with Smith Tractor Service Inc Proposal Submitted by Southwest Fire Protection and Land Management Distric Proposal Submitted by Smith Tractor Service, Inc. 7) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Review Report for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Recommendation: Receive and File the TUMF Review Report for the Fiscal Year 2015-2015. Attachments: FY 14-15 TUMF Review Report - SR 14-15 TUMF Review Report - Exhibit A 8) Measure A Independent Accountant's Report for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Recommendation: Receive and File the Measure A Independent Accountant's Report for the Fiscal Year 2014-2015. Attachments: Measure A - SR Measure A - Exhibit A 9) Agreement for the Architectural Services for the Rehabilitation of La Laguna Recreation Vehicle (RV) Park with STK Architecture, INC. Recommendation: 1. Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate, Approve and Execute an Agreement with STK Architecture, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $399,000.00, for Architecture Services Related to Schematic Design Phase, Design Development Phase and Construction Document Phase for Rehabilitation of the La Laguna RV Park, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement, Subject to Approval as to Form by the City Attorney; and, 2. Authorize the City Manager to Approve Change Orders up to 10 Percent of the Agreement, in the Amount of $39,900. Attachments: STK Architects - SR STK Architects - Exhibit A Agreement STK Architects - Exhibit B Proposal 10) Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Prostaff LLC for Project Management Services on City Capital Improvement Projects Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to Approve an Agreement with ProStaff LLC in an annual Amount Not to Exceed $227,000.00. Attachments: ProStaff - SR ProStaff - Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 Printed on 4/8/2016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 11) Residential Design Review No. 2015-03 A Request for Approval of an Eight (8) Unit Apartment Complex and Related Site Improvements Located at 125 Heald Ave. (APN:373-025-008); (Applicant: Stanley Lau, Plenty Gold, LLC) Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2015-03 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2015-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,839 SQUARE FOOT, EIGHT (8) UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 125 HEALD AVE (APN:373-025-008) Attachments: RDR 2015-03 - SR RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT A - MSHCP Resolution RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT B - RDR Resolution RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT C - Vicinity Man_ RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT D - Aerial Map RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT E - CofA RDR 2015-03 EXHIBIT F -Design Review Package 12) Ultimate Right -of -Way and Street Improvements for Diamond Drive in Conjunction with Development Proposals, Applicants NickTavacilione and Steve Semingson Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR DIAMOND DRIVE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Attachments: Diamond Drive - SR CC Reso Diamond Dr Alignment 4.12.16 (00000003) CC Attachments - Diamond Dr 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13) Annexation No. 1 Into Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) for Pardee (TR 36682) Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AN ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS THE QUESTION OF LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-2 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES) (ANNEXATION NO. 1); and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ELECTION RESULTS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-2 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 1 City of Lake Elsinore Page 6 Printed on 41812016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 14) 15) Attachments: CFD 2015-2 SR Exhibit A - Reso Calling an Election Exhibit Al - Reso Attachments Exhibit B - Reso Declaring Election Results Exhibit 31 - Reso Attachments Exhibit C - Petition Exhibit D - Registar of Voters Certificate Annexation of Improvement Area E into Community Facilities District 2003-2 (Canyon Hills) Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) ANNEXING IMPROVEMENT AREA E INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN; CALLING AN ELECTION AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATED THERETO; and, Attachments: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) DETERMINING THE NECESSITY OF INCURRING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000 WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA E OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) AND CALLING AN ELECTION THERIN; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) CERTIFYING THE ELECTION RESULTS; and, introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-2 (CANYON HILLS) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA E CFD 2003-2 - SR CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit A CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit B CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit C CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit D CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit E CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit F CFD 2003-2 - Exhibit G CFD 2003-2 - Exhibt H Formation of Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Safety Services) of the City of Lake Elsinore City o/ Lake Elsinore Page 7 Printed on 41812016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-1 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (SAFETY SERVICES), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN, CALLING AN ELECTION AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATED THERETO; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-1 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (SAFETY SERVICES) CERTIFYING ELECTION RESULTS; and, 3) Waive further reading and introduce by title only AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0, 2015-1 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (SAFETY SERVICES) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES Attachments: CFD 2015-1 SR CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit A CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit B CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit C CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit D CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit E CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit E CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit F CFD 2015-1 - Exhibit G 16) Formation of Community Facilities District 2015-4 of the City of Lake Elsinore (Terracina) Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (TERRACINA), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN, CALLING AN ELECTION AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATED THERETO; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (TERRACINA) DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (TERRACINA) AND CALLING AN ELECTION THEREIN; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (TERRACINA) CERTIFYING ELECTION RESULTS; and, introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (TERRACINA) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES City of Lake Elsinore Page 8 Printed on 418/1016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 Attachments: CFD 2015-4 SR CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit A CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit B CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit C CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit D CFD 2015-4 -Exhibit E CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit F CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit G CFD 2015-4 - Exhibit H 17) Annexation No. 84, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2014-03, and Zone Change (ZC) 2014-02: A Proposed Annexation of Four Contiguous Parcels Totaling Approximately 160 Acres. (APNs 349-250-013, 349-250-014, 349-250-015 and 349-250-016) (Applicant, Bruce Vinci, RHW, LLC) Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 84, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2014-03, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014-02; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2014-03 SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION NO. 84.; and, adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF PRE -ANNEXATION ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014-02 SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION NO. 84; and, Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND COMMENCEMENT OF ANNEXATION NO. 84. City o/ Lake Elsinore Page 9 Printed on 41812016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 Attachments: ANNEXATION NO. 84 - Staff Report ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit A - CEQA Resolution ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit B - GPA Resolution ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit C - RZ Resolution ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit D - Annexation Resolution' ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit E - Vicinity Map ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit F - Aerial Map ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit G - Addendum to EIR ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit H - POS The Summit ANNEXATION NO 84 Exhibit I - Fiscal Impact Analysis ANNEXATION NO 84 Exhibit J - Pre Annexation Agreement ANNEXATION NO 84 Exhibit K - GP and Landuse Designations ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit L - IP ANNEXATION NO. 84 Exhibit M - CDP BUSINESS ITEMS 18) Adoption of Resolution for CFD 2006-1 Authorizing the Issuance of its Special Tax Bonds, Series 2016A - Improvement Area CC Recommendation: adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (SUMMERLY) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SPECIAL TAX BONDS, SERIES 2016A (IMPROVEMENT AREA CC) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000) AND APPROVING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Attachments: CFD 2006-1 SR CFD 2006-1 Exhibit A Reso Authorizing Bonds CFD 2006-1 Exhibit B Bond Indenture CFD 2006-1 Exhibit C Disclosure Certificate CFD 2006-1 Exhibit D Preliminary Statement CFD 2006-1 Exhibit E - 2016 Bonds PA 19) The Issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds to Finance La Laguna Resort Improvements Recommendation: 1) adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS, APPOINTING A FINANCING TEAM WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED FINANCING AND APPROVING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; and, 2) adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS City of Lake Elsinore Page 10 Printed on 4/8/2016 City Council Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 Attachments: La Laguna - Staff Report Lease Rev Bonds - Exhibit A Lease Rev Bonds - Exhibit B PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council Meeting and turn it in to the City Cleric. The Mayor or City Clerk will call on you to speak.) ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn this meeting to the next regularl scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. The Closed Session meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. and the Regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at S•wE71D.m. on April 7, 2016. Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 11 Printed on 418/2016 01V Of 11 DDE: &,1 S[H0P E City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda Successor Agency BRIAN TISDALE, CHAIR ROBERT MAGEE, VICE -CHAIR DARYL HICKMAN, AGENCYMEMBER STEVE MANOS, AGENCY MEMBER NATASHA JOHNSON, AGENCY MEMBER GRANT YATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:00 PM Cultural Center PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at City Hall on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.Lake-Elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 674-3124 Ext. 269, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. CITY VISION STATEMENT The City of Lake Elsinore will be the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work and play, build futures and fulfill dreams. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 41712016 Successor Agency Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CITY MANAGER COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE (Please read and complete a Request to Address the Successor Agency form prior to the start of the Successor Agency meeting and turn it in to the Clerk. The Chair or Clerk will call on you to speak.) CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Council Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) 1) ID# 16-160 Warrant List dated March 31, 2016 Recommendation: Receive and File the Warrant List Dated March 31, 2016. Attachments: Warrants - SR Warrant - Exhibit A Warrant - Exhibit B 2) ID# 16-161 Successor Agency Investment Reports for December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016 Recommendation: Receive and File the Investment Reports for December 2015, January 2016, and February 2016. Attachments: Successor Agency Investment - SR Investment Report 2015-12 - Exhibit A Investment Report 2016-01 - Exhibit B Investment Report 2016-02 - Exhibit C 3) ID# 16-162 Approve and Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Prostaff LLC for Project Management Services on Diamond Stadium Capital Improvement Projects Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to Approve an Agreement with ProStaff LLC in an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $85,000.00. Attachments: Prostaff LLC - SR ProStaff LLC - Exhibit A Agreement City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 4/7/2016 Successor Agency Regular Agenda April 12, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the Successor Agency form prior to the start of the Agency Meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk. The Chair or City Clerk will call on you to speak.) ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Successor Agency will adjourn this meeting to the next regular scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. The Closed Session meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. and the Regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall on the 7th day of April, 2016, at J�'D 5 p.m. Susan M. Damen, MMC City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 41712016 place (NSE -1, NSE -2, and NSE -3) which address construction -related noise. Other measures require additional noise studies prior to any Phased Development Planmitigation , Design Review, or Subdivision Maps approval when specific design details are known. The DEIR mitigation measures ensure that further noise studies will take place, and any potentially significant noise impact can be addressed in later phases of this project. In order to clarify that such implementing development project noise studies are required and will be prepared, a new mitigation measure NSE -0.5 will be added as follows: pro'ected surroundin nand uses u on the n'o posed Uro e t( Response to Johnson & Sedlack Cmumcnt B-58 As noted in previous responses with respect to noise impacts, accurate and meaningful modeling of operational noise impacts requires knowledge of the exact source location, the exact receptor location, and any intervening Che source strength, barriers to line -of -sight propagation. At this time, none of that information is known at a project -specific level of detail. The impact assessment is therefore necessarily generic at the specific plan level. Future project -level home/office and subdivision design CEQA documentation would be expected to refine that guideline impact distance. As noted above in the Response to Comment B-57, a new Mitigation Measure NSE -0.5 has been added to clearly identify the requirement for implementing development project -level noise impact analyses. Mitigation Measures NSE -4 through NSE -8 are performance based mitigation measures intended to mitigate operational noise to less than significant levels. Response to Jolnson & Sedlack Comment B-59 As noted earlier, the project -specific Noise Analysis dated June 2, 2010 along with Chapter 4.9 of the DEIR provide noise analysis specific to AVSP. The analysis describes typical construction and traffic noise impacts similar to what would occur after project buildout. At this time, a more detailed and site specific noise analysis i measures in place (NSE -4, NSE s not feasible, however there are several mitigation -5, NSE -6, and NSE -7) which require additonal noise studies prior to the approval of any Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map. As noted above in the Response to Comment B-56, permitted mining operations are part of the existing noise environment and will not be altered by the proposed project. Additionally, as noted above in the Response to Comment B-57, a new Mitigation Measure NSE -0.5 has been added to clearly identify the requirement for implementing development project -level noise impact analyses that address both construction -related and post -construction noise impacts. The DL'IR mitigation measures ensure that further noise studies will take place, and any potentially 56 significant noise impact can be addressed in later phases of this project consistent with City codes. Response to Joknson & Sedlack Comment B-60 As noted earlier, the project -specific Noise Analysis dated June 2, 2010 along with Chapter 4.9 of the DEIR provide noise analysis specific to AVSP. The analysis describes typical construction and traffic noise impacts similar to what would occur after project buildout. At this time, a more detailed and site specific noise analysis is not feasible; however, there are several mitigation measures in place (NSE -1 through NSE -8) which are performance based mitigation measures which require additional noise studies prior to the approval of any Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map. The DEIR mitigation measures ensure that further noise essed in later studies will take place, and any potentially significant noise impact can be addr phases of the project consistent with City codes. In addition, page 4.9-18 of the DEIR specifically states that an increase of + 3dB is considered substantial. Mitigation Measures NSE -1 through NSE -8 are intended to reduce impacts where increases are greater than+3 dB. With respect to biological resources, the Specific Plan's design placement of less noise -sensitive land uses closest to I-15 and any impact to bio -habitats of Temescal Creek was presumed impact positive in that Temescal Creek has been noise impacted for many years from freeway traffic, mining operations and brick manufacturing such that placement of retail close to I-15 was not presumed to measurably alter the acoustic environment of the creek area. Noise protection for the creel, area would likely be included in project -specific development plans in that any design review applications require completion of a supplemental noise study. Res onse to Johnson & Sedlack Cornment B-61 Non-residential noise impacts will be evaluated at a project -specific basis, if and when implementation project descriptions are finalized to a degree of detail to allow such an evaluation. The noise study notes that the City's siting standards for such uses are less stringent relative to noise, but that sound transmission across the interface of dissimilar land uses may be a concern requiring documentation of compliance with City planning standards. There are several ,,litigation measures in place (new NSE -0.5, and NSE -1 through NSI: -8) which are performance based mitigation measures which require additional noise studies prior to the approval of any Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map. "flre DEIR mitigation treasures ensure that further noise studies will take place, and any potentially significant noise impact can be addressed in later phases of this project. 57 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Continent B-62 The AVSP is a specific plan and Figure 3-1 Villages and Planning Area Map sets forth the locational requirements of the various land uses. This serves as the regulatory mechanism for the location of land uses. As noted earlier, the Specific Plan's design placement of less noise -sensitive land uses closest to I-15 and any impact to bio -habitats of Temescal Creels was presumed impact positive in that Temescal Creek has been noise impacted for many years from freeway traffic, raining operations and brick manufacturing such that placement of retail close to I-15 was not presumed to measurably alter the acoustic environment of the creek area. Noise protection for the creek area would likely be included in project -specific development plans in that any design review applications require completion of a supplemental noise study. Implementing development project noise impact analyses as required by new Mitigation Measure NSE -0.5 shall evaluate the potential noise impacts of individual (and cumulative) development upon Temescal Creek. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-63 As noted earlier, the project -specific Noise Analysis dated June 2, 2010 along with Chapter 4.9 of the DEIR provide noise analysis specific to the AVSP. The analysis describes typical construction and operational noise impacts. At this time, a more detailed and site specific noise analysis is not feasible, however there are several performance-based mitigation measures in place (new NES -0.5, and NSE -1 through NSE -10) which require additional noise studies prior to any Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Maps when specific design details are known. The DEIR mitigation measures ensure that farther noise studies will take place, and any potentially significant In addition, the noise analysis in the DEIR adequately addresses noise impacts using accepted CEQA practices and methodology. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-64 As noted above in Response to Comment B-2, the AVSP EIR "tiers" of the 2011 Certified EIR for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. The primary purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was to provide an AVSP consistency analysis with the current General Plan. The proposed AVSP compares the proposed specific plan to the land use plan currently included in the City's General Plan, which evaluated traffic operations in the Ihture. The specific plan is included as a development project in the City's current General Plan. The proposed AVSP is an amendment to the City's current General Plan. This is the reason the TIA compares the traffic totals to the General Plan rather than the existing environment. The proposed AVSP contains revisions to the specific plan including minor residential unit count and location revisions and minor replacements in type and scale of some non-residential uses. The net result is projected to be a reduction in both the daily and peak -hour trip generation 58 versus the already approved General Plan land use plan for the AVSP project site. Prior to the approval of a Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map, a TIA for that proposed development phase will be required and as part of that analyses. Project -specific and cumulative mitigation to accommodate the proposed level of development will be identified. Required improvements, as conditions of approval for the Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map, will then be required to be in place before the occupancy of the proposed development phase to ensure that the identified impacts are addressed. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Continent A-65 The commenter's continent is acknowledged on roadway infrastructure. The appropriate infrastructure will be conditioned and implemented by the project at the Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map stage to provide adequate circulation for the development and the fair share obligations will be for the cumulatively impacted off-site improvements as dictated by the project -specific TIA findings at each approval stage. The mobility network identified in the General Plan Buildout scenario will be the ultimate system that will be required at the buildout of the City's General Plan. As each phase of the AVSP development is submitted for approval, project TIAs will be required to identify the specific mitigation that will be necessary to provide acceptable traffic operations. That mitigation, both project -specific and cumulative, will then be required to be in place before occupancy of the proposed development phase to ensure that the identified impacts are addressed. As indicated in the TIA, all subsequent applications for the actual development of AVSP (i.e., Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map, etc.) will require the preparation of project -specific traffic impact analyses consistent with City Guidelines. In addition, prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP), a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence, including without limitation, Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated, a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMP fee credits. See below Response to Comment 17-2. As previously noted, as each subsequent PDP is submitted for approval, a TIA for that phase will be required and will identify the impacts necessary to mitigate impacts related to that phase of the development. hr addition, Mitigation Measure TC -2 identifies specific improvements that are required. (See DEIR pages 4.7-79 through 4.7-81). The DEIR acknowledges that, although the improvements required by Mitigation Measure TC -2, if fully constructed, will reduce impacts to less than significant for the General Plan Amendment Buildout With Project scenario, the project cannot 59 guarantee the timing and construction of these improvements which are regional and will be determined by the City of Lake Elsinore, other cities in western Riverside County, the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and Caltrans based upon need and the availability of funding. Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts are significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, page 4.7-81) Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-66 As noted in Response to Continent B-64 above, the primary purpose of the TIA was to provide a consistency analysis with the Current General Plan, which does not include mainline Freeway analyses. The Caltrans facilities impacts will be addressed within the TIA reports associated with all subsequent applications for the actual subdivision development of Alberhill Villages. As previously noted, the proposed AVSP land use plan will generate less traffic than the plan included in the City's current Updated General Plan. During the analysis of the Updated General Plan, analyses were completed for the I-15 corridor. With the projected reduced project traffic volumes, no additional analysis of the I-15 corridor beyond what has already been completed was deemed necessary. As indicated in the TIA, all subsequent applications for the actual development of Alberhill Villages (i.e. Phased Development Plans, Subdivision Tract Maps or Conditional Use Permits, etc.) will require the preparation of project -specific traffic impact analyses consistent with City Guidelines, which may require construction analyses based on the extent of the proposed grading/truck traffic. As noted in the above Response to Comment B-64 and Response to Comment B-65, subsequent TIAs and a Phased Infrastructure Plan will be required as part of the PDP application process. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-67 As noted in previous responses, accurate and meaningful construction traffic impacts analysis cannot be determined until submittal of a Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map. Analysis of construction -related impacts of each submitted project will be provided depending on the extent of the proposed grading and projected amount of construction - related traffic. Mitigation Measure TC -1 requires the following performance based measures: "Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permits for development proposed by a Phased Development Plan, Suhdivision Map, or Design Review Application, start of construction of each phase o. the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project, the Applicant shall implement the ,following measures documented in a construction management plan to be approved by the City Engineer. • Control of any street closure, detour, or other disruption to trc{fflc circulation; Routes that construction vehicles will utilize the site, 60 • Hours of construction trc e (not to occur during AM or PMpeak hour); • Off-site vehicle staging and parking areas; • Proposed construction stagingplonfor the Project; • Posted inforination for contact in case of emergency or complaint; and, • flours of constr°action and traff c control during construction shall not interfere with ingress/egress to and from the residential, commercial and other land uses tram each phase built and to be built out. " Response to Johnson & Sedlaek Connnent B-68 The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is a current analysis of the EVMWD's ability to serve the AVSP project long term. The WSA was approved by the EVMWD. The AVSP is adopted as part of the EVMWD Water Supply Master Plan. The Governor's mandatory water reduction has little direct bearing on the WSA or the Master Plan as to the AVSP. Independent of the AVSP and more directly associated with State mandates, the EVMWD has complied with the State mandates by providing current and future programs to conform to any State water resource mandates. In fact, the EVMWD has curtailed their "purple pipe" reclaimed water programs to institute a 4th level of water reverse osmosis waste water treatment at the Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant to directly recharge their groundwater basins rather than use reclaimed water in new subdivisions. EVMWD, not the City, is the water provider and EVMWD has stated that water will be supplied to the AVSP. AVSP will comply with EVMWD mandates as they may evolve over the next 30 years. The DEIR discusses the drought situation on page 4.10-39. The EVMWD issued a letter dated January 14, 2016 in response to the DEIR water supply. This letter was received after the close of the DEIR comment period but will be included in the administrative record as part of the staff report. The letter states in part that "the EVMWD Board of Director's adopted the WSA in 2012 and the findings in the WSA, based upon EVMWD's 2010.Urban Water Management Plan, are still valid today." See the Response to Comment U-2. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-69 The Water Supply analysis in the DEIR and, detailed in the Appendix 1.2 Preliminary Water Facilities Plan, has been reviewed by EVMWD and accepted. This AVSP zoning stage water facilities analysis covers the entire 1,400 acres. These master planned water facilities will be developed in conjunction with EVMWD and more specific plans will be detailed at the normal detailed infrastructure stage of the AVSP Phased Development Plan process. Water supply plans will be independently submitted, approved and constructed at the direction of and with final 61 approval of EVMWD. The Appendix water plans are for the lead agency review and support the conclusion that the water supply is present for the project per EVMWD and a preliminary set of master water plans are present to serve the entire project areas. The DEIR is a tiered Programmatic EIR and as more detailed development plans are prepared, more detailed water service facilities will be engineered. If, during the subsequent implementing development project and entitlement reviews, more information comes to the forefront concerning possible adverse enviromnental impacts of the planned water facilities not currently known or disclosed, an initial study will focus the environmental questions to both the City and EVMWD for their lead and responsible agency decision -snaking process per CEQA. In addition, in cases where specific information is known about water infrastructure, the DEIR has evaluated the environmental impacts to the extent practical in the absence of more detailed information as part of a Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map. (See DEIR page 4.10-42). Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-70 The DEIR contains a Preliminary Wastewater Facilities Plan Appendix I.I. The commenter desires more precise information other than this early zoning stage of wastewater analysis. Similar to Response B-69 above, the details of the delivery system of waste water to the EVMWD treatment plant will be more detailed at the Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map level. The D1IR has identified the alternative and more likely system to utilize the existing wastewater treatment facilities and design a series of sewer lift stations in Lake Street to direct the waste water toward the treatment facilities. This system is analyzed in the DEIR and provides the substantial evidence that sewer teatnent facilities are available for the project. In addition, in cases where specific information is known about sewer infrastructure, the DEIR has evaluated the environmental impacts to the extent practical the absence of more detailed information which is not available at this time. (See DEIR page 4.10-52). Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-71 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. "The commentary is concerned with the Specific Plan land use policies and not the DEIR data or conclusions and therefore, no response is necessary. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment B-72 62 The commenter concludes for the reason stated in his continent letter, the DEIR must be "updated and recirculated for additional public review and comment." The responses to the cormmenter's comments above do not alter the proposed project, change the Draft EIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments "merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications" in the Draft EIR as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). Regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement ((.EQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new information consists of. (1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information provided in response to the comments received to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate DEIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). 63 Comment Letter C Southern California Edison Sp11��1''+H+��iR{YpN'af�ayfyA+ly�Hyygg,,6�pp�rnyA� E V Y S V I A.nmmx Aneftudnn.va rnmrs�� December 31, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson. PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HRGreen 1100 Town &Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 rslephenson@Ir green.com RE: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Dear Mr. Stephenson. Karen Cedevma 7rgeel Favroomenlal Management 1219 Soulh5"`Avenge. 225E Monrovia, CA 91016. Southern California Edison (SCE) appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan_ The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) is a master planned, mixed-use community that would occupy approximately 1,400 acres and proposes construction of: (1) 8,244 dwelling units (2) 2,481,000 square reef of office space, and 1,526,000 square feet of commercial/retail space; and (3) development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, worship centers, and green belt persons. The AVSP includes re-created and restored natural wildlife and open space connections in key locations in the Specific Plan area to provide continuity to the Cleveland National Forest off-site to the south and the MSHCP core areas off-site to the north. The AVSP would include improvements and realignments of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road. Encroachment of SCE's Right -of -Way and Access SCE Is the electric service provider for the City of Lake Elsinore and maintains electrical transmission and distribution facilities, as well as substations and supporting appurtenances in the City. As illustrated In the attached map, SCE has an existing 115 kilovolt (kV) subtransmission line located along Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street, which is represented as a red line. We have applications pending with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the Alberhill System and Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Projects (represented as magenta and blue lines). When constructed, the proposed projects would result in two sets of 115 kV subtranemission poles along Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street. SCE is concerned that the proposed project's improvements and realignments of Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, and Temescal Canyon Wash may impact SCE's existing and proposed subtransmission lines. The implementation and construction of the University Town Center (Village 1) may require relocation of the existing 115 kV Ifne. We are also concerned about potential encroachment and proposed land uses contiguous to SCE's rights-of-way (including and passivelactive parks, or recreational uses, landscaping, bike lanes, parking facilities, etc.). SCE's transmission corridors may not be compatible with some types of recreational activities, therefore, the developer should contact SCE regarding any plans to utilize SCE's transmission corridors as active trails and parks. The DEIR Figures 2,0.9 and 2.0-10 Illustrate the right-ef-way cross sections for Lake Street and Include single -circuit subh ansrrussiun Imes. TI it City should consider Inudifying Iia DEIR Figures to llushale the proposed utility corridor that includes Alberhill System and Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Projects (two double -circuit subhansmission lines)_ SCE can assist the City in updating these figures so that they depict the ultimate configuration of SCE's proposed projects. The proposed AVSP should not impose constraints on SCE's ability, to access, maintain, and operate its current and future facilities. SCE's rights-ohway and fee -owned properties are purchased for the exclusive use of SCE to operate and maintain its present and future facilities. SCE will review any proposed use on a case-by-case basis, including bike lines and landscaping. Approvals or denials will be in writing based upon review of the maps provided by the developer and compatibility with SCE right-of-way constraints and rights. In addition to the above referenced 115 kV Subtransmission Imes, SCE may have additional facilities within the proposed AVSP- Please forward five (5) sets of plans depicting all SCE's facilities and associated land rights to the following location: C-1 64 December 31, 2015 Aiberhill Villages DEIR Page 2 of 3 Real Properties Department Southern California Edison Company 2131 Walnut Grove Avenue, G.O.3—Second Floor Rosemead, CA 91770 General Order 95 SCE must comply with the CPUC's General Order (GO) 95, which establishes rules and regulations for the overhead line design, construction, and maintenance. GO 95 includes minimum clearance requirements from thoroughfares, roadways, ground, and railroads, as well as specific minimum clearances from tree branches and vegetation around overhead wires. General Order 131 •D The modification and relocation of subtransmission lines or electrical facilities that are designed to operate at or above 50 kilovolts (kV) may be subjectto the CPUC's GO 131 -DF. The Draft EIR should be revised to address significant environmental impacts from any proposed relocation or modification of SCE's 115 kV subtransmission lines as a result of implementation and construction of the AVSP. If not addressed in the DEIR, SCE may be required to pursue a separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC, which could delay approval of the SCE subtransmission line portion of the project for two years or longer. Coordination Between SCE and the City of Lake Elsinore and Developer SCE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the AVSP. SCE requests coordination with the City and developer regarding the ultimate alignment and right-of-way widths for Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road. and Temescal Canyon Wash, as well as the timing of construction for these components of the AVSP. If you have any questionsregarding this letter. please contact me at Karon.Cadavona(dscc.com or (626) 462.8622. Regards, ' Karen Cadavona Third Party Environmental Reviews Project Environmental Management Southern California Edison Company cc: Jennifer Wall, SCE Jeremy Goldman, SCE Kimberly Douglas, SCE ' http:!/tlms ropcxa.gov/PUBLISHEe/G,aptua/5fi°.PDF C-2 65 December 31, 2035 Alberhill Villages DFIR Page 3 of 66 Response to Comment Letter C Southern California Edison Southern California Edison provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 31, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Southern California Edison Comment C-1 As a point of clarification, it should be noted that when constructed, the proposed projects will result in two (2) sets of 115 kV Subtransmission poles along portions of Temescal Canyon Road, portions of Temescal Creek and Lake Street. SCE comments about the potential encroachment of land uses on their rights-of-way (including passive/active parks, recreational uses, landscaping, bicycle lanes, parking facilities, and other improvements). C&C property owner and the City have been working with SCE on mutually understanding the proposed 115 kV lvyglen alignments along Lake Street consistent with the adopted General Plan and Specific Plans with the understanding that an 'off road" pedestrian corridor and utility access road will be located in between the two (2) 115 kV Subtransmission pole lines along old Lake Street. The intent of DEIR figures 2.0-9 and 2.0-10 was to show the two (2) 115 IN Subtransmission pole locations (existing and proposed) along old Lake Street, which becomes the pedestrian and utility access road corridor after Lake Street is realigned onto Alberhill Villages. This configuration was shown without the express detail of the two (2) double circuited Subtransmission lines. The City acknowledges that two (2) parallel 115 kV Subtransmission pole lines will be placed along Lake Street. It is our understanding that not all SCE right-of-way has been acquired. Response to Southern California Edison Comment C-2 In the last eight (8) years of coordination with SCE on the design location of the two (2) parallel 115 kV Subtransmission pole lines alignments, both General Orders (GO) 95 and 131-D respectively have been jointly taken into consideration by SCE, C&C and the City in the design location discussions of the power poles. 67 Comment Letter D United States Fish and Wildlife Service Q{11NT OF FyF United States Department of the Interior 3 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _ - Ecological Services Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 In Reply Refer To: F W S- W RI V -12 B0289.16C PAo092 Mr. Roy F. Stephens, PE DEC 3 1 2015 Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o H.R. Green 1100 Town & Country Roam, Suite 1025 Change, California 92568 Subject: Draft EIR for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California _ Dear Mr. Stephens: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) residential and commercial project (Project) which we downloaded from the City's website on December 10, 2015. The DEIR was prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant envirmmiental impacts. The primary concern and mandate of t13e Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Me MSHCP established amultiple species conservation program in western Riverside County to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is and MSHCP permittee and the AVSP area is within the MSHCP plan area, although as discussed below, not all of thio AVSP area is subject to the MSHCP. We are providing comments and recommendations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comment to assist in the identification and mitigation of significant or potentially significant Project related impacts to biological resources and the project's consistency with or effects to the MSI ICP. The AVSP is a master -planned residential and mixed -commercial use community located in the northwest portion of the City of Lake Rlsinore. It is bordered by Lake Street slid the Brighton Specific Plan to the east, Interstate 15 and MSHCP Core Reserve 1 to the north, the D -I 68 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRSV-12B0288-16CPA0092) Cleveland National Forest and the Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan to the west, and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and residential development to the south. The D -I Project site encompasses approximately 1,400 acres. Cont. Comments and Recommendations The Service has concerns about the sufficiency and completeness of the DEIR in describing and providing analysis for project -related impacts, particularly in regards to: 1) Conflict with an adopted regional Habitat Conservation Plan or adopted regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (i.e.. the direct conflict with assembly of the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve system, specifically, Proposed Linkage I and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 and existing conservation cast of Lake Street); 2) MSHCP implementation for the portions of the A V SP that are that are outside of the settlement area; 3) Interfering with movement of native wildlife species; 4) Sensitive vegetation communities such as Riversidean sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub; and 5) Identifying appropriate mitigation for purposes of CEQA (CEQA, Section 15125 (d)), The Service requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to ensure that project -related impacts the MSHCP Conservation Area and biological resources and the habitats upon which they depend are adequately identified and analyzed, and that adequate and enforceable avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures are incorporated. The majority (but not all) of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project area was subject to n legal settlement between Pacific Clay Products, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County (defendant) which led the County to remove most of the current Alberhill Villages Specific Plan arca from the MSHCP. The "excluded portion" of the AVSD is not covered by the MSHCP or subject to MSHCP implementation. AVSP MSHCP Imalem n anion The DEIR states categorically in the DEIR that "The Project is not subject the City's MSHCP review" (p. 4.11-73) and that "This Project also has an [settlement] agreement with the City and County of Riverside that this Project is not subject to the MSIICP review or setting aside of habitat conservation." Based on the map of the 2004 settlement agreement (as maintained by the County of Riverside), a portion of the A VSP area was not included in the settlement and is therefore subject to the provisions of the MSHCP. This area includes APN 390-130-017 and some other portions of the 56.7 -acre parcel illustrated in Exhibit 3 of the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Proiec (DEIR Appendix G— Part 1). Specifloally, all of die laird between Temescal Canyon Road and Interstate -15, as well as a narrow strip of land on the south side of Temescal Canyon Road, appear to be outside of the settlement area and therefore subject to the MSHCP, including the Joint Project Review (JPR) process through the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and other MSIICP policies and procedures such as, the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Veinal Pools (MSHCP section 61.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl and Criteria Area D-2 D-3 69 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B028$-16CPA0092) Species (MSHCP section 6.3.2), and the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP section 6.IA). 7YIe revised DEIR should address the properties that are subject to Ilse D-3 MSHCP. Table 2.0-1 should be revised to reflect that a Lake Elsinore Acquisition. Process Cont. (LEAP) is required for portions of the project outside the settlement arca. We request that a discussion of MSHCP implementation and consistency for the portions of the AVSP subject to the MSHCP be included in Ilia recirculated DEIR. Covered Roads Expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal are Covered Activities under the MSHCP and are subject. to MSHCP requirements as covered circulation element roads. The MSHCP provides guidelines to avoid and minimize its effects on Core and Linkage biological D-4 functions raid values (Section 7 of the MSCIIP), The DEIR statement "for right-of-way within the MSIICP core areas outside of the development agreement for Pacific Clay and the MOU for Alberhill Ridge" (DEIR,'I'able 2.0-1) should be revised to "for right-of-way within the MSHCP criteria area" to reflect that these right -of --ways along their entire length require a LEAP for and Joint Project review for MSHCP implementation. AVSP MSHCP Conflicts Reserve Assembly As discussed above the DEIR does not accurately address Project compliance with the MSHCP. The substantial negative impacts to MSHCP reserve assembly resulting fount he propsed project rtre also not addressed. The Project as designed would interfere with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and eliminate the function of Proposed Constrained Linkage 6. "The portion of the project west of Lincoln Street will sever the current wildlife corridors which the MSFICP proposes to conserve and enhance through assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage I and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (discussed below). These corridors arc important for enabling the movement of mountain lions, bobcats, mule deer, and other mammals and reptiles between the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Existing Core Reserve B) and Existing Core Reserve C (via the Reserve's Extension 2), Wildlf fe Movement The Environmental Impacts analysis section (4.11 3.2) of the DEIR's biological resources chapter responds to a list of standard questions prescribed by the CEQA regulations for inclusion in each EIR, including the interference with the movement of wildlife or movement corridors and conflicts with the provisions of an adopted regional habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, The DEIR states that there will be no impact to existing wildlife corridors and the movement of ntannnal, reptile, and other wildlife species using the project site and the surrounding area based on the Project's plan to construct four narrow open space corridors (DEIR Pigure 4.11-5) for the D-5 D-6 70 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRiV-12B0288-16CPA0092) benefit of the Project's future residents. As explained by the DEIR, these open space corridors will be multi-purpose trails supporting hiking, bicycling, jogging, dog -walking, and other forms of human recreation. These "wildlife corridors" will be only 35 to 80 feet wide (DEIR Figure 4.11-75), and will often be located adjacent to the community's roads (DEIR Figure 4.1.1-75), including Lincoln Street (Figure 4.11-74), one of the future community's major traffic arteries. The Service does not anticipate that mountain lions, their mule deer prey, bobcats, and other wildlife species sensitive to human presence will utilize such narrow wildlife corridors, even if Lill human uses were precluded, due to the proximity of the proposed development, and the sight, sounds, and scents of the attendant human activity. The discussion in the DEIR recognizes this limitation impact without identifying or disclosing the impact. Tho DEIR, under Impact 4.11-4 Threshold, states "regional wildlife corridor movement and corridor connections will be provided in the form of stepping -stone habitat (i.e., noneontiguous and disconnected habitat patches] for birds and several reptile and small- to medium-sized mammals that are more adapted to disturbed development". We concur with that statement and expect that only common wildlife species, tolerant of human of human presence will use the proposed "wildlife corridors" and do not expect that native sensitive and declining wildlife species, targeted by the MSHCP conservation strategy will use such narrow corridors embedded in human use. Severance of the regional wildlife corridor through construction of the RVSP project, as currently configured, would result in the loss of population connectivity curd gene flow between MSHCP Core Reserves B and C for sensitive species such as mountain hon, their mule deer prey, bobcat and other MSHCP covered species. The Project proposes to mitigate its adverse impacts to wildlife corridors and the movement of native wildlife only by complying with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBIA) that protectactive bird nests from removal or failure due to human disturbance (Mitigation Measure BIO -6). The DEIR concludes that "Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -6 within the Project, there will be less than significant impacts to animal movement ...". The Service strongly disagrees with the contention of the DEIR's authors that the temporary protection of bird nests during nearby construction activities will mitigate the project's impacts to wildlife corridors and the movement of mammals, reptiles, mid sensitive native bird species in any way, Clearly, these impacts will be both major and permanent. We do not anticipate that the temporary protection of occupied bird nests on the project's construction sites will continue to allow mountain lions, bobcats, and other disturbance -sensitive native species to continue moving across the AVSP landscape between the MSHCP's Estelle Mountain/Lake Matthews Reserve (MSHCP Core Reserve C) and the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Core Reserve 13, in the Cleveland National Forest). The Project, as currently configured, will sever this wildlife corridor, and interfere with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage L These impacts will remain severe to both disturbance -sensitive native wildlife species, and the assembly of the MSIICP reserve system after implementation of the mitigation measures currently proposed in the DF,IR. The effects to MSIICP reserve assembly would be permanent if the Project is implemented as D -ti Cont. 71 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) currently contemplated in the DEIR. MSHCP ]'reposed Constrainer! Linkage 6 The DMR package (including its supporting appendices) proposes development of the area surrounding Temescal Creek, Alberhill Creek, and Temescal Canyon Road as a commercial center within the proposed University Town Village Center portion of AVSP's proposed Village 1. To move this area out of the current 100 -year floodplain, the project proposes to lower the height of the100-year floodwater elevation by replacing the natural channel of Temescal Creek with a constructed trapezoidal channel widened to 150 feet. The existing creek channel and Temescal Canyon Road would be realigned to facilitate development within the current floodplain area. The stretch of Temescal Creek within the AVSP project site is MSHCP reserve feature Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 and identified as a wildlife corridor in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 was included in the Conservation Area corridor for the purpose of maintaining wildlife movement and to facilitate habitat connectivity along Temescal Creek. Construction of a commercial center (or other development) surrounding the creek channel will make it limit its use by sensitive and endangered birds and other wildlife. These impacts will remain severe and permanent if the creek area (Exhibit 3 in the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Projcet, DEIRAppendixG —part 1) is developed, even if one of the AVSP's proposed 35-80 foot open space corridors (Figure 4.11-6) were to surround the creek. These impacts will not be mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO -6 (the temporary protection of occupied birdnests on construction sites), and will remain significant after implementation of all of the DEIR's currently proposed mitigation measures. The Service requests that the DEIR be revised, and recirculated for public review, to address the Projeot's consistency with the MSHCP. Discussion and analysis of all potential conflicts with the MSHCP resulting from the proposed Project should be provided. Sensitive Species and Communities Least Bell's Vireo The DEIR does not disclose that the State and Federally listed least Bell's (vireo), has recently been found breeding along the portion of Temescal Creek that lies within the AVSP project site, specifically, in the 56.7 -acre parcel described in DEIR Appendix G - Part 1, and as well as in the reach of the creek lying further west inside the AVSP site. The virco surveys were conducted on the Project site in 2007 and 2010 for the AVSP portion of Southern California Edison's Alberhill System Project. Instead, the DEIR states that "no LBV were identified on-site" (DEIR p. 4.11- 48). Deepening and realigning the channel along with the development of the area surrounding the creek are expected to result in the loss of virco nesting habitat and territories, as well as potential D-6 Cont. D-7 D-8 72 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) nesting and foraging habitat for several other species of riparian -obligate birds, including the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, the yellow warbler, and the yellow -breasted chat. The DEIR assumes that any impacts to riparian birds will be fully mitigated by mechanisms external to the DEIR and CEQA, such as Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act. To that end, the Service requests that the recirculated DEIR include the following items: Disclosure to the public of all sightings of least Bell's vireos, yellow warblers, yellow - breasted chats, and willow flycatchers within the AVSP site and within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project boundary, including the dates of each. sighting. Maps showing the locations these sightings, including a map focused exclusively on the portion of Temescal Creek within the AVSP site. Quantification of the maximum potential habitat loss to each of these four bird species, as well an estimate of the maximum number of vireo breeding territories that might be lost (assuming full occupancy of all available vireo habitat) A detailed, quantitatively adequate, mrd site-specific mitigation proposal designed to fully compensate for the proposed loss of vireo habitat and vireo territories. Without the inclusion of a detailed habitat mitigation proposal in the recirculated DEIR, the assumption that the Project's impacts to the vireo will be mitigated to a level of"less than significant" impact through future external processes which have not yet taken place cannot be supported. We request that the recirculated DVIR include a detailed and site-specific mitigation proposal for impacts to occupied vireo habitat. Quina Checkerspot Butterfly 17re DEIR states that suitable habitat exists for this species on the project site (DEIR p. 4.11-40), but that no protocol surveys for this species are required by the Set -vice because the project lies outside of the Service's map displaying the areas where we reconunend that protocol surveys be conducted for the Quino eheckerspot butterfly (Quin). However, the DEIR is utilizing an outdated Service map: the 2005 Quino Checkerspot Survey Region Map. The recommended survey area was updated in in December 2014; the updated map is available on the Web at bttp•//www fws govlc.artsbadITPSt)ecies/DocumentsIQuinoDocslQtiino%2OSwvcy%20Guideline s version%20ISDEC2014ndf. Quino Checkerspot butterflies were found in 2006 on a land parcel adjacent to the AVSP project site (west of Bernard Road). Therefore, the DEIR's assessment of the species' likelihood to occur onsite should be upgraded from `low potential to occur" to "high potential to occur", We also recommend that presence absence surveys for Quino protocol surveys be conducted and that the survey results and an analysis of Project effects to suitable and occupied Quino habitat be provided in the recirculated DEIR. D-8 Cont. D-9 73 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) Burrowing Ott,! The DEIR reported that burrowing owls have a low to moderate potential to occur throughout the disturbed portions of the AVSP project site, and recommended that focused breeding surveys be conducted pursuant to the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines prepared by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993). The Service agrees with the DEIR's conclusion concerning the species' potential to occur in disturbed portions of the project site. However, thel993 survey protocol prepared by the Consortium has been replaced by the more updated survey protocol contained in the CDPW's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (available online). We request that the recirculated DEIR. change the wording of Mitigation Measure BIO -I to read as follows: "A pre -construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities within those portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl habitat. If ground -disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre -construction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls during the 30 days preceding the revised ground -disturbance date. The pre -construction survey will be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If occupied burrowing owl tunnels are identified on-site during the pre -construction survey, constructionmay proceed if 50 -foot avoidance buffer can be established around the uffix:ted owl tunnel entrances (no ground disturbance, equipment laydown or storage, or parking inside the buffer). The owls and worker compliance with the buffer shall be monitored daily by a qualified biologist until construction and all other ground - disturbance activities in the vicinity have ceased. If the Project cannot avoid. an occupied burrow (resulting. in the possibility of taking owls through entombing or crushing them in their burrows, or evicting them to be eaten by raptors or other predatory birds), relocation will be necessary to avoid unauthorized take of this declining species. The Project shall notify the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) within 3 business days of detecting the occupied burrow, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan for approval by the Wildlife Agencies." The September 2014 Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project (DEIR Appendix G — Part 1) states that "No suitable burrowing owl habitat was found to occur" on the 56.7 -acre bridge and commercial center project site, but provides no details as to how this conclusion was reached. Without any explanation, the Service can only assume that the surveyor reached this conclusion because, apart from the seeming absence of owls at the time of the D-10 74 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12130288-16CPA0092) survey (Spring 2014), the site was heavily wooded and burrowing owls do not live in densly treed areas. However, most of the trees on site have been removed and burrowing owls nest and forage in areas of low, open vegetation. The elimination of the trees has improved siter conditions for burrowing owl. The Service requests that Appendix C - Part I be amended to reflect that burrowing owls may colonize the 56.7 -acre Temescal Creek area prior to the commencement of grading and construction. The portions of this area that are not within the settlement area would be subject to the MSHCP burrowing owl survey procedures. Additionally, a 30 -day pre -construction survey for occupied burrows will be necessary in this area prior to beginning ground -disturbance operations. Coast Florned Lizard DEIR Section 4.113.2 discusses impacts to sensitive species of wildlife and plants. The DEIR lists only seven taxa in this section: burrowing owl, coastal California gnateatcher, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, fairy shrimp (includes multiple species), rosy boss, and Stephen's kangaroo rat. However, on page 4.11-36, the DEIR states that the coast homed lizard — which is a California (CDPW) Species of Special Concern (a class of special -status species) — "was observed within alluvial lair scrub and chaparral habitats within the Project site", and survey detections of horned lizards on the AVSP site arc mapped in Figure 4.11-2A on page 4.11-7 and in the May 2014.letter Update to the Biological Constraints Anal sis Por the 1 400 acre AVSP Sit;. The coast homed lizard (CHL) has declined greatly in distribution and abundance since the early 20°i century due to a combination of habitat loss due to development and extensive human collecting of individual CHLs to keep as pets. The Project will contribute to the species' decline by removing its habitat, and also by eliminating gene flow between populations in MSHCP Core Reserve B (Santa Ana Mountains) and Core Reserve C (the Estelle Mountain / Lake Matthews Reserve) through severing the wildlife corridor connecting these areas across the AVSP project site (the corridor which the MS11CP proposes to conserve through assembly of MSHCP Linkage 1). Should the soils not be compacted and the vegetation suitable in the Project's narrow multi- , purpose open space corridors, individual wast horned lizards might enter these corridors from the two MSHCP reserves, but will likely be eliminated inside the corridors by a combination of predation from domestic cats, dogs, and human -associated crows and raccoons, collecting by residents recreating on the open space trails, and vehicle crushing when some lizards wander into nearby streets of the new AVSP development. We request that the City require the Project to mitigate the loss of coast horned lizard habitat and population due to onsite development of the AVSP by placing an equivalent norther of habitat acres occupied by the COT, into permanent conservation. This could be accomplished either onsite or offsite. If the Project will not mitigate the loss of CHL habitat and population due to its development, then the recirculated DEIR should disclose that the Project will not mitigate its adverse impacts to the distribution and population size of this declining species, and these n-10 Cont. D-11 75 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) impacts to the CHL will remain significant after all Project mitigation measures have been D-1 I implemented. I Cold Coulter'.s Matilija Poppy The DEIR discloses that Coulter's Matilija poppy, a CLAPS List 4.2 species, has been found on the AV SP project site, and Figure 4.11-2A on page 4.11-7 maps the occurrences of this species on the Project site. TiteService is not requesting that any habitat be conserved for this species, but, given that it is a rare native plant species which is declining due to development, and is also considered aesthetically attractive and useful for landscaping, we request that the City condition the Project's permit to require the developer to notify all of the native plant nurseries in Southern California (Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange., and Satt Diego Counties) by certified letter of the pending elimination of these plants by the Project, and offer the nurseries the opportunity to salvage the plants or seed (our a first-come, first-served basis) prior to commencement of vegetation clearing and other ground -disturbing activities. California Satintail Grass The DEIR states that California satintail grass (bnperata brevifolia) is designated by rhe California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) as a List B noxious weed (p. 4.11.18). This is not accurate. The species was formerly listed as a noxious tweed when the CDFA confused it with its weedy relative, Imperata eylindrica, a species from Asia and Africa which has become invasive in summer -wet regions of the southeastern United States. A professional botanist subsequently petitioned the CDFA to have the rare California species removed from the noxious weed list, and the CDFA agreed with him and did so. The California species is rare, in decline, and does not exhibit the aggressive weedy behavior of its Old World relative. The Service requests thatthe recirculated DEIR be amended accordingly. Coastal Sage Scrub and Alluvial Fan Serub are IISPWS Sensitive Natural Communities The DEIR states that the AVSD project site supports only "two special -stains habitats: coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub." This conclusion was based on information contained in the CDFW's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Coastal sage scrub_ (including its regional variant, Riversidean sage scrim) and alluvial fan scrub to are widely considered to be special -status vegetation communities. Coastal sage scrub is a rapidly disappearing habitat mostly confined to Southern California which is the primary or sole habitat for approximately 100 species of native plants and animals. Concern over its limited distribution and rapid decline due to widespread development inspired the state legislature's creation of California's Natural Communities Conservation Program, which, in concert with the federal listing of the coastal California gnatcateber (an obligate coastal sage scrub species) as threatened, contributed to the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and other regional Habitat Conservation Plans in Southern California. The project proposes to remove approximately 286 acres of Rivorsidean sage scrub (DEIR Table 4.11-1, p. 4.11-4) and 28.44 acres of alluvial fan scrub (DEIR p. 4.1.1-71). D-12 D-13 D-14 76 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WR1V-12B0288-16CPA0092) - 10 The loss of coastal/Riversidean sage scrub and alluvial fart scrub (even if"disturbed!') due to development of the RVSP site should be considered a significant adverse environmental impact D_14- due to the very large lumber of declining native species which are restricted to or primarily dependent on this habitat. We request that unavoidable impacts to coastal/Riversidean sage Cont. scrub and alluvial fan scrub be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by placing the same type of habitat into permanent conservation. This mitigation could occur either onsite or offsite. Native Oak Tree Replacement / Mitigation DEUR Mitigation Measure BIO -8 proposes to mitigate the Project's removal of native oak trees (Quercus agrifolia, an ecological keystone species) by planting replacement trees in the 36 -inch box size at a 3:1 ratio. While we commend the Project for planning to replace native oak trees Lost to development, we do not recommend that 36 -itch box specimens be used in the mitigation plantings. Wild coast live oak trees face a long and severe summer dry season, which they survive by tapping into the water table using deep roots. However, specimens cultivated in pots or boxes experience a rapid loss of vigor in the root system by the time that they must be grown in 5 -gallon pots or larger containers, and the plants are typically "root -bound" at this point, meaning that the roots are coiled around the inter perimeter of the container, tangled and meshed together, and typically growing sideways (sometimes even upward) rather fluor being oriented downward for deep growth. l'lie result is that native oak trees in the 5 -gallon size and larger sizes typically fail to develop extensive deep roots after planting, and then they must be supported permanently by heavy irrigation, or perish from drought during the summer dry season, or remain permanently stunted and in poor health. The Service applauds the proponent for being willing to bare the expens of larger replacement saplings. However, to improve the success of Measure BIO -8, we recommend that the City adjust it to replace removed or otherwise impacted native oaks by planting 1 -gallon size replacement oaks at a 12:1 mitigation -to -impact ratio. Over several decades of Futuro (albeit very slow) tree growth, this should result in the maintenance or a gain in the number of native oak trees onsite, (after allowing for some mortalities of planted trees clue to droughts and herbivory by gophers and squirrels) with the added benefit that the purchase and planting of twelve 1 - gallon plants instead of three 36 -inch boxed trees (per each oak tree removed) will greatly reduce the developer's costs for implementing this Measure. Section 4.3 - Jlvdralogy and Drainage The RVSP site map on page 4.3-18 (Figure 4,3-7) is illegible due to the font size used within Lire map, theamount of detail illustratrated, and the size of the Project site. We request Atat the recirculated DEIR contain this informtation in a legible format. Cumulative L�Jccis Analvsis for Biological Resource Impacts D-15 D-16 Severance of the regional wildlife. corridor through construction of the AVSP project, as D-17 77 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) I I currently configured, would result in the loss of population connectivity and gene flow between MSHCP Core Reserves B and C for sensitive species such as the mountain lion, their mule deer prey, and tine bobcat. This Project would contribute to isolating the Santa Ana Mountains population of mountain lions by severing the wildlife corridor, further contributing to the documented genetic decline (inbreeding depression) of this population. Thus, the Project would,. in combination with ongoing development of other areas along the eastern and southern flanks of the Santa Ana Mountains and in Temescal Canyon, incrementally contribute to the pressure on the shrinking population of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains, threatening this population with extirpation over the long term. These impacts will remain severe after all of the Project's currently proposed mitigation measures are implemented. The Service requests that the Cumulative Effects section of.;the recirculated DEIR's biological resources disclose these impacts to the public. We also request that the recirculated DEIR disclose the locations, dates, and numbers of individuals sighted for all mountain lion observations on and within 1 mile of the AVSP project site and that a map of these sightings be included. Sunnnary, and Agency Recomnrendalion,s The AVSP project will adversely impact multiple sensitive species of native wildlife and/or their habitats. If the Project remains in its current configuration, the most severe and cumulative biological impacts will be the severance of the regional wildlife corridor between the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Core Reserve B) and the MSHCP's Core Reserve C (the Estelle Mountain/Lake Matthews Reserve, including Proposed Extension 2) and biological impacts to the Temescal Creek wildlife corridor. Species sensitive to human presence and requiring large open landscapes will no longer be able to disperse or to maintain population connectivity between these two MSHCP reserves. The current configuration of the AVSP project is in direct conflict with the assembly of the MSHCP reserve system, since the Project would (1) prevent the MSHCP from assembling MSHCP Proposed Linkage I to conserve and maintain tine regional wildlife corridor previously mentioned, and (2) would functionally eliminate MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 in temis of its ability to support sensitive and endangered riparian bird species and to maintain the movement of sensitive species of terrestrial manmials, reptiles, and amphibians along Tor iescal Creek upstream and downstream of the AVSP site. `I7iese adverse impacts would remain major and severe after implementation of the mitigation measures currently proposed. The Service recommends that project eliminate its conflict with MSHCP reserve assembly features and include appropriate mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan sage scroll communities. We reiterate the need for MSHCP implementation for portions of AVSP Project including the Joint project review Process and compliance with the MSHCP RiparianA2ivverine Policy (MSHCP Section 6.1.2). We request that MSBCP implementation be completed prior to recirculation of the DEIR or adoption of a final EIR for the AVSP. D-17 Cont. IBM 78 Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12130288-16CPA0092) 12 As previously stated we request that our comments above be addressed and the DEIR recirculated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DLIR and look forward to D-18 receiving the Project's MSI4CP implementation documentation for tite MSHCP-included portionof the AVSP site. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, or to schedule a discussion of mitigation options, please contact Jim Thiede of the Service at (760) 322-2070, extension 219. Sincerely, .�temton A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Charles Landry, Regional Conservation Authority Leslie MacNair, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 79 Response to Comment Letter D United States ,Fish and Wildlife Service The United States Fish and Wildlife Service provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 31, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Conunent D-1 The commenter's explanation of the Agency's goal, as well as, their purpose in writing this comment letter is noted. The City acknowledges that it is a MSHCP permittee. For clarification: the AVSP Pacific Clay -owned areas are exempt from the MSHCP by a legal Settlement Agreement dated February 24, 2004. The AVSP areas are not accorded compliance requirements with the MSHCP directly or indirectly per the agreement and therefore not required to comply with the regulatory requirements of the MSHCP. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-2 The commenter states that the DEIR is insufficient in its analysis as to whether the proposed project conflicts with a regional Habitat Conservation Plan. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) is not applicable as a matter of law to the project. According to a 2004 Superior Court directed legal MSHCP Settlement Agreement; the AVSP area is not subject to the MSHCP, in any manner, directly or indirectly. If negative impacts to the MSHCP from the removal of the project area 'Brom the MSHCP were anticipated in the 2004 Settlement Agreement, such "indirect" actions or impacts described in the Settlement Agreement would have identified these "potential" impacts but the Settlement Agreement contract did not do so. In any event, it is the DEIR's conclusion that, without being legally required to so, the AVSP has substantially implemented all the "physical" elements of the MSHCP, and the AVSP will not conflict with the MSHCP because it includes and will biologically enhance wildlife movement corridors throughout the AVSP project site including, but not limited only to, Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 6, noted in the commenter's correspondence. See the Response to Comment D-5, below. 80 Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-3 The comment acknowledges that while most of the AVSP project, as shown in the DEIR, is not subject to the MSHCP a small portion of it is. The non-Pac-Clay-owned property referred to as the 9.09 -acre project area (APN 390-130-017) is subject to the MSHCP. As a clarification the reference to inclusion of the 56.7 acre Temescal Creek Bridge Project in the DEIR shows the exterior limits of the project area, as delineated by the City. The DEIR also includes the 9.09 -acre site (APN 390-130-017) which was outside the Pac Cay/County of Riverside Settlement Agreement area. Other lands in the 56.7 -acre parcel are comprised of a combination of the private ownership of Pacific Clay and Castle & Cooke properties included within the Settlement Agreement along with public rights of way. Only approximately 1 acre of the City's Temescal Bridge area is outside of the MSHCP Settlement Agreement area. The Temescal Bridge project is not part of the AVSP. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Continent D-4 As discussed above in the Response to Comment D-2, according to a 2004 Superior Court directed MSHCP Settlement Agreement between several Castle & Cooke entities, including Pacific Cay Products, Inc., and the County of Riverside (the "MSHCP Settlement Agreement")-, the AVSP area is exempt and excluded from the MSHCP for all purposes. Under the specific terms of the Settlement Agreement, developer -built roads within the boundaries of the AVSD, including the expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road (Lincoln Street in RVSP) and Temescal Canyon Road, may not be subject to the requirement for completion of an MSHCP-required Joint Project Review (JPR) as covered circulation element roads. However, in response to this comment, the statement in Table 2.0-1 of the DEIR regarding the purpose of the LEAP Process will be amended as follows: Fer right ef way within the N481IGP core areas outside of the develepiiient agreement fef TTUeifie slay A the MO fee A 11..,rhil1 DLL.,. ..�-sr� �_� =o=od �o: � z�o��r.-z��c. For the expansion of Take Street, Nichols Road (Lincoln Street in AVSP) and Temescal Canyon Road except where a MSHCP Joint Project Review for circulation element roads as "Covered Roads" under the MSCHP is not required due to the terms of the MSHCP Settlement Agreement Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-5 The City has considered the commenter's concerns with the provisions of wildlife corridors to connect to MSCIIP's Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6. Although, the AVSP property is not subject to MSHCP linkage requirements, the provision of wildlife corridors through the AVSP that connect to MSHCP linkages will confirm the DEIR conclusion that the AVSP will not conflict with the MSHCP. In order to strengthen the wildlife corridor linkages, the AVSP is amended to include a 500 -foot wide wildlife corridor located along the western edge of the AVSP (next to the adjacent IIorsethief Canyon development). Additionally, the AVSP is amended to delete from its boundaries the non-Pac-Clay-owned property referred to 81 as the 9.09 -acre project area (APN 390-130-017) and the adjacent 16.7 -acre property (APN 390- 130-015 and 016), resulting in a 1,375 -acre AVSP. The deleted properties, located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, are located between the aforementioned Temescal Bridge project and Lake Street on both sides of the existing Temescal Canyon Road. Additionally, the Open Space portion of Planning Area 1C (adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road) will be widened to range fi•om 250 feet to 500 feet in width. Mitigation Measure HY-4 requires the protection of the existing streambed of the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek). Mitigation Measure HY-4 will be revised as follows: Temescal Canyon Wash (Creels) shall be preserved in or restored to its natural condition retaining its current flood capacity and flow rate in order to maintain the drainage's function as a wildlife corridor. In order to protect the existing streambed of the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creels), an energy dissipating structure shall be provided at the storm drain system discharge point, if necessary. Erosion control devices shall also be provided, if necessary. Consistent with Mitigat on Measures BIO -4 and BIO -5, implementing) development projects in the vicinity of Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be designed to locate development away from the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) riparian/wildlife corridor to allow sufficient wildlife movement and access and to preserve its other biological resources and habitat. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-6 See the Response to Comment D-5, above, regarding the provision of wildlife corridors through the AVSP. In addition to the changes in AVSP design regarding the location and width of wildlife corridors described in the Response to Comment D-5, a new Project -wide Development Standard has been added to the AVSP that addresses the concerns raised in this comment regarding the sensitivity of wildlife species to human presence in wildlife corridors by providing for a separation of human use from the wildlife corridor. The new development standard states: All roads that cross wildlife corridors within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan shall be designed and constructed to include wildlife movement underpasses of sufficient size to accommodate large mammals. No pedestrian paths, trails and bikeways or roads shall be located within any wildlife corridor; but may be located adjacent to them. All wildlife corridors shall be separated from any adjacent pedestrian paths, trails and bikeways and roads by appropriate fencing to minimize wildlife/human interaction. Such fencing shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-7 See the Response to Comment D-5, above. 82 Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-8 Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSP, the presence or absence of least Bell's Vireo (LBV) and other riparian -obligate birds at any point during that 30 - year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. Even current presence of these species does not lead to the conclusion that such species will be present at any specific point in the future. The DEIR contemplates the potential presence of least Bell's Vireo (LBV) and Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) within the project boundaries through incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO -3, which sets forth specific measures for addressing LBV and SWWF if present on the site prior to any grading of the six project phases. The Mitigation Measure allows for the assumption of presence and implementation of associated mitigation which includes setbacks up to 500 feet, as well, as erection of sound barriers as biologically appropriate if the noted species are eventually found. Finally, the Mitigation Measure BIO -3 also includes the possibility of obtaining "take" permits from USFWS should the project be determined to have a potential effect on these species. In order to clarify the requirement for a determination as to the absence/presence of least Bell's virco and other riparian -obligate birds at the time that individual implementing development projects are proposed, Mitigation Measure BIO -3 will be revised as follows: BI0-3 Should construction of implementing development projects occur during the breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (LBV), m southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) or other riparian -obligate birds (March 15 through September 15), rxesenee,labsenee protocol -level surveys shall be conducted prior to construction; or presence can be assumed. If surveys document the presence of LBV, and SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, impacts to LBV, atzd SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds would be mitigated below the level of significance when occupied riparian forest/woodland/scrub is fenced and direct impacts are avoided and construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat occurs only between September 15th and March 15th to avoid indirect impacts to nesting L -B -V riparian -obligate birds. If avoidance is not feasible, a temporary noise barrier shall be used during construction, at the appropriate location(s), in coordination with CDFW and the USFWS. The noise barrier shall attenuate noise levels to 60 dBA or less, at the edge of breeding habitat. If surveys indicate that these species are not present, this measure will not be required. Additional or alternative measures to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to LBV, and SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, as identified by the USFWS in Section 7 or Section 10 Consultation and CDFW, shall be implemented. However, if all avoidance measures cannot be implemented such that "take" of LBV and SWWF is avoided Take Authorization from USFWS through Final Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and from CDFW through issuance of a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit or compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 will be obtained 83 The DLIR has addressed any potential impacts to LBV and/or SWWC and riparian -obligate birds and no additional analysis is necessary to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Resnonse to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-9 During the 14 days of general and focused surveys and site reconnaissance, no Quino checkerspot butterfly were observed on or adjacent to the Project site. Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and in order to ensure that the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly have not occupied the site since the previous surveys and that no significant impacts to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB), an additional Mitigation Measure, BIO -I I has been added as follows: BIO -I1 Prior to grading each phase of the development, a Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) habitat assessment, followed by presence/absence surveys in accordance with USFWS survey protocol, if habitat is present, as determined by a qualified biologist for areas where suitable habitat is identified shall be completed as follows: At least one year prior to ground -disturbing activities, a habitat assessment for the QCB in the proposed grading area will be performed. If suitable habitat is identified a presence/absence survey will be conducted in accordance with USFWS survey protocol. If QCB are not detected, no additional avoidance or minimization is required. If surveys document the presence of QCB, impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or through mitigation consistingoof onsite or offsite preservation If avoidance is not feasible, a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated by the applicant with USFWS and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts will be implemented in coordination with the USFWS. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-10 Relative to the potential for burrowing owl in the 56.7 -acre bridge and commercial center, Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would apply to this area and pre -construction surveys would be necessary and measures such as avoidance or relocation would be implemented as the conditions warrant, resulting in the reduction of any potential impacts to less -than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO -I has been revised as requested by the commenter. See the Response to Comment B-32 for the revised wording. 84 Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D -I1 Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and in order to ensure that there are no significant impacts on the coast horned lizard (CHL), an additional Mitigation Measure, BIO -12 has been added as follows: BIO -12 A pre -construction coast horned lizard survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of eonstruction/Kround disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a coast horned lizard (CHL) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if the Coast Horned Lizard is present If surveys document the presence of CHL impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or through miti ation hnplementation of one or more of the following measures that individually -or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of sig,nificance, subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department offish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval: • Avoidance of on-site CHL habitat: • Preservation of other AVSP on-site CIIL habitat and the relocation of CHL individuals from the impacted habitat to the preserved on-site habitat; • The placement of an equivalent number of habitat acres occupied by CFIL into permanent conservation If CHL are not detected, no additional avoidance or minimization is required Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Continent D-12 A new Mitigation Measure has been added to the DEIR, which states: BIO -13 During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure BIO -14 a qualified biologist shall survey the implementing development project site for Coulter's Matilija poppy. If Coulter's Matilija poppy is found on site all native plant nurseries in southern California (Riverside Los Angeles Orange and San Diego Counties) will be notified by certified mail of the pending elimination of these plants by the Project and shall be given the opportunity to salvage the plants or seeds (on a first-come first-served basis) prior to the commencement of vegetation clearing or other ground -disturbing activities Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Continent D-13 85 The removal of California satintail grass from the noxious weed list is noted. The subject paragraph will be amended to delete this reference. The DEIR correctly stated that the species is listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as a List 2.1 Taxon. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-14 The AVSP Project site is an active 100 -year old mining facility that includes 1,032.61 acres disturbed lands supporting ruderal vegetation, located in the central and northern areas. The southern areas outside the mining facility are dominated by chaparral, with transitional areas of coastal sage scrub. Sage scrub and annual grasslands are located on the lower elevation areas in the eastern portion of the AVSP site. The commenter states that based on Table 4.1.1-1 of the DEIR, "the project proposes to remove approximately 286 acres of Riversidean sage scrub and 28.44 acres of alluvial fan scrub." Table 4.11-1 only identities the existing vegetation communities on the site. it does not identify the extent, if any, these vegetation communities will be removed. Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified, as a response to this comment and in order to ensure that there are no significant impacts on coastal sage scrub habitat at the time a Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map is proposed, an additional Mitigation Measure, BIO -14 has been added as follows: BIO -14 Prior to the grading of each phase, an updated vegetation map will be prepared to determine the extent of the willow riparian. coast live oak riparian, coastal she scrub and alluvial fan scrub within the subject phase; and the amount of these special -status habitats that will be removed as a result of implementing development projects. The extent and quality of coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub will be determined by a qualified biologist. If the presence of said habitat is identified and will be removed as a result of implementing development projects, mitigation of the willow riparian, coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and/or alluvial fan scrub will be determined through a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Permit. Implementation of one or more of the following measures that individually in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval: • Avoidance of on-site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat; • Preservation of other AVSP on-site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USFWS and CDFW, whichever is gr€- eater; • The permanent preservation of off site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian. coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan habitat at no less than a 1:1 86 ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USFWS and CDFW whichever isreg ate•. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-15 The City thanks the connuenter for the suggestion to provide a less costly approach to mitigating any impact to existing coast live oak trees resulting from development of the AVSP. Mitigation Measure 13I0-8 will be revised as follows: BIO -8 The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing mitigation to reduce potential impacts to two species of native trees that were located on-site: the southern coast live oak riparian forest located in the northwest corner of the Site that includes coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and the arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The oak trees and willows are large, mature, and in good health. If oak trees will be impacted, the developer shall mitigate the loss at a -3-4 12:1 replacement with x 1 -gallon trees, or shall relocate the native oak trees. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-16 The AVSP site map is shown in full scale, legible format and correct font size in the "printed" Appendices of the DEIR. The enlarged, legible, and identical map is shown in Appendix B Figure 2. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-17 See the Response to Comment D-5, above. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-18 The commenter summarizes the concerns expressed in the above comments. Please refer to Responses D-1 through D-'17 above. Response to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comment D-19 The commenter requests that the DEIR be recirculated. The City reiterates that recirculation is not required as noted in Response B-72 87 Comment Letter E County of Riverside Transportation Department COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (�� DO 7-RANSPORTATIONANDLAND MAN4t;EMENTAWYNCY •a^e14W MP r Jnrui C. Pcree, Rei:, 7: Ai, transportation Department Patricia Manna P.[_. Dfivefar aj TrmuPartatian and As's'isrmet Direelur of Transpornrdan Land ..1lonagemeut December 31, 2015 Mn Roy F. Stephenson, P.L. Land Use E» ginecr City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town and Counnv Road, Suite 1025 Grange, CA 92868 RE: Notice of Availability/Notice. of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Bear Mr. Stephenson, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhili Villages Specific Plan — SP 2010-02 (DEIR). The project proposes development of approximately 1,400 acres with up to 8.244 residential dwelling units; approximately 4 million square feet of non-residential uses including civic/institutional, commercial/retail, professional office/medical and entertainment uses:, development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, worship centers, and green belt paseos. "I'he Transportation Department (County) has reviewed the DEIR and has the following comments. hhe DE1R and project traffic study indicate the development at its ultimate buildout is estimated to generate 150,415 daily trips, 9,927 AM peak hourly trips, and 14,575 PM peak hourly trips. However. no information is provided to illustrate dee project's trip distribution to the surrounding area and roadways, Under the County's traffic impact analysis preparation guidelines, where the proposed development would add SO or more peak hourly trips to County intersections, the intersection shall be analyzed. The County believes it is reasonable 10 assunne that the ptnject would add 50 or more peak hourly trips to County intersections beyond the studied intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road and Ternescal Canyon Road. Without a trip distribution of project traffic, it is difficult to verity. I his information is needed to determine if the studied area is adequate. lilSf) Leim.o N" I mil kkor6dr. ( . Qi kjl r'ld 1)'1$$-07.10 Vs i. 6a, 101h l I2n crit<, t' , 91510-1100 1 VA r -I 89 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.F. December 31, 2015 Page 2 The DEIR provides an analysis of the existing conditions as well as the City's General Plan Buildout with and without the project. file combination of these analyses may provide the project's cumulative impact under buildout conditions, however determining the project's impact on the existing road network is still unknown and therefore not mitigated. An analysis needs to be provided to identify both the project's direct impacts and necessary improvements to mitigate those impacts. As noted in the DEIR (page 4.7-5), the City's General Plan depicts Temescal Canyon Road between the city limits and Horsethief Canyon Road within the unincorporated County of Riverside as a Major Highway (4 lanes within a 100 foot right-of-way). The County's Gcncral Plan depicts this same segment as a Major Highway, but the County's designation uses slightly different specifications (4 lanes and a striped median turn lane within a 118 footright-of= way). The discussion of General Plan Buildout without tale Project beginning on page 4.7-35 and ending on page 4.740 also indicates that this segment of Temescal Canyon Road was being studied as a 4 -lane roadway. However, the discussion of General Plan Buildout with the Project seems to have studied this segment of Temescal Canyon Road as an Urban Arterial Highway which has 6 lanes within a 120 foot right-of-way. While the County's standard fora Major Highway would nearly meet the right-of-way requireancnt the actual roadway design of the County's Major Highway standard would require significant modifications to accommodate 6 lanes. The DF1R's determination that the Temescal Canyon segmernl is not impacted by the proposed Project appears to rest on the assumption of improvements that exceed the requirements of the City and County's General plan designations. Although the analysis indicates a 6 -lane facility is required to provide adequate capacity for the projected 44,000 daily trips, page 4,7.62 of the DEIR appears to recommend retaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility. The analysis indicates the LOS "I" capacity of a 4 -lane Major is 34.100 daily trips which would not provide adequate capacity. Furthermore, the DEIR attributes a portion of the 44,000 daily trips as being diverted trips from a congested 1-15 freeway. 'file report considers this diversion of traffic to "very unlikely" in order to justifies the use of 4-lahe facility. One could argue from real world examples that traffic from congested freeways does divert to parallel facilities. 'rhe gravity model component of the City's traffic model operates in this manner. Therefore the recommendation of maintaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility is inadequate mitigation. WSO 1 Volmi tipo;l. 5 Iloor kSrci Wt 1 9190 (2i11 Y S4,:%i1 1'.O. B"\ 11191) P"O'O"tA '°Q'-IU`)0 I,AA{i1}4_i-IP)Y; E-2 E-3 89 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. December 31, 2015 Page 3 The DEIR also seems to assert that this increase in design requirements somehow does not rise to the level of requiring a General Plan Amendment to the City and County General Plan. However, if this higher level of improvements is required to fully mitigate the project's impacts, formalizing these requirements in the City's and County's General Plan through a General Plan Amendment should be given consideration as a mitigation measure of the Project to ensure that the higher level of improvements is carried out in the future by all affected projects that may develop along this segment of road. Under the discussion of Traffic Capacity/Level of Service in the DEIR (page 4.7- 78) and its traffic study, impacts are identified from the Project at the intersection E-3 of I-lorsethief Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road. The improvement Cont. identified to reduce the impact to less than significant is through the installation of a traffic signal and road widening. It is questionable whether the recommendation of adding a single right -turn lane on Horsethief'Canyon Road is adequate to accommodate the projected 1,263 PM peak hourly trips. The County would also like to point out that the total project peals hourly traffic at the intersection is shown to decrease at General Plan Buildout with Project, an unlikely scenario. The DEIR indicates the City will require the developer to pay for the improvements in the'form of fair -share fees. The County requests that the mitigation fees be paid to the County at the time of building permit issuance in order to mitigate project impacts. 1f you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at (951) 955-2016 or at ruwilliaii�rcihna-ort?. Sincerely, S��Russell Williams Development Review Manager RW:RF:KT:rg cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Rome, Assistant Director ofTransportation 4080 Lemon Street, NO, Hoot Rittrside. CA 92501 (951) 955-6740 P.O. Rm 1090 Riwiside. CA 92502-1090 FAX (951) 955-3198 90 Response to Comment Letter E County of Riverside Transportation Department The County of Riverside Transportation Department provided comments regarding the I.)raft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 31, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Continent E-1 The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan's Land Use Plan, which was adopted on December 13, 2011, included land use designations on the RVSP project site that reflect the land uses proposed by the AVSP, in anticipation of the submittal of the AVSP project. Therefore, the TIA completed as part of the General Plan Update Recirculated Program EIR (GP EIR), which was certified by the Lake Elsinore City Council on December 13, 2011 included traffic generated by the AVSP in its analysis of area -wide traffic impacts. The primary purpose of the AVSP TIA was to provide a consistency analysis with the General Plan and therefore utilized a study area consistent with the previous GP EIR's TIA. The AVSP TIA analyzed significantly more study locations than the General Plan Update EIR TIA. The existing roadway network serving the AVSP site consists of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal Canyon Road and the additional roadway network in the area is essentially part of the Project. For this reason, an Existing plus Project analysis is not required. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment E-2 There is a projected 30 -year development period for the AVSP, construction of implementing development projects will occur at individual project locations and at unknown times during the 30 -year period. It would be speculative to identify the timing of future traffic levels at each phase of the 'future development of the AVSP. As noted on Pages 2.0-6 through 2.0-8 of the DEIR, the AVSP proposed development will be regulated by Phased Development Plans and Design Review applications which will set forth precise design proposals for all or a portion of a particular area within the AVSP. As Phased Development Plans, Design Review, or Subdivision Map applications are proposed, more timely and accurate traffic impact analysis and determination of required improvements can be determined. hi order to assure the completion of appropriate and timely road improvements to serve the AVSP project area, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: 91 • All road improvements within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) shall be constructed to ultimate City standards and consistent with the General Plan, unless otherwise identified and approved, as a requirement of the implementing development projects (including but not limited to subdivisions, design review applications and conditional use permits) subject to approval by the City Engineer. The AVSP "Enhanced" and "Modified" cross-sections are subject to the submittal and review of design drawings, at the time implementing development projects are submitted. • Site-specific Traffic Impact Analyses (traffic studies) shall be required for each Phased Development Plan (PDP) and for all subsequent implementing development projects ill accordance with the City's 'Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide requirements in effect at the time of Traffic hnpact Analysis preparation. • Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP), a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence, including without limitation, Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated, a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMF fee credits. A new Mitigation Measure TC -0.5 will be added as follows: TC -0.5 Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP) a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence including without limitation, Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated, a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMF fee credits. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Continent E-3 The City's Circulation Element and the "Proposed Land Use Program Recommended Roadway System" (Exhibit M) in the General Plan Update TIA shows Temescal Canyon Road as a six - lane Urban Arterial facility between Ilorsethief Canyon Road and Lake Street, which is why it was analyzed as a six -lane facility in the Roadway Segment analysis. 92 The proposed mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure TC -2) to add a single right -turn lane on Horsethief Canyon Road at Ternescal Canyon Road consists of a free right -turn lane, which has significantly greater capacity than a typical single right -turn lane without a free movement. The total peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road at Temeseal Canyon Road actually slightly increase at General Plan Buildout with Project. Please refer to Response to Comment E-2. The AVSP is required to comply with all regulatory requirements for payment of "fair share" fees for road improvements. These fees are payable at the times established by the regulations that establish such fees. Compliance with regulatory requirements do not need to be set forth as mitigation fees. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure TC -2 provides: "The project shall participate in the phased construction of the on -and off-site intersection improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and the participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program. Where require, improvements are not covered by these programs; mitigation shall be implemented through fair -share contribution or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer. - In oder to reflect the requirement for payment of "fair share" road improvement fees, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: • The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 824. The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay all applicable development impact fees and mitigation fees as required by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and other City -adopted fees. 93 Comment Letter F Sauta Margarita Group/Sierra Club From: Pam Nelson (mailto Pamela05nayahoo,cornl Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:08 PM To. Stephenson, Roy Cc: Grant Taylor Dan silver; MICHAEL AND PAULIE Subject: DEIR for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 RE: DEIR for Alberhill Villages Specific Pian Dear Mr. Stephenson, Homeowners in Alberhill Ranch, Paulie Tehrani and Sharon Gallina, notified me of the Alberhill Villages SP. I've read their and Dan Silver's comments ( dated Dec, 28th and 25th) and concur with their concerns and need for specific review, changes and oversight. I found they have made complete and very well-founded points that need to be considered. Our group, Santa Margarita group of the San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club has ongoing concerns about wildlife corridor incursions and protection of local wildlife. I have also encountered many problems with Surface Mining Permits and the lack of proper cleanup and handling of brownfields as well as the proper handling of reclamation. Groundwater in our region has been a resource that has lacked proper monitoring and protection. This project needs better review of the impacts on groundwater as well as surface water. Air quality is another major concern. Please accept my comments as an interested party and keep me updated. Sincerely, Pam Nelson Chair Santa Margarita group/Sierra Club cc: Grallt.Taylor, Daar Silver, 11wilie'fe11-211i, Sharon Galtina, 9anlxa Margrnila/SC ex-com, SG {;hapt.er Conservation Chair, Linda hiddenoun- 94 F-I Response to Co►nment Letter F Santa Margarita Group/Sierra Club The Santa Margarita Group of the Sierra Club provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in an e-mail dated December 30, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Santa MarIzarita Group/Sierra Club Comment r-1 Please see responses to Comment Letter J (Paulie Tehram and Sharon Gallina comments) and Comment Letter L (Endangered Habitats League comments). The AVSP is not a brownfield development. Please see the above Response to Comment B-39, which fully addresses the issue of brownfields. Please see the responses to Comment Letter P (South Coast Air Quality Management District) which addresses concerns of air quality. 95 Comment Letter G California Department of Fish and Wildlife State of Calilonrim - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Govarnor ,.. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM. DIractor Inland Deserts (legion 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91754 (909)484-0459 www.wildlife,cggoy December 30, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 02868 Subject: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046 Dear Mr. Stephenson: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project (AVSP; Project), State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046. The Department is responding to the DEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 of seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Program. Within the Inland Deserts Region, the Department issued NCCP Approval and Take Authorization for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code on June 22, 2004. The MSHCP establishes a multiple -species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The Project is a mixed-use. development combining residential (8,244 dwelling units), commercial, office, institutional/educational, and open space and recreational uses on approximately 1,400 acres within the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The AVSP project is bordered by MSHCP Core 1 and Interstate 15 (1-15) to the north, Lake Street and the Alberhill Ridge - Brighton Specific Plan to the east, the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and Lake Elsinore residential communities to the south, and the Cleveland National Forest/ MSHCP Core Reserve B and Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan development to the west. Coirserving Cafifornia's'WiCdCife Since 1870 96 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 2 of 23 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Department has concerns regarding the sufficiency and completeness of the DEIR. The Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Lake Elsinore (City; Lead Agency) in adequately identifying and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. The comments and recommendations are also offered to enable the Department to adequately review and comment on the proposed project with respect to impacts on biological resources and the project's consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, In order for the Department to complete its review of the DEIR and provide substantive comments on project -related impacts to public trust fish, wildlife, native plants and habitat resources, the following sections of the DEIR need to be revised and recirculated per CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 (a): Project Description (CEQA Guidelines § 15124), Environmental Impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15126), Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4), Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6). The Department provides the following comments: Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Conflicts with Provisions of Approved General Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. The DEIR Impact 4.11-6 Threshold attempts to address part of this requirement, asking: "Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?" In its response, the DEIR finds that the AVSP will not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, and will have less than significant impact, merely claiming "Implementation of the Project and the Project's present agreement with the City and County of Riverside, this Project is no[tj further subjected to the MSHCP review or setting aside of habitat conservation pursuant to the MSHCP" (DEIR p. 4.11-76). Earlier in the DEIR, in response to the question "would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" (DEIR 4.4-2, p. 4.4-26) there is discussion of the Settlement Agreement established between the County of Riverside and Pacific Clay Products, Inc. which removed the project from the requirements of the MSHCP. The provided response in the DEIR is "With the existing County of Riverside settlement agreement in G -t G-2 97 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 3 of 23 place, the Project does not conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community preservation plan." However, this statement Is inaccurate and insufficient to address conflicts with the MSHCP. The Settlement Agreement does not excuse the Project from CEQA requirements. The settlement agreement clearly states that "the Present and Future Uses and Development of Owner's Properties shall be subject to the provisions of applicable state and federal law with respect to habitat conservation and endangered or threatened species preservation on Owner's properties' (Settlement Agreement, p. 5). Further, the Settlement Agreement states that the property owner understands it is subject to CEQA review. Analysis of the project's effects on the MSHCP is a CEQA requirement, not an MSHCP requirement, and therefore the project is required to address Project impacts on the MSHCP. The DEIR provides insufficient analysis of potential conflicts between the Project and the MSHCP. The Settlement Agreement excluded the majority of the AVSP from the MSHCP. However, based on the Settle Agreement map maintained by the County of Riverside, which illustrates the properties subject to the Settlement Agreement, the Department notes that a portion of the AVSP is not included in the settlement. Specifically, the 9.09 - acre parcel south of 1-15, west of Lake Street, and north of Temescal Canyon Road (APN 390-130-017) and possibly a portion of the 56.7 -acre parcel addressed within the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project (DEIR Appendix G — Part 1). As such, the portion of the AVSP not covered by the Settlement Agreement will be subject to the provisions of the MSHCP, including the Joint Project Review (JPR) process through the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and other MSHCP policies and procedures such as, the Protection of Species Associated with RiparianlRiverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl and Criteria Area Species (MSHCP section 6.3.2), and the Guidelines Pertaining to the UrbanA(Vildlands Interface (MSHCP section 6.1.4). The revised DEIR should address the properties that are subject to the MSHCP. Table 2.0-1 should be revised to reflect that a Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) is required for portions of the project outside the settlement area. Riverside County General Plan Amendment No. 960, Lake Elsinore Area Plan The Department is concerned that sections of the Riverside County General plan relevant to natural resources were not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should address all relevant components in the Riverside County General Plan including the Open Space, Habitat, and Natural Resource Preservation section of the General Plan Land Use Element and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Watershed Management Floodplain and Riparian Area Management, Wetlands, and Open Space, Parks and Recreation sections of the Multipurpose Open Space Element. For example, the Lake Elsinore Area Plan of the Riverside County General Plan Amendment 960 has several elements or Elsinore Area Plan Policies (ELAP) that were not addressed in the DEIR that are relevant to wildlife and their associated habitats: G-2 Cont. G-3 98 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 4 of 23 1. Watercourses (p.5): Land use designations adjacent to the [fernescal] Wash reflect a desire to buffer it from development so that its scenic and natural resource values are retained. 2. ELAP 2.2: Encourage the maintenance of Temescal Wash in its natural state, with its ultimate use for recreational and open space purposes such as trails, habitat preservation, and groundwater recharge. 3. ELAP 16.1: Protect sensitive biological resources in the Elsinore Area Plan through adherence to policies found in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans, Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Wetlands, and Floodplain and Riparian Area Management sections of General Plan policies found in the General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element. 4. FLAP 16.2: Provide for connection between Santa Ana Mountains, Temescal Wash and foothills north of Lake Elsinore; existing connections are at Indian Truck Trail (buffer along Canyon Creek), Horsethief Canyon, and open upland areas southwest of Alberhill. 5. ELAP 16.4: Conserve clay soils supporting sensitive plants such as Munz's onion, many -stemmed dudleya, small -flowered morning glory and Palmer's grapplinghook. (There is a Munz's onion population of approximately 7,500 heads in Alberhill.) 6. ELAP 16.5: Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Wasson Creek, and the lower San Jacinto River, (including marsh habitats and maintaining water quality). 7. ELAP 16.8: Conserve sensitive plants, including Parry's spineflower, prostrate spineflower, Payson's jewelflower, smooth tarplanl, slender -horned spineflower, Coulters matijila poppy, Palomar monkeyflower, little mousetail, vernal barley, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Coulter's goldfields, heart -leaved pitcher sage, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 8, ELAP 16.9: Conserve Travers -Willow -Domino soil series. 9. ELAP 16.10: Conserve foraging habitat adjacency for raptors, sage scrubbed. grassland ecotone. The revised and recirculated DEIR should provide discussion and analysis for each of these policies. Covered Road Activities G-3 Cont. Expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal are Covered Activities under the MSHCP and are subject to MSHCP requirements as a public facility. Guidelines for G-4 99 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 5 of 23 Covered Activities will be incorporated into the Lake Street expansion and realignment to avoid and minimize its effects on Core and Linkage biological functions and values (Section 7 of the MSCHP). The DEIR statement "for right-of-way within the MSHCP G-4 core areas outside of the development agreement for Pacific Clay and the MOU for Alberhill Ridge" (DEIR, Table 2.0-1) should be revised to "for right-of-way within the Cont. MSHCP core areas" to reflect that these right-of-ways along their entire length require a LEAP for MSHCP consistency review. The DEIR fails to accurately address compliance with the MSHCP and the General Plan, and fails to adequately address the several substantial impacts the Project will have on the MSHCP, including the detrimental interference with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (discussed below). The Department requests the DEIR be revised, and recirculated for public review, to address the Project's consistency with the MSHCP and General Plan. Discussion and analysis of all potential conflicts with the MSHCP resulting from the proposed Project should be provided. Wildlife Corridors The AVSP as described in the DEIR has the potential to permanently impair two wildlife corridors described In the MSHCP (Propose Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6) and does not provide viable alternatives to replace the linkages that will provide safe live-in and movement habitat for wildlife. In addition, the Riverside County General Plan Amendment No. 960 specifies that the Elsinore Area Plan "provide for connection between Santa Ana Mountains, Temescal Wash and foothills north of Lake Elsinore; existing connections are at Indian Truck Trail (buffer along Canyon Creek), Horsethief Canyon, and open upland areas southwest of Alberhill:' MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 Much of the project footprint covers a linkage in the MSHCP described as Proposed Linkage 1. Proposed Linkage 1 has several possible routes that provide connection between the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland Nation Forest (Existing Core B) to the southwest and Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountains (Existing Core 2) to the north and Alberhill (Proposed Core 1) to the east (MSHCP Section 3.2.3 p.3-96-97). The linkage is described as providing both live-in and movement habitat for Cooper's hawk, Bell's sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, mountain quail, coastal California gnatcotcher, Stephen's kangaroo rat, bobcat, and mountain lion. In addition, the linkage should accommodate the movement of other species present on the property such as mule deer. The AVSP identifies the inclusion of re-created and restored natural wildlife open space to facilitate wildlife movement. The DEIR states that, "The intent of these wildlife connections is to facilitate connections to allow for safe passage of wildlife around the community and towards the existing under passes that permit wildlife to safely cross under Lake Street and under the 1-15 Freeway into core MSHCP areas" (DEIR, p. 2.0- G-5 100 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 6 of 23 21). There are several inconsistencies between the intent of the wildlife corridors and the proposed linkages: The linkages move animals through the community, not around it. The AVSP linkages that would address wildlife movement for MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 include (Figures 2.0-4 and 2.0.5): 1) "Temescal Connection" which starts in the hillside residential area in the Santa Ana Mountains and runs adjacent to Lincoln Street between Villages 1, 2, 3 and 4 and then along Temescal Canyon Road to terminate at the University Town Center in the Temescal Wash area; and 2) "Greenbelt Connection" which connects the Santa Ana mountains and runs along existing Horsethief Canyon development and then between proposed Village 2. a. The north -south component of the Temescal Connection is situated between Lincoln Street, a 4 -lane major roadway, and Villages 1, 2 and 3. The open space connection then continues west, adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road, a six to eight -lane major urban arterial road, and University Town Center (Village 1), which is described as the most intense and active area once final build out has occurred. Uses adjacent to the open space connection include mixed uses development such as commercial/retail, civic/institutional, professional office/medical, and entertainment (Village 1); 2,445 residential units, a park, and elementary school (Village 2); and custom hillside estates (Village 3). Three minor roadways are depicted crossing the Temescal Connection into Village 2 although the Department anticipates several additional roadway crossings over the open space connection will be required to serve Village 3. In addition to the adjacent uses, the Temescal Connection itself is meant to serve several functions, including sediment collection, utility easements, and recreational pursuits (DEIR p. 2.0-12). Figure 2.0-20 also depicts a large in -stream detention/debris basin and several proposed roadway crossings that will serve Villages 2 and 3. b. The east -west component of the Temescal Connection is proposed as bisecting Village 4. It is connected to the 36.8- acre Lakeside Park which is described as being at the heart of the development surrounded by playfields, picnic areas, active areas, as well as passive park uses such as an outdoor amphitheater will also serve as a wildlife corridor to allow connections to local wildlife. c. The Greenbelt Connection is proposed within the western portion of Village 2. The DEIR states that, "the Greenbelt open space connection... will carry a portion of the stormwater runoff and serve as wildlife and pedestrian connection' (2.0-12). Based on Figure 2.0-20, the Greenbelt Connection will be bounded on either side by the proposed development, including Village 2's proposed 2,445 residential units, park, G-5 Cont. 101 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 7 of 23 and elementary school, and will contain a minimum of two road crossings and an in -stream detention/debris basin at its southernmost end. 2. The linkages will not provide safe passage for most wildlife. The proposed open space areas are adjacent to roads and co -mingled with multi-purpose recreational trails that run through residential and developed areas. Placement of a wildlife corridor in a multi -functioning corridor next to a busy road, residential areas, and recreational trails without adequate buffers, appropriate vegetation, and fencing is inappropriate and contrary to well-documented information on how to build successful wildlife movement corridors (Beier 1993, Bond 2003). Insufficient detail was provided on the placement of wildlife crossings and fencing. The when or where or what type of fencing would be provided to act as buffer between wildlife habitat and adjacent land use such as road and residential areas was lacking in the DEIR. The placement of the proposed wildlife corridor is likely to increase mortality of animals from roads, predation by domestic animals, and presents a potential risk to humans using the road and trails. 3. The DEIR proposes to direct wildlife movement so that the wildlife safely cross under Lake Street. The AVSP Project identifies a wildlife corridor outside of the project footprint between the eastern side of Lake Street and the Alberhill Ridge Development in the footprint of the previously approved VTTM No. 35001. The wildlife corridor is described as being in a multi -functioning corridor adjacent to a six to eight lane road with meandering pedestrian and bicycle paths and open space that is 50 feet to 250 feet wide (Figures 2.0-8, 2.0- 9, 2.0-10 & 2.0-11). This proposed wildlife corridor is not an identified wildlife linkage in the MSHCP and would direct wildlife movement near development and high human -use areas and is therefore detrimental to the MSHCP. MSHCP Proposed Cons6ained Linkaoe 6 Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (Linkage 6) consists of a portion of Temescal Wash and connects Alberhill (Core 1) to Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain (Existing Core 2) under 1-15. The linkage is described as providing upland and riparian habitat for Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat and least Bell's vireo. In the DEIR, a portion of Linkage 6 is described as the Northern Connection which would be bounded on both the north and south by the proposed University Town Center (Village 1), described as the most intense and active area of the AVSP. The Northern Connection will be further bounded at the east and west by major urban arterial roadways. The eastern arterial roadway (Lake Street) will include eight lanes of traffic, a depressed median, two bike lanes, two depressed parkways, and a sidewalk for a total 120 -foot right-of-way. The Temescal Canyon Road crossing will include six traffic lanes, two bike lanes, and concave parkways on either side of the road. How wildlife will navigate this matrix is unclear. The DEIR provides conflicting information on the status Temescal Wash in this corridor, the wash is described as being left in its G-5 Cont. G-6 102 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. S of 23 natural condition or re -naturalized (Section 2.4.5) or graded to create a trapezoidal channel (Subsection 4.3.1.3). A graded trapezoidal channel would be detrimental to wildlife movement and would not support live-in habitat for wildlife dependent on riparian habitat such as least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Placement of development adjacent to the Temescal Wash would be detrimental to wildlife movement. The Department recommends a large buffer between riparian habitat and development to help maintain the natural functions of Temescal Wash. Development should be placed outside the existing floodplain to protect instream resources and functions. Wildlife Corridors Recommendations and Summer The Department is concerned the project will interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife species and that the planned wildlife connections will provide limited or no function and value to wildlife movement. Further, wildlife movement in this area will have reduced long-term viability due to the ongoing disturbances and fragmentation resulting from the development. Based on the limited information provided on the project's direct and indirect effects on wildlife movement, the Department is concerned that the project as proposed will cause permanent damage to Linkages 1 and 6 in the MSHCP. More detail and analysis on the proposed wildlife corridors and their direct and indirect impacts on wildlife movement are needed. The DEIR fails to demonstrate that standards for wildlife corridors, buffers, and mitigation ratios are adequate to reduce impacts to existing the MSHCP and regional wildlife corridors to a level less than significant. The Department recommends a detailed discussion of the wildlife corridors be provided in a revised and recirculated DEIR as it would not be appropriate, given the corridors are positioned throughout several Planning Areas within the RVSP, to defer this detailed analysis to subsequent, project -specific CEQA evaluations. Information provided should include: 1. A list of the wildlife species guiding the design of each of the proposed corridors, specific and biologically defensible measures for the wildlife corridor width and composition should be provided; 2. A list of intended species for each wildlife corridor; 3. A discussion of the long-term viability of the corridors; 4. A detailed analysis of the additional uses within the corridor, including, but not limited to, recreational use, sediment collection, drainage, and utility easements; 5. A detailed analysis of the effect of adjacent uses on the corridors, including roadways, parks, business, residential, and recreational facilities; 6. Site specific design elements, such as corridor depths and widths, lighting, vegetation composition, fencing, and wildlife under crossings/road crossings designs and locations; 7. Specific minimization measures proposed to reduce the effects of the adjacent urban and residential development such as the control of domestic species, light, noise, and humans; 6. Identification of fuel modification zones outside wildlife corridors; G-6 Cont. G-7 103 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 9 of 23 9. Specific measures that provide separation of wildlife corridors from areas of ongoing disturbance and use, such as roadways and pedestrian trails, such as fencing, physical barriers, public education, etc.. Multiple -use of wildlife corridors for recreational purposes should be avoided; and 10.Analysis of the expected impacts by the development on wildlife movement through the proposed corridors. The Department recommends consultation with wildlife movement experts, especially for mountain lion, to develop viable corridors that will facilitate wildlife movement through the project site. For instance, consultation with experts could provide guidance on how to improve the habitat around an existing large wash coming from the Santa Ana Mountains to Temescal Wash to facilitate wildlife movement across the site. Consultation with riparian habitat experts would facilitate design of an appropriately - sized wildlife, movement corridor along Temescal Wash that will support riparian habitat and associated wildlife such as southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. Larger species, such as mountain lion, need wider corridors to facilitate movement and provide habitat especially in a landscape that is dominated by human use (Beier 1993, Bentrup 2008). The Department recommends that wildlife corridors should be a minimum of 300 meters and preferably wider and not include fuel management, accessory uses and other uses not compatible with wildlife movement such as recreational use. Jurisdictional Waters Identification of Jurisdictional Waters The DEIR states that the AVSP area supports a total of six drainage features, three of which have been determined to be "non -jurisdictional drainages" (p. 4.11-5). The Department assumes these "non -Jurisdictional drainages' were categorized as such because, "the drainage features (7, 8 & 9) may have been disconnected along the stream course and from the receiving tributary" (DEIR p. 4.11-49). FGC Section 1600 at seq. (as well as other sections of the FGC that relate to streams, such as FGC Section 5650 and fishing regulations) jurisdiction is not predicated on hydrologic connection to another waterbody. For the purposes of implementing sections 1601 and 1603 of the FGC, California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 720 requires submission to the Department of general plans sufficient to indicate the nature of a project for construction by or on behalf of any person, government agency, state or local, and any public utility, of any project which will divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river, stream or lake designated by the Department, or will use material from the streambeds designated by the Department, all rivers, streams, lakes, and streambeds in the State of California, including all rivers, streams and streambeds which may have intermittent flows of water, are hereby designated for such purpose. G-7 Cont. G-8 104 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No, 2012061046 P. 10 of 23 hnoacts subject to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and Riparian/Riverine Policy The DEIR does not adequately address impacts subject to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 or the Riparian/Riverine Policy of the MSHCP. The Department acknowledges that the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan DEIR is described as a program EIR, and the Department expects that additional environmental review and associated effects analysis will be required for each subsequent phase of development on the project site. However, if preparation of a subsequent environmental review that: 1) addresses specific impacts over the entire site, and 2) is circulated for public review, is not anticipated, the Department requests that the Lead Agency address the following issues, and any other project activities with the potential to impact Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and Riparian/Riverine resources, and recirculate this DEIR for additional public review and comment. The DEIR mentions several project activities that propose to significantly alter Temescal Canyon Wash and its tributaries, but these activities are discussed as mitigating factors to address erosion, flooding, and sediment/ debris flows rather than as significant project impacts. Subsection 4.3.1.3 states, "The Alberhill Villages project proposes to grade the existing Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) drainage course to create a more confined trapezoidal channel to convey the drainage runoff across the site" (p. 4.3-4). Subsection 4.3.3.2 states, "Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) and the un -named stream will have side slope erosion protection to mitigate substantial erosion' (p. 4.3-30) and that, "Increases in site peak flows are not expected to have a significant impact on Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), except for the potential outfall location at the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), where energy dissipation will be required:' (p. 4.3-31). Section 2.4.7, Public Facilities, states that, "The major off-site flows from Rice Canyon District and Horsethief Canyon Ranch District drainage areas will first pass through detention/debris basins in order to remove sediment and debris from the stormwater runoff' (p. 2.0-93). As stated above, the Department is concerned that these activities have not been sufficiently described in the DEIR and strongly encourages the Lead Agency to pursue subsequent CEQA action, including additional public review, to address these project activities. Please note the Department's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA Agreement) is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the DEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Because the Department will be acting as a Responsible Agency in issuing an LSA Agreement, it will need to rely on the analysis of the impacts to riparian and Streambed habitat provided by the Lead Agency. However, if the DEIR and its subsequent CEQA documents do not adequately describe the impacts, the Department may need to prepare its own, separate CEQA analysis (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15052 and 15092). Therefore, to G-9 105 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 11 of 23 avoid unnecessary project delays, the Department recommends that the Lead Agency provide (a) a thorough and detailed analysis of all anticipated impacts subject to Fish G-9 and Game Code section 1600 and the Riparian/Riverine Policy, where applicable, and Cont. (b) feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. Biological Resources The Department is concerned that the DEIR lacks a complete and accurate assessment of the existing species and habitats on-site, lacks a focused analysis of the impacts related to these species and habitats, and does not identify feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. The Department is also disconcerted that the Lead Agency has made finding related to speeiakstatus species and habitats without having complete biological data for the AVSP site. The Department offers the following comments to assist the Lead Agency in identifying and addressing impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Vegetation Association and Habitats The DEIR does not provide a consistent description of the existing vegetation associations and habitats onsite. For example, Section 4.11.1.1 lists vegetation associations including alluvial fan scrub, oak woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, and riparian woodland. However, Table 4.11-1, which lists the approximate acreages of existing vegetation communities over the 1,400 -acre AVSP site, does not contain any of these vegetation associations. Based on these inconsistencies, the DEIR appears to lack a complete biological description of the existing habitats on-site. The Department strongly urges the lead to evaluate the adequacy of the current Vegetation Associations and Habitats section of the DEIR and recommends this assessment be repeated, and the results recirculated for public review. The Department recommends assessments of natural communities be completed following the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, Department of Fish and Game, November 24, 2009, The Department also recommends a current classification system be adopted to ensure consistency throughout the DEIR. More information can be found at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/blogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp and https://www,dfg,ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_communities.asp. Sensitive Vegetation Associations and Special -Status Habitats The Department is unclear as to the methods used to identify sensitive vegetation associations and special -status habitats onsite and is concerned that the failure to maintain a consistent and current method of vegetation association classifications has led to an inadequate and incomplete assessment of the resources onsite. The DEIR further fails to identify the level of impacts proposed to occur within special -status habitats and does not identify feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. cao 106 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCI -I No. 2012061046 P. 12 of 23 Two special -status habitats were identified as occurring within the AVSP area: southern coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub. As stated before, not all vegetation associations and habitats have been quantified, including the coast live oak riparian forest. The DEIR does acknowledge that impacts to southern coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub would be considered significant under CEQA, but then disregards this statement, claiming "most of this area is already disturbed habitat and is not considered sensitive" (p. 4.11-69). The DEIR then suggests that, "Mitigation [for the loss of sensitive vegetation communities) should be assessed with the Specific Plan programs for open space, wildlife corridors and riparian restoration and enhancement" (p. 4.11-19). In addition to the two habitats mentioned above, the DEIR identifies alluvial fan sage scrub occurring onsite. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) is a state - designated S-1.1 "very threatened" community, although not described as such within the DEIR. Similar to the coast live oak riparian forest habitat, the DEIR fails to quantify this community within Table 4.11-1 (Existing Vegetation Communities) but does in one location state, "the AVSP area does support a small area (28.44 acres) of alluvial fan scrub" (p.4.11-71). The DEIR suggests there may be some level of habitat avoidance, stating, "The areas that will be avoided will be the barrenfstreambed riparian and alluvial fan scrub areas and the willow/riparian scrub and the riparian and oak woodland communities" (p. 4.11-69) although no specific measure is proposed. The DEIR should be revised to clearly identify and quantify all sensitive vegetation associations and special -status habitats onsite, provide a detailed assessment of the impacts proposed within these habitats, provide specific measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect the special -status habitats from project -related direct and indirect impacts, and provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. Again, the Department recommends that impacts to sensitive vegetation associations and special -status habitats be re-evaluated following current, accepted survey protocol and classification systems, as suggested under the Vegetation Associations and Habitats section above. Special -Status Plants The Department is concerned that the DEIR does not contain a complete and accurate assessment of the special -status plants onsite. The 2008 Biological Assessment of Castle & Cook Pacific Clay Mine Site merely states that, "biologists traversed each of the target habitats on foot to provide adequate coverage for surveys' but does not provide any information on what, if any, standardized survey methods were used to determine presence/absence of special status plants onsite. Furthermore, the 2014 Update to the Biological Constraints Analysis for the 1,400 -Acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Site, which was to meant to "identify and address ... any sensitive species that may not have been addresses in the 2008 GLA Biological Constraints report" states that, "[species) presumed to be present... had not yet bloomed during the time of the surveys." This statement clearly identifies the inadequacy of the 2014 Update to the Biological Constraints Analysis to identify all potential species present onsite. G-10 Cont. 107 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhiil Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 13 of 2.3 Given the incomplete nature of the updated special -status plant surveys, the Department requests new surveys be completed, and the results recirculated in the revised DEIR. Surveys should be conducted in the field at the time of year when target plant species are both evident and identifiable (usually during flowering or fruiting). Multiple visits may be necessary (e.g. in early, mid, and late -season) to accurately survey the floristic diversity of the site and detect the presence of all special status plant species. The Department recommends updated surveys take into consideration drought and other adverse conditions. Annual and short-lived perennial plant species and plants with persistent long-lived seed banks are known not to germinate every year. In addition, the phenological development of some plants may be altered because of the drought. Because of these conditions, the failure to locate a plant during the floristic surveys of one field season does not constitute evidence that the plant is absent from the surveyed location. The timing and number of visits necessary to conduct a floristic survey should be determined by geographic location, the natural communities present and the weather patterns of the year, with the understanding that more than one field visit or field season may be necessary to accurately survey site and detect the presence of special status plant species. In addition to the recommendation for recirculation of updated, standardized surveys and associated results, the Department also request the Lead Agency revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the loss of the four special status plants observed within the AVSP area: Parry's spineflower, paniculate tarplant, graceful tarplant, and Coulter s matilija poppy. The DEIR incorrectly states that no sensitive plant species were observed during focused special status plant surveys conducted during the 2008 growing season and again in 2014 and based on this erroneous statement, the DEIR concluded that impacts to sensitive plants would be less than significant. The Department would like to point out that the Update to Biological Constraints Analysis for the 9,400 -Acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Site Located in Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, dated May 25, 2014, states, "The majority of previously documented sensitive plant species were verified during the updated surveys. Species that were not identified... are still presumed to be present but had not yet bloomed during the time of the surveys." Given this statement, the Department strongly urges the Lead Agency to revise the DEIR to: correct the statement claiming that no species were identified onsite, identify the level of impacts proposed to occur, provide a reasonable assessment of significance related to the loss of special status plants, propose some level of avoidance through the reduction of the project footprint, and provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. The Department is unclear as to why several locally occurring special status plants were considered to have low, or low to moderate, potential to occur onsite. Munz's onion, long-spined spineflower, and many -stemmed dudleya were considered to have low to moderate potential to occur onsite despite the fact that these species have been documented by California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as occurring within 0.5 - mile of the project site. San Diego ambrosia, Plummer's mariposa lily, and slender - horned spineflower were considered to have low potential to occur onsite even though G-10 cont. 108 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P, 14 of 23 CNDDB and/or MSHCP species occurrence data documents each of these plant species within 0.5 -mile of the project site. As habitat exists onsite for each of the above- mentioned species, the Department requests a clearer explanation of what G-10 considerations led to the findings that these species had low, or low to moderate Cont. potential to occur onsite. A statement that most of the project is impacted or degraded is insufficient given that there is conflicting information on the status of resources on the project site. Special -Status Wildlife Species The Department is concerned the Lead Agency has prematurely determined that project -related impacts to special -status species will be less than significant without having adequately assessed the biological resources onsite. The DIER's assessment of special -status species appears to be based on nominal field reconnaissance surveys rather than species-specific/focused surveys. In the absence of species-specific Surveys, and a clearly-defined project description, the Department cannot adequately identify, assess, and comment on the project -related impacts to special -status wildlife species and cannot, at this time, concur that the project will have a less than significant impact, even with implementation of the specified mitigation measures. The Department is also concerned that the DEIR does not disclose relevant species occurrence information from sources such as CNDDB and has downplayed the likelihood that special -status species will be impacted by project -related activities. For example, least Bell's vireo, a state and federal endangered species, was listed in the DEIR as having a low to moderate potential to occur onsite despite recorded observations of this species within and adjacent to the AVSP site, including areas that will be directly impacted by the project. According to CNDDB four territories, thought to contain breeding pairs, were detected in 2010 adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road between Bernard Street and Lake Street and two least Bell's vireo, also considered to be a breeding pair, were detected in Temescal Wash, near the intersection of Temescal Canyon Road and Hostettler Road, just west of the AVSP project site. Due to the availability of prey, perches, and suitable forage habitat identified in the DEIR (DEIR, p.4.11-5), the AVSP area has the potential to support a variety of raptor species including Coopers hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and white- tailed kite. However, the DEIR did not provide analysis of impacts from loss of raptor habitat. Impacts to foraging and nesting habitat should be quantified. The Department recommends that the AVSP outline mitigation for potential loss of foraging habitat and nest trees. Lands set aside for mitigation should be conditioned with Department approval to ensure their quality and proximity to the project. The Department recommends the lead agency revise and recirculate the DEIR following completion of more detailed, species-specific focused surveys. The revised DEIR should, at a minimum: G-11 Cont. 109 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 15 of 23 1. clearly identify all special -status wildlife species onsite; 2. describe and quantify the habitats supporting these special -status wildlife species; 3. provide a detailed assessment of the potential project -related impacts to these species and habitats; 4. provide specific measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect the special -status species and their associated habitats from project -related direct and indirect impacts; and 5. provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. Species-specific/focused surveys should he conducted by qualified biologists no more than 12 months prior to circulation of the CEQA document and should include species - appropriate survey methods and timing to ensure all species with the potential to occur onsite are detected. To assist with review, an accompanying map detailing the location of special -status species and/or special -status species habitat should be provided with the revised CEQA document. Project Impact Analysis and Environmental Mitigation Measures The Department strongly urges the lead agency re-evaluate the sufficiency of the species information onsite and to take the steps necessary to fully and adequately identify the biological resources onsite and analyze the project -related impacts to those species before making their findings of significance. Given the above recommendation, the Department offers the following comments related to the project impact analysis and associated mitigation measures to assist the lead agency in better identifying significant impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation measures to reduce project -related impacts. The DEIR should state each threshold and include a factually based explanation as to why project impacts will result in no effect or effects that are less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or significant with feasible mitigation. This explanation should be derived from the project description, which informs project impacts, and environmental setting, which identifies sensitive biological resources that may be impacted. At this point in time the Department is concerned that the Biological Resources mitigation measures are insufficient to minimize and avoid sensitive biological resources, and/or to offset the loss of native flora and fauna. G-1 l Cont. G-12 110 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 16 of 23 Sensitive vegetation communities and habitats The DEIR fails to address impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats including alluvial fan scrub, coastal sage scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and southern willow scrub, merely stating that, "most of the sensitive vegetation will be avoided, and impacts to sensitive vegetation communities will occur, (p. 4,11-69). The Department finds this justification wholly insufficient and inappropriate. Sensitive plant species The DEIR denies the existence of special -status plant species onsite and finds, based on this incorrect statement, that impacts to sensitive plant species are less than significant. The Department considers this explanation careless and unsubstantiated. Sensitive wildlife species The Department is concerned that the DEIR has selectively considered a handful of sensitive wildlife species in their creation of mitigation measures, and in doing so, has failed to address many others that either occur onsite or have a high to moderate potential to occur onsite. The DEIR states that impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats, sensitive plant species, and sensitive wildlife species will be mitigated to a level less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6I0-1 through BIO 4, BIO -7, BIO -9, and BIO -10. The Department strongly disagrees that the project will have a less than significant impact (i.e., substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications) on special -status species and finds that the mitigation measures proposed would have little to no effect at reducing the significant impacts on these species and habitats. Mitigation Measure (MM)131O-1 Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is meant to address potential impacts to burrowing owl but fails to adequately identify potential losses and specific mitigation measures to offset those losses. Furthermore, MM 6I0-1 is outdated and proposes activities not currently authorized by the Department outside of NCCPs (active relocation) as well as activities strongly discouraged by the Department. Please note, the Department strongly discourages the exclusion of owls using passive relocation unless there are suitable burrows available within 100 meters of the closed burrows (Trulio 1995, CDFG 2012) and the relocation area is protected through a long-term conservation mechanism (e.g., conservation easement). MM BIO -1 also references the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, an outdated guidance document that has since been updated. The Department recommends the Lead Agency revise MM BIO -1 to: 1) require focused breeding season surveys, pre -construction surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation measures be completed following the Department's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; 2) remove any reference to "active relocation'; 3) require that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department be notified if owls are found onsite and that any passive relocation and/or associated conservation strategy be implemented in cooperation with the Service and the Department, and in G-12 Cont. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 17 of 23 accordance with the Department's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; and 4) provide a feasible mitigation plan to offset impacts to the potential loss of burrowing owl nesting and/or foraging habitat, should burrowing owl be found onsite. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of burrowing owl nesting and/or foraging habitat, should burrowing owl be found onsite, the Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to burrowing owl would be mitigated to less than significant levels through the implementation of MM BIO -1. Mitigation Measure 610-2 MM BIO -2 proposes to reduce impacts to California gnatcatcher to a level less than significant through completion of "presence/absence surveys" and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures during the breeding season. The Department finds these measures deficient in addressing the loss of habitat and contends these measures will not reduce impacts to California gnatcatcher to a level below significant. The Department recommends MM BIO -2 be revised to: 1) require focused, breeding - season surveys be completed, and the results recirculated for public review, to determine the level of impacts anticipated to occur within suitable and/or occupied California gnatcatcher habitat, and 2) adequately address the potential loss of suitable and occupied habitat through avoidance and conservation of habitat first, and where avoidance is infeasible, through specific, enforceable, and achievable mitigation measures at an appropriate level. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of California gnatcatcher nesting and/or foraging habitat, the Department cannot, without further information concur that impacts to California gnatcatcher would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 MM BIO -3 is proposed to specifically address least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher through the completion of "presence/absence surveys" and the implementation of avoidance measures during the breeding season. MM BIO -3 refuses to address the potential direct impacts to suitable and potentially occupied least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat and instead defers additional measures to future consultation with the Service. This measure fails to addresses the potential impacts to least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher and will not reduce the impacts to a level less than significant. The Department recommends MM BIO -2 be revised to: 1) require focused, breeding -season surveys be completed, and the results recirculated for public review, to determine the level of impacts anticipated to occur within suitable and/or occupied least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, and 2) adequately address the potential loss of suitable and occupied habitat G-12 cont. 112 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P.18of23 through avoidance and conservation of habitat first, and where avoidance is infeasible, through specific, enforceable, and achievable mitigation measures. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of least Bell's vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher nesting and/or foraging habitat, the Department cannot concur that impacts to least Bell's vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 810-4 MM BIO -4 offers to mitigate the loss of riparian and riverine habitat through on- or offsite replacement of streambed and associated habitat through purchase of mitigation credits or in -lieu fee payment for invasive species removal. Because the DEIR lacks any information regarding project -related impacts to streams and associated habitats, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts the potential losses Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to streams and associated habitats would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of MM BIO -4. As stated throughout this letter, the Department recommends the DEIR be revised and recirculated to clearly identify project -related impacts to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and where applicable, Riparian/Riverine resources. Mitigation Measure 810-7 MM BIO -7 proposes the completion of "additional surveys' to identify rosy boa, and if found, proposes to relocate any individuals to "suitable areas outside the development area" (p. 4.11-80). The measure provides no information on how, when or with what methods these "additional surveys" will be carried out and provides no scientific foundation supporting the capture and relocation of rosy boa as a feasible and successful mitigation measure to avoiding "take". Overall, the Department finds this proposal inappropriate and insufficient to mitigate the loss of rosy boa individuals as well as the loss of suitable and occupied habitat. Revised mitigation measures should be provided, Mitigation Measure BIO -9 MM BIO -9 proposes to erect a temporary sound wall, if necessary, adjacent to any Critical Habitat Areas to ensure wildlife are not subjected to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Department is unclear on several issues related to this measure and finds that the measure fails to provide any specific, enforceable protection to wildlife, as proposed. MM BIO -9 fails to identify several key elements, including: when erection of the sound wall will be necessary, who will determine where and when the sound wall is utilized, what wildlife the sound wall will be designed to protect, where the "Critical Habitat Areas" currently exist, who determines the location and qualifications necessary to be deemed a "Critical Habitat Areas", and the entity responsible for enforcing this measure. G-12 Cont. 113 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 19 of 23 Mitigation Measure BIO -10 MM BID -10 proposes to protect "Critical Habitat Areas" through design and operation measures that will reduce noise from proposed loading docks. As the DIER lacks any information regarding "Critical Habitat Areas" and project -related it to "Critical Habitat Areas", and no specific impact -reducing design and operation measure have been proposed, the Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to "Critical Habitat Areas" would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of MM BIO -10. Impact 4.11-2 Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities The DEIR does not analyze this impact threshold and instead defers the identification of impacts and formulation of mitigation measures to future regulatory permits. Please note that CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(8) states formulation of feasible mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future date. Please also note the Department's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA Agreement) is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the DEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Wildlife Movement and Wildlife Corridor Connections The DIER states that the majority of the AVSP is either developed or disturbed and would not be expected to support regional movement of large mammals. The Department questions this statement and asks what, if any, wildlife movement studies, surveys, or research has been reviewed and/or completed within the RVSP site to support this explanation. The claim that the site would not support the movement of large mammals seems unfounded given that both mule deer and mountain lion were listed among the wildlife species observed on the site. Furthermore, the Department is concerned that the DEIR relies too heavily on the notion, and repeated emphasis, that the majority of the site is "highly disturbed due to mining activities, and dominated by sparse, ruderal plant species" (p. 4.11-5). The DEIR specifies, "A total of 433 acres of the approximately 1,400 acres has been previously disturbed by significant mining and 941 acres remains either undisturbed or disturbed with minor grading and clay storage" (4.11-3). The Department requests a consistent and accurate description of existing disturbed resources and condition of remaining resources on the project site. A detailed G-12 Cont. G-13 114 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 20 of 23 map with acreages of the vegetation resources is necessary for evaluating the site conditions. The DEIR suggests that through the construction of the AVSP and its open space connections, "regional wildlife corridor movement and corridor connections will be provided in the form of stepping -stone habitat for birds and several reptile and small- to medium sized mammals" (p. 4.11-72). The wildlife linkages should support large mammals such as mountain lion and provide movement and live-in habitat. The Project has failed to demonstrate that stepping -stone habitat will provide adequate corridors for most species intended to move through this area. The DEIR also asserts that through implementation of MM 13I0-6, there will be a less than significant impacts to animal movement. Overall, the Department finds the response to Impact 4.11-4 unfounded and without merit and strongly disagrees that the DEIR has sufficiently addressed potential impacts to wildlife movement. Mitigation Measure 810-6 MM BIO -6 proposes to address wildlife movement and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) through the completion of pre -construction nesting surveys and implementation of pre -established buffers. The project fails to demonstrate how pre - construction bird surveys will address wildlife movement. Further, the measures does not provide any form of mitigation for loss of nesting bird habitat. The Department finds the DEIR has failed to address the impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors and suggests the lead agency re-evaluate the potential impacts and revise and recirculate the DEIR to properly address the impacts. The historic movement of mountain lion and mule deer should be included in the analysis of project impacts to wildlife corridors and related project design features. The analysis should include a discussion of wildlife corridor dimensions and whether or not fuel management, lighting, and accessory uses are proposed with these areas. The Department strongly urges the DEIR to re-evaluate the Impact 4.11.4 Threshold, taking into consideration the MSHCP wildlife corridors. As previously stated under the NCCP section of this comment letter, the DEIR completely disregards the question posed in the Impact 4.11-6 Threshold, claiming, "Implementation of the Project and the Project's present agreement with the City and County of Riverside, this Project is no[t] further subjected to the MSHCP review or setting aside of habitat conservation pursuant to the MSHCP" (DEIR p. 4.11-76). The Department disagrees and finds that the DEIR fails to accurately address compliance with the MSHCP and fails to adequately address the several, substantial impacts the Project will have on the MSHCP, including the detrimental interference with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6. G-13 Coat. G-14 115 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 21 of 23 Alternatives The DEIR provided analyses of possible alternatives to the proposed Project. The alternative analysis lacked in-depth analysis or viable alternatives. For instance, the reduced footprint alternative included the addition of a golf course which made the project difficult to compare the preferred alternative which did not have a golf course. The Department believes this is counterproductive to the goal of trying to reduce impacts to sensitive resources, and complicates the comparison of the alternatives. In addition, a blanket statement of "this alternative would not be in accordance with the General Plan's job creation, housing density, land use or zoning" was provided for the alternatives with lower density of housing and higher environmental benefits without clear support for this statement. Please provide additional details and analysis on how the project was not in accordance with land use goals for facilitating wildlife movement and protection of sensitive resources. The other reason for rejecting possible alternatives was that that the cost was not economical but information was not provided to support this statement. Please provide detailed analysis to support this statement. The Department recommends development of a viable alternative with wider wildlife corridors, avoidance of habitat with sensitive resources, no golf course, and reduced development footprint, Summary The proposed project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife habitat and should be evaluated in such a manner to reduce its impacts to biological resources. The Department finds that the mitigation measures are insufficient to minimize and avoid sensitive biological resources, and/or to offset the loss of native flora and fauna. The proposed mitigation measures poorly address a handful of specific species and neglect the remaining species that either occur onsite, or have high -to -moderate potential to occur onsite, including, but not limited to: Bell's sage sparrow, California horned lark, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat, yellow warbler, coast patch -nosed snake, northern red -diamond rattlesnake, orange -throated whiptail, San Diego coast horned lizard, western spadefoot toad, coyote, mountain lion, mule deer, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat, and western mastiff bat. A Program EIR should provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives; ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; and allow the City to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts (CEQA §15168). However, the deficiencies in the information provided for sensitive natural resources and the poorly designed and located wildlife corridors create a situation where planning at a larger scale to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to sensitive resources is not feasible. The Department strongly suggests the Lead Agency, through G-15 G-16 116 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 22 of 23 revision and recirculation of the DEIR, address the deficiencies outlined within this letter, including inadequate project description, deficient species information, poorly designed wildlife corridors, and lack of appropriate and enforceable mitigation measures. Please note that mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). Furthermore, in order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. The Department requests that all sensitive species occurrence data be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to add to the inventories for the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California. Biological Monitors and/or surveyors monitoring or surveying for all fully protected species, state and federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species, state species of special concerns, and/or other protected species shall be experienced with the species and hold in addition to a Scientific Collecting Permit, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for each species that qualifies as described above. Please refer to the following link for more information: http salwww: wi idl ife.ca: qn v/Li ce nsing/Sc ie ntifi r, -Col lerti ng Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092 and 21092.2, the Department also requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the project. Written notifications shall be directed to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 6, 3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite C-220, Ontario, CA 91764. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2012061046). Department personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. The Department requests a meeting with the City to discuss wildlife movement and linkages within the project site prior to revision of the DEIR at your earliest convenience. The Department requests that the DEIR be revised to address the Department's comments and concerns, and recirculated for public review. If you should have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in this letter, please contact Kimberly Freeburn at (909) 945-3484 or at Kim. FreebLirn@wiLdlife.ca.gov Sincerely, r----. �( a " .. Lest' a at nal Manger cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento G-16 Cont. G-17 117 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 23 of 23 Literature Cited California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available at htta//www dfa ca aov/wildlife/nonaame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. General Technical Report SRS -109, Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Accessed online on December 23, 2015 at hitp:Unac,unl.Ldu/buffers/docs/conservation buffers.pdf Beier, P. and S. Lee. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440 Beier, P, 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7(1):94-108, Bond, M. 2003. Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design. Center for Biological Diversity Accessed online on December 28, 2015 at: httn://www,bioloaicaldiversity.ora/oubtications/papers/wild-oo idors.pdf.. Trulio, L.A. 1995. Passive relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites. Journal of Field Ornithology 66(1):99-106. 118 Response to Comment Letter G California Department of Fish and Wildlife The California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 30, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-1 Please see above Response to Comments B-2 and the above Response to Comment D-2. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment C-2 The DEIR adequately describes the exempt status of the AVSP property from the MSIICP and the prior conclusion by the Wildlife Agencies that the AVSP property will not conflict with the MSHCP by nature of its exemption. Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement that exempted the AVSP property from the MSHCP states that: "Owner's ["Owner" defined as "Pacific Clay, C&C Corona, Gateway and Murdock Alberhill"] Properties (including the Present and Future Uses and Development of Owner's Properties) are exempt and excluded from the MSHCP for all proposes..." The ability of the County of Riverside to execute the Settlement Agreement with the property owner that exempted a large property area from the MSHCP was not challenged by the Wildlife Agencies. To the extent that CEQA requires the analysis of potential land use impacts, the DEIR fulfilled this obligation by: 1) disclosing the Settlement Agreement; 2) explaining how that agreement is conclusive evidence that the Project does not impact the MSHCP and was properly exempted from the MSHCP when the MSHCP was approved in 2004, and; 3) describing the superior conservation goals and objectives achieved by the Project as compared to the MSHCP. As a clarification the reference to inclusion of the 56.7 acre Temescal Creek Bridge Project in the DEIR shows the exterior limits of the project area, as delineated by the City. The DEIR also includes the 9.09 -acre site (A'PN 390-130-017) which was outside the Pac Clay/County of Riverside Settlement Agreement area. Other lands in the 56.7 -acre parcel are comprised of a combination of the private ownership of Pacific Clay and Castle & Cooke properties included within the Settlement Agreement along with public rights of way. Only approximately one acre of the City's Temescal Bridge project area is outside of the MSHCP Settlement Agreement area. The Temescal Bridge project is not part of the AVSP. 119 Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-3 The City is not subject to the Riverside County General Plan. The "Lake Elsinore Area Plan" is only applicable to the unincorporated portion of Riverside County that is located within the boundaries of that area plan. All property within the City of Lake Elsinore is governed by the provisions of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan that was adopted on December 13, 2001. Evaluation of consistency with the County's General Plan is not required. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-4 Please see above Response to Comments 13-2. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-5 Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment D-6 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-6 Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment D-6 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-7 Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment D-6 regarding previous discussions regarding MSI -ICP Proposed Linkages. See the above Response to Comment B-34 and Response to Comment D-8 regarding riparianhriverine habitat and associated wildlife. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-8 On page 4.11-51, the DEIR noted that "A final Jurisdictional Determination must be issued by the USACE, CRWQCB and CDFW" as part of the process to obtain authorizations pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code if the project impacts jurisdiction al waters. The jurisdictional status for each of the drainages listed in Table 4.11-4, if impacted, will be determined by the agencies, as appropriate 120 through implementation Mitigation Measures BIO -4 and BIO -5, if the jurisdictional areas are not avoided or determined to be, in fact, subject to jurisdiction. Table 4.11-4 includes the width, length and total acreage for each drainage feature within the current mine area. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures BIO 4 and BIO 5 ensure that prior to each project phase grading in any jurisdictional area, a formal jurisdictional delineation will be performed to ensure that the current information is updated and drainages outside the current mining area are delineated. Please refer to B-3 in Letter B. Following the updated delineation, a request to each of the above-named agencies would be submitted for a final jurisdictional determination, if impacts are identified by the project developer that would then be used for the permitting by the developer by each agency. As noted above, potential impacts to Section 1602 jurisdiction have been addressed through identification of onsite drainages, as well as, requirements for future updates to the jurisdictional delineation as future implementing development phases are developed. Please see the above Response to Comment B-26 and Response to Comment D-5 regarding Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), and Response to Continent B-34 which revised the language of Mitigation Measure BIO -4. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-9 Relative to impacts to vegetation associations, see Mitigation Measures BIO -4 (as revised by the above Response to Continent B-34), BIO -5 and BIO -8 (as revised by above Response to Comment D-15) ensuring that potential impacts to riparian habitat, including willow riparian habitat and coast live oak riparian habitat will be fully mitigated, prior to any grading in any noted habitat areas. As described above in the Response to Comment D-15, Mitigation Measure BIO -8 has been expanded in accordance with the suggestion of USFWS to use one -gallon replacements for oaks at a 12:1 ratio to maximize the potential for survival and long-term persistence. For alluvial scrub, the DEIR notes that this habitat will be avoided by the project. See the above Response to Comment D-14 regarding willow riparian, coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-10 A review of Figure 4.11-2A (Biological Resources Map) of the DEIR shows the extent and comprehensive nature of the focused surveys for special -status plants on the 1,400 -acre site. As noted on page 4.11-9, focused surveys were conducted on 13 separate days in 2008 with an update in 2011 that included surveys on April 18, May 16, June 9, and July 29, which as shown on Figure 4.11-2A resulted in expansion of previous special -status plant populations as well as new occurrences. The DFIR is clear that the surveys were conducted in a manner which provided adequate coverage of the site, which is self evident from Figure 4.11-2A which depicts rare plants across the entire 1,400 -acre property. In short, there is nothing "incomplete" regarding the focused special -status plant surveys. 121 Regarding significance of the potential impacts to these species, the paniculate tarplant, graceful tarplant and Coulter's matillija poppy are all listed as 4.2 taxa on the California Rare Plant Rank and impacts to List 4 taxa are not significant as List 4 is a "watch list" and these species are not considered threatened or endangered at this time. It is noteworthy, that regarding Coulter's matillija poppy, USFWS notes that mitigation is not required; rather they request that local nurseries be provided an opportunity to salvage individuals for use a nursery stock. (See above Response to Comment D-12.) Regarding the low to moderated potential for occurrence of Munz's onion, long-spined spineflower, many -stemmed dudleya, and low potential for San Diego ambrosia, Plummer's mariposa lily and slender -horned spineflower it is important to consider the following points: 1. The site was thoroughly surveyed over the course of a number of years and four special - status plants were mapped across substantial portions of the site. Parry's spineflower, for example, is a diminutive plant and was detected at multiple locations within different habitats showing the thoroughness of the surveys. 2. While the Department asserts that disturbance is not an adequate rationale for dismissing the potential presence of species, it cannot be ignored that large portions of the site have been disturbed by mining operations and that each of the rare plants detected was associated at least part of the time with previously disturbed areas as each of these species, has a high tolerance for disturbance when compared with species such as Mu z's onion, Many-stermued dudleya and Plummer's mariposa lily. Disturbance will continue over the mining site over the next 30 years. The lack of detection of these species is evidence that they may not occupy the site at this time. Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSP, the future presence of rare plants at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and in an abundance of caution, an additional Mitigation Measure, BIO -15, has been added that will provide pre -construction surveys for each plant prior to each grading phase of the development. BIO -15: During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure BIO -14, a qualified biologist shall survey the implementing development project site for Special Status Plants, including but not limited to, Parrsspineflower, paniculate tarplant, and graceful tarplant. If Special -Status Plants are identified as being impacted by implementing development projects, those impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO -14. 122 Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-11 Regarding special -status avifauna see BIO -1, BIO -2, BIO -3 (as modified by the Response to Comment D-8) and the above Response to Comment D-8. CDFW requests additional analysis for special -status raptors including the Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier and white-tailed kite. Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVS'P, the presence or absence of these Special -Status Wildlife Species at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. Even current presence of these species does not lead to the conclusion that such species will be present at any specific point in the future. Of the species mentioned, only the Cooper's hawk was observed on the site. The Cooper's hawk has been removed from the list of California Species of Special Concern and has no State or federal status other than the CDFW "watch list". The Cooper's hawk is high adapted to both natural areas as well as the urban environment, and construction of the project would not result in significant impacts on this widespread, highly adaptable species. None of the other four species noted were observed on the site and in the case of the golden eagle, northern harrier and white-tailed kite it was noted that the potential for foraging is low due to the disturbed character of the majority of the site. The loggerhead shrike was not observed and potential for foraging was considered moderate. In no case would development of the site result in impacts to individuals due to the Migratory Treaty Bird Act provisions associated with Mitigation Measure BIO -6 and impacts would not be considered significant. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-12 The DEIR provides a legally adequate analysis of the impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats at general plan/specific plan level of detail. Due to the projected 30 - year development period associated with the AVSP, the presence or absence of specific vegetative communities, sensitive plant species and sensitive wildlife species at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. Even current presence of these vegetative communities, habitats and species does not lead to the conclusion that they will be present at any specific point in the future. For this reason, the Mitigation Measures have been identified in order to assure that appropriate timely analysis and mitigation will occur at the implementing development project stage. Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and to previous comments, and in order to clarify and strengthen the mitigation measures regarding Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters. several mitigation measures have been revised or added. To see these changes to the mitigation measures, see the above Responses to Comments B-32, B-34, 13-35, D-8, D-9, D-11, D-12, D-14, D-15 and G-10. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-13 123 Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, and Response to Connnent D-5 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-14 See the above Response to Comment G-2 regarding the applicability of the MSHCP to the AVSP site. Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, and Response to Comment D-5 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages. ReSDOnSe to California Denarhnent of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-15 Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines notes that "An FIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, u�hieh urould.feasibly attain most of the basic objeelives of the project but ,mould avoid or substantially lessen any of the signiftcanl et cls of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible." [Emphasis Added] The commenter questions the EIR's incorporation of a golf course in Alternative No. 2 ("Reduced Density" Alternative). CEQA does not require all alternatives to mirror the exact range of land uses set forth in the proposed project. Rather it provides that "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason'." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f)). The AVSP is a master planned community of approximately 1,375 acres. Master planned communities of this size have often included a golf course as an amenity. Therefore, in accordance with the "rule of reason" the consideration of an alternative which includes a golf course meets the requirements of CEQA. The DEIR determined that after mitigation the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to transportation and air quality. There is no requirement that the selected alternatives avoid or lessen less -than -significant impacts. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines since alternatives discussed in the DEIR would lessen the potential impacts related to transportation & circulation and air quality; the CEQA requirements regarding the discussion of alternatives have been met. Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-16 This comment summarizes the concerns expressed by the Commenter in its comment letter. Please refer to the above Responses to Comments G-1 through G-15. 124 Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment G-17 With respect to written notification of future actions, the City will provide notification to the Department pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092.2. With respect to recirculation of the DEIR, please refer to the above Response to Conuzient B-72. 125 Comment Letter H Pechanga Band of Luiscno Indians VIA E-MAIL and USPS PF.CHANQA CULTURAL RESOURCES Temecula Band ofLuisealo Mission Indians Post Oak, nor. 2183-Tereaule,CA 92593 Telephone 1951) 3089295• Fax (951) 506-9491 December 29, 2015 Mr. Richard J. Maellott Environmental Planning Consultant City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Dept - Planning 1.30 South Main Street. Corona, CA 92530 Chaerpauae Germaine Arena,. Vice Cheimenmc Mary ©car Magcc Committee Membcn: Eviv(brber Darlana Miranda andgem feereso Maxwell Ama)la MarmOb Rwbard It, Scemxe, In Dirocmo Gary truck Coordinator Paol Mr.. Cultural Analyst Anue Homer Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice of Availability for a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SI,2010-02) and Related General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 and 'Gone Change No. 2012-02 Dear Mr. MachotC This comment letter is written on behalf of tho Pechanga Band of Luiscno Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign govermnent, in response to the Notice of Availability for the above named Project. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project'). If you have not clone so already, please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, and all documents perkaining to this Project. `the Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public bearings and scheduled approval's concerning this Project. Please also incorporate these eonanemsinto the record of approval for this Project. The Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore and the Developer for providing mitigation to preserve and protect the sensitive Luisenio cultural resources and traditional landscapes found in this area and to require, both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitoring during earthmoving activities. The State and Federal govemnents have mandated that cultural resources must be appropriately mitigated for within the confines of develophent projects. The Tribe appreciates tine active role the City takes to preserve the significant and rich mdtural History of both the Tribe and the State of California found within its borders. The Tribe has reviewed. the DPEIR and has consulted with the City under SB 18. Our comments, requests and edits are included below for reference and insertion in the Final EIR. Sacred by The Duly 7huled Unto Dur ('me And With Honor We Rise To The Need H-1 126 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 2 PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT ARTA Phe Pechanga Tribc asserts that the Project area is part of Payomkawichum, and therefore the Tribe's, aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of known place names, mora yixOval (rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs), traditional landscapes and tribal cultural resources, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and an extensive artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. This culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseilo Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area as well as the close proximity of the Project to Tribal reservation lands. Tire Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this Project as the'Fribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the Project property and is the closest affiliated tribe to the Property. The Tribe has been named the Most Likely Descendent (Cad. Pub. Res. C. §5097.98) on projects in the nearby vicinity of the Alberhill Villages Project and has specific knowledge of cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed Project which we have shared with the City on previous occasions for this and other projects. The Tribe welcomes the opportunity to meet with the. City to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction, if so desired. REOUEsTig) TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT AND MITIGATION The Pechanga Band is not opposed to this Project; however, we are opposed to any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts this Project may have to tribal cultural resources. The 't'ribe's primary concerns stun from the Project's proposed impacts on Native American cultural resources, The Tribe is contented about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as PayGmkawichum village sites, sacred sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred 'stems likely to be discovered in the course of the work. `the Tribe is in receipt of the Draft Program Pnvironmental Impact Report. The proposed Project is located in a highly sensitive region of Payomkawichum territory — a Traditional Cultural Property, and tite Tribe believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface resources during ground -disturbing activities in areas that have been cut less than two (2) feet by the historic mining activities and any other modern disturbances is high. The Tribe has over thirty- five (35) years of experience in working with various types of construction projects throughout its territory. The combination of this knowledge and experience, along with the knowledge of the culturally -sensitive areas and oral tradition, is what the Tribe relics on to snake fairly accurate predictions regarding the likelihood ol'subsurface resources in a particular location. Pechanga CelNnml Re,vmrn'e, • knwcOo Ho i of Luis,&, Afix.eioe Indians Past (Ellice Aau 2,ls3 • 7e..w, "Ia, CA 92597 .Stirred 7s 71w Am 7i soled I Wo OmCare.Na7 M[h llonnr IN, Rise 7b 7heNeed H-2 H-3 127 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 3 As an initial matter, the 'Tribe requests the City insert a Section under both Sections 4.12.7,2 Historical, .Archaeological, and paleontological Resources and 4.12.2.2 State Regulations regarding Assembly Bill 52. Although this Project is not subject to AB 52, all subsequent implementing projects under this DPrlR will be required to fulfill these CFQA. mandates. The Pechanga Tribe will be consulting with the City on these future projects due to the sensitivity of the area. Under 4.12.1.2, the "Tribe suggests including the definition of Tribal Cultural Resources found at Public Resources Code § 21074 to guide those processing future implementing projects as consideration of impacts to these resources will be required. Inclusion of this new category of resource is also appropriate under Section 4.12.2.2 due to its future applicability. In addition to the direct impacts of the Project proper, Lake Street will require improvements as a result of this Project. Because the sensitivity level for identification of lemur remains and other living areas increases near water sources and that there is a large waterway alongside Lake Street and the 115 freeway, the Tribe is concerned that Paydmkawichunr resources could be adversely impacted and/or destroyed with the proposed work. As we have shared with the City in multiple consultations, the Tribe, through its internal research, has discovered a correlation between water sources and burials, ht addition to the increased likelihood of habitation areas near water and food resources. 'therefore, it is imperative that there be it Pechanga monitor present during all earthmoving activities associated with the Lake Street improvements as buried resources could be impacted by these off-site impacts. The archaeological studies and cultural reports prepared for the DPFIR fail to address off-site impacts that must be constructed for the proposed development. Thus, the Tribe recommends that an archaeological study(s) be prepared to address these impacts, and that the Pechanga Tribe be involved in and consulted with through the entire process. The Tribe has s ep,cific information about this area regarding potential locations of human remains that must be taken into account to sensitively develop this area of Lake Elsinore and due to the confidential nature of the information, we cannot disclose it in a publically available document. As such, (lie only way to ensure this information is considerer] and appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures are prepared is to complete the necessary research, in consultation with the "Tribe, as we have specific knowledge that is not available through published or publically accessible sources. Therefore, tribal consultation will be needed to fully evaluate the impacts to cultural resources and provide the City Council with the requisite information to make an informed decision on this very large Project. At this time, the Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore for working closely with Its to develop appropriate and adequate mitigation measures. These arc identified in the DPFIR as CR -1 to 7 acid have been copied below. Because the Project will impact a documented Historic District, the Tribe recommends one additional mitigation measure to address those specific impacts, identified as CR 8 below. We request that these measures/conditions of approval, with the edits indicated, be incorporated into the final DPFIR and any other final environmental A, hm,gn Cultan l Resounce • T=rnecula Hand of Iddmaiin ifi"ion ln,fian, Pott Otte Bo.,'M3 • l en,earla, (.I 92.592 .Sacred 6' Ac I)wv 7) imed Unto Orr Cron ibul 115th 11nnm' M Rm, 7', 7h, 'W"d 128 H -a L1-5 11-6 H-7 Pcehanga Comment Ix1ler to the City of Lake Gisinore Re: Peahanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 4 documents approved by the City as well as in all future implementing projects (underlines are additions; strikeouts are deletions). CR -1 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) f'or the Project, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. CR -2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the appropriate tribe' to notify that Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the `tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American 'tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and developmentscheduling; terms of compensation; and, treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. C12-3 Prior to issuance to of any grading permit, the Project archaeologist shall Men pre - grading report with the City and-fumy—(if--reeluireet) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualif ied archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CR - 1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. CR -4 'rite landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CR -5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project arca, shall be avoided and preserved as the mitigation, if feasible. CR -6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the appropriate 'It is anticipated that tite pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to their prior and extensive participation in the Alberhil I Villages Specific Plan and their coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigalion measures. 1'cchon,ga ("duo'n7 Resma ces - 7lnneada llanr7 n%Luiwm,O d?i.ssion lndi ..0 P,m Offi,e &n 2153 • 7hrnte,da C.I 92i92 Sacred 1,, Ae Dmr 7i..stud Limo Ow Ctrl=.4nd guh llww, We Rise Yb The Need 129 11-7 Cont. Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 5 "Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the 'Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Continuity Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be final. 412.5.2 IIistorical CR -7 Prior to the approval of any implementing development project or the issuance of any grading permit, that includes the Alberhill School site, the applicant shall provide to the City of lake Elsinore an evaluation of the School Mouse structure completed by a qualified architectural historian to determine its historical significance and integrity. The report shall require the review and approval by the Community Development Department I- Planning Division. CR -8 Prior to obtaining the first certificate -of ocet_ iyiancv, the Developer must present informational materials (i.e. pamphlets, fivers, booklets. etc.) lo. the Connnwtit community flyers, park signan�e. and/or street names.. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continuing to work together with the City of Lake Elsinore in protecting the invaluable Paybmkawichum cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me at 951-770-8104 or at ahoover@pechaaga-nsn.gov once you have had a chance to review these comments it you would like to discuss the mitigation measure language and continue our SB 18 consultation, Thank you. Sincerely, Anna Hoover Cultural Analyst. Cc Pechanga Office of the General Llounscl Pechanga Cultural Resoomes • Temecida Band ofLuiseho Mission Indians Post Offire Box 1183 • Trrneada. CA 97593 Sacred Is The Dun, 7iusred Unto Our Core And Alith IJonorWe Rise, To The Need H-7 Cont. H-8 110 Response to Comment Letter H Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 29, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Pechanea Band of Luiseno Indians Comment H-1 In this comment, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians ("Tribe") requests that it be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process regarding the proposed project. The Tribe also asks to be included in the City's distribution list for public notices and circulation of all documents pertaining to the proposed project. The City has included the Tribe in the entire CEQA process regarding the proposed project and has included the Tribe in its distribution list. The City will continue to provide the Tribe notice regarding the remainder of the CEQA process and regarding public hearings regarding the proposed project. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Comment H-2 This comment explains the importance of Lake Elsinore and the surrounding region to the Tribe and that the Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this project and that it is culturally affiliated with this area. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Comment H -i The commenter of the letter states that they are opposed to any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts the Project may have to tribal cultural resources. The Tribe also states that it "believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface resources during ground -disturbing activities in areas that have been cut less than two (2) feet by historic mining activities and any other modern disturbances is high." It also expresses concern regarding "the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course oPwork." 131 Mitigation Measures CR -1 thru CR -8 on Pages 4.12-34 thru 4.12-37 of the AVSP DEIR acknowledges and plans for the protection and preservation of cultural resources that may be discovered on the project site. Response to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Cornment H-4 The commenter requests that the City insert a definition of "Tribal Cultural Resources" under Section 4.12.1.2 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources and a description of Assembly Bill 52 under Section 4.12.2.2 State Regulations. The City acknowledges this request and has inserted the requested language to in both sections via the Errata section of the Final EIR. Response to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Comment H-5 The commenter requests that there be "a Pechanga monitor present during all earthmoving activities associated with the Lake Street improvements as buried resources could be impacted by these offsite impacts." Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2 on Page 4.12-34 of the AVSP DEIR addresses the commenters concerns and requires that prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. These mitigation measures apply to any earthmoving activities associated with Lake Street improvements. Any accidental discovery of human remains shall be addressed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and in order to clarify the required compliance with these regulatory requirements a new mitigation measure CR -6a will be added as follows: CR -6a If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in Wince and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hoes Subsequently, the Native American Ilcrita�,)e Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the ,,most likely descendant" The most likely descendant may then make recommendations and engage in consultations concernvn¢ the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. 132 Response to Pechansa Band of Luisefio Indians Continent H-6 The commenter requests tribal consultation to filly evaluate the impacts to cultural resources potentially impacted by the proposed project and related off-site improvements. The Tribe acknowledges that it has consulted with the City of Lake Elsinore under SB 18. (See Comment H-1). Under Mitigation Measure CR -2 on 4.12-34 of the DEIR, prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant is required to contact the appropriate tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement to address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources that may be discovered on the site. See the above Response to Comment H-5 regarding the accidental discovery of human remains. Response to Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians Comment H-7 The Tribe has requested specific wording changes to Mitigation Measures CR -2 and CR -3 and to add a new Mitigation Measure CR -8. Additionally, other Luiseno Bands have also asked for modifications to the mitigation measures. Although no new impacts that were not previously identified in the DEIR have been identified; as a response to this comment and other comments received, the following changes to the mitigation measures will be made: Mitigation Measure CR -2 will be revised as follows: CR -2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the appropfiate indian tribe both the Pechanga Band of Luiser3o Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to notify �44 those Tribes of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate " iih the it , of r a -e Elsinore nd the both Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address: the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and, treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. Mitigation Measure CR -3 will be revised as follows: CR -3 Prior to issuance to of any grading permit, the Project archaeologist shall file a pre -grading report with the City and Caui.ty (if - to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CR -1, the archaeological ruonitoCs authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the retained Luiseno Native American monitor(s) in order to evaluate the significance 133 of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the Project archaeologist. A new Mitigation Measure CR -7a will be added as follows CR -7a Prior to obtaining the first certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall present informational materials (i.e. pamphlets, flyers, booklets, etc.) to educate prospective home buyers of the Historic Alberhill District to the Community Development Director or designee for review and approval. The materials shall include details of the past history and uses of the area including those other than mining interesting photographs and other information pertaining to the area The Developer shall hire a qualified historian to professionally prepare the materials and shall consult with the local historic societies. Consultation with the Pechanga Tribe shall also occur prior to finalization of the materials to include available prehistoric information. Historic information shall also be included in trail signage and at least one of the following other sources: CC&R's HOA notices community flyers, park signage, and/or street names. Response to Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians Continent H-8 This comment describes the Tribe's willingness to continue its consultation with the City on the proposed project and its environmental review process and on current and future projects within the City and its SOI. This comment is acknowledged. The City has and will continue to consult with the Tribe in accordance with existing City procedures and the requirements of SB 18. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 134 Comment Letter I Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians From: Cultural fnralto:i:ullur. Inaunta-nsn.uuw] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:49 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Cc: Dixon, Patti; Jeremy 2agarella Subject: Alberhlll Villages Specific Plan, Lake Elsinore Mr. Stephenson, The Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians has received your December 11 notice for the 10 day review extension for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. After reviewing the information provided our concern is the protection and preservation of Luiseno Cultural resources on the project property. To support the Cultural Report our recommendation is to have all t'f ground disturbance monitored by an archaeologist and Native monitor. A Monitoring Plan should be developed and agreed upon by a majority of the Luiseno Bands. Please contact us if there ara any additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Chris Devers Vice Chairman Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians 135 Response to Comment Letter I Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in an e-mail dated December 29, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Comment 1-1 The eonmrenter's recommendation is to have all ground disturbance monitored by an archaeologist and Native monitor. Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2 on Page 4.12-34 of the AVSP DEIR addresses the commenters concerns and requires that prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Under Mitigation Measure CR -2 on 4.12-34 of the D1IR, as revised in response to above Response to Comment H-7, requires that prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant is required to contact the both the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement to address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources that may be discovered on the site. 136 Comment Letter J Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL. December 28, 2015. Mr. Roy I%Stephenson, IT, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore clo HR Green 1100 Town &Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, C:A 92908 Email Ite,nhcnton�lrrr,r(;cn.eonl RE: 1' FIR foi Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson: We are homeowners in Alberhill Rarnch and appreciate the opportunity to comninent and give our opinions on this project and its envircnnnental doaunentation. Mining Concerns: We are concerned with the miring; Pacifica Aggregates/Pacific Clay/Castle & Cooke will be nrinin , until all natural resources are depleted. The DE11i completely ignores exact end dates of naini.ng, we believe there should be dates when the mining will end. When the mining operation was grandfathered into Lake Elsinore the mining agreemuu with the County of Riverside and Pacific Clay Products ecus nnining ends in 2059. DEIR extends the time to when all the natural resources are depleted this issue needs to be addressed. h1 example Pacific Clay's Nichols Mine 2(X)9 Rechunation Plan stated the mining would be completed in 4 to 5 years and then they would build a conunercial center with restaurants, etc. Instead they sold the land do another mining operation, who will be mining for another 25 years phos. We want to remind the City when Pacific Clay Products was grandfathered into Lake Elsinore they were grandfathered on a Surface Mining Permit issued by Riverside County. Pacific Clay had given tip their yawed mining rights to Put a seven-mil1ion- dollar kiln on the mining property. We have the documentation, which we received from the County of Riverside and have given copies to the City of Lake FIsinore, an c! State of California which bac3<s up this fact and truth Pad fic Cl Products should not have been givenvested rights by the City of Lake Elsinore. Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 1 of 4 137 .1-2 Brownffeld.s are another issue which seemed to be ign.ored in the DEIR, we need to see more detailed information on the cleanup of tine mining brownfi.eld. The City of Lake Elsinore, OMR and the EPA need to be responsible for overseeing the proper cleanup and handling of brownfields as well as the proper handling of reclamation. We believe there should be someone from the EPA overseeing the whole process. Especially having lived here for 10 years and have seen many violations committed by the developer's operations. Leaching is another environmental concern when it contributes to groundwater contamination. As water from rain, flooding, or other sources seeps into file ground, it can dissolve chemicals and carry them into the underground water supply. Of particular concern are hazardous waste dumps acrd landfills, and., in agriculture, excess fertilizer, improperly stored animal manure, and biocides (e.g. pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides). Historical Sites: We believe the Alberhill School house located on this land should be preserved, it's over 100 years old and of great importance in our areas history. We, have contacted the National Registry of Historic Places (federal and state) regarding the Alberhill School, Butterfield Stage Coach Route (off Lake Street). Ditto as with the Alberhill School, this site must be preserved. The Temeseal Bridge should also be considered a landmark historical site. Also Alberhillwas the original place for the extraction of coal in the Western United States and there should be some t}ape of monumental in celebration and historical representation of Alberhill and Terra Cotta. Native American Sites: J-3 J-4 We believe the DEIR does not to lce into much consideration of our native American ancestors and that the est man was buried in Alberhill/Terra Cotta. These needs to J-5 be addressed in great detail. The B1A has been contacted and we are waiting for a response. Biological Impacts: As active members of the Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and Waterkeepers we are concerned and echo Dan Silver's concerns he addressed. in his December 24, 2015 letter to you as well as the concerns voiced by the Waterkeepers and Gene and Linda I2iddenour. We have lived in Albcrbill Ranch for many years and have seen the developer issued fines and notices with many agencies State and Federal because of this we believe someone from Fish and Wildlife, Audubon Society, EHL, Siena Club, Waterkeepers, etc, etc. should all be involved with overseeing all work on this project. Alberhill Ranch DEIRComments December 28, 2015 Page Page 2 of 4 138 J-6 We have also seen marry of the endangered species mentioned in Dan's letter diminish each year and some we haven't seers in a couple of years. (We do have documentation.) ROADS/TRAFFIC ISSUES/EDISON POLES: Traffic has been a big problem in Alberhill Ranch the DEIR doesn't address is issue properly. The roads need to be completed before any building begins, especially Temescal Canyon Road, Lake Street and Nichols Road, these need to all be completed at the same time with no extensions given. The developer has a habit of getting extensions and not completing projects ie Lake Street and the Edison poles, ete. We were told the Edison poles would be underground and we expect this to be corrected in the DEIR and changed to undergroinid utilities. Mining Traffic and construction traffic should be conducted on one road designated the "haul road". We believe the designated .haul road should be Uake Street. We don't believe Nichols Road should be the assigned haul road. Nichols Road is the maim road for residential traffic and a dangerous road because of how fast the mining trucks travel. The mining trucks seers to frequently ignore the speed limit, hours of use as well as the strop sign at Alberhill Ranch and Nichols Road. COMMERCIAL AREAS: We want to see firm dates when the commercial will be started and completed. I''ts been over 10 years and Alberhill Ranch isn't even half way completed. If t.l ey work at that pace it will be 1,000 years betbre Alberhill Villages will be completed. Firm hours of construction traffic with a city contact: for its to call at any given time when they are out of compliance. ']'his also includes the mining and building part of the project. No mining or construction activity when the winds are over 25 miles per hours including wind gust. ACCOUSTICAL/LIGHTING PROBLEMS: J-7 J-8 We want to be included in monitoring the acoustical issues during construction and ruining operations. There have been many times when they are over the 1-9 noise levels and we are unable to reach the City in time to catch them breakuzg Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 3 of 4 139 the noise codes. We live here and want things done right and want, to be part of this process and keeping records. An ex -city employee monitored the noise Cont.o with his e u s 'nrd didn't: do anything to strop the Boise from what we heard. Watch You `Cube for Alberhill Mining. WE don't want large lights facing Alberhill Ranch Area. A that was a problem I J-10 which we don't want to revisit. Dust has always been a problem and with the mining and construction we will have serious issues to our health as well as our neighbors, seniors and J-1 children. This needs to be mitigated and reviewed at the present time the DEIR is lacking in the health and safety of current residents in Alberhill Ranch and surrounding areas. Thank you for your time and attention to our opinion and concerns. We believe the devcloper does not want to build. We also believe the City needs to address the illegal vested rights which were given to Pacific Clay/Aggregates a. few years ago. City Manager Yates said he would look at this after the budget and he didn't, it's time this is addressed. We are growing impatient on this outstanding issue liopc the City will do the right thing and reverse the illegally given vested rights. They do not have vested rights and if the City removes these illegal vested rights then the mining will have to stop in the year 2057 as per the agreement the mining operator made with the County of Riverside. The DEIR does address their noir building the Villages but continuing to mine which once again leads us to believe they are primarily a raining operation and not a developer. In our opinion we were sold a bunch of lies when we purchased our homes and the state of California wasn't even aware our homes were built here because the mining reclamation was not clone here legally or properly. Warm regards, Paulie Tehrani and Sharon Gallina Ash Street Lake Elsinore, CA 9253 Cc: Grant Taylor be Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 4 of 4 140 J-12 Response to Comment Letter J Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Paulie Tehrani & Sharron Gallina provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental hapact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 28,2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-1 The DEIR does not discuss or identify a specific end date for mining operations on the site because such a date is currently unknown. As discussed in detail in Reclamation Plan RP 112, due to the nature of the deposit and the varied extraction requirements, as well as ever-changing market conditions, mining will continue on site until the deposit is exhausted which, as of July 2011, was estimated to be at least 44 additional years or until December 31, 2055, which is identified as the mining termination date in Reclamation Plan RP 112. This date is nothing more than an estimation of when mining will cease as required by the California Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1975 ("SMARA"). Should mining continue beyond that date, Reclamation Plan RP 112 would have to be amended to reflect that change. Market forces and other considerations may lead to termination of mining at an earlier time. The DEIR suggests the project will be phased in over a 20 -30 -year period. (DEIR, p. 2.0-47) The exact date of termination of mining is not pertinent for purpose of environmental review included in the DEIR. Reclamation Plan RP 112, approved in January 1979, originally anticipated completion of mining occurring in 2054. There was no formal "agreement" upon annexation of the property in the City of Lake Elsinore that raining had to cease by 2057 or any other specific date. The date referenced is merely a date of anticipated cessation of mining activities estimated at the time. Response to Paulie Telu•ani & Sharon Gallina Continent J-2 The existing vested rights associated with the mining property originate from ongoing mining operations on the property which predated the enactment of SMARA. Possessing a vested right to continue mining activity merely means that no permit is required to continue operations. However, mining activities conducted subsequent to the enactment of SMARA, even vested operations, are subject to the reclamation requirements of the statute, including obtaining and maintaining a valid approved Reclamation Plan. The County of Riverside, in approving Reclamation Plan RP 112 in 1979 concluded mining operations were vested thereby requiring no mining permit. The properties continue to be mined since that time and therefore vested rights to continue mining activity remain in existence. 141 Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-3 Coru nenter's reference to Brownfield suggests that the property is contaminated in some manner and requires remediation. The AVSP is not a brownfield development. Please see the above Response to Comment B-39, which fully addresses the issue of brownfields. As discussed in Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the DEIR acknowledges two underground storage tanks leaked onsite. However, both incidents were remediated and both of the cases with the Department of Toxic Substance Control have been deemed "closed". Any threats from those leaking tanks have been remedied appropriately. There is no other indication that there is existing contamination on the project site. Current operations included open -pit clay mining for clay brick manufacturing, along with sand and gravel mining operation, aggregate processing plant and ready -mix concrete batch plant. The ongoing operations onsite do not utilize substantial amounts of hazardous materials that could result in contamination. The operations onsite are subject to industrial stormwater permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act. An industrial stormwater permit requires the operators to utilize Best Management Practices to prevent degradation of water quality from onsite activities. The project site is subject to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce pollution due to stormwater discharge. The site will remain subject to the industrial stormwater permits until cessation of activity onsite and completion of reclamation. Until the site is fully reclaimed, there will be significant governmental oversight on both the state and local level to ensure activity has minimized risk of contamination and degradation of water quality. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-4 The DEIR proposes that the Alberhill School be evaluated and "as -built" described by an historic architect. The Alberhill School will then be closely replicated elsewhere on the project site to be used as a Home Owners Association/Community meeting facility. The Butterfield Stage Coach Route did not qualify as a historical site. The Temescal Bridge is unsafe and proposed for relocation. The Temcscal Bridge does not qualify as a historical site according to the AVSP historical reviews. An interpretive exhibit representation of the Alberhill, Terra Cotta and Native American history will be located within the Home Owners Association/Community meeting facility . In addition, please refer to the above Response to Comment B-36 with respect to the Alberhill School. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment 3-5 The AVSP DEIR Mitigation Measures CR -1 thru CR -8 on Pages 4.12-34 through 4.12-37 in the DEIR protects and preserves the Native American cultural resources if found on the project property. Please see the responses to the letters received from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno 142 Indians (Letter II), the Parana Band of Luiseno Indians (Letter I), the Pala Band of Mission Indians (Letter N), the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Letter O) and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Letter R) for additional responses regarding cultural resources. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-6 Please see the responses to the letters received from Johnson & Sedlack (Letter B), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Letter D), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Letter G), Inland Empire Waterkeeper (Letter K) and the Endangered Habitats League (Letter L) for responses to specific comments regarding biological resources. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-7 In order to assure the completion of appropriate and timely road improvements to serve the AVSP project area, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: • All road improvements within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) shall be constructed to ultimate City standards and consistent with the General Plan, unless otherwise identified and approved, as a requirement of the implementing development projects (including but not limited to subdivisions, design review applications and conditional use permits) subject to approval by the City Engineer. The AVSP "Enhanced" and "Modified" cross-sections are subject to the submittal and review of design drawings, at the time implementing development projects are submitted. • Site-specific Traffic Impact Analyses (traffic studies) shall be required for each Phased Development Plan (PDP) and for all subsequent implementing development projects in accordance with the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide requirements in effect at the time of Traffic Impact Analysis preparation. Additionally, the description of required Phased Development Plans (PDPs) has been revised to specifically require that PDPs "circulation and infrastructure phasing milestones." See the above Response to Comment C-1 and Response to Comment C-2 regarding the 115 kv Subtransmission poles along Lake Street. This comment includes a request for the designation of Lake Street as a "haul road" and a description of the use of area roads by existing truck traffic. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 143 Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Galling Comment J-8 Construction of commercial areas within AVSP is dependent on local, state, and regional economic factors and any establishment of "firm dates" when the commercial will be started and completed is speculative. See the above Response to Comment B-12. This comment makes the statement: "No mining or construction activity when the winds are over 25 miles per hours [sic] including wind gust." On page 4.8-20 of the DEIR, there is a discussion regarding SCAQMD Rule 403. The DEIR states that "The Project must adhere to these fugitive dust control measures that include, but are not limited to:...Operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 25 miles per hour." Response to Paulie Teln•ani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-9 Mitigation Measures on pages ES -51 thru E-54 of the AVSP DEIR, address noise and lighting from the ongoing mining operation and construction. Please also refer to the Responses to Letter B (Johnson & Sedlack) and Letter P (South Coast Air Quality Management District) which address Noise and Air Quality. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Galling Comment J-10 Potential noise impacts resulting from the proposed project were analyzed in 4.9 (Noise) of the DEIR. Mitigation measures NSE -0.5, and NSE -1 through NSE -10 address noise from the ongoing mining operation, and the construction and operation of implementing development projects. Monitoring of mitigation measures is required by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that will be adopted concurrently with certification of this EIR will identify the parties responsible for monitoring and reporting the results of that monitoring. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Comment J-11 Potential light and glare impacts are discussed in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics/Light and Glare) of the DEIR Mitigation Measure AES -9 as modified by the above Response to Comment B-19 requires: Prior to the approval of each implernentin" commercial multi -family and recreational development project, the applicant/developer shall submit photometric lighting plans that demonstrate that Aany lights used to illuminate the parking areas, driveways, and other exterior or interior areas, shall be designed and located so that direct lighting is directed and confined to the subject property. The phea...tae,..'` tee- 'hall subfflit pheto.neb e lighting ply for eeninlefeial, multi f r:r a All outdoor light fixtures including but not limited to street lights and operational, signage, and landscape lighting sources shall be shielded and situated so as to not cause glare or light spillage 144 into adjacent areas. Directional lighting should shall be of -a rain —maximum intensity (wattage} of one foot-candle (1 lumen per square foot), or as otherwise necessary for public safety. Response to Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Galling Comment J-12 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. This comment describes the commenter's opinion regarding the current mining operations on the project site. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 145 Comment Letter K - Inland Empire Waterkecper, Jacqueline Neumann lnlaild Empire WaterLeeper t.., December 20, 2015 Deliraued Pia email and UW . Till. Roy 12, stcpilmoon, PIi, Land Use b:nginccr City if lati:c I'.Isinnrc cfo 1 I Greet 1100 Tow, & Coumry Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 hanail: rstcphcuson r¢htygccu.cnm RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Albeihill Villages Specific Plan Drat' Nit. Stephenson, I'llmd Empire Waicrkceper, a prograui of Orange Comity Coasilicepcq is a local envirtuencntal ort nttization with tic mission to prnfect azul cthauec oft, water qualify of the Itplwi Santa Ana River AVateished through pin*tams of advocacy, aiui ation, research, restoralinn, and enforcetnent. As nnneencd Riverside County residents and strong supponcrs of cnviroumertal quality and public health, we icspcc(I,llllv submit the, tbllowing' comineme oil behalf of out collective membership to express our reservations tegniding the Draft Program Dnvitonmental Impact Report and Appendices ("D141It") issued for the Albcahill VILI cs Specific Plan ("N'ujeCC). As w111 be discussed in detail below, tine project as described ill dic DFIR fails to provide adequate protections for water quality and biological reso ircco.'I Ile DI?l12 is inadequate under the Calil Wuin I dnvironmental Quality Act ("C;t+.(?A"j xs it fails to provide adequate. aieksis of vats quality impaeta, cumnlative impacts, feasible alternatives, and splu"Pi arehabitat tesinr:uion. W/c urge the Citv of l ;dee Klsinore to require the Dh:l R be neldiified in accordance with our comments submitted below. INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW An PJR must disclose all potentially signihcant ndver C,1 cnvironntomol impacts of a projom (Pub, 12es Code, 211.110(6)(1); CltQA Guidelines, � 15126(x) flsk /i, Kerp f,.lr prer'CGe B,y Commit/ea i� foard of Port Crn mi ion's (4 /,), C,ill (,/ Oak/91 ( ;:d. App. 4th 1344 1351.) CP.Q,A requires that an P'.1R must not ,inh, idcntih the, impacts, but must also prnviLie '1n1?nmxtion about hoax ,tdvr'se rhe impacts will be.' (Sanfiogo C rtn Ip 17%,etar I )ill. n. Coro/ry rfOm/ioe (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831). The hail agencv mac deem a oil Hadar Impact to be insi nificant only if it prudow -s lil,01011S msxlysis and Cana etc,utstaotial evidence j sufving die finding (Rin', Co/a,l) Farm BI. ... u c Cify of7irufi,d, (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731). CLQA requites public igmc.es to avoid or reduce environmcnrd K-1 K-2 146 68.6 Tndinvn rlaame, Snits D. 16rtt6lliC, CA 92506 Phone (95 h 530-8823 I o, tY 1) 5'e; -A824 qq \F'eb , . - wam keupeu ore, December 20, 2015 Deliraued Pia email and UW . Till. Roy 12, stcpilmoon, PIi, Land Use b:nginccr City if lati:c I'.Isinnrc cfo 1 I Greet 1100 Tow, & Coumry Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 hanail: rstcphcuson r¢htygccu.cnm RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Albeihill Villages Specific Plan Drat' Nit. Stephenson, I'llmd Empire Waicrkceper, a prograui of Orange Comity Coasilicepcq is a local envirtuencntal ort nttization with tic mission to prnfect azul cthauec oft, water qualify of the Itplwi Santa Ana River AVateished through pin*tams of advocacy, aiui ation, research, restoralinn, and enforcetnent. As nnneencd Riverside County residents and strong supponcrs of cnviroumertal quality and public health, we icspcc(I,llllv submit the, tbllowing' comineme oil behalf of out collective membership to express our reservations tegniding the Draft Program Dnvitonmental Impact Report and Appendices ("D141It") issued for the Albcahill VILI cs Specific Plan ("N'ujeCC). As w111 be discussed in detail below, tine project as described ill dic DFIR fails to provide adequate protections for water quality and biological reso ircco.'I Ile DI?l12 is inadequate under the Calil Wuin I dnvironmental Quality Act ("C;t+.(?A"j xs it fails to provide adequate. aieksis of vats quality impaeta, cumnlative impacts, feasible alternatives, and splu"Pi arehabitat tesinr:uion. W/c urge the Citv of l ;dee Klsinore to require the Dh:l R be neldiified in accordance with our comments submitted below. INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW An PJR must disclose all potentially signihcant ndver C,1 cnvironntomol impacts of a projom (Pub, 12es Code, 211.110(6)(1); CltQA Guidelines, � 15126(x) flsk /i, Kerp f,.lr prer'CGe B,y Commit/ea i� foard of Port Crn mi ion's (4 /,), C,ill (,/ Oak/91 ( ;:d. App. 4th 1344 1351.) CP.Q,A requires that an P'.1R must not ,inh, idcntih the, impacts, but must also prnviLie '1n1?nmxtion about hoax ,tdvr'se rhe impacts will be.' (Sanfiogo C rtn Ip 17%,etar I )ill. n. Coro/ry rfOm/ioe (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831). The hail agencv mac deem a oil Hadar Impact to be insi nificant only if it prudow -s lil,01011S msxlysis and Cana etc,utstaotial evidence j sufving die finding (Rin', Co/a,l) Farm BI. ... u c Cify of7irufi,d, (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731). CLQA requites public igmc.es to avoid or reduce environmcnrd K-1 K-2 146 unana rurpure tvaterxeeper moue wxnmem r,cuer December 26, 2015 Page 2 of 7 damage when "feasible" by requiringmitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(1)(2)-(3); Berkeley Ke,0 leis Over the73q), C'oratielttee, supra, 91 Cal, App. 4th at p. 1354). "1'he: Ell serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the cnvieoumcn l impacts of a proposed project and to "identity the ways that emitonmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." ((IFQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a sitntificsuleffect on the anvironYnent, he agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "climinatcd or substantially lessened all significant effrcts on the environment where feasible'" and that unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub. Res, Code, 21081; CEQA Guidelines, �\ 15092(b)(2)(A)-(B).) Itt general, mitigation measures must he designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15370) where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an Impact, each shollid bin discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id., at � 15126.4(1)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows Chat all uncertaineies regarding the mitigatiou of sisnriGcant environmental impacts have been resolved. CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation mahsures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Projects potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code, CN 21092, 21081(a)), and describe those ntitig16011 measures le the CEQA document. (Pub. Res. Code, g 21100(b)(3); CEQA ('uidelines, S� 15126.4.) A public agency truly not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or fusmbilny. (Ivn�s (,vun&l supra. 221 Cal. App. 3dat, p. 727.) "possible" means capable of bang accomphs bed in a successful manner wgllun a r;eaSOnablt' period of lime, laking nog account: economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. ((:EEA Guidelines, � 15364.) Required to demonstrate economic. inleasihility is "evidence tha.l: the additional costs or lost peoFilnbility are sufficiently severe as to rendez it impractical to proceed with Che project.' ((''itztens n_fGole/n b idlJ� r,, 13oarzl afS'rrfinvrrors ofSanta Barbcuta Comjifiy (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167, 1181.) This requires not just cost data, but also data showing insufficient income and profitability. (..Ser Barger et cowo, of Mandecino (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 322, 327); Sala F'arrmiarmts l.T)holding Me Donvonwt Platt v. Cz(y and C.btnay a/'.Sart Pillnir''sm (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 694.) "Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instiu rents." (CEQA Guidelines, U 15126.4(1)(2).) 11. THE DEAR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZETHE PROJECT'S 1MPA.C'1' TO HYDROLOGY AND WAI'F:R QUALM'. a, The Temescal Canyon Greek Must Be Restored To Its Natural State And Be Preserved As A Natural Resource For Future Generations. IG2 Cont. K-3 K-4 The DEIR explains that its development projectwill improve the drainage system and the waterways than from its current mining conditions. How«cr, the I> IR fails to consider the Surface filming Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. As indicated in the DEIR's Geotechnical Investigation, there were three natural watercourses, including the Rice Canyon Mash, located on the Project site before K-5 the minim; operations. Tt. is Inland Empire Waterkeeper's position that because the mining silo is beim; developed after: itccases operation, the Project site must restore the three natural waterways along with Ternescal Canyon Creek in the project area. 2 147 tmalro Vulptrc avauornccpur utr,u< i.ommont l.cucr December 26. 2415 Page 3 of 7 The Project is currently being `mined for clay to produce brick, and also for sand and gravel for use in concrele and buildingmalenifis. As a. result, much of the landloun is disturbed as compared to its lialusal stale, avid several depressions (lirrnaer mmingpiis) remain that. supporlseason end perennial pools. Much of the site vegetation has been ren'ioved during the mining process." (DEIR, 4.10-10). According Ira the Surfoco Miningt;onirc.+l and Reclamation Act o!71977, `Genual pet tonuaimc shall be applicable to all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and shall require the operation as a mininnina to ... (2) restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any initnng, or higher or heIlet uses CA, which there is reasY>nable likelihood, so lona as such use or uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public licnIfli or safety or pose any actual or probably threat of water diminution of pollution, and the permit applicants' declared proposed land use following reclamation is not deemed to be unpractical or unreasonable, inconsistentwith applicable land use policies and plans, Involves unreasonable delay in implementation, or is violated of Federal,, State, or local law." 300 U.S.C. 9 1265. As the DEIR makes clear, the Project site has been immensely disturbed front the mining activities and this condition is used as the baseline for the DE1R. This is an error as the baseline for the DEIR should be the natrual restored condition required after the cessation of miningat the site. Although the statute lists specific rsceplions to the re<luired reclamaUan eflbrts, [lie DhIR does not explain the presence of such esceplions to justify its Absence of such efforts prior to i:he Project. commencement_ Because the mining, site must be restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses which itwas capable of supporting before any mining occurred, or, alternatively, AigLar or bellee usav, the DKI R rnuo add plans to restotc the three nahnal waterways. "Flite Alberhill Villages project proposes to grade the existingTemescal Creek drainage course to createa uaore confined trtpezoidal earthen channel to convey the drainage runoff ar.ross the sitr:" (DE1R, Appx. (2a, 21). "Shrearns can he rendered es®c.ndally sterile by cha,unrhzation. In regard to fish, for exarnple, rhe effect depends on the type of construction used. Concrete -lined trapezoid-slelped channels are apparently totally ciestnictive of fish life. Concrete -lined V-shaped channels are only slightly better: they allow continuous flow ata sufficient depth for fish passage, but high temperatures in these channels resulting loom Luck or shade can prevent fish pa,ssilge'-- I xetaysttion of channel also destroys sources of food and places of shelter for fish." John P. Brown, Slrmnr Chtwne i2alion: The Lmsrooxirs of the Conlroeersy, Natural Resources Journal 577, 563 (1974). "When landowners channclize for their own benefit, aLnost all the effects external to the market arc negative. If that is the case, then landowners, if left to their own devices, would tend to provide too much channel modification because they have left the neya/ine efnrAv rm lbe e mironnmrl out of their calculations. The appropriate n>le of gervernrnent m such a case would be to represenl. the interests which have been hurt and reduce the ar iount of channelization from what would have been produced prrvately." Irl. at 564 (emphasis added). "Typic;illy, channelization enlails I cnx>val of almost all vegVlauon Gone the inrrnedurle channel area.. .. The vegetation that is destroyed is die cover and the habitat for the wildlife. When vegetation is destroyed, the wildhle either leaves or dies. it is possible that the new crops that. replace file desl.roycd vegetation may provide food and cover for wildlife, bni this wildlife often consists of diff( lent spacics." N. at 564. 148 K-6 K-7 K-8 rtu:nttt nmpn-e waterleeper Lunare �-Onmleltl tetter December 26, 2015 Page 4 of 7 For the, benefil. of the MlTre.nland future residents in the Counly, [lie fish and wildlife that call the Tenescal Canyon Creek their horse, and the environment, Lire Project should restore the Temesal Canyon Creek back into its natural state, and preserve it as such. Such a natural i nprovement will undoubtedly present City of Lake Elsinore as having higher standard ofhVing if natural waterways are reswred, as this contributes In the quality of -life. "Tt is necessary to provide a high-quality euvironrneut that at all tinles is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect ofman" ((--EQA 21000(h)). Furthermore, "[s]ince Lake Elsinore's incorporation as a city, its chief concerns have been die Like itself and ptotecxing the water rights of the canrnunity" which demoustraLes the City's longstanding col Tice lion with ifs nannsd landscape. G1'Y OF 1.AY,H Tlt.s]NORH, azvixlablewwww.la.ke- c Isinore.org/indrx. aspx /.page=J67. The DEIR states that the open spaces will include natural features including the Ternescal Canyon Creek. However, alter further investigation, it is explained that the WRSI1 will ultunately turn into a channel. The DEIR states: "Open spaces would include natural terrain features such as: 1) the Temescal Canyon Wash ... These areas would be left in their natural condition or re -naturalized to the extent feasible. hn those areas where remedial grading disturbs native vegetation, the area could be revegetated with either nnclitgenous Phar untterial or other appropriate native rnaterials," (DEIR, 2.0-21). Unless a plan is in place, there will not be a natural feature. left. "Stormwater and dry weather renoff can be managed to achieve environmental and societal benefits such as ... an increase in park and recreation lands, and urban green space." California Water Code �s 10561CV), Thus, a natural creek will untneusely improve the "Open Space Connections, Parks and Recreational Facilities" of£er:ed in the Project because it will include actual "natural" resources, rather than only amenity -oriented recreational facilities. There would be accessible open space that includes a natural waterway rather than simply concrete channels hidden throughout the community. Inland Empire Waterkeeper is strongly opposed to the Alberhill Village's plan to channeliae Temescal Canyon Creek, rather than restoring and pres¢n-ing the creek to its natural state. "[P]ublie agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmenul eficcls of such projects." (CEQA V 21001). Becanse the DEIR fails to address the option of re. storing the Creek to its natural state, and also fails to explain the infeasibility of this option, the DEIR is inadequate. As indicated in the DEIR, the Temescal Canyon Creek has flowing water in it, whether it is from water treatment facility upstream and rain events. (DEIR, 41-21). As explained by one researcher, if a person can imagine a spectrum where on the left: end is a completely tamed, paved and covered storm sewei and on the right end is a completely wild river then, "in principle, one call think of channelization as a movement of a river's place in the spectrum to the left. It is either nnpossible or very expensive to move the river to the right, that is, to make it mote mild, because the natural forces which tend to obliterate the impact of nnan work very slowly." B ivn, at 564. The current Project will likely permanently change the Creek florin what it now. The Project should restore the Temescal Canyon Creek, and the DEIR should not be approved until there are plans to do so. b. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Cumulative Ltnpacts To Ilydrology And Water Quality. K -x Cont. `Currently the City of Lake Elsinore is preparing initial plans and studies to reconstruct due existing K-9 two-lana'1't:mcscal Canyon Road llridge over Tonncscal Creek. City plans to construct a portion 149 imuta Lmpire watterkeeper oLm O omment metier December 26, 2015 Page 5 of 7 (plass; 1) of the ultunaiv Temtcal Creek Channel as they constructthe new (midge located 1,200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. This new bridge is located at its ultunate loaatiolt in conjunction with the firture development ofAlberhill Villages," (DEIR, Appx. C2a, 21.) The DLIR must explain the specific effects the Project will have on Temescal Canyon Creek rather Aum assuming; the Cloys bridge plans will alone int'luence 1'he fitnue of 1110 T-emc.scaI Csinyon Creek. This massive development with undoubtedly affect'I'eniescal Canyon Cieck and have irreversible anpacts to the water quality and the natural state of the wahnu*ay, and the DLIR must address such effects in defail before, the public can adequately respond. Also problematic is the DEIR's failure to provide an analysis on how the Project, in combination wilt all relevant past, pressnt, and potential fiatine projects (such as the Ciq,'s plan to consown a bridge), could cause cumulative anpacts to the Terreseal Canyon Creek. "Cumulative impacts' are defloCd as "Iwo or snore individual eflncts which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other cnvironmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15355(x).) As the DEIR explained, the "new bridge" will be in placed in a beneficial location for this Project. The DF,1R must explain the significant c;unwlntive, impacts. (CF.QA Guidelines, Q'15130(a); F;>e„dr (1fFrl Ril�eru. SonomaCmm.j� I]tatcr'A,�emcy, (2003) 108 Cal. App. Olt 859). As can he dc<:iphered fi nn lite lamgfagc used m the DFiR, the Temescal Canyon Creek will cease to exist after this Project and the construction of the bridge is complete. The `Tcmescsl Creek ChamicI" will take its place, resulting in a one-way transformation from a natural neck of Southern California to if flood control channel and drainage system removing used water away from ono cit', and into the next, until it finally lands in the Pacific Ocean. If) adopting CEQA, the Legislature declared that "it is the policy of the state to ... (c) prevent tate elimination of fish or wildli[C species due t:o mans activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self perpetratinp levels, find presccve for future generat ons rcprescn[ations of all plant and animal communities ...." and to "(e): create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive liamtony to fulfill the social and economic requirement's of present nod fimire generations." ((-EQA § 21001). The DLlfi must be revised to incorporate the known cumulative impacts of the City's proposod badge and the Project C. The DEIR Fails To Incorporate Low Impact Design, Inland Empire Watc.rkeeper recommends the implementation o1: l -cm, Impact Design to allow for the capture and infiltration or re -use of all dry weather runoff and stonowater runoff from a two- year 24 hour event storm. "I'he capture and use of sinrrm3'atrr and city wen weather 11111011 is ot only one of the most cost-( ffcctive sources of new Water supplies, itis a supply that can oftcu be plovided less energy I'lian o141er sources of nest- water supplies!" Cahlornia lxtater Code § 10561()).'I Ile DEER failed to Incorporate this feasible altrrnative method. As indicated by the DRTR: "t irbam runoff will be l.icnie'd fix pollatntnis and i-IC(>C volume via WQMP basins prior to entering the storm drain system." (\xOMP, Appx. (3, Part 3). 1 lowever, fi:ora lie map and description associartxl with the plan, there appear to he herr major 150 K-9 Cont. K-10 Moana r,mptre IN MCIJACGPer JV, IK 1-0111mCnt I,CL[cl" December 26, 2015 Page 6 of 7 debris/detention basins that are prenarily designed to slow down stormwater from upstream passing through the Project along with a number of dry detention basins throughout Che. project. Inland Empire Waterkeeper recommends the Project add infiltration./advanced treatment basins or devices at the bottom of the hill to capture and treat the drT weather runoff and stormwater from the Project before. it enters TernescaI Canyon Creek. JA nnrne it, lfi6VIII advanced IIeannent: is needed lta.n a dry eicnenrron basins which are ineffi-ctive in reducing nutrients, dissolved metals and oil )Ild gy ease from InuoA- Inland Empire AX/atvrkeeper remrnmen(IN IT) £lersrtion, capturing sYorrn wafer in cisterns or surfince basins lar re -use or advanced I:Ieahnenl. before dis-n:harg>ing runoff to TemescaI Creek. As addressed in the Califotuia Water Code 9 10561 (ct): "improved mana,ge.ment of stonnwatcr and dry weather runoff, including capture, trootment, and reuse by using the natural functions of soils and plants, can unprove water quality, reduce localized flooding, and increase water supplies for beneficial uses and the enviconrnent" Support for the implenenmtiorr of this process comes from the fact that "thlistorical patterns of precipitation are predicted to change and an increasing amount of California's water is predicted to fall not as snow in the mountains, but as rain in other areas of the. state. This will likely have apmfiwnd artd I Hnshmninge fleet. on California's hydrololnc c}'cle Ind nnn-h of thatwater will no longer be captured by Califonntisi s rnsciyoirs, many of which arc. locsned to capture snow met_" Id. at j 10561(d). Thus, "[W]hem properly designed and managed, the capIIII v. and ase of slx>ITT Nvwt I prod dry weather nuxlfl'can contribute si}m ifican f ly to local water supplies through onsite stoiage and use, or letting it Mfiltratx- into the ground to lerhargr groundwater, either onside or at regional facilities, thereby increasing available supplies of drinking water." Ind at y 10561(c). Additionally, the California Water Code requires: "New developments and redevelopments ... be desi?;ned to be consistent with low -impact development principles to improve the retention, use and infiltration of stormwater and dry weather runoff onsite or at regional leeilitics." California Water Code (t 10561(1). Because of the current need to save water, and the efficiency and State support of Low Impact Desi}m methods, Tuland Empire Watelr ceper requests the approval of the DE1R be poslpone.d until this method k adopmd into flit Projrct plans. e. The Studv Period Of The Recycled hater System Should Be Established And Completed Prior To The Approval Of The Dl -,JR. The Elsinore Valley -Municipal Witter District covers this areaand the DE1R states that the h:VNIWD "plans to expand its recycled water system to provide recycled water for irnfation users and to maintain water levels in Lake Elsinore during normal and dry years", but that the study period to evaluate such uses has not been established. This type of study would be largely influential to the capacity of water that can and will actually be available to service the Project site. Such a study would be beneficial to notify die public as to EVMWD's future capacity to mainmin water levels in Lake Elsinore in addition to serving a new 1400 -acre development. f. The Project's Phut To Create Two New hakes Needs To Be Further Evaluated Or Eliminated. K-10 Cont. K-1 1 "'fo largi i( creational lake faclm es iomhng approximately 39.6 acres will be rhe main attrncilon of K-12 the AVSR'I'lie 13.6 acic west lake and the. 26 acre east Ia.ke at the honji of tl-ie project will provide 151 rtuanu r mptre nv atarrteeper unrx. k omtncnt Letter December 26, 2015 Page 7 of'7 light water activities to both local residents and visitors. Trait and pa hways will surround the lake and provide opportunities f0t biking, Iok!gug, and scanic. walks" The two new recreational lakes either need to be filled and maintained with stornwater, onsite perched groundwater, or be eliminated. Unsustainable lakes filled with imported water are not consistent with a. modern Soulhern California. Development; such lakes could have a more beneficial use. The grology report shames that groundwater exists at shallow depths on the site near Tclilescal Creek and that perched groundwater exists in certain areas on the Project site, If the lakes will be operated as capture stonowater capture 13MPs, then this could be beneficial to the new development to supplement tllv. water in the, area.. California is experiencing drought conditions, where the "present year is critically dry and has been i nnnediately preceded by two or more consecutive below nornal, dry, or critically dry years; and [i]he droughtconditions will likely conliruu. fins Out finesecable fium, and additional action by boat the State Water Resources Control Board and local water suppliers will likely be necessary to prevcnnt waste and unreasonable use of water and to further promote conservation." State Water Resources Control hoard Resolution No. 2015.0032, Article 22.3 Drought IJnurgc:ncy \Vater Conservation, Section 3.36, Findnigs ofDrought. Emergency. Artificial Lakes designed for aesthetic purposes and "light water activities" are incompatible with the new reality of California's water supplies. The creation of a now lake in the desert region of the City of Like Rlsinorc would be an nresponA le use of either the gioundwsti=r or imported wsner. b, would be more environmentally sound to keep the water underground to avoid rapid evaporation problems. 111. CONCLUSION hi conclusion, after a thorough review of the DEIR, Inland Empire Waterkeeper is concerned that dtc project fails to adequately return the natural drainages in the project area and T'emcscai Canyon Creek to their nalural states, fills to specify Ihe c:unnrlsmve nnpacas of the Bridge and Projecl, fails to Lnplernent Low Impact Design or to adequately analyze all feasible alternative methods and mitigation measures in relation to these issues. Inland Empire Waterkeeper also recommends eliminating the construction of the. two new lakes. Finally, drafting the study plan for the r'ecyckd of watv'T would assist the public: in properly comrnenling on Ihe Project.. Inland Empire Waterkeeper thanks the City of Like Elsinore Cor its consideration of our comments cm the Albcrhill Villages developvncnt. 11 -you have any questions regarding ciurconvnents please feel free to call nit at (714) 350-1965 or email me at jaalucliite(a)coastkccper.org. Reip t ds, acquelinc Neumann Inland Empirc Waterkeeper 15? K-12 Cont. K-13 Response to Comment Letter K Inland Empire Waterkeeper 'The Inland Empire Waterkeeper provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (`DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 26, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Connnent K-1 Based on the above Responses to Comments i3-1 through 13-9, the City maintains that the D13IR is adequate, that no additional studies are required, and that recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. See also the above Response to Comment I3-72. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-2 The DEIR covers all CEQA subject areas. All potential project -specific and cumulative impacts are identified and analyzed along with cumulative impacts. As discussed in the DEIR and in the responses to the these and other comments, "feasible" mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce environmental impacts have been identified. The DEIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation. If the City of Lake Elsinore determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh unmitigated significant environmental effects, it will prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing each significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the DEIR. Please see the responses to the letters received from Johnson & Sedlack (Letter 13), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Letter D), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Letter G). Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-3 See the above Response to Comment K-2. 153 Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-4 All mitigation measures listed are reasonable under the law, feasible in current practice and implementable during the AVSP administrative process. See the above Response to Comment K-2. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Continent K-5 Commenter cites the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and suggests that the DEIR should have considered this legislation in its analysis. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is federal law established to regulate surface coal mining and reclamation activities on federal and state lands. Although historically coal was mined by underground methods on the property, coal mining activities ceased long before the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and hence, the statute is inapplicable to reclamation of the subject site. Reclamation of the mining property is regulated by the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.) ("SMARA'). Reclamation Plan RP 112, approved by the City of Lake Elsinore in 2012, is a document which governs the reclamation of the subject site. The Reclamation Plan complies with SMARA and City of Lake Elsinore ordinances implementing state law. The vested mining operation occurring on-site has been in operation for more than a hundred years and most extraction operation areas, including any on-site natural waterways have been disturbed for decades, therefore existing wildlife habitat on the project site is limited or non-existent. The Reclamation Plan will require revegetation of disturbed areas to return them to a natural state using native plant species that will provide habitat for wildlife, while promoting the identified end-use of the property. There is no legal obligation to restore waterways that were long ago irreparably altered. Due to the current disturbed nature of the site and the proposed end-use, any historical drainages that were disturbed long ago cannot be restored to pre -disturbance conditions. Temescal Canyon Creek is currently poor in form and functions. The AVSP DEIR has analyzed the Temescal Canyon Creels noting that the AVSP will restore the biological functions and values. See also the above Response to Comment B-26. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-6 See above Response to Comment K-5. As discussed above, reclamation of the site is governed by the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1976. SMARA and its implementing regulations, found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, include specific performance standards that must be met in reclaiming the mine site to ensure productive post - mining use of mine lands and elimination of hazardous conditions created by mining activities. As indicated in Reclamation Plan RP 112, the projected end-use of the majority of the mine property is open space. As such, in accordance with 14 CCR Section 3703-3706, the Reclamation Plan includes performance standards for back -filling, regrading and slope stability, wildlife protection, revegetation, and post -reclamation drainage and no version control. 154 Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-7 Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether impact is significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)) Although in certain circumstances, the enviromnentat baseline against which projects environmental impacts judged may be something other than the existence of physical conditions, in the instant case, the use of existing disturbed property as the baseline was appropriate and consistent with the mandates of CEQA. Although the commenter is correct that the site will be reclaimed from its current disturbed nature prior to development of the project, the site is being reclaimed specifically to support future development and will require a future amendment to RP 112 to reclaim to the urban land uses. Therefore, considering a fully reclaimed site prior to development of the project would be inappropriate and inconsistent with CEQA requirements for establishing a baseline for analysis purposes. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-8 See the Response to Comment D-5. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-9 The commenter states the EIR fails "to provide an analysis on how the Project, in combination with all relevant past, present, and potential future projects (such as the City's plan to construct a bridge) could cause cumulative impacts to Temescal Canyon Creel." However, Pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the "following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: 1 Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. (Emphasis Added) 155 As described on page 3.0-47 of the DEIR, the "summary of projections" approach in the cumulative analysis. Utilization of this approach in cumulative impact analysis does not require a specific listing of projects (such as the City's plan to constrict a bridge). Please see above Response to Comment B-8, Response to Comment B-62, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment K-2. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-10 The Commenter recommends the Project add "infiltration/advanced treatment basins or devises at the bottom of the hill to capture and teat dry weather runoff and storm water from the Project". This has been proposed and detailed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) report shown in Appendix C in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Figure 2. Exact size and configuration of the WQMP basins will be finalized at tine time of development of each respective project area subject to a Phased Development Plan, Design Review, Subdivision Map application. Please refer to DEIR Appendix C — Hydrology, Drainage, and WQMP for low impact design concepts within AVSP. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K -1l Please see above Response to Comment A-1, Response to Comment B-68, Response to Comment B-69, and Response to Comment B-70. Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-12 The Executive Summary of AVSP document (Appendix J of DEIR) explains that: Natural spring water from south of the site will flow into the lakes to provide a natural water source to the Alberhill Village lakes. Low flow storm water will be captured within each development to percolate into the groundwater table to replenish water supplies. High storm water flows will safely be conveyed through the site into Temescal Creek as existing flows currently exist today during a storm event. In the unlikely event natural spring water is not sufficient for the lake use: alternate water supplies will be utilized in consultation with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. The PWQMP in Appendix C ofthe DEIR states that "Existing natural springs are located on the site which will be designed to provide perennial flows to the proposed lakes. "Treated urban runoff will also be a source of water for the lakes. (PWQMP, p. A-1.) 156 Response to Inland Empire Waterkeeper Comment K-13 This comment summarizes the concerns expressed by the Commenter in its comment letter. Please refer to the above Responses to Comments K-1 through K-12. 157 Comment Letter L Endangered Habitats League ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE IttntC,rrn 10 ! -o SY>ir#1 PR9TG.:11 AND SU51.SI'y AHE LAND 0SI December 24. 2015 11'114 L4Zli!'7`1i():1iLC il9,4.11_ roil. Roy P. Stephenson, PF, band Use Engineer City of l,ahc Elsinore efo HR Gi cen 1100 Town & Cotmtt)Road, Suite 1025 C32'ange, CA 92868 E-mail: rlephcnngnttr)Ilrgrccn.com RP: DI?Il2 Inr.11tterhili T'iltages Specific Plan Dear Mr, Stephenson: P,ndangered Ilabitats League(EIIL) appreciates lite opportunity to conmtent oo lhis prgjcct.md its environmental docuntenladion. Biological blipacts Regarding tire Califomia gnatcatcher, a 500-13 radius of no direct impact does not achieve avoidance of impacts. Indireet impacts from development, such as Atgemtine anis from irrigated plantings, extend hundreds of feet. Ilie DEIR conveniently ignores such edge effects, .Also, isolation of habitat and the creation of istands via habitat fragmentation must also be analyzed as an impact to gnatcatcher. 'Phe 1:1 ratio proposed for unavoidable impacts to tine gnatcatcher is grossly insufficient, and would result ill a reduction by half of the original habitat. On or oll'site mitigation should be at it minimum ratio of 3:1. Regarding coastal sage scrub, "disturbed" coastal sage scrub is still sensitive under CEQA. Such classification is standard practice in ElRs. Disutrbed coastal sage scrub retains substantial habitat value and is in a state of recovery. These areas require avoidance or mitigation. Regarding se -unitive plants, the dncunnent contradicts iiscll: h fast says. "Pour special -startle. plant species, Parry's spineilower, particulate tarplanr, graceflul tarplam and Coulter's matili.ia poppy, were observed within the .Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area." It then says, "however, focused special suuus phot surveys were conducted dining the 2008 growing season and again in 2014. Based on these surveys. nn sensitive plant species were observed on tire. Project site. Therefore, impoets am less slum SIgni/icant. . The applicant cannot cianry t) cl, the data lir reduce impacts. Sensitive plants mere found and Llresc species rcyuity manidaunce or mitigrhou. 422 _M io.'oo tip .A ! A. s: CA IR, 4 a 1' I1WI i�50 L-1 158 Identification of, and mitigation for, impacts to riparian and wetland habitats are inappropriately deferred to state and federal permitting in BI0-4 and BI0-5. For example, the DEIR states that 28.44 acres of alluvial fan scrub, 4.19 acres of riparian scrub and 12.05 acres of riparian woodland will not be avoided completely. (We also note the DEIR's false and self-serving categorization of these impacts as "small."). Measures 13I0-4 only mentions "replacement" on or off-site rather than the primary steps in mitigation, which are avoidance and minanization. The DEIR utterly fails to address impacts to regional wildlife movement corridors on site. Such corridors are identified in the MSHCP as MSCHP Linkages 1 and 6. Whether or not the site is subject to the MSHCP is irrelevant to the biological values of the corridors. Indeed, the DEIR inaccurately discounts the importance of the site, and would preserve wildlife movement only via "steppingstones" for birds and urban -adapted animals. Highway undercrossings vital for regional connectivity would terminate in channels closely lined with development, absent adequate Buffers and setbacks. A graphic in the DEIR depicts such narrow channels and minimal buffers, when the standard of practice for a significant riparian corridor would be a minimum of 200 -ft setback from each bank. No evidence is presented to justify findings of insignificant impacts after mitigation. Large mammals and other species may use these corridors. For example, Linkage 1 is designated by the MSHCP for use by Cooper's hawk, coastal California gnatcatcher, bobcat, and mountain lion. The DEIR should choose this or another representative species list, analyze the on-site requirements to maintain biological function, disclose impacts, mid avoid impacts through robust setbacks, revegetation, fencing, lighting, and other measures. Linkage 6 along Ternescal Wash leads directly into MSCHP preserve land and is important for large and medium sized mannmals. The MIISCP calls out the need for preserving high quality riparian habitat for Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the wash. The project proposes impacts to Temecula Wash that would destroy much of its present biological and connectivity functions. The existing wash would be graded mid realigned, and converted into a. trapezoidal earthen channel, altering the current hydrologic regime to lower flood heights. Such wholesale alteration would facilitate a commercial center and road widening. This grading is proposed in order to circumvent prohibitions against development in the 100 -year floodplain. A species list should be identified for Temescal Wash, the on-site requirements for biological function analyzed, potential impacts disclosed, and avoided through robust setbacks, revegetation, fencing, lighting, etc. Through an alternatives analysis, grading and channelization of the wash should be entirely avoided, and development set back outside ofthe 100 -year floodplain. Once again, the biological functions of this corridor, both for live-in and migrating species, must be addressed. 159 L-2 L-3 The, City niustexploit the fle.vibility inherent ivithin this very large, 1400 -acre site in order to feasibly protect critical biological resources such as connectivio). The DEIR is inadequate in failing to provide alternatives that respect the floodplain, its inherent hazards, and its value as wildlife corridor. In addition, the DEIR should analyze impacts to the surrounding MSHCP Criteria Cells and reserve lands. The DEIR may wish that "the AVSP Project will not conflict with the County or City of Lake Elsinore policies, a Habitat Conservation Plan, and will have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required." However, on the ground, the development will physically compromise wildlife movement and cause edge effects on MSHCP reserves. These effects must be identified and analyzed in the EIR. Western Riverside Comity ARSIICP The following assertion is false as it pertains to the .MSHCP: Impact 4.11-6 Threshold: Nrould the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The General Plan establishes City policies that encourage development while remaining sensitive to biological resources concerns. The Project is not subject to the City's MSHCP review, but is required to be reviewed by the required agencies and policies of the General Plan. While the majority of the AVSP site was indeed subject to alegal settlement in 2004 between Riverside County and Pacific Clay Products that removed property from the MSHCP program, this exclusion does not apply to the entire site. Specifically, the portion of Village 1 bounded by 1-1 5, Temescal Wash, and Lake Street is not excluded from the MSCHP. This is clear from the description of the settlement area in the recitals section of the 2004 settlement agreement (enclosed). The EIR must disclose and compare the boundaries of the AVSP as proposed with the property descriptions in the settlement agreement. Previously, a project for the non -excluded parcel had gone through RCA Joint Project Review and was deemed inconsistent with the MSHCP. It is unclear how this presumably innocent error was incorporated into the DEIR, but it must be remedied. In light of the City of Lake Elsinore's acknowledged obligations under the MSCHP, the non -excluded area must either be removed from the project or go through MSHCP consistency review per the City's standard MSHCP process. Project modification„ on-site set aside, and/or off: -site mitigation may be needed for MSHCP compliance. Until that time, impacts under CEQA for the project as a whole cannot be considered adequately analyzed or mitigated. 160 L-3 Craik L-4 L-5 Thank you for considering our views. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director Enclosure County of Riverside -Pacific Clay Products Settlement Agreement cc: County Counsel, County of Riverside Regional Conservation Authority US Fish and Wildlife Service US Army Corps of Engineers California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Interested parties 161 Response to Comment Letter L Endangered Habitats League The Endangered Habitats League provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 24, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Endangered Habitats L eague Comment L -I Regarding potential impacts to California gnatcatcher, see above Response to Comment B-33. Regarding coastal sage scrub, see above Response to Comment D-14. Regarding special -status plants species, see Response the above Response to Comment D-12 and Response to Comment G-10. Response to Endangered Habitats League Continent L-2 See the above Response to Comment B-34 and Response to Comment D-8 regarding riparian and wetland habitat. Response to Endangered Habitats League Comment L-3 Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D-3, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment D-6 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages and Temescal Canyon Creels. Response to Endangered Habitats League Comment L-4 Please see above Response to Comment D-2 and Response to Comment D-3 regarding the applicability of the MSCHP to the project site. Response to Endangered Habitats League Comment L-5 See the above Response to Comment D-5 regarding the removal of that portion of the project site that is subject to the MSI CP ("non -excluded area") from the project. 162 Comment Letter M Regional Conservation Authority 163 M-1 M-2 Oil i December 22, 2015 J Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P13, Land Use Engineer City of l.ake Elsinore c/o I I R Green I I OOTown & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 RE: ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 2010-02) DRAIN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Deal, Mi, Stephenson: The Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (FIR) for the Alberhill Villages 'Specific Plan, The RCA is submitting these comments on the Project F'IR pertaining to The implementation and consistency of the project with tile' Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), 'The City of Lake Elsinore is a Permittee tinder the MSHCP and pursumit to the Implementing Agreement is responsible for ensuring all project approvals are consistent with the MSHCP goals and policies. Based on multiple references and figures in the FIR, the parcel Immediately north of Terriescal Canyon Road and west of I,ake Sir cet (APN 390-130-017) is included in the Alberhill Villages for development in the University Town Center planning ansa. Please note that the parcel in question was not excluded from the MSIICP as ])art of the Castle and Cook settlement agreement and is therofiore still subject to MSHCP requirements. Further, a LEAPS was I submitted in 2005 which resulted in Joint Project Review (JPR 05-08-15-02) findings that tile proposed conservation on site was inconsistent with reserve assembly function and goals, The Meet and Center and Ad Iloc Committee dispute resolution processes also concluded that development f the parcel . 1 o I are as proposed was inconsistent with the MSHCP. Approval of o development this s parcel as part of Alberhill Village would also be inconsistent with the MS1ICP and the City's obligations under the implementing Agreement. 0 We also note that dicTable 2-0-1 indicates LEAPS file required for any right )f way outside Pacific Clay settlement and I MOU for Alberhill Ridge. Construction of any MSHCP Coveted Road such as Lake Street, Nichols Road or Team% wal Canyon Road, 'Ire subject to MSIICP requirements as public facilities regardless of the location of the right of way. , vielyi 6'0_e.�� V. Liuufry'�-) Fxecutivc Director cc; Grant I ayk)r', City ot'Lake Hshuire 163 M-1 M-2 Response to Comment Letter M Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 22, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Western Riverside County Conservation Authority Comment M-1 See the above Response to Comment f3-26 and Response to Comment D-5 regarding the removal of that portion of the project site (APN 390-130-017) that is subject to the MSHCP ("non - excluded area') from the project. Response to Western Riverside County Conservation Authority Conment M-2 See the above Response to Comment D-4. 164 Comment Letter N Pala Tribal Historic Preservation Office PALA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 760-691-3510 Office 760-742-3189 Fax Decembu 21. 2015 Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore I I00'rown cC Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-)2) Dear Mrs. Stephenson a PALA THPO Tlnc Pala Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has reeeived vour notification of the project referenced above. 'Ibis letter constitutes our response on behalf of Robert Smitb,'fribal Chairman. We havee cansufted our maps and detennined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we have no objection to the continuation of project activities as currently planned and we defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project arca. We appreciate involvement with your initiative and took forward to working with you on future efTorts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-891-3515 or by e-mail at sgauahcn(&>palatribc.com. Sincerely, Shasta C. Gaughen PhD Tribal historic Preservation 011 -icer Paha Band of Mission Indians ATIT'.NTION: 1111- PALA TRIBAL. I IISTORiC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REQLLSTS FOR CONSULTATINN. PLE =1SF ADDRESS COlUZESPONDF: Response to Comment Letter N Pala Band of Mission Indians The Pala Band of Mission Indians provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 21, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. "The environmental issues raised in the cormnent letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Pala Band of Mission Indians Comment N-1 The Pala Band of Mission Indians states that the project area is not located within the boundaries of the Pala Indian Reservation and is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the Tribe considers its traditional use area. The City of Lake Elsinore acknowledges that the Tribe states that it has no objection to the continuation of the proposed project and that the Tribe defers to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 166 Comment Letter O Linda and Martin Ridenour December 16, 2015 From: Linda and Martin Ridenour 33628 Brand St. Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530-5741 To: City of Lake Elsinore City Hall: 130 South Main St, Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530 Re: CEQA Documents Alberhill Villages 42012061046 Attention: Mr. Rmy F. Stephenson, PF, Land Use Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore 1� kcx-,� & Suet 2.vt San Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I am herewith requesting documents, writings, e-mails, conmments made by any elected or appointed member of the Lake Elsinore city council and Planning Commission, Facebook page, etc., that pertains or refers the CFQA documents for the Alberhill Specific Plan. I would like to use my First Amendment rights to express myself through protected speech. Enclosed are my comments to this project and l look forward to a speedy reply_ Please make this letter and all documents referred to in the letter apart of lime Administrative Record for this project. Environment: '1 he homes in Alberhill District, Terra Cotta, have not been completed. There was to be improvements on hake Street, as well as other mitigated measures. These should be completed before this new project is approved. Castle and Cook does not have a good record on mitigation. For example, they dug up native oaks and box them and put them on the side of the road. When I called they said them: were no orders to plant them and consequently the oaks died. We need to preserve the oak woodland babitat. Glenn Lakes Associates did not list Costal live oak as a state protected tree. In 2004, Congress named the Oak as the official tree of the United States, Oak trees and the environment around them need to be conserved and protected. Here in Lake ,Elsinore where Castle and Cook have worked before, I am certain that they not only killed our official tree of the United States but also destroyed the environment around it. The habitat of the Coast homed lizard and other native species and plants such as Munz's onion, a rare vegetation that needs to be protected, has been destroyed. This year, the arroyo toad was not seen dime to lack of suitable habitat. They usually inhabit the oalc woodlands but since the woodlands were destroyed by the construction, their habitat is gone. Also, there has not been a discussion of the `Blue Stream." This focused survey on the lands was not specific enough; therefore, a new survey needs to be conducted to discuss the habitat quality. All of this land destruction should not go unpunished. The property owners should be fined for destruction of special -status plants. In this case, Castle and Cook would be responsible for the endangerment of the habitat and animal that resided there. However, instead of accepting fault, the company has avoided responsibility, even going as far as claiming they did nothing wrong. Castle and Cook repeatedly state that "Due to the high level of disturbance at the site, minimal habitat occurs on site for special -status animals that were not observed during surveys," claiming there were no special - status animals or plants in the area. Transportation: I find it inconceivable that 32 key roadway segments are at "unacceptable levels of service." Lake Street, near the location of the new project by Castle and Cools, is already seeing maximum levels of traffic. A trip from Grand Avenue through Lake Street to get to the 1-15, a route taken by thousands of Lakeland Village residents daily, is always significantly impacted, making a run to time doctors office or grocery stores a longer commute than necessary. Before any construction is done to add houses 167 O-1 O-2 O-3 along this route, the roadway infrastructure must be improved to lessen the effects of an increase in population. I would ince to see the data for the Traffic General Forecast. If the last data was collcctcd before 2010 when there were less homes and traffic was lighter, then new data must be collected to 0-3 update todays current traffic information. This would force the city to realize that an additional home Cont. Village Carmel, be constructed until the roads are improved. I would like to see the project impacts and how they would be mitigated. Historical Impact: Around 1883, coal was extracted from Alberhill, a mining town. Tltis is a historical site that is over 150 years old. it must be protected. The Alberhill School was started in 1912 and was in use until 1964. This building must be protected. It is cultural and historical resource_ Before any homes are built, this important structure, with all of its cultural heritage, should have a specific place in the CEQA plan. The impact to historic and cultural resources is significant. The Liuseno people have an Aboriginal Territory here, which rneams the territory roust be preserved. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases: l do not have a copy of the CEQA Air Quality llandbook, but 1 must ask if fire data is current! I heard on the news that we will be wearing masks outside our home soon. With 8,000 plus homes and 4 vehicles per household, we AU not be able to breathe clean air with additional homes being built in the area. This will adversely affect my health and the health of thousands of residents. The news report expressed concern over the greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to know bow many cats, trucks, and vehicles were used per home. "The project either directly or indirectly will generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment." Governor Brown issued an executive order requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions targets by 40%u below 1990 levels. How will this be addressed writh the construction of more homes in Lake Elsinore? The Aiberhill project needs to address the methane levels that will be caused by the introduction of new homes in the area. According to the Press -Enterprise on November 28, 2015, "the report, which concludes there would be significant unavoidable effects of Traffic and air quality."' MSHCP Area: Natural wildlife and open space connection to the Cleveland National Forest must be maintained. This Project is in the MSHCP. Where are the Multi-purpose trails? I am the vice-president of the Butterfield Trails yet I cannot ford the location of the nmlti-purpose trails. Please send me all information related to this issue. There must be a buffer along the Temescal Creek, home to many native trees. In order to protect these trees and prevent their removal, a buffer is essential. The vegetation which contained eucalyptus woodland was disturbed, causing the loss of the Least Bell's Vireo, a native bud. A more detailed study is needed to state for certain that there are no more of these birds there. Mr. hardy Strozier needs to send me data on the specific location, times, etc that he has visited this area. The Least Bell's Vireo is a Federal and State endangered bird. More studies are required before CEQA approves this project, which would potentially barman endangered species. I am concerned that Mr. Strozier did not focus on this special -status bird, rendering an incorrect conclusion of data. The Elsinore Valley Municipal. Water District stated that they will provide water for the project. How is it possible that we are in a state of drought, yet offering to provide water for such an enormous project?. Please provide tate data to show that MWD can provide this water and they also provide data to show they approve this project. The property most be restored to its natural state arter years of mining.'Ihis project could cause the loss of many protected species. Habitat destruction can not continue. Tho City of Lake Elsinore must Establish permanent safe heaven for the species listed in this repots. 168 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 Response to Comment Letter O Linda and Martin Ridenour Linda and Martin Ridenour provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 16, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-1 The City acknowledges the right of the commenters to submit comments regarding the DEIR. With respect to written notification of future actions, the City will provide notification to the Linda and Martin Ridenour pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092.2. Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-2 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." This comment expresses opinions regarding Castle and Cooke's performance on other development proposals within the subject area. Such comments are acknowledged. To the extent that this comment does not raise new environmental issues; no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. "There is a projected 30 -year development period for the RVSP, construction of implementing development projects will occur at individual project locations and at unknown times during the 30 -year period. It would be speculative to identify the timing of future traffic levels at each phase of the future development of the AVSP. As noted on Pages 2.0-6 through 2.0-8 of the DEIR, the AVSP proposed development will be regulated by Phased Development Plans and Design Review applications which will set forth precise design proposals for all or a portion of a particular area within the AVSP. As Phased Development Plans, Design Review, or Subdivision Map applications are proposed, more timely and accurate traffic impact analysis and determination of required improvements can be determined. In order to assure the completion of appropriate and timely road improvements to serve the AVSP project area, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: • All road improvements within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) shall be constructed to ultimate City standards and consistent with the General Plan, unless 169 otherwise identified and approved, as a requirement of the implementing development projects (including but not limited to subdivisions, design review applications and conditional use permits) subject to approval by the City Engineer. The AVSP "Enhanced" and "Modified" cross-sections are subject to the submittal and review of design drawings, at the time implementing development projects are submitted. • Site-specific Traffic Impact Analyses (traffic studies) shall be required Por each Phased Development Plan (PDP) and for all subsequent implementing development projects in accordance with the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide requirements in effect at the tiiue of Traffic Impact Analysis preparation. See the above response to Comment D-15 regarding the potential impacts to oak trees and the required mitigation measure. See the above Response to Comment B-34, Response to Comment D-8 and Response to Comment G-8 regarding riparian/riverine habitat and associated wildlife and jurisdictional waters ("blue line streams"). Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-3 The Roadway circulation system as shown within AVSP is consistent with the City's 2011 General Plan Update Circulation Element and the AVSP General Plan Amendment. The Roadway Infrastructure takes into account the AVSP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report, which provides for a program -level analysis for the General Plan Buildout traffic condition consistent with the City's General Plan and identifies the recommended traffic improvements, accordingly, to achieve acceptable service levels (LOS) within the study area. The data regarding existing and forecast traffic is located in Appendices A through D of the Traffic Impact Analysis located in Appendix D of the DEIR. Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-4 Please see above Response to Comment B-36 and Response to Comment J-4 regarding the Alberhill School. Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-5 The commenter references the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook". On their website SCAQMD notes that: "SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" (Handbook) to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook approved by the AQMD Governing Board in 1993. The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is still available but not online. To obtain a hardcopy of the 1993 Handbook, contact 170 SCAQMD's Subscription Services at (909) 396-3720. In addition, there are sections of the 1993 Handbook that are obsolete. A description of the obsolete sections can be obtained from CEQA Air Quality Handbook." The potential Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts of the proposed project were addressed in Section 4.8 of the DEIR. This section of the DEIR incorporates the results of the Air Quality Impact Analyses that were prepared by Giroux and Associates using the most recent air quality modeling software (CalEEMod), as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Use of the CalEEMod computer model results in more current data than through use of SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The comnnenter refers to an executive order Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This is Executive Order B-30-15 which was issued on April 29, 2015. It should be noted however that this target has not been formally enacted by the Legislature or even by the California Air Resources Board. As such, the Executive Order does not appear to constitute a new regulation or requirement adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction of GHG emissions within the context of CEQA. Furthermore, the City of Lake Elsinore has an adopted CAP that governs specific GHG reduction targets for new development within the City. At this time, no further analysis is necessary or required by CEQA as it pertains to Executive Order B- 30-15. However, in response to this comment Section 4.8.8.2 (State Regulations — Greenhouse Gases) on Page 4.82-51 of the DEIR has been amended to add the following description of "Executive Order B-30-15" after the subsection titled "Senate Bill (Million Solar Roofs)": Executive Order R-30-15 On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 which identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. This Executive Order set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as one way to keep California on a trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, B-30-15 calls for an update to CARB's Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Executive Order also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. The Executive Order does not require local agencies to take any action to meet the new interim GHG reduction threshold. It is important to note that Executive Order B-30-15 was not adopted by a public agency through a public review process that requires analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, has not been subsequently validated by a statute by the State Legislature or by the California Air Resources Board as an official GIIG reduction target of the State of California. The Executive Order itself states it is "not intended to create, and does not, create any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers employees, or any other person." 171 Methane is discussed in the DEIR on page 4.8-12 as a greenhouse gas. Analysis of the proposed project GIIG impacts (including methane) is found in Section 4.8 of the DEIR. The DEIR does identify significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality. If the City of Lake Elsinore determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh unmitigated significant environmental effects, it will prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing each significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the DEIR Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-6 Please see Figure 4-9 of the AV SP in Appendix J for an illustration of multi -use trails. Regarding special -status plants species, see the above Response to Comment D-12 and Response to Comment G-10. Please see the above Response to Comment B-26, Response to Comment D- 3, Response to Comment D-5 and Response to Comment D-6 regarding previous discussions regarding MSHCP Proposed Linkages and Tenlescal Canyon Creek See the above Response to Comment B-34 and Response to Comment D-8 regarding riparian and wetland habitat. Response to Linda and Martin Ridenour Comment 0-7 Please see above Response to Comment B-68 and Response to Comment B-69. See also the below Response to Comment U-2. 172 Comment Letter P South Coast Air Quality Management District South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agrnd.gov SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: December 2, 2015 rAeolrenson(a hrgreen. com NIr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore CIO HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 1Drart Program Environmental ➢npact Report (llralt, PEIR) for the Proposed Alberb ill Villaaes Specific Plan (AVSP) (SP2010_02) (SCH No. 2012061046) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document. The Lead Agency proposes construction of a master planned, mixed-use community with single- and multi -family homes along with a core commercial center and an entry highway commercial center near the Interstate 15 (I-15) Freeway. The proposed project will occupy a total of approximately 1,400 acres and involve Six Development Villages, with each village containing its own planning areas. The AVSP development will include approximately 8,244 dwelling units and 4,007,000 square feet of civic/institutional, conunercial/retail, professional off cehnedical and schools to serve a total enrollment of approximately 8,050 students. The schools would include a 6,000 student university; two private schools serving a total of approximately .1,200 students; and a public elementary school built for 850 students. The AVSP will also include worship centers, various parks, lakes, trails, green belt areas; streets, public facilities and infrastructure. The SCAQMD staff has concerns with some of the assumptions in the air quality analysis. Specifically, the analysis should be based on peak daily emission estimates instead of averaging. Further, overlapping construction and operational emission estimates should be included in the Final PEIR and shown throughout the 20-30 year project period. These estimates should then be compared to the SCAQMD operational significance thresholds, Next, the potential localized and health risk impacts to sensitive to sensitive receptors were deferred and not estimated in the Draft PEIR. Because future residents would be exposed to potential localized construction and operational impacts during project development, as well as adverse health affect impacts from both the on- going mining operations and vehicles operating on the 1-15 freeway, future potential P-1 P-2 173 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE 2 December 2, 2015 Land Use Engineer localized and health risk impacts should be analyzed according to CEQA Guidelines §15168. Further, the SCAQMD staff reiterates the CARR Land Use Policy to not site sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a large volume freeway. In addition, the Lead Agency should include how compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 -- Fugitive Dust for Large Operations Notification will occur in the Final PEIR. Finally, the SCAQMD staff recommends that all feasible mitigation pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines be incorporated into the project description and related air quality analyses in order to reduce significant project impacts. Further details are included in the attachment. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final PEIR The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other air quality questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3302, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Sincerely, Vop f Jillian Wong, Ph.D. Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment JW:HII:GM RVC151 1.05-02 Control Number 174 P-2 Cont. P-3 P-4 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE 3 December 2, 2015 Land Use Engineer Air Quality Analysis Peale Daily Emission Estimates 1. In Table 4.8-7, Construction Activity Emissions, construction emissions were estimated for each phase but averaged over each phase's five year period, which lowers. the peak daily emission estimates for each criteria pollutant during construction. Because the SCAQMD significance thresholds are based on maximum daily emissions, averaging project emissions likely underestimates project impacts compared with each emission's peak daily significance threshold. Therefore, the air quality analysis should be revised in the Final PEIR using the worst-case peak daily construction emission scenario including any overlapping construction phases. These estimates should then be compared with the SCAQMD operational tun esholds of significance (see comment 42) due to the length of construction phases to determine if project impacts are significant If significant, mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project description and air quality analysis to reduce significant impacts. Cmnnlative Overlapping Phase Construction and Oper-atlons Estimates In addition, the lead Agency estimated construction and operational impacts' separately for each developmental phase covering the thirty-year total development period in the Draft PEIR. These separate estimates were then compared with their respective SCAQMD recommended construction and operational thresholds of significance. As the Lead Agency discussed on page 4.8-30, the length of construction combined with the overlapping operational phases cause the estimated construction emissions to be more like long -tern operational impacts for regional purposes. Although the Lead Agency discussed this potential overlapping of construction and operational emissions for regional purposes aid further detennined that combined construction and operational ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 emission impacts were significant and unavoidable, these determinations were not substantiated with actual emission estimates in the Draft PEIR.. The Draft PEIR makes a qualitative evaluation' of these combined emissions but does not include actual combined estimates throughout the thirty-year project. The Final PEIR should therefore be revised to include combined construction and operation emission estimates as each development phase overlaps, e.g., Ph -2 construction emissions with Phase I operational emissions; 1111-3 construction emissions with Phases I & 2 operational ennissions; ...etc., up through Year 2046 'Draft PP1R, Table 4_8-7 Consauction Activity Emissions and Table 4.8-5 —Project Related Operational Emissions, AQ & GHG Analysis. z Ibid, AQ & GIIG Analysis, Page 4.8-30. The conclusion that ...'-regional air quality impacts are identified as significant from the. completion of Phase I forward, inclusion of 30 years of construction activity emissions will further `exacerhate' the degree of excess emissions ° 175 P-5 P-6 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2, 2015 P-6 project buildout. These overlapping construction and operational emissions should Cont. then be compared with the SCAQMD operational thresholds of significance. Defe.iTiug Localized Significance Thresholds & Cancer Risks 3. In the Draft PEIR, building const notion and operational activities from the proposed project will occur within proximity of sensitive receptors throughout the project areas during the six phases of development'. The Lead Agency did not analyze localized impacts stating that project specific level (siting) information was not available and that localized analyses would be conducted sometime in the fixture prior to implementing project approval. Futcher, sensitive receptors would be exposed to toxic air contaminants from the on-going mining operations and ftotn diesel fueled vehicles operating on the I-15 Freeway. Again, the Lead Agency deferred its analysis of potential cancer risks due to a lack of project specific information concerning the siting of sensitive receptors to the nearby freeway. Based on CEQA Guidelines § 15168, further analysis through CEQA should be conducted prior to subsequent project approvals. Analyses for potential localized significance threshold impacts and health risks should be included in a subsequent CEQA document when project specific information is available to ensure that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by activities that are occurring in close proximity, e.g., by construction and operation activities. toxic air contaminants from the mining operations occurring within the project areas, or from vehicles operating nearby on the 1-15 Freeway. CARB Land Use Guidance for Sensitive Receptors Located Near Freeways 4. The Lead Agency mentions the 500 foot buffer recommended by the California Air Resources Board's (GARB) Land Use and An Quality Handbook (GARB Handbook) that offers guidance for siting sensitive receptors near sources of air toxics. Although this recommended guidance is discussed, the Draft PEIR shows that potential sensitive receptor land uses including age -restricted housing, student housing, Live/work lofts and residential condominiums would tentatively be sited within the recommended 500 -foot buffer°. The Lead Agency notes at the Draft PEIR that the proposed residences will be sited near the I-15 Freeway that has an average daily traffic volume of 120,000 vehicles including approximately 12,600 of these vehicles that will be diesel trucks. As a result, future residents will be exposed to a significant source of toxic emissions. The SCAQMD staff therefore reiterates (see also comment #3) that prior to subsequent project approvals, a Health Risk Assessment should prepared to determine cancer risks to future sensitive receptors from potential toxic air contaminant emissions from the freeway as well as any applicable mining activities in close proximity. Numerous past health studies have demonstrated the potential adverse health effects of living ' DI:dtPSIR, Section 4.8 AQ K GIG Analysis, Pages 4.R-31 and 4.8-32. °Ibid, ProjectDesc7iption, Page 2.0-12- 13-7 P-8 176 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2. 2015 near a freeway or highly travelled roads. Since the time of that study, additional research has continued to build the case that the near roadway envirormtent also contains elevated levels of many pollutants that adversely affect human health, including some pollutants that are unregulated (e.g., ultrafine particles) and whose potential health effects are still emerging. While the health science behind recommendations against placing new homes close to freeways is clear, SCAQMD staff recognizes the many factors lead agencies must consider when siting new housing. Further, many mitigation treasures have been proposed for other projects to reduce exposure, including building ,filtration systems, sounds walls, vegetation barriers, etc. However, because potential adverse health risks might be involved, it is critical that any proposed mitigation must be carefully evaluated prior to determining if those health risks would be brought below recognized significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rule 403 Larne Operation Notification On page 4.8-20 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, the Lead Agency describes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust based on soil disturbance activities that would include approximately 11,969,000 cubic yards of fill. Should project soil disturbance activities meet the requirements of Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust for Large Operations, the Lead Agency should submit to the SCAQMD Form 403N (Large Operation Notification Form) and revise the FPEIR to include this approval requirement in Table 2.0-1 (Permit Approvals). Questions concerning compliance with Rule 403 Large Operation should be directed to SCAQMD Engineering & Compliance staff at (909) 396-2372. Construction Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts 6.. Based on a review of the Draft PEIR, the Lead Agency determined that the proposed project Nvill result in substantially significant air quality impacts during construction. Specifically, the air quality analysis demonstrated that the proposed project will exceed the SCAQMD's regional construction significance thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10 and PM2.5(see also comments #1-2). Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following additional treasures be incorporated into the proposed project and Final PEIR to reduce siguiticant project impacts in addition to the measures included in the Draft PEIR starting on page 4.8-36. Recommended Additions: • Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Metro and City of Los Angeles)' 'For example see the Metro Careen Construction Policy it httn:/Iw.ww.enetro.ne4/protects dies/sustainability/imaFee/Green Construction Pplicy.udC P-8 Cont. 177 P-9 P-10 Mr. Roy E. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2- 2015 have enacted, require all on-site constriction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available, hi addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARR. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CAR B regulations. • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery bucks and soil import/export) and ifthe lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NON emissions requirements. • A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Encourage constriction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD "SOON" fmrde. 'Die "SOON" program provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as Heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: httn'//www agmd s?ovliorne/pros ams/business/business- detail title=vehicle-euQine-upgrades For additional measures to reduce olf-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measine tables located at the following website: lhandbook/mitio,ation-measuu-es-and-control-efficiencies . Operation N i.Heation Measures Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality ILnpacts (Other) 7. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following ort -site area source mitigation measures below to reduce the project's regional air quality impacts from ROG, CO, NON, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during operation. These mitigation measure should be incorporated pursuant to CEQAGuidelines §15126.4. 178 P-10 Cont. P -ll Mr. Roy E. Stephenson, PE 7 December 2, 2015 Land Use Engineer + Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximmn possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofsand/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility, as applicable. • Use light colored paving and roofing materials. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • hnstall light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with IIlEPA filters. • Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. Transpot1ation • Make a commitment to install electric car charging stations (not just wiring infrastructure) for both non-residential and residential' uses at the project site. • Create local "light vehicle" networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems. Energy • Make a commitment that the project site will include a solar photovoltaic or an alternate system with means of generating renewable electricity. Other • Provide outlets for electric and propane barbecues in residential areas. 179 P-11 Cont. Response to Comment Letter P South Coast Air Quality Management District The South Coast Air Quality Management District provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 20 1 2061 04 6) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 2, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Continent P-1 This comment summarizes the project description information contained within the DEIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-2 At a specific plan program level of detail, the peak daily construction scenario up to 30 years hence is too speculative to calculate emissions with any meaningful accuracy. The cumulative impact analysis has been revised to include overlapping construction and operational activities, including the effects of anticipated changes in vehicular emission factors over the next 30 years. Given the programmatic nature of the DEIR, specific impacts resulting from individual projects are not identified or known at this time. Inasmuch as development project -related air quality impacts cannot be quantified without knowing the specifics regarding individual development projects in terms of their scale, duration and proximity to sensitive receptors, construction -related air quality impacts at any point in the future would be speculative and cannot be accurately determined as part of this DEIR. As required by mitigation measure Mitigation Measure AQ -5, future implementing development projects will be evaluated for their potential impacts upon sensitive receptors due to proximity to Interstate 15 and on-going mining operation. Where project -specific air quality analyses determine that there are potentially significant impacts; appropriate mitigation measures will be required. In response to this comment and as set forth in the above Response to Comment B-24, Mitigation Measure AQ -5 will be revised as follows: Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map, or Design Review application by the City's decision-making authority, applicants for any proposed new development s which will result in sensitive receptors being located within 1 000 feet of mining operations Interstate 215 or any other potential Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) source 180 shall conduct an evaluation of human health risks (Health Risk Assessment) and/or Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis to identify and reduce any potential health risks from construction and/or operation impacts to sensitive receptors. The HRA and LST analysis shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long- term residency. The thresholds to determine exposure to substantial pollution concentrations are: A Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) of greater than ten (10) in one million. For non -cancer risks, the threshold is a hazard index value greater than one (1). LST thresholds shall be those recommended by SCAQMD. If the Health Risk Assessment or LST analysis shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds these standards, the HRA and/or LST analysis shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non -cancer risks to an acceptable level. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower; until equipment that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available • All construction equipment shall be outfitted with SACT devices certified by CARB. Any emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized eni*ine as defined by CARB regulations. • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g.,material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the developer shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emission requirements. • Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters Mitigation measures identified in the HRA and IST analysis shall be identified as mitigation measures in the implementing development project's environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed future project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-3 See the below Response to Comment 13-9. 181 Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-4 In this comment, the SCAQMD requests that the City provide it with written responses to all comments contained within their comment letter. The City of Lake Elsinore will provide a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to certifying the EIR in compliance with the provisions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) which states that "At least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report, the lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that agency which conform with the requirements of this division." No new environmental issues have been raised by this conmrent and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-5 There is a projected 30 -year development period for the AVSP. Although six development phases have been identified for that 30 -year period; construction will occur at individual project locations and not concurrently throughout each phase. The peak daily construction activity rate that would allow for emissions calculations relative to the peak daily significance threshold is speculative for an anticipated 30 -year construction scenario. As described in the comment, the average phase construction emissions have been combined with the accumulated per -phase operational emissions to develop a better cumulative emissions estimate. (See the below Response to Comment P-6.) Because of the plan scope, the combination of operational and construction activity emissions does not alter the conclusion that the DEIR determined that air quality impacts will be significant over the life of the project. Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -5, as revised in this Final EI.R will reduce significant impacts. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-6 A table of overlapping construction and operational emissions has been prepared. (Table A). Phase 2 construction has been assumed to overlap with the full occupancy of Phase 1, etc. Operational emissions have also been estimated on a cumulative basis based upon the ratio of individual phase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to total VMT of all completed phases to that point as the driving factor in estimating total operational at the conclusion of each phase as shown in Table A. Conclusions regarding impact significance are unaffected by this clarification. The degree that certain cumulative pollutants exceed the recommended SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for a number of pollutants is increased. As seen in Table A, the superposition of emissions associated with the current planned phase, those from completed operational phases, and construction of the next planned phase ultimately cause every pollutant to exceed the recommended SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, including a ten -fold excess for ROG and NOx as the primary ozone precursor emissions. 182 Table A Cninnlntivi, Air (lnnlity imnart An-Avcie (11,/davl Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-7 See the above Response to Comment P-2. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-8 The referenced "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook" is a joint publication of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board published in April 2005. This publication suggests that set -backs be considered when citing sensitive land uses near particular uses, such as freeways and distribution centers. (Table 1-1 on page 4 of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) This document also states 'Chat setbacks are merely "recommended" and not required, and the Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board point out that: "These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other 183 ROG NOx CO - SO2 PM -10 PM- - 2.5 CO2 Phase 1 Operational 259.4 289.6 1,307.7 2.9 320.5 23.5 309,550 Construction 26.0 33.8 49.7 0.2 12.8 2.7 14,210 Total 28.5.4 323.4 1,357.4 3.1 333.3 26.2 323,759 Phase 2 Operational 372.5 387.2 1.778.4 4.7 510.7 37.5 496,854.6_ Construction 4.3 27.4 32.0 0.1 1 4.0 2.0 9,022.9 'Total 376.8 414.5 1,810.4 4.8 514.6 39.5 505,877.6 Phase 3 Operational 371.7 349.0 1,587.0 0.2 516.8 42.8 511,049.5 Construction 31.8 24.0 44.5 0.2 13.3 2.1 15,080.4 Total 403.5 373.0 1,631.5 � ' 0.4 ' 530.1 44.9 526,130.0 Phase 4 Operational 469.9 460.5 1,926.0 6.0 629.2 49.7 658,819.1 Construction 12.1 13.7 30.0 0.1 5.2 1.5 8,488.3 Total 482.1 474.3 1,956.1 6.1 '' `64.5 51.2 667,307.4 Phase 5 Operational 498.8 518.7 2,045.3 7.6 721.2 55.9 743,349.2 Construction 19.7 14.2 31.9 1 0.1 6.3 1.5 9,931.5 Total 518.4 532.9. 2,077.2 7.7 'I 727.5 57.5 753,280.7 Phase 6 Operational 555.6 616.3 2,266.0' 7.7 799.3 61.1 808,0.54.7 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-7 See the above Response to Comment P-2. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-8 The referenced "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook" is a joint publication of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board published in April 2005. This publication suggests that set -backs be considered when citing sensitive land uses near particular uses, such as freeways and distribution centers. (Table 1-1 on page 4 of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) This document also states 'Chat setbacks are merely "recommended" and not required, and the Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board point out that: "These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other 183 considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues." (Note to Table 1-1 on page 4 of the Handbook) Mitigation Measure AQ -5, as described in the above Response to Com irient P-2 requires that prior to future approval of an implementing development project (Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map or Design Review) application that will result in sensitive receptor being located within 1,000 feet of mining operations, Interstate 215, or any other potential Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) source; that a Health Risk Assessment and LST analysis be completed to determine whether air quality emissions will adversely affect sensitive receptors. Where project -specific analysis determines that air quality emissions will adversely affect sensitive receptors, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable." Implementation of this mitigation measure will enable the City to evaluate each future development project for the potential air quality impacts upon sensitive receptors and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to require mitigation measures that will reduce potential impacts to less -than -significant levels. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-9 This comment advises that should soil disturbance activities meet the requirements of SCAQMD's Rule 403; Form 403N should be submitted to the SCAQMD. The comment also provides a contact at SCAQMD for questions regarding Rule 403. The commenter also asks that this process be included in DEIR Table 2.0-1. Table 2.0-1 on page 2.0-8 of the DEIR will be revised to add an additional permit approval after the "LEAPS Process" regarding the compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 as follows: SCAQMD Form 403N (Large SCAQMD Compliance with SCAQMD Operation Notification Form) Rule 403 Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P-10 In response to this comment and other comments received, Mitigation Measure AQ -1 will be revised as follows: Construction activities may cause NOx, ROG, PM -10 and PM -2.5 emissions to substantially exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds if multiple activities/phases overlap or are compressed into shorter time -frames. Reasonable and 'feasible mitigation cannot likely reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation during construction is required to achieve a reduced level of impact includes; the contractor shall implement the following measures: Dust Control: • Apply soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to inactive areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 184 • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water actively graded surfaces 3 times per day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps if left undisturbed for more than 72 hours. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Install wheel washers, shaker plates and gravel where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 1186.1 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent sheets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered. • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on- site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation. • Diesel exhaust particulates and NOx emissions may have a significant impact during construction because of the size scope of the project. Measures to reduce exhaust emissions include: Exhaust Emissions: • Require 90 -day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for tucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts 4' available or equivalent technoloey. • Utilize diesel particulate filters or equivalent teclmoloay on heavy equipment whefe feasible. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US FPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower; until equipment that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 lip shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available • All construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARR Any emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul tucks (e.L).. material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if 2010 model year or newer diesel tucks cannot be obtained the developer shall use tucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emission requirements. • A copy of each unit's certification shall be provided at the time of mobilization and a placard or other identification shall be affixed to approved equipment and haul trucks 185 • Contractors using equipment rated at less than Tier 4 shall be provided with information on the SCAQMD "SOON" program of financial assistance for accelerated equipment clean-up. • if Tief 4 off read construetien equipment is not available, require alternative4uel-ed • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators over 49HP. If generators are over 491 -IP, they will have to comply with the Air Quality Management District rules. • Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. • Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off- peak hours ' a^ abie. • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- site and off=site. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment P -ll See the above Response to Comment B-19 regarding outdoor lighting. In response to this comment and other comments received, Mitigation Measure AQ -3 will be revised as follows: AQ -3 Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the following measures to conserve energy have been incorporated into building design • Submit plans demonstrating that the new i-esrcaxdeiitial buildings, including but not limited to residential. commercial, and educational buildings, shall exceed those California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance as required by the Climate Action Plan in effect at the time. Submit plans demonstrating that the new commercial buildings shall include the following green building design features: - Utilize Low -E and ENERGY STAR windows where feasible; - Install high -efficiency lighting systems and incorporate advanced lighting controls, such as auto shut -offs, timers, and motion sensors; - Install high R -value wall and ceiling insulation; and, - Incorporate use of esmri sodium LED and/or fluorescent lighting,e. - Install electric car charging stations as preferred parking spaces. - Use light colored "cool' roofs and cool pavements. 186 • Require K the use of only ENERGY sfAR qualified heating, cooling, and li hting devices and appliances and equipment. • Implement passive solar design strategies in new construction. Examples of passive solar strategies include orienting building to enhance sun access, designing narrow structures, and incorporating skylights and atria. • Where appropriate as ii Engineeringa the nit.,Divisiona Building an r"` Safety isiei s- Structures shall be designed to support the b added loads of rooftop solar systems and be provided with appropriate utility connections for solar panels, even if installation of panels is not planned during initial construction. • All residential projects shall incorporate the following features: - A minimum of one (1) model home within each phase of project development shall be include an electric car charging station. Electric car charging stations shall be offered as an available option to the initial purchaser(s) of each single-family dwelling unit. - All multiple -family residential projects shall incorporate the installation of electric car chargjn,, stations for the use of their residents. 187 Comment Letter Q Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS Culture Committee I W. Tribal Road - Valley Center, California 92082 (760) 297-2621 or -(760) 297-2622 & Pax:(760) 719-8941 November 10, 2015 Roy Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 25 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Alberbill Villages Specific Plan Dear M, Y. Stephenson: This letter is written on behalf of Rincon Band of Luisen"o Indians. We have received your notification regarding the Alberbill. Villages Specific Plan and we thank you for the SB 18/AB52 continued consultation notification. The location you have identified is within the Territory of the Luiseno people. Embedded in the Luiseno Territory are Rincon's history, culture and identity. The project is within the Territory of the Luiseno people but, is not within Rineon's historic Boundaries. We do not have any additional information regarding this project but, we defer to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians or Soboba Baud of Luiseno Indians wbo are closer to your project area. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. 5i i�y, Tim l cPherson Manager Rincon Cultural Resources Department Bo Mazzotti Stephanie Spencer Steve Stallings Laurie E. Gonzalez Alfonso Kolb Tribal Chninam vice chimoman Coundl Mcmber Commit Mcmber Cwmcll Mumbcr 188 Q-1 Response to Comment Letter Q Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Pian and related applications in its letter dated November 10, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Rincon Band of Luiscuo Indians Comment Q-1 The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians states that it has not additional information regarding the proposed Project and defers to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. See also the Response to Comments for Letter 14 (Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians) and Letter R (Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians). 189 Comment Letter R Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Deceinber 21, 2015 Atm: Mr, Roy F. Slepbensou, PG:, Land Use Engineur Gib of Lakc 61si,orc c/o FIR Green 1100'fown & Counhy Rand, Suhc. 1025 Orange, CA 92863 RE: llraft Envirwuuen(al Impact Report; Alberlrill Villages Specific Plan 12010-02) 'fhe Soboba Band of Luiscfm Indians appreciates your observance of'fribal Cultural Resources and their presesvation in your project.'fhe Shalt F,;nvirommental bripacl Report that was provided to us on said project has been revicwod artd assessed through our Cultural Resource DgarIment. The following is our proposed amended langumga for CR 2: Cit -2 Prior to the issuance of e grading permit, the, developer shall provide evidence of monitoring agreements from bath the Soboba Band find the Pechunger Lund The agreement shall address duties of u'ihal monitors, scope of work, author iIy to halt work, dotics fund terms of compensation for tribal nhuni to ring. fhe Project Applicant shall contact both fhe Soboba Band and the Pechallp Band to notify i,hem of planned ground disturbing activities, including tesfing, f'aneing, clearing, grubbing, grading and excavation a ntinimmn of 15 days prior to commencement. Prior to tile issuance of a grading permit, title developer shall provide evidence of a creation agreeoronl with the Western Science Center, soh appropriate qualified repository within Riverside Counly that meets feticial smndards per 36 CFR Pert 79 and therefore would be professionally costed and made available to other archaeologistshesoarchers and tribal representatives for further study-llhe collections and associated records shall Ile oalosrelled, including title, to rill appropriate cutat'ion f tcility within Riverside Comity, to be accompanied by pitymcnt of l ix+ fees necessary for permanent curation. Pleasee feel free. to Contact me with any additional gnathions or concerns. Sincerely, CJ Joseph Ontiveros Culturel Resomeo Director Soboba Band of Luisoho Indians P.O. Box 487 Sun Jacinto, CA 92581 Phanc (95 1) 654-5544 cst.4137 Ccll (95 1) 663-5279 lonuvcrga at ub9ba-nstov GmPdenGo lily: 'the entirety .Rhe con(snll of this lever shat l remain confidential foto cen Soboba and (be City of Lake Elsinore is well as hired censoba,L rRoy P. Steph.nson). No pan of 1h,' cool.,(, of this letter may be shared, copied, or u(iliwl in any way with ally other individual, entity, nnnticlpalitp, or life, tvhlnsoercr, vithoul the cxpr'essell hvri(tell permission oftte Soboba Mild of Luisono Indian... R-1 R-2 190 Response to Comment Letter R Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in their letter dated December 21, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Comment R-1 Mitigation Measure CR -1 will be revised as follows: Cl2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading perait(s) and any earthmoving activities for the Project, or off site eject improvement areas, the implementing development Project applicant shall retain an- ^� a qualified professional archaeologist and a qualified Luiseno Native American monitor from either the Pechanga Band or the Soboba Band to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. Mitigation Measure CR -2 will be revised as follows: C11-2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the appropriatehidiaue both the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiscno hidians to notify that those Tribes of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of bake 12,,1sinni-e iRd t4e both Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address: the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and, treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites_, and human remains discovered on the site. Response to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Comment R-2 Mitigation Measure CR -4 will be revised as follows: 191 CR -4 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the professional archaeologist If any artifacts of Native American origin i are discovered all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50 -foot radius) shall stop and the Project proponent and Project archaeologist shall notify the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. A designated Native American observer from either the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall be retained to help analyze the Native American artifacts for identification as every life and/or religious or sacred items cultural affiliation temporal placement and function as deemed possible The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CLQA and shall consider the religious beliefs customs and practices of the Luiseno tribes. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be consideredrg ave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, ineluding saered items, burial goods and all arehaeologioal at,tif�aets that are found an the projeet area 1,E) ,i.•, MIIFIIIIHI—tribe v,,..,. pe treatment ,ra ,. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the Project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation and the archaeological consultant shall deliver the materials to a federally -accredited euration facility such as University of California Riverside Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU), or the Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontolov within a reasonable a nount of time. 192 Comment Letter S Inland Empire Biking Alliance a.n.w.,c.�uxu_ .( ...ppryry GANN. fpjffff pp gy7q N CT 20 December 2015 Mr, Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake [Iskone C/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, .Suite 1029 Orange, CA 9286E3 Inland Emp11'e Biking Alliilnce PO box 92GG Redlands, CA 92375 Dear Mc. Stephenson, We are writing you today on behalf of the Inland Empire Biking Alliance BEBA), a 5(1 nonprofit organization ,.hat represents the interests of bicyclists in the Inland Empire region of Southern Crdlfornln. IEBA's mission is to help bicyclists of all types have an easierand safer ride, not an easy task in the region of the state with the, worst safety record for vulnerable, users and one of the worst in the nation overall. Weare also the roBlonal affiliates of The California 13icyde Coalition, who's stated mission to triple bicycling in California by 2020 has also been adopted by Caltrans. _ This leder is to provide comments an the. Uraft Environmental Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan that has been prepared and is available for review on the i.afm Eisinm'e website. After closely inspecting several of the documents and analyses, we have several suggestions to further improve the proposal for bicyclists, and many of these benefits will extend to all users in general as well, Mee also have several questions that we hope can also be addressed Our areas of concern are on two main areas of the plans the Alberhill Villages SP and the Traffic Impact Analysis that was performed based on the plans. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan As described in Section 1.! of the Executive Summary of the Speritic Plan, a grand vision of a "sustainable community" is preseiued. However, this same Section is the bogirming of a Plan that continues it status quo approach that largely considers bicycles as chiefly recreational and while refer'onces are made to a grid like street network and m pedeserian-oriented design, the word "bicycle" does not even appear in the first Section at all. This is a significant problem for army plan about a "sustainable" community because while even the very SP under review here admowded{;os that tianspor"mon related emissions arc the biggest source of emissions in the city, not taking tlu time to consider and plan folbicycles to an actual and viable, mode of Trensporlation will result in everything that is not pedostrlan-oriented being auto contric. This is confirmed by nurneorn s elements of the far as 11.0, BOX 9266 Red1rinds, CA 92375 www, iu hi ora.org 909.000.1322 ...... .. .....+.....Li.�.._:s.i�.rois.TY.L. �u✓.?.r..3"w.z._..i. ..�iva.u... _..�i:: «, .. i. ..Y:S� .Y.. vy _.�....�.-�..y �....y..,.:i.. �. .,. u...,.4 193 S-1 S-2 VHUNG C5111# I well as the haf6c Impact And I YIs, a oherP, even though it is acknowledged that there in the future will be S-2 a it hub in the projects, plans still cal fur four and six -lane arterials to dice the community into Cont. segments while relying no I,oewwey-sized arterial roads to serve the project from the actual ftoeway. This approach flies in the face of the well-doCLI nenioif effect of induced demand on traffic. volumes, will eroby an increase in roadway capacity results in an inmmse in traffic counts (tiandy, 201'3). In that regard, Goal 2 as described In Section 31 vision, Goals, and Objectives of Chapter 3 Development Plan shows a Fonda mental Incompatibility with itself by stating that there is a goal to both "provide Adoqua to capacity for the anCcrop 1)11C-" and S un it topeon sly "reduce the length and number of vehicular trips'. Tho intotnpatibflity exists because attempting to hourf roads that provide "adequate capacity for the automobile" results in an environment where the marginal cost of driving, primarily in regards to time, malecs the automobile tic easiest, fastest, and most convenient manner to travel. 'Thus, In direct conflict with the stated Goa!, attempting building "adequate capacity" for autornobiles will mean a continuation of the rogjunal status yuo which encourages, not reduces velllCular irlps. Reducing; vehicular trips requires the adoption and use of measures that raise the marginal cost of a vehicular trip, parficulady in terms of travel time. When that happens, people make a choice about which mode of transportation will make Iho most sense at any given time. But for that choice to even be, worth calling a true choice, it requires more than just clearing street networks that are "inviting to use by oedeslrians, bicyclists, and various other modes of transportation such as bus and automobile" that Objective 2-3 calls for. Itrequires that the deslgn of the romnmnhy rnalce travel by foot, bicycle, and transit the easiest, especially for intra -district and short trips_ However, as currently envisioned and planned, that simply would not be true. Getting in a car and making a vehicular trip would remain the most appealing option for the vast majority of residents, visitors, and employees in the c0mmunity to travel. The results of the i nco;npaiiIII Iity beve also manifested tberose Nos in the T raffic IT, pact Analysis. The first sign of n ouble is the usage of tho 11 Rip Generation manual to obtain Figures on which the rest of the entire analysis is based. While HE has certainly sought improve their estimates over the years, review and analysis of the long tern, offects has found that TGM figures still greatly overstat'o the actual trips taken, with some being more than double the actual and the Inland Empire region as a whole showing an averap,,e infIn fon of elorpor than 30% higher (Millard -Ball, 2015). As it result, the figures used to conduct the analysis it almost certainly overstated. An analysis using revised figures that are more in line with documented ocfual usage should be undertaken. Tire problems of using the inflated trafIn figures are magnified by the traffic impact analysis itself being based on I.OS. In 2013 the California I.egislaturc recognized the inhemnt problems with basing planning decisions solely on how fast and how many cars could nwve through an intersection at a time when they passed Senate Bill 7a3, which Governor Brown signed Into law. >ursuant to SB 743, the Governcn's Office of Planning and Research was tasked with finding a replacement to mare accurately and truly S-3 S-4 P.O. BOX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iehike.cn,fj 909.300.4322 ra. 194 .:.-v.:-:_U. li-ww. J meet goats of mitigating traffic impacts, reducing emissions, and limiting the destruction of cities in the name of cars. In the iinsolvent rig months, they have settled on and are fmaliaing rules for using VMT Instead of LOS as the metric of significance. Though those rules !pave notYet goIle into effect, it is incomprehensible as to why planning fur a project that is expected to take decades to be completed, to be "sustainable", and to break the mold of sprawl That has permeated much of Southern California, particularly the Sprawling Inland Empire, for the last few decades, !ills taken no effort to use, or at the very (east, provide comparative scenarios with alternative methods of analysis that at not based solely on shuffling cars. This project provides a great opportunity to Uionoer the use of VIVID deal obla!n a real-world case study In its ability to create a model community of New Urbanism best prctices, but cementing the Uansporta(ion misl'akes of the last centuy at the heartof the planning process misses file mark and will also hamper the resultant Community itself with an infrastructural environment that much like tip, rest of the Inland Empire (ASCE, 2005; ASC[, 2010), the City will be unable to maintain, leaving, it stuck in the midst of the 2r" Century, Although VMT-based analysis would promote the use of the modified grid network That is proposed, relying solely on shortening the length of driven trips does not address The issue and there should also further measures to limit short distance driving. Commtrting data shows that To staggering 15% of driven trips are for destinations within half if mile, the taq;et distance of TOD, and as many es 50% are to destinations within five miles. Many of those trips can and will be taken by illurn nive modes of transportation, but only if the community Is not hint to make driving the easiest wey to do them. There must be a greater focus on taking active measures to discourage driven trips, especially for short distances. Doing so would greatly reduce the requirement for roadway space throughout the project, saving millions of dollars in construction costs and ongoing maintenance, opening up more land for development, rind providing residents with a true choice in travel options - Ono of the more effective ways to facilitate that outcome, Is to develop a ring nebvork around the community to solve the majority of vehicular trips. The plans show that the Alberhill Villages will be favorably situated Yo accomplish this with the outer four roads, fake, Street, Temoscal Road, Nichols Road, and Lincoln Street. They should be configured to form a ring network around the majority of the development. Additionally, internal con noctions for vehicle navel should be discouraged with several road closures that force motor vehicle trips to read, of areas to occur on the ring road (with possible exceptions for emergency, transit, and taxi services), as well as a Tach greater use of turn restrictions to right in/out only at more intersections during the four streets Terming the ring to provide a smoother traffic flow, on those. facilities_ S-4 Cont. Addition ally, though the potential for a transit hub at take St is mentioned in till, report actually developing it as part of the project is pot mentioned at all. 1< I building ane dustcring office space and S-5 corn nenctl uses around the %tiqion ape) i5 one of The mo: t r ikr i c ways tui ,duce what is typically the longest vehicular till) that people make, hung,doing a station into the development and it as part of P.O. BOX 9266 Redlands, CA 02375 wvvvd,icbike.nry 909.800.4322 :,i..,v.stM.M."toR+ti.W 195 1 - K pp ALLIANCE tlp NC P hasp l would bolster the Case for RCl'C to seriously pwsue one of Che inost feasible Metrolink S-5 extensions Identified in their 2008 Commuter Rail reasibdity Study. 'I""his location should also serve ac a cont. regional bus hub and coordination will! RCTC's planning of the nnanaged lanes on I -IS should occur to include a direct ramp to life lanes from the transit hub. An amtlysis fOCUsed on litnitalg short vehicular trips wouid also seek ways to facilitate and grow bicycling as an alternative. While the project currently references the accessibility by foot, the planners have massed the potential of the bicycle. The entire project should be designed so that someone at any point on tho development can reach rhe transit hot), pates, and university by bike or foot without having to go through estop sign or traffic signal. When properly planned, designed, and built for, bitycles tyre one of the bestniodes of transportation to meet the goals of any comrnunfty, but especially One intending to promote New Urbanists and a paradigm shift frown the status qun. Trois fs be, best oxemplifi(nt by the r)ufch city of Houten (Goleta, 2010), where biking is the primary mode of tra'Is po rtanon forshorteI trips. Though the overwhelming majority of Americans are willing to use buycies mora often (BI eakIWAY Research Group. 2015).and a short biking trip being about as fast driving despite requlring vastly less space, nearly nwo-f urds of them arc unwilling to make those journey: in the ntnr.nt environment thm perrneales the Inland Enpire and Is set to be replicated in this project because it is hostile to biking, I owever, biking infrastructure that is Safer arid simple comfortable to use leads to in Jenny cases, triple digit increases In biking (Berkow, et at., 2414)..While many citlos across the region struggletl to (In funding and space to add protected Infrastructure to their roads, this protect makes it possible to do so as part of Elie general development and set a ounces for best practice. while bicyclists are afforded all rights and duties of a driver under stale law and are allowed to travel in the roadway if they so desire, the roar) network as proposed will also not always be. efficient or sufficient for bicycle travel, ¢specially for those who are younger, older, or female. Like any other traveler, bicyclists who are traveling for transportation want and must be able to stake joufneys in a way that is last, offideny and safe, '!`hat means bikeways that provide direct connections among destinations within tilt: entire community and to the greater region as a whole, blkoways that are designed In away that minimaes conflict point's with other usercand intelsecting roadways, and bikeways that look, feel, and are safe to use from not just a traffic aAndpoint, but from the position of social safety and subjective safety as well. 'I his is the kincl of information that would be identified and contained in a bike mastot pian preoared to accompany this project, but such a document is currently lacking. I o address those deficiencies, we would recommend that one be cOMPleted for this project that will positively identify the arorementioned deficiencies. We have nut missed that there are several trails planned that will cross the community, but further review makes It apParont that they are primarily recreationally fomsed, which to practice ends up leading to too many compromises In design and owiIinLIS that are not adeouate for being considered for transportation. S-6 P.C. BOX 9266 ttedhmcis, CA 92375 Www'ieebiko,urg 309.800.4322 ••: i..�5 Jet.Sian'L..zAn4r"s`:F.5tAv3e�^.claac'.u'2'S SS.ilsf;f£f+le'Ynlnfaw�.e'F31: Cl.+':Yita�aL:bi(K'r3..-Lfial. 196 BIKING ALLIANC We would also recommend that rega;drss of if it bike roaster plan is preparod for this particular project (which wo cannot undertlate or emphasize enough how important doing so is), that the final plans for this project use the inIlow! nj; chart for detennining the best and most appropriate use of each type of bdieway in the transportation system. See Table 1 for guidance. Another important topic to cover will more in depth in a bike master plan will he bike Pal'king, Though we acct encour•agnd to see (I ru mention has been en ado of including bike parking at various areas in the project,we would like to reiterate how important it is to provide high,quatiry bike inarfdng and a lot of it, espodaily slnce Inc ntlolls of bike parking ami. cou Ilia, at IVtAv sparse to uompnrisun to parking f6V cars. fart itdam6y devolopmonIs should ndude bike roams for residents which include. at a minimum, tools ad workstations instaiIon, Additionally, short-mrut parid ng for guests is equally as important and should also be provided In an area th:ot a socially safe, which includes lighting and sighting. Ilse transit hub, university, and intense Com mmCmI uses wi0 also share the same requirements. However, rnid�term parking must be Provided at the transit hub to allow people to be able to more easily choose to combine modes in their commute, with e trite that also Provides bike snaring service also being, desirable to integrate into the project. Pina;ly, aim social safety of the oetwoII( Is extienely IinPorto tit . Typically, nails and paths in corn munities fal10 11 spertacudaI ly in that I Ogard. That cannot be done in Chis Project. All transportation bikeways must indude lighting and at regular intervals. With modern technology, it isvery possible to provide the lighting in such e way Ihat It is not as Intrusive to the environment and is also much cheaper to indude and operate than ever before. Lighting features can also iricht de tools to gather data, such as bike/ped counters that provide a disPlay of the nu in tier of users that have passed a particular poin10 t any given tune. P.Q. 13QX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 wwwwAcIbilmorg 909.800.4322 S-6 cont. ...?3.v..ndl. N:�e,.5sS1.Y:Yw3aS.a .,a_ I=. Is%'— W' 197 , . r o7, z, ........, ,.t_ "ars:,.,a....... , v;,a _.,x.< a .:,r I - =MI_..r ,_,..-. 4 Pun of bikeeuynetwork J _ Read dassificatian SPced limit Motor nark Ibilu: Piaydc ItYPI[al) tralli<AOT cavmu[er "mpedrighway' 7AD1 (tVPlcall ADT�d00) lbikaADl...,_ >600/day) __.�._ Tail (..A_ SAM, Pawifia Nl`(30 MPI 1) 0r Clnss l hikcpalh -�� All,Y 11 M1''!! 500 Vle:ai surcetJhrke tolduvald, frnlfi�_�irvertcls_� Wild! Slued c yS MPH 1,000- Id AMI/R1, iS ptclerreq V,') I- Iitke bmrleva'd I/ 3,500 1/'A'359, yr¢Id S{Teta arca>', IbL S'l z, mint.round: bu,us Calicrror a.fS One 3,000- RtIfe[ed Ulan llbikeiwre c'.o:.1VLocto a(k M1Ai'it tJOCfA reCtbn 15,000 Prulurteii;';hArraws', Ii=t1, wit- pre&[red,,:v 11W ]G -i ctaes 11 bike land.pe, tre0¢divert, of 10,000- Buffered Class Cl... <yU>t©ck lanes(dlrt4tlPn 0,000 11 bake lane prO aed, P�ci, rrcd, Ou(/^red Cl... 11 Classil Ae blhP luno. Minor/Secondary X 50 MPI4 cl... a, adjdcenl Oars l Arteriel cycletrack bike path oreleaed, Prefcrmd, Ch", iv buffered Gp55 Cyrlel[a6: it bike lane MAjtl )P'xipAi/Urb2n 30SsMPH IntlaVanf Class,V adl a❑a.;l lu. ball, Prehwdj; Arterial cY<kuack iunrtndecceys:mmalyraad. Gass Ri _k.pre55Wlly/ireaWay d{'i(1 MM, rrolAVant Adui e,lt W cS i bike path Table]. Recotr n cochod bikeways based on roadway network. Traffic Impact Analysis S -6i Cont. In adclamn to the general lack of vision in the specific Pian as a whole, the "fraf6c Impact Analysis i. Also extremely problematic for bicyclists even as currently prepared. 1 fm planned overbuilding of the roadways has very real implications on safety as many of them include features that are patently unsafeS-� ever) for motorists, but especially so for vulnerable users, with the Inland 6npire already topping the list `NaigBbodmod Lieasl( Vehicles and small so"'O"5 {i. e. <50 Cc) could also be allowed on regionally significant conn.-cti.r" P.O. L3OX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 www.ieblke.or0 909.800.4322 :�.n..F'..�.:.:��-.,,:..`�^risi�.:i.ills.'S'�'w.iusi4:3'�H..J�da'1:✓'i:.ti2faT�5�`1EK'y`.)e'i....}dFA�.vtr.tiitlaa. , 2Yu.4e.u...iCK'.";�F,+.f9'u�PY�.t6i1t.3 bL^:uu'�.'c"3'�a:?1P. 198 .Taieiit .aa_!r,..,�„�,.. Uvt ',rrtMro �s.�,A,:,..Fr .s,s:x:,-0.s._. zAsr1.r H..,_... '`mow 41.BIKING ALLIANCE Of Flies[ dangerous areas of the state for vulnerable users, the addition of more feaIla rFes that are dangerous by design into ttte street environment is the lust thing that we need. Additionally, many of the ;nteriecGons will be extromely hostile to all users, but especially those who are tint able to be eocas@d it a car. They would be better served by allowing vulnerable users to bypass them fern pIf, lely, especmIlywith a grade separation. if grade separations are employed, underpasses are Picferabie to overpasses that require. climbing to reach. Also, despite the proven safety and even cost benefits provided by roundabouts, we are dismayed to see that more of them were not considered for use, especially forinternaI intersections. Thoroughfares such as Streets R, C, U, H, ano F should be Ofanned and desfgred no have a roundabout at every Intersection along their length excerpt forst the major thoroughfares of lake $,reet, Lincoln Street, and Nichols [toad, T"his enforees.dower speeds and safer movement though those cot IIdors that will otherwise become major barriers in the convnuNb/. We err,.re also not particularly impressed by any of the planned hike facilities. Class II bike lanes along roads vehieh are bring planned and designed for moving tens of thousands of vehicles not day at SO MPH of more=_how a chronic and fundamental ihisunderstanding and disregard for bicyclists and their needs as wcitas a lack of vision that is completely out of touch with modern bicycle planning and bears title resemblance to anything sustainable. We would ask the planners and engineers 1'o take a long, hard look at the proposals and answer Truthfully if they would be Comfortable letting elenuamal y -aged children or elderly relativns use those facilities as constructed. If there is any hesitation in answering yes, they need to return to tire drawing board and rethink the proposal, When done right, bikeways can be quite. safe (Lusk, or al. 2013). Numerous Publications with standards for designing mom mciusive facilities exist and have been given the green light for use from Caltrans (Ci aggs, 2014), including the NACI b Urban Streets Design Gufde, the Federal Highway Administration's Separated Phu! Lane Planning Gori Design Guide, the rather progress MassDOT Seporaied Bike Lorre Preening R Design Guide, Record 25r Design manuedfor buicle traffic from CROW, and a forthcoming Design fnfonnotion HGNeno on the took from Caltrans. We cannot iterate enough the importance of the planners and designers of this project obtaining a copy to guide the development of this project. More specific comments that rotate to various features aro included below. Intersections lotersoctions present the biggest problem to all road users and account for a disproportionate number of serious and fatal collisions. We want to make sure that only the very best practices are used in this project, with reams of research now available on the topic, However, the misplaced pito[ fifes exhibited thus off in the project have continued bore. We have concerns for all of the intersections and would encourage measurcs be used to provide safer crossing points for all users. Reads in general should make far morn use of roundabouts, which are proven to be hoth safer and have a higher capacity III In vlrttNaliv all other options (Baosen, et ail, 2010). Y.O. BOX 4266 Recilartcls, CA 92375 www. iWke.org 009.800.11322 S-7 Cont. S -S S-9 199 i��L, _,_ .il..:v*"G�..Srv.✓-S-S=ii2Y2-1c._..:.Se _v1)..:. ..5 •'.' KING, ALLIANCE Additionally, prodding grade s£paratimt that allows nom motorized users to avoid big intersections entirely (srCb as pictured at right) is highly desirable, with the grneraI preference being; for underpasses. This is especially important for areas aromtd Ifarks, srhoois, or main corridors that will see high use and adding olein as part of general gr;tding operations means that the cost to provide them will be markedly lower than that of buiidbg them at a latui date. We do I call?'o that grade separation ill if; ht riot alvasls be feasible. In those instances, all ofthe arterial roads will hued to include best practice is design of the kttersections to ensure that safety of the bikeways is assured. At intersections with signals, this includes using the "protected Inln;rsention" design (raibo, Zfll i), which per ,,coon 4C.109(CA) of the CA MUl CD, would 3lre2dy be reryuired to include bike signals and phasing. At inteisectlon5 without signals, hest design practice includes making, the "tossing a railed table, wing bWb-ain5 anti tight corner tach to I<eep speeds low, and the use of median refuge islands, especially at all locations where users will be crossing a roadway with two or more lanes per direction of travel, including dedlcatcd tum lanes. limsarloef Conyon Road or Temescol Conyon Road This intersection is ideally suited for a ioundanOut, which would enforce low vehicle speeds through design. However, regardless of the intersection design ultimately chosen, a bikeway needs to be provided in it way that allows its users to bypass the signal. I'he preference is for a Class IV licitly, but it itinsltlon for it Class II lane to bypass beidnd the signals could also woi k. take street at lentescal Canyon Rood As the main intersection between the areas projected to have the most intense uses, this intersection needs to be planned to facilitate a large number of people, not. Just cars, passing through it it a time. Ideally, this intersection should hr, built wltb a raised profile to provide an order pass for bicycasts and pedestri.ms to pass through without having to go Yhrough the signals at all. Doing so would also realize henehts far LOS as the absurd size of the two intersecting streets means that the time necessary for pedestrian clearance is stgoiflcant. woke Sweet at Nichols Road Tills intersertlot) would benefit from a raised Profile, While there is a pedestrian overpass ptaoned for Just south of this location, it is clearly focused on providing access to the park, not people moving about for transportation. Free right -turn lanes are extremely problematic, for bicyclists and pedestrians. we are firmly against including lheste feafli£es in the road network as a whole and would encourage the engineers to seek other alternatives at this locatlon_ If there are truly no other options available, crosswalks across the slip lanes need to be constructed as raised tables to enforce slow speeds and yielding to nonntotodzed users. Terra Cola flood at t.akeA,we Drive A roundabout 1010001) shuubd be studied at this intersection to avoid adding lanes The addition of lanes S Cont. FSOX 9266 Redlands, CA 9=1375 m,ww.io Wko.cuc 909.1500.4322 ,,V is, m.5._v .i..O�',`k.. ,YY .i Yv5a 5±si at0:G3F'u'�Mi£Ji'.I cm -.__. 200 MKING ALLIANCE. creates a more dangerous and hostile. env! mmfftenIto bicyclists and pedestrians, especially when Spot- (I limits are higher than 3f, MpH. Lincoln Street at Icinescal Canyon Read This ireefsection would benefit h'om a raised profile with underpass for bicyclists and pedestrians, s mita, to 1'emoscai at Lake. That would realize Sunhat henefits here as at that location while also providing the west side of fhc devclapment with an Ideal connection to the transit hub, It would also mitigate problems that otherwise exist with a flat intersection. If at grade, the planned free right -turn lanes arc eaceedingiy, problematic for people on a bicycle or foot and aro definitely not a feature of New Urbanism. They should be avoided at all costs; the safety of vulnerablo users cannot bo sacrificed for LOS and doing, so is completely out of late Willi promoting a pedestrian oriented environment. Roadway Segments LakeStr'eer Described as "a nudti-functional corridor", the reality of the current design proposal for Lake 3beet has only one function written all over It moving lots of cars and moving, thern fast, to actually be "a nndti- functional corridor", the "meandering pedestrian and bicycle paths" are senply not enough for people to be able to safely and comfortably choose to travel by bike. Although it is stated that "bilin lanes will be provided on both sides of the street", due %o the speed limit and projected volumes, Class II bike lanes are net a good ft in the current proposal, Eake facilities need to be usable by all road users and Should at a minimum, be constructed as Class IV cycletrack facili ics that provide physical separation from the traffic an the adjacent roadway, However, due to the proposed width of Lake Street, it is preferable for bidirectional Class I bike paths to be included on both sides of the street. That provides people with the ability to reach destinations without having to cross Lake Street unnecessar{Iy. The use of separated bikeways also means that In accordance with Section 2C.109(CA) of [he CA MUTCO, all traffic signals on Lake Street will require that bicycle -specific signals and phasing be included. The phasing should avoid confli"ing movements between users of the separated bikeway and travel lanes. Additionally, It is exceaclogiy poor practice and completely against any of the ideals of New urbanism to build overly wide Ioads such as Lake St., especially, in Its eight -lane configuration, without any dedicated space for transit. Carrying forth that mistake will enshrine that the proclaimed "mulkhhntetional corridor" is anything but. A bus turnout that requires buses to cut through the bike lane is riot the answer. Failure to do so will greatly hinder the ability for the City Of Temecula as well as the region to meet AB 32 targets and will be problematic as VIA becomes the standard for traffic. impacts as the road will encourage driving.'ro avoid this issue, any parts of Lake St. where there are more than two lanes per direction must include dedicated transit lanes, with the center -meting configuration having nunwrous advantages overa shared right -turn onry/transit option. See Figure 1 for best practice rccmm�xtndat{ons, Figures 2, 3, and 4 for passable alternatives. P,O. BOX 9266 RedluntJO, CA p2375 www.iebike.or9 909.800-4322 201 S-9 Cont. S-10 S-11 v..x-vr .✓,riy¢.ni..1: . BIKING ALHANCE. Lincoln Sri eef Tire fact that Lincoln Street is being constructed as a A kane road means that Class II bike lanes are Inadequate for use as hike facilities, fiat traffic cot:nts and speeds wlII be too high, Sothe lanes need to be replaced wit at a minimum, Class IV cyclebarIc' that provide 8 separated foci IRy. ibis may be partially accomplished with the multi.purpose path on tee wesient edge, but only as long as the rem Iour In width is ne less than 71 feet and Claw I bike path standards are. adhered to in ifs construction. Ad0,60oaliy, per Section 4C 109 ((-,A) of the CA MU fCD, all signals are required to include bike signals and phasing. fheso adustrnents neer to be made to any existing grid planned signals. At unsignalized Intersections, -tic design needs to prioritize movement on the bikeway over the intersecting streets_ If complete grade xcparation is not undertaken, then this is greatly facilitated by using a raised table <iesi gn that briny, the leve( of the read up to meet foe bikeway ollouglr toe inte,sec Fon. The design should also place the infersettialf path to 1>e far enough away from the parallel roadway to provide turning vehicles and corner radii should be kept tight to enforce slow speeds See Hpures 5 and 6. Nichols Road I he proposal for Nichol> Toad to have fins lanes oloans that traffic counts and likely speeds will he tae high for Class II hike lane:, to adequately provide H place fal all users to be able to ride. The Class II bike lanes should be replaced with Class IV bikeways. See Flgures 7 and &. A Weer In 'Mable 7-2 (CON711vUEW: General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Dally Levels of Service Summary, a conflicting picture emerges of this street. According to traffr. projections, the dally volunin at horizon year will be around either 5,000 or 36,o0o, an extremely disparate range. Tile result is a road that at buildout with Project will encourage speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors as well as be a grossly inefficient use of spaeu, l'here is zero engineering reason to build a foul -lanedivided highway for ITT ojected volumes ghat are barely one sixth of capachy and in addition to invoking unsafe driving, will be a large maintenance liability. Rut:hermore, it is stated tiler A Street intended to Invoke a small town central square feel. However, a town square that encourages people to congregate is fwtdonoentolly incomaatfble with a through road built with the capacity to handle nearly a quarter of the total projected nips for the entire project. Doing so amounts to the functional equivalent of putting a park In a freeway, the absurdity of which should he evident. Salad town cental squares can only he social gathering spaces when and because they are not overrun by cars. While motor vehicle acce>s ref any shops and residences might be necessary, allowtog them to travel the entire way through on A Street means that cars will dominate the onviromnent. To best accomplish the goals of creating a desirable location for people modeled after a small town central square, A Sueer must actually be a small town central square. As such, it must ran he a through street (eicept be, for ereergency, municipal, and transit access, which can be controlled via photo enforcement). It can either function ss 021' way couplets that do not make through travel convenient or P.0, BOX 9266 Recilnrids, CA 92375 www.icbiko.ot'g 909.800.4322 .::::,i�s.�-,-:ca�:aR7 rn^=rr...0 e:,..;,_..,^s �ar.r_t,Mr�.a-.%r,'�.sa'+-, :�:,-..vu�:,.✓.a�.,�crx,:c.-- rz„a;;F:rr.:uavricY,^mvzU,.z� x,..-�s�.,x:�_�mav::�.w S-11 cont. 202 ' J2CS_a ...uF.�5•. ...z �," .: Sw�.v.'.�av:.v193^ .&.,,.....i'::......_._ _ '9:..».., v....-.+icS .,...1-. .c.. ...�_zc;. I ='I'3.. &Y.3. one half of the couplet needs to be ressuvad as solely as a Tonle acci'ssihie by transit and artive transportation. See ffguns 9, 10, 11, and 12, ASrroet More care should be taken Zoensure that ti Street is not Zr traffic sewer through the ccraerrOf the Community. AceCSs should be limited, with a'nigh list' of features such as chicanes, bolboute, choke points, and raised tables to keep speeds low throughout its entire length. See figure 13. C Stmef While C Street will serve a sizable portion of the commmlity, it must not be primarily about cars The need to create an enviroontent that is most comfortable for biryciiSIS and pedestrians IF not be sacrificed in the name of LOS. Addltiona 1115 roundabouts should be the preferred intersection Ueahnclit for the earn e, street and turn restrictions should be used at more of its irite r%vt I ons, while using median island; to facilitate Connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians. See figures 14 and 15. A IF, and FStreet - These three streets are located in areas that primarily have relatively lowdrocrIsity land uses. Thur current profiles really deserve. to he reevaluated as we It, but making, them much narrower is probably unlikely, However, roundabouts should be the preferred intersectiolI treatment alon; Ihem, especially in the area around parks and schools. Additionally, they should include ohicanes, bulb -outs, speed tables/raised crosswalks, and other traffic Calming measures along their length. Also, to IF walking and biking among the planning areas, more of their Intersections need to be identified as right m/out only for motorists to hot It increase safety as wall as lessen the advantage of driving. See Figures 16' and 17. tnternof Roadways The thoi oughf»res internal to the project should also be built to ensure that they are friendly for all users and do not prioritize driving.'rhase are the most important for reducing the extremely short trips and should be rnade to be as discontinuous for motorists as possible, including through the use of measures such as bollards, forced turns at intersections, and other measures that allow priority Gam alternative modes of travel, summary in summary, the planners and engineers need to take this project's transportation plans back to the drawing hoard and completely redo It. "Nese urbanism" IS more tiranjust putting up more muRifentiiy and mixed -ase developments. N�.,w UTball and sustainable land use depends on the transportation system In place for its arca and as long as it continues to rely chmfly on p,`oviding "adequate Calla City for P.O. BOX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 wwvv.i0bikc.om 909.800.4 322 ::: "z- :k^'tx-- 11_9...,.:...u..:.d:k= :cmm c',.'.'�a-;Yu.t::'LL]'sY 'nasa',:e.11Y...,.L.ia>'rs : S-11 Cont. S-12 203 :5A"v.. Z.saw:'v._e�%F..r.-.`..wSM.,.:a.Ctttr._.u.C:.:L'1....t ..it(.G.:�[w.na1„kz_..Ck w...:.:1L4✓'...'al.-rv.6,mLS') SA_RSs.iE.nrc»?.E '-..YCet k” 1$dr�BIKING ALLIANCE the automobile", the result will hardly be a deparAa'e hnom what currently exI,is in thea I egiou today, The focus slink) ld be on moving people, not. moving Cara Without such a shift, Uie Villages pIoject uitimately will be. hard-pressed to become more than just tall Is we would highly recomneafd that the planners, engineers, developefs, and elected offtoa+s of lake !,k,inore tape Che time to travel to places like Houten and Alreere in l'he Netherlands, both of which ate recently Constructed comtramities that arc world.famooe for the sustainable design of their transportation systems. if there are any questions or concerns with the propOsal being put forth, do not hesitate to contact us far clarification. We airs rnore than happy to address anything that Is unclear or oucsUons that the planners and engincers may have aorf we n'tainrain an exten&ive network of orofesslonal contacts that are also be willing to assist the efforts of creating a s slalnable community that's actually sustainable. Sincerely, Mark Friis, Executive Director Marven E. Neiman, PieniclLut ['_O. ROX 92Oti Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.orc7 969,300.4322. >::_.,.....-i,.2^2u.,,:t..r_':il::tiyu"xL"2•'r2':[w_17.uo�C: 5-12 Cont. 204 E 9� f � ' (V N 9B d O MiSrn — Q( a>mnq C vo W co � � ca R4➢JI i ,_, (ll 0. N N S i c v 4 3 qq c N pp o-! ,y D M phi � � Q m CO v a m Of o uo � N m m N d m w � N Q n q u^7 a 0.. 205 206 1Ym^� N M O .�wuyy C D7 Cn m cncz N � J rn T 1 O O 206 N N M O W D7 6 m N rn T 1 O O W � y v 3 S 3 C VJ o r- M � N J c U � N v T1 c � N W � lil N � N y Ol N �( N m a O cn � 206 C.D E 207 0 0 208 209 ca CD CD Lai Cwp 13 _N GJ „� `ate ,. a C CD coCU � (II Co 209 It�j1 F 210 211 Nrf U� Y� Mai is L p F3mU w �} G.Y 211 r rE 212 �lr_n CID ix :...am�umyx�tlA LU g( W CO c; cCD x I 213 r f ii i i s FIR V M 1 O � Lai � rn n CD cz 6yya,,,,a,m�rr � j 5zN G C N U � a = c ro a a: c: m N � N. O 7 Wi 214 I 215 \\G§ /!� ) } \ ƒ 215 s I 216 i 1 Y� I m I f." C u Lai p i+ n+ 13. a O cm G V L r I m 0 _ 1 I C 4 K M P O ' G Q V � N ro s I 216 Y 13 O C7 n 217 ON ¥ � ■ 218 ER E 4-a Cf) r lamol 219 Response to Comment Letter S Inland Empire Biking Alliance Inland Empire Biking Alliance provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 20, 2015. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-1 This comment describes the Inland Empire Biking Alliance's status as a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of bicyclists and its mission. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-2 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." The commenter expresses its concern regarding the design of the AVSD. This concern is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-3 See the above Response to Comment S-3. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Continent S-4 The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) utilizes the ITE Trip Generation rates and Level of Service (LOS) analysis pursuant to established TIA preparation procedures and in accordance with City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside Transportation Department requirements. It is acknowledged that pursuant to Senate Bill 743 that future TIA will be required to consider Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); however as noted by the commenter, these rules are not yet effective. 220 The commenter also offers suggestions regarding the design circulation system within the AVSP. This concern is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Inland Empire Bikini= Alliance Comment S-5 See the below Response to Comment T-5. Response to Inland Empire Bikine Alliance Comment S-6 This comment describes the way that bicycling is a mode of transportation that promotes "New Urbanism and a paradigm shift from the status quo." The comment also recommends that a bike master plan be included in the proposed AVSP and that all transportation bikeways include lighting at regular intervals. These comments are acknowledged but are regarding the design and content of the proposed AVSP. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs. persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-7 This comment expresses concerns regarding the "planned overbuilding of the roadways." All planned roadways within the proposed AVSP are designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic levels that will occur at project building in an estimated 30 years. The commenter suggests the use of roundabouts on thoroughfares such as Streets B, C, D, E and F at "every intersection along their length except for at the major thoroughfares of Lake Street, Lincoln Street, and Nichols Road. The proposed AVSP states that "a number of different traffic calming or speed reducing devices or designs shall be implemented in PDPs including roundabouts, neck - downs, cul-de-sacs, divided roadbeds, knuckles, pocket parks, and neighborhood focal points (refer to Appendix B, Sample Traffic Calming Devices). Similar devices may also be utilized as long as they meet the goals and intent of the circulation system for this Specific Plan." No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Inland Empire Bikinis Alliance Comment S-8 See the below Response to Comment T-9. 221 Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-9 This comment includes recommendations regarding the design of a number of intersections throughout the proposed AVSP. These recommendations are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. See also the above Response to Comment S-7. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-10 See the below Response to Conunent T-10. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment 5-11 The commenter expresses its concern regarding the design of the most of the principal streets with the proposed AVSP. This concern is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. See the above Response to Comment S-2 and the below Response to Comment T-10. Response to Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment S-12 This comment summarizes the concerns expressed in the commenter's letter and recommends that the AVSP be "completely" redone. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "h1 reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." Since the commenter expresses its concern regarding the design of the AVSP and raises no new environmental issues; therefore no additional mitigation measures and no modification of' the DEIR are required. 222 Comment Letter T Caltrans District S slny?gr,C/JildnRNJdrSabllhltN�G 193J1:IsnM niu ru�q nayN 'Y 1)1's'PAlt'I'MI?N'1' Ole 9'RANSPORTATION ons rRIM's PLANNING (MS 72.2) 464 WPS"I4°'9'P427iG'r, 0 Phot SAN M.RNARUINO, CA 92401.1,100 1'l10,W (I)Olo 393-4557 PAR (909)383-5936 17Y (909)383 -Orr) www.dul.ea.gov/dislR January 13,2016 Mr. Roy Srephiu son, PS, Land Use. H igincer City of Lake Hkehlorc C/O 1 -IR Groen 1100 'Town &, Country Road, Suite 1025 Orangc, CA 92866 I lfoiP +nix rvnri•rl File: 08-R(V-) 5 -I'M -20A37 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberldll Villages Specific Pian Mr. Su:phenson, The Califm�nia Department o[ Transportation (Caltrans) has completed its review of the Draft Environmenm] Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The project is bounded by I-15 to the north, the Ilorsethief Canyon Ranch development to the west, and Take Street to [lie east. The projrot outlines tire land use and transportation plan ffir 1,400 acres of hand wil:hin the City of Lake Elsinore, in six planning areas over 30 year period. The Specific Plan states that the project. Will be a sustainable community featuring several town canters with retail and office Space and include a Ihliversity, multi -use trails, parks and lakes. The housing options includo 2,675 single family residential homes, 4,370 apartments, and 1,200 condominiums for a total of 8,244 dwclliug units. The Ilnivemity will meeot. (lie needs of 6,000 students, while two churches will each provide education opporiunitics to 000 students, and an elementary school for 850 Students is planned. The plan also includes 1,621,000 square feet of commercial uses, 886,000 square feet of office space, and 56.3 acres of park space. As the owner and opranim of the State Highway System (SITS), it is our rosponsibili[y to coordinate and consult with local ,jurisdictions when proposed devolopnient may inifaia our facilities. As a responsible agency under Ilan California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is also orf responsibility to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project, which may include traditional mitigation measures, in addition to multimodal transportation access, traffic safety modificatimm, and travel demand management strategies. Although rhe project is under the jurisdiction of [he City of Lake Elsinore (City), due to the project's potential impact to Strata facilifies, it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern 1110 SHS, We strongly eneouage Cities to utilize the concepts of sustainability and urban and regional Planning when envisioning their projects. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, Susntinable, integrated and efficient transpormtiou system to enhance California's economy and livability, We therefore commend Ihe City of Lake Elshhus for atlenhpting to include the needs „nvlJe np'I,susfalrmL)v, hNe);rnrna and f(,elenr,nmx..... sJ`NCm N 111N1111 CnRjnrnb'e monn,ny and lirnm(nr. 223 T- I T-2 T-3 :vtr. Stephellson .fainnny 73, Will Pat"'e, 2 of mullimuodal hansptulation users and Wildlife within file project scope, and fbr providing, open space amens- all nae-asums aimed at increa ing emummnily livability and tarvironmcmal quality. however, we offer the following comnments based oil the Traffie Impact Analysis (TJA) methodology and offer recommendations for snsrainable development based upon Specific Plan objectivr_s and goals. Oivun these considerations, we, offer the following comments: Sustainable community Development and NluiRnwdal Accessihtllty: Callrans acknowledges andeamcoorait" time City's efforts in planning mixed-use, dello and transit-nc0essible communities in the Alberhill Villages Specific Pian. 11 is apparent that the Specific flan goals which include providing a jobs/housing balance, multi -modal circulation system, incorpotaling Sustainable design concepts, and ill(egtating open Npace Me all visionary goals than Callans encounuges. 1Towmi, based upon sustainable comnuulily and complele streets research colldneed by this office, it is opparent that this project, although aspiiztional, has several components which do molsatisfy time requirenreuts of a sustainable community. We will discuss overall thenmes and provide recommendations in 111100 clleguriev below: transit access; land use and housing; and street design. D'ansitAccers: Case studies of sustainablc comnmeuities developed around the world show (hal the provision of high quality transit to all residents is a primary focus for their development. It is therefore ncossary to duvolop sustainable communities around it transit station [hill is integrated with other regional narsil and provides an efficient option when compared to automobile travel. This ensures (hat a higher proportion of trips are taken utilizing public transi(, walking and bicycling ratherthan tunmuobitcs,-Aliltough the Specific Plan suggests that a tcrosit center may be developed at a Later phase, we suongly encourage the City to work will) tile. Riverside Canty Transportation Connnission {RCTC) amt 12iverside Tlansit Agency (RTA) to ensure public trutsit options arc providod to residents in the early phases of development. Referring to the 1-1.5 Coram ulo: hail I'casibilify Sillily released in 2008, rail service has been analyzed fry within Ibe, shrdy, Alternative CI shows an extension of Commaha rail service along I -1S and provides a I'Ahe Sircet Station in Lake Elsinore. We encourage the City and RC TC pursue this project to ensure the viability of development of such a corridor in cagjunction will' the Specific Plan. It is apparent that (his arca could he a potential transit priority area for the Riverside Transit Agency given its high proportion of mixod-use areas around a potential lake Street SLttion. We would also recommend the implemeutatian of bus-mrly Lanes along Inkc Street to connecl to the future transit station and to mimmize the trips generated from the project (more on this in the "Street I)esigu'° section) below). Additionally, Caltrans suggests time applicant, City and RTA consider transit passes or subsidies In stimulate future residents to patronize the regional public transit system. "lhra0.fe m,r1:, "An:, nn6lp "ah, ,,e(y7eAa,l..NN orinnnn rybxem m:minv:ca t`efirivnio 6 um:a�p� ami liratrr8(„” 224 T-3 Cont. T-4 T-5 Mr. Stephenson .hmuary 7.3, At116 Page 3 Land asc and Holtsuag. Referring to the THA Figure 2-2, "Land Use Naming Area Map', it is apparent that the above- mentioned transit access oppordrnitics would provide reastnnable, public hansportation options to planning areas 1A, 173, 1.C, 213, 4C via Commuter nil, and perhaps even 6A and 6B via a bus - rapid transit line connwted to the Lake Street Station. However, the majority of the planning areas within the Specific 111011notmentioned above rim not provide the density nor the transil- supo'tive grid network nocessary to provide. all efficient public transportation system to community residents. Although we commend the City for planning a series of mixed-use neighborhoods, walking and Who trails, and a mugc of housing options, it majority of the hips associated Willi the single family residential land use designations will likely be utkcn via the aotornlobile. Sustainable conmluniiies have utilized a range of housing options within a single planning area It) coulntetact this outcome. This tray include Singh, -family attaclrud and smaller siagle-tinnily lots that do not have private yards in the same neighborhood ns condominiums and apartments. This could help increase the density of the neighhorhonds and reduce the camnnmiiy's Carbon, writeand ecological 'footprhats. ]n addition, a rnajonly of the single family residential land use lucks a mixed-use or commercial center within walking distance. We therefore, recommend that the land use planning may, include mixed-use, areas along Street E in Planning rheas 2 and 4, and along Lincoln Silver ill Phoning areas 4 ,,)(15 This would decroasc the numbor of automobile hips taken to access good's and servics. We, also soongly encourage the City to pursue tine development of office space and commercial uses in conjunction with housing orations, hr order to ensure residents have the opportunity to live within close proximity to ellploymcal opportunities front early stages of development, thereby reducing the project's impact on regional transportation systems. Finally, we strongly endorse applicants consult Willi environmental dcaign certification programs to ensure the constructed buildings utilize the most updated criteria for mcoling sastainab ility goals. So ea Design: larsuring that a multimodal transportation systems is planted for the Alborhill Villages Specific Pian that serves the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, h ansii xiders and car- / van pooling will reduce congestion, vehicles miles mmiod, greoohouse gas emissions, and out, State's effect oil climate change. We therct'om support the language expressing the dnvelopment of walkable and traffic cajoling measures in mixed-use/commercial areas, the planned 1111116-asc Mails, and the inclusion of bike lanes on streets. However, it is apparent Brat the methods and designs utilised within the TIA assume a large proportion of autmnobile. u9ps associated Willi the project and croale hsnspoTation systems that may be unsafe, for road users. To assist the City in reducing vehicle trips associated with the. proposer) development, we oi'lei the following commentn: • The traffic generation methodology utilized within lbc TIA appear to be in<a)n i3leu( will) the stoat of pnrvidiog nnilti-modal tt;anspornulion systems and suslainable community design. If .... a,un„r.....,,,r .,,,a G,•nba,9%� 225 T-% T-8 Mr. Stcphonson January 1:3, 2016 Palo 4 i lie project truly aims in develop a sustainable, mixed -i= oonmuuhity, ihco tt,e traffic estimated nuty be loo conservafive when compared to sustainable conmuuity case studies. This has been dcn,w,shate f in "Getting Trip Cteneralion Right"' which suggests 111m [he LPL Handbook overestimates peak hour traffic by an average of 15% in such areas. Thu report sulrgeg, Is utilizing allxena(e methodology, such as chose Bound in the PTA multiregioit I study Curl an N1IC1tP 681 Study. In addition, with the passagel of S13 743, we have encomit9c project applicants to utilize vehicle roils traveled (VMT) as a method of analysis within transit priority areas, which me located within one half mile of high quality trausif shdioas. As filture developments whhh) [Ile Specific I'Ian wilt inolude their own TIA's, we suggest utilizing these methods within one half mile of Lake Street Station if Alternative CI is pursued. I'he DEIR cites 1110 California ComplOfe Soca s Act (AB 1358), will, its aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissimhs, utilize land efficienlly, improve public hcahh, rMuce, VMT, and shillshort trips from tile, auhmnobilc to biking, walking and use of public transit. We Inc proponents of these measures, and strongly encourage the applicant and City conthlef ircarclr Miring both the, NAC` I0 Urban Sheets Design Guide (i,ag:Iltl?!tto,�g*lynlzlaS.nlCon urban tltcU dcs�f;t, lryt<�) and C alttsne' Main Shect, Culiforrua document (hflp./Jwwyv dot cq,Sov hq/t tnd�Arc)1 norms eat mann sttepS_3rd cdihon.pdt) for solutions That create envtuoulentn that stimulate greutor active tianspotation travel. These solutions will help adequately "plan for a balanced, umtti-modal trnvsportation network Wal meets the needs of all laurs of the streets". These guides will provide infarmalion for . haffic calming, lendncaping aesthetics, and road space allocations. We strongly recommend the applicant reconsider 1110 use of Class 11 Bike Lanes on it number of roadway segments within the study area, and instead implement Class IV Separated Bike lsnos utilizing existing right-of-way. please review tine recently released Calirmhs Design Information Bulletin Nnmher 89" for design guidalloc. These infiastructnre solutions have. been found to reduce collisions for all lead users, groally increaso the Title of cycling along streets, and have, even benefited economic vitality along the, corridors on which they are impleoleoled. Theso facilities inclndo 5-7 feet in width for the travel Jane„ and a 2.3 foot buffer space with some fornh of vertical separation placed within file buffer space. We also r'ecomnlend placing green paint in Conflict areas, such as driveways and inteisectiOns. Vertical a0pamtion is necessary to roduco roadways stress and Collision rates, and is imperative when travel vahhmes exceed 40 Mpld, as iu1 es,imat0d 85-900/, of peeieshims and cyclists hit at such high speeds suffer fatalities. Such separation May include flexihte delineators, hollards, planters, and curbs)dikcs; placing the bike lame to Tile right of packed Can; also provides a form of separatiol. Many of the additional, right-of-way requested for bicycle travel can be acconuuodalocl by by re -allocating right-of-way from either the median or parkways. We olfcr file following recommendations: =<aftP%it:"wu•.fclu<mdpvU:.Gan,)wp-amtenilupinadsJitU.:S/0?iA1'A PAS S4ayFAl3 <icllinn 1 'pCenitiaLi.pd1'> rlrigr./he.a�i.dot.ca.got/h �r'oPpd/:fib/,iibA9.pdf? "f?nerd. a salt s¢vu,)nnGf:. Y,ng,nt, Anna;Ijioe,✓ rrnnspm,anm, q;5f..m In m;Are,r: e. i'nllm,in'n eJm,omP and livnLllip.. 226 T-8 Cont. T-9 T-10 tiIn Stephenson 3nuuary 13, 2016 Page S n Lake Street- l -Li to Sued "A" Couplet- Placing it 6 foot bike lane nest to Pour travel lmros docs nut provide a n•.asonable, safe or convenient environnrenl for bicycle travel- Provide 8-10 feel for a separated Bike l.um with vertical separation. o 1-ako Street- Street "A" Couplet to Nichols: Provide; 8-10 feel for a Soparelal Bike Lane. o Lake Street- Nichols Road to 1000' North of Mountain: Provide 8-10 feet for a Separated Bike Lane. o Lincoln Street- Tenrescal Canyon Road to Nicholls Road and Nichols Road to South Project Botmdary: Consider including a 2-3 foot buffer space and vertical separation to tate left of fire bicycle to avel lane. We also recommend green paint in conflict areas-, o Sucet "A" Condition 1: Consider including a 2-3 fool buffer space (with no vertical separntion) to the left of rbc, bicycle travel lane. We also rectimmend green paint in conflict arcus. o Street "A" Condition 2: Consider 6 foot bike lanes or parking -protected Separated Bike 1..ancs to provide reasonable, bicycle navel outside of the'door zone'. a Street "A" Condition 3: Consider 6 foot biko lanes or parking -protected Separaled Bike Lams to provide reasonable bicycle travel outside of'lbe'door Y'Drai . o Nichols Road- Lincoln Sheat do 1 -oke. Street and West I?od Condition: Consider Including a 23 foot buffer space and vertical separation to the left of the bioycte trawl line, We also recmmnend green, paint in conflict areas, o Loop Roads: Stripe Class Iii Bike Route shared -lame markings within the travel lane at least 3 feet to the 1e11 of parked vehicles, with strategic placement of "Bikes May Use Yull Line" (R4-11) signs, As stated in the "Transit Accessibility" section above, we recommend the inclusion of Bus Rapid 'Transit Innes on Like Street. This world aid the project in satisfying the goals of developing a sustainable community, bahurcing the needs of all transportation erodes, reducing VMT, mrd providing a Complete Street. This is fnrthoi suggested in lite Traffic and Circulation Plan Policv All 4.2, which idenlifies Lake Street as one of "the most significant roadways within the Alberhill Disb:ict for transit". Please review the NACTO guide mentioned Bove for details on street design. Traffic Operations nod t;orecrstin The scope of the Project suggests the potential for significant impacts to Stale facilities, including I-15- Due to ihis, Caltrans' Operations and Forecasting unit's arc tasked wish analyzing the methodology and mitigation measjnes fomrd within the TIA. We offer tile. following comments: The report is missing Trip Dktribniion and 'I}ip Assignment analyses, which arc necessary to evaluate traffic impacts from the unposed pioJect. This is particularly important for hucrsections #2 and 013, Lake Snect at 1-15 Noillibound (NB) and Southbound (SB) ramps, respectively: As indicated in the rel)(m, ]Act. Street oritine 1-15 will serve as the main "Prtn•rdr, sr/, aryId—ld, bl"no"do I/Erre, u,rag;,,nnNm....:m .,mn CnliJ,r,,, .....mpn,v I ... hi)lly" 227 T-10 Cont. T-11 T-12 Mr. Steptrensoa humary 13, 2016 Page 6 entrance into Alberhill Whiles, yet "-aloe volumes on (he 1-akc Street ramps appear m fill significantly lowertill,,, Ilwsc cxpoctiod for a major ihmollpMare into n project of hors intensity. hwhule existing lane georne(ry and conduct ramp nirrlrc./divmrge analyses ai the Nl3 and SB dircciials of the T=15 and .Nichols Ro;e , end 1-1S and bike Sirce( nitcrchangcs to determine, the lmpaces of the development at these,Imktions. hicludc exlublis Hilt show AM/PM lixisling Peak lhxu volumes, AM/PM Projerx Peak ifour volumes, AMIi'M Currnllative will' PloiOG. Cond"'Oe"l, and Mitipatel Cumulative, with Prgicet %'.onditi011S. • The. reprxt is missing truck volunm rnlimfnultion, Please include these dala in further analyses. + `rite revised TIA should include 10<:al and region:d unnsyortation finulini; mechanisms and it discussiwl ofpzoject Hlir share contributions. _. "l'lialil< you for providing us the opportunity to review die Draft Nivironmcutal bnpact Report for the Alberlilll Villages Specific Plan and Cor your cnnsidcrinion of theca and fuWle connnenls. Tliesc recommendations are preliminary and summarize Out review of materials provided for our evaluauion. 11, tills proposal is revised to any way, pleaso forward appropriate iniinnwtiml to this office sl, that updated recd mnandations for impact 111169stion may hs provided. If you Clave questions concerning these convncnls, or would like to meet to di4en3$ our concerns, please conlnct Bustin ptoster (909) 806-3955 or myself at (909) 3R:I-4557. Sincerely, <--i MARK i OBEK1'S Office, Chief lniergovermnental Review, Couununity and Re(;ionell Planning ,d '{Ji.rne rren,.pn,roFm„„a.,:, ¢. m:h,:c�+Colli.uGY.r c.. o�.nv!Lrdd?o... 228 T-12 Cont. T-13 Response to Comment Letter T Caltrans District 8 Caltrans District 8 provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 13, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-1 This comment summarizes the project description information contained within the DEIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-2 This comment describes Caltrans' role as owner and operator of the State Highway System and as a "responsible agency" under CEQA. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-3 This comment states that Caltrans encourages cities to utilize the concepts of sustainability and urban and regional planning when envisioning projects. The commenter also states the purpose of its comments and recommendations. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-4 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a), "In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in ,identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." This comment acknowledges and encourages the City's efforts in planning mixed-use, dense and transit -accessible communities in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. However, the commenter has reached a conclusion that it does not consider the project have satisfied the requirements for 229 a sustainable community. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-5 The commenter suggests that the City should consider a Transit Station on Lake Street and work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to implement such facility in in an earlier phase of the AVSP. The conm2cnter also notes that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) analyzed extending commuter rail service along the I-15 freeway with a Lake Street Station. These suggestions regarding the design and provision of the AVSP are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this continent and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-6 This comment suggests that the project area could be a potential transit priority area for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and recommends that bus -only lanes be implemented along Lake Street connecting to a future transit station. These suggestions regarding the design and provision of the AVSP are acknowledged. The City's General Plan does not identify bus -only lanes and a future TTA would consider such bus -only lanes but the City is concerned such lanes may significantly alter general plan designated street design. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-7 The commenter states that planning areas within the Specific Plan do not provide density or grid network to support a public transportation system. The City supports public transportation but is does not provide such services. This comment also acknowledges that the AVSP includes "a series of mixed-use neighborhoods, walking and biking trails, and a range of housing options." The commenter also suggests the inclusion of mixed-use areas along Street E in Planning Areas 2 and 4 and along Lincoln Sheet in Planning Areas 4 and 5. These suggestions regarding the design and provision of the AVSP are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-8 See the above Response to Comment B-64 and the above Responses to Comment B-65 and the above Response to Comment E-2. 2,0 Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-9 This comment suggests that the City "conduct research utilizing both the NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide and Caltrans Main Street, California document "for solutions that create environments that stimulate greater active transportation travel." The commenter notes that these documents "will provide information for traffic calming, landscaping aesthetics, and road space allocations. These suggestions regarding the design and provision of the AVSP are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DE1R are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-10 The commenter recommends that the City uses Class IV Separated Bike Lanes rather than Class 11 Bike Lanes on a number of roadway segments. The City's General Plan identifies classes I, II and II bike lanes and does not identify Class IV bike lanes. The City acknowledges the nine recommendations pertaining to bike lanes and has forwarded them to the City's 'Traffic Engineer for consideration in the next update of the City's General Plan. The inclusion of Class IV Separated Bike Lanes and the other Caltrans recommended bike lane designs within the AVSP along Lake Street, Lincoln Street, Street A, Nichols Road and the Loop Roads will also be considered during review of the future required Phased Development Plans. These suggestions regarding the design and provision of bike lanes within the AVSP are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-11 See the above Response to Comment T-6 and the above Response to Comment T-9. Response to Caltrans District 8 Comment T-12 See the above Response to Comment B-65, the above Response to Comment B-66, the above Response to Comment E-1 and the above Response to Comment E-3. 231 Comment Letter U Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District S Dowd or Due rot General Ma ytif Phil Wllll nvs < ;d i1 uar,Oyri Ryan VOP Pn,slderl ,,, "Olin a vepa Dittlactsocrerary _moi Ie ncc Uuiltt Iter Andy Morri Ile.1 "re a. -; � :, 10901 Co gel ( war, G.lnbem L&Cclul Elsinore Vs )ley Municipal Water �)9f/!Ci a I cesl & K6egor Nancy I lotion, Director Our Mission... GVM6'Vp will provide refiaole, co,,a.,rocetive, high quality water and wastewater services Inat are dedicated to the January 14, 2016 City of Lake Elsinore Attn: Roy Stephenson — Contract Development Engineer 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 SUOJECT: ALBERHILL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — DISTRICT COMMENTS Dear Mi. Stephenson_ Recently the City circulated for comment the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP). The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) has reviewed the DEIR and is providing to the City our comments on the DEIR. AVSP is within EVMWD's service area and EVMWD is the responsible agency for providing Sewer, Water and Recycled Water to the AVSP project. For the past several years EVMWD is aware of Castle & Cooke's (C&C) intent to develop the 1:1400 AVSP project and has worked Closely with C&C and their engineer, KWC Engineers (KWC), in reviewing the Sewer and Water infrastructure systems that will support AVSP and other C&C projects in the future. In 2012 the City requested that EVMWD prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the AVSP project area. The WSA was prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. for not only the ±1400 acre AVSP project area, but also included Castle & Cooke's Alberhill Ridge project, a 1400 acre combined residential and commercial project on the east side of Lake Street immediately adjacent to the AVSP project area. The EVMWD Board of Directors adopted the WSA in 2012 and the findings in the WSA, based upon EVMWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plat), are still valid today, EVMWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan is based upon findings from the planning documents of regional water purveyors such as Western Municipal Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. It should be noted that the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan is due to the California Department of Water Resources on July '1, 2016 and EVMWD along with the regional water purveyors is in the process of updating the plan. U-1 U-2 With respect to the Water and the Sewer System facilities proposed within the AVSP project, EVMWD has worked and coordinated with KWC on developing the infrastructure fadlihes for the AVSP project EVMWD periodically has met with KWC and reviewed U-3 their proposed infrastructure plan forthe AVSP project and has found it to be substantially in conformance with our 2008 Water Distribution System Master Plan and Wastewater =sx �m.nn%r, m.z Po aux Sco ,Iw,.(mnv,J ,;0111 L,Hk0 :351n01 G, CA 97510, 232 Roy stapnrmson, (;try of Lake Elsinore January 14, 2016 Pape').... __.. .. Collection System Master Pian. EVMWD is also in the process of updating our Infrastructure Master Plans (Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water) and has incorporated U-3 the water distubution facilities proposed within Phe; AVSP project as part of the Master Cont. Plan update process. In addition to the recent updates to our Water and Sewer Master Plans, EVMWD is also developing a comprehensive Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) for its service area. As part of the RWMP, EVMWD is considering strategies for the future of recycled water generated by new developments including C&C's AVSP project. EVMWD is evaluating the feasibility of conducting an Indirect Potable Reuse Study (partially funded by the United States Bureau of Reclamation) which will result in 100 percent reuse of the recycled water generates} within EVMWD's service area. As part of this study, EVMWD plans to divert all sewer flows from the northern sewershed areas that include the AVSP project to its Regional Water Reclamation Facility. U-4 EVMWD plans to finalize these documents for adoption by EVMWD's Board of Directors by the end of June 2010, EVMWD, as the Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water service U-5 provider to AVSP, has reviewed the AVSP DEIR and believes that the DEIR substantially conforms to EVMW(l infrastructure Master Plans. If you need further comments or clarifications, please contact Nemesciano Ochoa, EVMWD's Assistant General Manager, at 951-674-3146, ext. 8359. Sincerely, .John Vega General Manager NO/gk .......1.44 w,v>VwWp^rnnlWne2�" 233 Response to Comment Letter U Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 14, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Comment U-1 In this comment, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) states it is the responsible agency for providing sewer, water and recycled water to the AVSP project. EVMWD states that it has worked closely with the project developer in reviewing the sewer and water infrastructure that will support the project. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Comment U-2 EVMWD states that it adopted the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in 2012 for the AVSP project area and that the findings in the WSA are still valid. EVMWD notes that its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan is due on July 1, 2016 and that it is in the process of updating the plan. These comments are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Comment U-3 EVMWD states that it has worked with the developer's engineer in developing infrastructure facilities for the AVSP project and that is has found the project to be substantially in conformance with their 2008 Water Distribution System Master Plan and Waterwater Collection Master Plan. EVMWD has also incorporated the water- distribution facilities proposed by the AVSP project as part of the Master Plan update process. These comments are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Comment U-4 The commenter advises that in addition to recent updates to their Water and Sewer Master Plans, that it is also developing a Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) for its service area. As part of 234 the RWMP, the commenter states that it is considering strategies for the future of recycled water generated by the AVSP project. As part of this study, EVMWD Plans to divert all sewer flows from the northern sewershed areas that include AVSP to its Regional Water Reclamation Facility. These comments are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Comment U-5 EVMWD states that it has reviewed the DEIR and believes that the DEIR substantially conforms to EVMWD's Infrastructure Master Plans. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 235 Comment Letter V Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority w l Ove!t 4iYmw,oi 1Ahlh,UlrIN, A%!>;nti Anohr. o --tea \ �reea !I u I d-musr!tr a �. o , ono k'Vatet one tlatcl5hcd P,ra, ls� S+Sh'PFl RIA IU lvr¢r,;za!fu1A'}neRts)rs:eltihAa<l;rxn.vA.cxu IImA wI Krnnrt+ln Sliion.','T v5Inxrn c!am,;!t; Aau;rlcnn (xno�twau s! Fcbmary 4, 2016 l home. II Lvin I Mr. Roy Stephenson, 114". Cma.nv.n1°n Land Lyse Bnginecr Cl air City of imke Elsiunre clo PAZ (ircen 5000 Birch Street, Suite 6000 crio�+c Cantu Newport, Beach, CA 92660 Grncral Snhjectc Pragram Farvirmunenial Impact 1Lcpm't-Aibca'hill Villages tipeeiiic Plan Dear Mr. Slophcnson: (hang.: Richard Mneltott, City of Lake I'Asinoro cnun)v The Santa Ann Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) appreciates the opportunity to wnwlem 'awpfff;^="""" Wxtar on the above referenced document. SAWPA owns anti openten the Inlmtd Bntpire Brine Linc, l7i,o Nt a regional brine sewer. A section of the Brine Gine is located along Lake Street, north of Nichols and then northwest on Temescal Canyon Road, adjacent to the proposed area for development. We"tcrn Muni,gml SAWPA'sComments to the Prograin ElR are its follows: MItor Pismo I. Cirmgc refemneo to the Santa Ana Retumnl Interceptor (SARI) to hiland Empire Brinc Gine or Brine Line. V-1 Hastorn Vlunirip°l 2. Consider discussing the Brine Line underlhe Public ULllilicsiscrvice Systems lather than kVatcr under Hazards and Llaurdous Mikaialst the Brine Late is eonsidcrad a non -reclaimable V-2 bi+trit! ."ewes systan pe)mrticd mrdur the Slate of CaiPloruia W aa'ic Uischerge RequiicmcnYs (WDR). 31 hinally, given that the roads (Lake Street and'rianescal Canyon Road) where the Thine VNuille-p tinm Line is currently located are likely to be relocated, SAWPA would like to ensure that l la accessrorhoBrineLineismaintainedfordlcpvgx)sosofrepairandmainfnnanee. V-3 A1or)ivipai SAWPA is requesting notification ifthe)e is an imentioo to vacate the existing public kkW". District right-of-way and print to any Construction activity near the Brune Line. Picaw do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 3544240 or via c -mail aP > ort it h,land Yon have tiny questions or neat nd<fidnua! hirtamation. Empir" I llihiu.s Ahem,, Sincerely _ / *• ff��// Richard 1.. Flatter, 11Y. 13NV SP Exculdive Manage)of Lngineol'mg and operahons C: Celeste Cant6,SAWPA Richard Mneltott, City of Lake I'Asinoro Ht t43Nrlinit /rve)xue, Rivulside, C'A 92CO:t - 9519nR,A?2a 'awpfff;^="""" lowevsnwpn,arr' rvwtvsuvgm.oet{/OINUW 216 Response to Comment Letter V Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 'Fhe Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority ("SAWPA") provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated February 4, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those continents. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Comment V-1 The Commenter requests that the reference to the Santa Ana Receptor (SARI) be changed to Inland Empire Brine Line or Brine Line. The references to Santa Ana Receptor (SARI) are located on pages 3.0-44, 4.2-2, 4.2-9 and 4.2-13 of the DEIR These references will be changed to "Inland Empire Brine Line" or `Brine Line". Response to Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Comment V-2 The connuenter has requested that the discussion of the Brine Line located in Section 4.2 (Hazards and Hazardous Ma(erials) be relocated to Section 4.10 (Public Services and Utilities). This request is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Comment V-3 The commenter has requested notification if there is intent to vacate the existing right-of-way and prior to any construction activity near the Brine Line. This requested is acknowledged and SAWPA will be noticed of any intention to vacate any public right-of-ways near the Brine Line. 237 Comment Letter W United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Grant Taylor Flom: Cleary -Rose, Karin <karil7_clOta i y-roseii`fwS.9ov. Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5'.53 PM To: Justin Kirk; Grant Taylor, Dimla Glron; Shelly Jordan; Grant Yates; Barbara LaiboH (barbara@cego.mm) Cc: James Thatde; Heather Pert Subject: Comments on Planning Commission Public Nearing Item 3, ID It 16-068: Alhefhill Villages Specific Plan ;SP 2010-02), Doin Progfam Envu'onmental Impact Report (SCH 41 2012067.046), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, unci Zone Change No, 2012-02. In Reply RolerTo: I ANSK'DFw-WRIV-071100()4-16('PAo243 Dcai Mcnibeis of the Planning Commission, 'file t I.S. Fish and Wildlife service (Sca'vicc) and die Califinnia Deparnnent ()I Fish anis Wildlife (I)cparnncnt) are wrftim, to urge that die Planning commission not to adopt recommendation I, 2,or 3 fix Jteln 113, IU 11 16- W-1 068: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2.010-02), Draft Progrmn Fovironmental Impact Report (SCI -I 1;2012061. The Service and this l)epanmenY, together the Wildlife Agencies, both commented previously on the on the DPEIR and hereby incorporate those comments by Inference. In addition, pleaue consider the following COn'ialent5: We request Then the planing commission nut recommend that Ihe City Gonad of the City of Lake L 1 sinore Certify Ihe: Flivironmental Imoact Itepolt All the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SCAT No. 20120(1 046) until it has been aillEttianniaRy revised for tilt a evin5 diseussed in our letters. We requctil that the planing conunission not recommend That tile City Cotmcil of the City of Lake SJsinorc Adoption bf Findings of Consistency with the Westem Riverside County Multiple Species Ilabilat Conservation Plan (MSI-I(:P) for the 9.09 Acre Propansy Also Known as LLAP No. 2005'12 mid Adoption of Findings of Txcnlpllon fiom the MSIICP Por Ihe Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Tlio 9.09-aore property was the subjecl of JPR OS -08.15-02. The W st R' i,61, l "maty ILogional Conscna9.ion 1 nail ity and the N Tdltie Agene es t: th sound Ih-. propown pmitea to he mconslsi vv with ill. the raecne nbsnbly l,liarm, Consistent with MSHCP 6.6.2 F, Ihe, project i as Ihe subloetof and MSHCP Meer and Chafer meeting. No ag,u ,ill was retched m in, 41m .,,it Cmfm meelintt wad thcpropotca laniecl was e,fcrrod to a, vloGed 0016a1s Ad Hoc C(aluoillu. fila F-leated Ol fwtals At Noe Contmivee -1111 found Ihxr Ihe proposed,agiuct was mel co'Ament with Ihe MSHC'.P. kake tici nm c(;iry C' I Rosoittxoa No. 200x-1 -att milts to Adriiss Nltitd CPcn -al q fo, It, pop mdfitq aid IltstSh apprepn arc tpustm idrtliftal tiw lesollai.11 1,111 not ou taunt If,, It, ale lbd'vISHCP nn irocch u. While Wildsle A,teacws m aa,lw that tilt C ay ta l al I Isino < allawd Rceolut o' 1'- 001 141 A "min for till -ppro ltl or t u;r inansivcu 'Ih the Chy, MSII('.P permits is roto (']-QA its u.. IIs, Citi,I l..k llsTwtr is o."ligwl.d tai pl.null the M5FICP plJ under Ihe mrn+s,fa1 permitsfill'Ihe,durationoflbos:perntits- AISD 1111,,11, I.W: W-2 W-3 238 L Part of the W7 -acre, parcel in DIAR. Appendix G — Part I (Pcmoscal Creel, Bndt,r. ,I-pro)uc( o the. AA%5P) is subject to the MSHCP and the. City is required to implen'icnl the MSj-ICP pwass Tow, 'rho bi idge W-4 project and tidy paroel have not gone Onough the IISI-I(T compliance pi press OP'R. and )JWP). '7. 1PR ii)d Lh AP is inpiked for the AVSP's rimpi ud expansion of Lake St fvichols hd uW J c=sM Canyon Ito al since wee maids am City cimulat.on eleuxnt to ads inside the h4S11C P Criteria An,,a, V05 N e appieciew the opportunity to content and request a inceling wide the 0 l ro djst u,s NUIR W-6 implementation For the 9.09 time parcel at the corner oP We Sweet and f emeccal Canyon Road. Sinccreh-. Kmw ( lvmm Rosc and llra!Jnr/t, IL,e, Pill) Krarw ("leary -Rorer: Inland Division Chief' U.S. Fish mW INAMI Sansce Y77 Fa. t l"ahquitz Canyon Way, CSune 208 Palm Spnnos_ CA 92220 620) 322 2070 ext 206 I eather Peri. PhD Inland Deserts Region, R6 Senior L nvironniontal Scientist Cal ifoiat a Department of Fish & W i Idl iPe 3602 Inland Empire Wvdr Suite C120 Ontario, Ca 91764 SSSIIM9692 (mobile and only nunnbet) Ih_aihcr, l'rrt!<i;,a•ildlifc cti.t,�i}� 239 Response to Comment Letter W United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental hnpact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in an e-mail dated February 16, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-1 The commenters have requested that the Planning Commission not adopt recommendations made in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission considered this recommendation at its public hearing on February 16, 2016 regarding the AVSP and related CEQA documents. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-2 See the above Responses to Comments for Letters D (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) and G (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-3 See the above Response to Comment B-26 and Response to Comment D-3. Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-4 See the above Response to Comment D-3 and Response to Comment G-2. Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-5 See the above Response to Comment D-4. 240 Response to USFWS and CDFW Comment W-6 The commenters requested a meeting to discuss MSHCP implementation for the 9.09 -acre parcel located at the corner of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road. Subsequent to its receipt of this continent letter, the City met with representatives of USFWS and CDFW to discuss this matter. See the above Response to Comment B-26, the above Response to Comment D-3, and the above Response to Comment D-5 . 241 Comment Letter X County of Riverside Transportation Department COUNTV 01- RIVERSIDE TRAN�t�l£�.�il'fi7��.y�%�AND L t, t,,�tVf11€1,�14',�sF1;ri�ENTAGk=h'C}'' �41 T1"s%wq;mrillai:ion Department Pm.h h, x<nna. 11V Dirrn..... %...... tiro✓1„,r nn,l A- iviva ba"r"s ej 70ucp'waliun l.nrzd iinnuj{ruuum February 16, 2016 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission 183 N. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 42530 RE: Public Hearing Item IDH 16-068, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No- 2010-02), on the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Dear C onbillssiollers: As part of your considerations to take action on the Albedlill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), the County of Riverside Transportation Department (County) provides the following comments in addition to those provided in the County's December 31, 2015 letter. The proposed project is located south of the 1-15 freeway. west of Lake Street, and botders the unincorporated County. As illustrated in the SP No. 2410-02 and its Draft Environmental Impact Report Tenlescal Canyon Road provides a connection to areas north and west of the project. It would be reasonable to assume that the project's proposed university and retail uses would attract trips from these areas. Although the 1-15 freeway is available, trips from these areas would also utilize Temescal Canyon Road, Additionally, Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an aftemate to the freeway which makes It a critical road during emergency closures on the freeway. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has Plans to furtherimprove the I -IS Freeway, however the timing of these improvements are unknown and would occur at some point in the distant future. X-1 With the project estimated to generate over 150,000 daily trips, an emphasie should be placed to have, the project improve Temescal Canyon Road, The County requests that the City require the project to develop a phasing plan to improve the Temescal Canyon Road corridor prior tri approval of the Specific Plan. 'fhi;; X-2 phasing plan, with input fforn the City and County, will provide it clear plan of action to ensure in'p'ovemcnts are consb acted in a timely manner as tae pr'nject develops lilt, City and County utilize the same Traffic Impact Analysis: Preparation Guidelines to detcnnine the study area and intersection to be analyzed IF, a traific study, one of the key r-rlteda used to dolennine if X-3 an Intersection should be studied is when a proposed project acids S0 or more peak knurly trips to ii Although the project's traffic study analysed flu! intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road of Tenlescal 242 Canyon Road, It is reasonable to assume that the project would add more than 50 peak hourly trips to intersections on Temescal Canyon Road to the north and west. According to Caltrans' publication of traffic X-3 counts, in 2014 the annual daily average traffic on the I-15 freeway between Lake Street and Indian Truck Cont. Trail Road was 122,000. Given only six lanes exists on the freeway, a portion of the project's estimated 150,000 daily trips will likely use alternative routes to travel north, namely Temescal Canyon Road. The County views Temescal Canyon Road as a critical roadway for the area as it serves an emergency access route and provides relief as congestion develops on the freeway. We hope the City will see the benefit in requiring the project to develop a phasing plan to improve the Temescal Canyon Road corridor. X-4 Sincerely, 16113ia!° ltli ll^ Russell Williams Development Review Manager RLIW:KKT cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Romo, Assistant Director of Transportation 10801 cnullr st,, 1, X" I I ... ), R"O'id'.('A 92501 (95 q 955.66 ll) P.0. ldn, 0140 H hors. dc_ CA 9^5112.-1090 FAX 19511'5.5-6198 243 Response to Comment Letter X County of Riverside Transportation Department The County of Riverside Transportation Department ("Caltrans") provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 13, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-1 The commenter describes how Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an alternative to the I-15 freeway, which makes it a "critical road during emergency closures on the freeway." The commenter also notes that the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTC) has plans to improve the I-15 freeway, but that the timing of these improvements are unknown "and would occur at some point in the distant future." These comments are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. RCSDOnSe to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-2 It is acknowledged that at AVSP build -out, the project is expected to generate over 150,000 daily trips. However, there is a projected 30 -year development period for the AVSP, and construction of implementing development projects will occur at individual project locations and at unknown times during the 30 -year period. It would be speculative to identify the timing of future traffic levels at each phase of the future development of the AVSP and when future off-site improvements to Temescal Canyon Road may be required. Additionally, the need to improve those portions of Temescal Canyon Road may result from currently unknown development projects located within unincorporated Riverside County and in the City of Corona. As described above in the Response to Comment X-1, Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an alternative to the I-15 freeway, which makes it a "critical road during emergency closures on the freeway." As such, Temescal Canyon Road serves a regional role and should be improved as a regional facility. Only a short stretch of Temescal Canyon Road is within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore and the majority of Temescal Canyon Road is within unincorporated Riverside County. The City has no legal jurisdiction beyond its incorporated borders. Please refer to the above Response to Comment I3-65 and the above Response to Comment E-2 244 The AVSP is required to comply with all regulatory requirements for payment of `fair share" fees for road improvements. These fees are payable at the times established by the regulations that establish such fees. Compliance with regulatory requirements do not need to be set forth as mitigation fees. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure TC -2 provides: "The project shall participate in the phased construction of the on -and off' site intersection improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and the participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Pees (TUMF) program. "Where require, improvements are not covered by these programs; mitigation shall be implemented through fair -share contribution or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer." In order to reflect the requirement for payment of `fair share" road improvement fees, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: • The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 824. • The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay all applicable development impact fees and mitigation fees as required by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and other City -adopted fees. Response to Comity of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-3 It is acknowledged that both the City and County currently utilize the same Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines. See the above Response to Comment E-1, As described above in the above Response to Comment X-1, it is acknowledged that Temescal Canyon Road will serve as an alternative to the I-15 freeway for travel north. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-4 See the above Response to Comment X-2. 245 liana, ld W. f luso I., At(1, UCFl) GA Cad "P. Scdlnnh, Esry. lt"i,rd Nugail A. s,o fth, Ino. Kimberly Poy, Esq, ICcndull Plnlbnu.Iq IV11Lii l'y 16, 2016 Planning Cnomvission c/o City Cleric Citvof Lake Glsinoic 130 S. Will Sweet Lakc fllsinore, CA 92,530 �Jgimn rylakc-elsinol'e.org> Comment Letter Y Johnson & Sedlack 7ohnsoit IScdIack 6795 4925pp ] / tYglinS, G I[ EQA.cnm Cc.: Roy Stephenson. PIi a'slcphenwn(r)hrgrcon.conY� JUstin Kirk, Principal Planner <jkirkt(%lukc-clsinorc.crg.- VIA E' MAIL and U.S. MAIL AbbylmSe0ulCQA.cam Kim(J9,C.JCPQA.aun I(rndzlE;h)cnC;,ICEQA.ani 'rflcpbnn[: (951) 506-9925 Fncsimilc (951) sIIL972.5 Re: Opposition to Plalming Commission public Hearing Item 3,11) U 16-065: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010 02), Draft Program L'nvironalental impact Report (SCR 142012061046), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-0.1, and Zono Change No. 2012-02. Greetings: On behallbfconcerncrl arca residents and Lindangcred 1-labitais t,eaguc, I hereb)'submit tl)csc comments in opposition to the Alberhill Villages Speeilic Plan (Specific Plan No. 2010- (32),Alberhill Villages Draft Program Ftivironmental Impact ("DPE1R"). Report(SCPI 0012061046), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, and Zone Change No. 2012-02 (jointly. Ute "Project')'. This font previously submitted comments on the UPF'M, and hereby incorporates those comments by rcferenco. In addition, please consider the following comments in opposition to this Project and the proposed Certification of this particularly deficient PEIR. 1. THE DPLIR MUST BE RMSED AND RECIRCULATED Various govermnental agencies, environmental groups, and local residents submitted poignant eonvnents ci aical of the OPF.Ift as uttcl ly deficient, defective, and inadequate in its evaluation of the Project's potential environmetval effects and proposed mitigation measures. I please note That luny enation, herein are previdod electronically, vdlNe m ailabte, is erde, m conserva piper. I ask thatpoa plcaze incorponac the doealm¢ws cited clecvaliedly in your r'evimv oflbis letter as it they were a llached. If Ill), rvhatevcr reason an de,ctrenic link does nor fi,nction properly, plellse coumel Jehnwn &Sedlack anti I will be Iutppy v, provide you with a hard copy of the doauncnl. Y-1 246 I'cbIla ry IG, 2016 Pn;c 2 WHO the Proal PEAR in not co,ppletul and has not been made ncallable prior to this hurry it is cdcnr immense ehanges and additions w the PGAR will he nettled in ndcr to gnove nn aky law informational document. The PfIR will need to be revised and n:eire:ulan:d. C.13QA requites an 13112 be. revised and rccineolated prior to ccri dication of an GAR when significant now intornudion is added after availability of The draft PAR Or public review and hcfom certification. (CIFQA Guidelines § 15t18SA0).) Signiheml now ionmro,nion includes, Al example, new inlmnnation showing a new or more severe cnvironmerval intpnet, or new information added to a draft MIS that was initially "en fundannerdAy and basically Amdequmv and conclusory A nature [fiat mcaningol public review and conamcnt were. precluded." (Guidefincs§ 15088.5(a), subds.(l)-(4).1 In Ibis instance, coo'nncnts Ont state and local agencies, envinrnmcotal groups, and w1w, indicate Ute DPIiIR was so inadequate in its twain tion of impacts to biological resources, trunspa tation!naffiq hydrology/ water quality, and ail quality impacu, among numerous other thingm as to be effectively mc.aningleos. Nencc, before the Plannn) , Commission makes any detcrntinatien whether to reconmend approval of this Project to the City council, Ute DPIAR must be. revised and recirculated to address Inc DIIEll"s critical failings in information and analysis. Mile public and clecisiomnakers must be provided a genuine disclosure of, and opportunity to tncaningfully commem on, the I'mycKs putmniad adverse impacts to the environs ued. AlteVMNcly, the Planning Connninkan may recommend immediate denial of the Project. (Guidalinate § 15270) Given this Prgicct's potential to curse grave advorsC in MIS in to nallual and human envirotunCa6 a denial recommendation is Justified. A. THc DPPsIR atosr ttlrRKVIs'gal) AND RttctRuM rED"IA0t09u.AMLY EVA UWE, DISCLOSE;, AVD 1191'1lOA'I'CS FOl4 PIiOJfC'r INIPA C'1'ti a'O 131OLOC7( AI, IYP.SOIIRC755 Scathing, comments were submitted from the wildlife ageneieq environmental groups, and others contenting the DPLAR's consideration of intpecla to biological resouVes. The DBUICs omission of riocecd information; reliance on erroneous and outdated information; cate.lu say statements and aswinptions; and ovemdl dismissal of'inrymctx to biological resomnces or adaption Of ntcaningfi.il mitigation mcasn us means signilicnnt revisions to the DI)FfR and its biological technical repots are essential. Among other things, to PIAR be revised and rconvuhrru'l ban Address the Project's potential uonllicls with the MSHGP ail(] its reserve assembiy.T'his includes MS -ICP reviewofthc ponions ofthc Alberhill Villages Specific Plan not included in the 2004 sealentcnt (Le_, the 9.09- rete. parcel APN 390-130-017 find portion of the 56.7 -acre pared addressed with the Tomescal Creek Bridge Project); L,G.AI' review for MS41CP consistency Or covered road activities; mid CLQ?, review of die whole Project's potential to conflict with the MSHCP (including reserve assembly, linkages, rQrimth'iverine habUm, Join[ Project Review (IPR), etc.). Y-1 conk Y-2 Y-3 247 I-Aneny 16. zn}G Parc 3 2. is Idirs.a pacrail l Coll Ha;Is with (hc Ri ct id" Co u) (;mes (I//'/, in rburndrnenl ,bu I)6o, Loke )Isi)ime ilea Pled hurt ns policies. 3_ Address direct and inducer impacts to wildlife movanent mut wildlife corridors, including rffccts to MSIICP Proposed Linkage I and Proposed Contliained I_inkaga k Tito PHR's ammntion that small, lilt] t1-purPose recreational trails Qnwgh urban areas and adjamm to roads, orfire"Lakeside Park" play/recrcationh.ongregation arca; will also act to providc .suflicicnt wildlife mmT dors has been admnantly (elected by (be wildlifie agoillo cs, ospcoiall_y for spccias no tolerant of humor) presenc:c (e.g. mountain lion). Channelizadon of 'femescal Cd'cek must also be addressed whore it would be detrimencil to wildlif movemant and fail to maintain Temescal \Nash fanet mm Per (MFW guidance; the Prgicet should be rni)dified to provide wildlife corridors which are a minimum 300 meters and which do not include se:amlly or Arrum"p,^uible uws. 4. Address impacts to jurisdictional waters and ripurianh iverinc habitat. This includes disclosing the details of the intended modifications tolehunnclizat loll of "femescal Creek, and evaluation of hiological impitets as a result of InIch modiBcatons. Secondary imlxncts to'femescal (:reek Mostalso bc. ov;iluate.d. I he 111 -'IR must also evaluate, disclose, and mitigate for impacas to tle: other Imi latocs onsion, I lovcvigme and disclose vegetation associations and hnbimts onsite, and analvze impacts to such habimt. 0. Ihvestigate, disclose, and analyze hol)aets to sensitive vegetation conanunRls, including R iversidean sage scrub and alluvial fin sage savb. This should it luck using adopted methods and protocol to map and quantify file size oi'these comnnmities. Z Complete accurate and up-to-date surveys of special status plan( specks onsite. Analyze, disclose, and mitigate for the loss of those plants, including at (east P WY4 spinetlown. limumlam va mm, grace(id (arplant, and Cmders Matilija POPPY. & Ev;dumor rood mitigate ti)r impacts to certain special- status wildlifL spuoies pursuantto accepted protocols, including regarding: least. flail's vireo, who chcdcerspot butterfly, but owl, and coast horned lizaizd, among others. Impacts to raptors from loss of honiging and nesting habitat must also be evaluated. 9, Identify appropriate mitigation measures That address the actual innpacis of the Project once the PEIR has been revised in manner that cvalurtes and disclescs Prq"ct impacts. Revise mitigation to mitigate impacts R al! significantly AMU rather than tine current select. few. Irl. Provide adequate, good faith (:valuation of the cumulative impacts of(his Project and others in (he vicinity. Y-4 Y-5 Y-8 Y-9 Y-10 Y-11 Y-12 248 Qh..y tli, ^_0111 Page i I L. Bvahnllo tiro efteels of the Projects olf-site iel provemca its I Y-13 The WEIR Perused Findings arc• atpresent, conclusory and cntiIcly unsupported by eviilencc or ova l nation. Mitigation is likewise inadequate to address Project iiapacts and I jls to comply with accepted pnauwols.'fhe DMAR must he revised to address the very valid diserepttnrJes and mmissians cited by commenters• and then recirculated for fitrther public mid agency commcot. 13. TnEDILSIRNws r n Rev ISR;D AND RLXA RCUL.AILDTO ADRQUA'I FLY FVA IT !A I E, DISCLOM', ANI) R91'I WAIT'. FOR MAUHICF iAimm s TO TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The IWFARN evil ujon of u'nnspoit ition/ trnffie inipaets is afro so lucking; in needed inf a nation and evaluation as to produde meaningful rovk%v and disclosure. Tic PMR nm.st be revised and rcelrcoulatcd to address We fbllowing sit ANtant deficiencies noted by this firm and the County of Riverside I (anspotRuion Depar(ntent, including among others: L The DPHIR's failure to evaluate impacts to County intersections where the Project would add 50 or marc peak hour ulps- 6valu pion of cilee(ad roadwa):s is fill too narrow in scope. 3. 'the DMAR's failure fo evahlatc. the Project's individual unffie impacts to existing conditions. 3. Tho DITIR's hailurc to evaluate impact's to I. T The DMAR's bile to evaluate h"animW impacts during the. Project's 30-yaar eonstrueiian [i ntellame. I The DPBAR's bile m show any evidence of the efficacy of the pmpowd mitigation measures, including improvements and fair-sinim we raymonts. Whore the. Project relies on payment of fees into fair share programs, there is no evidence onproven'ibnts will be Athin timely of adequate to address tate Project's Imific impacts. 6. The improper evaluation of impacts to 'Pentescal Canyon Road as a 6- lane Urban ATerinl I lig;hwxy, where itis planned as 4dtuwi;. `lite PLAR must be revised and recirculated inaccurately convey and mitigate for (tie Prgjeo's brepacts to transportation and traffic. C. Trtc'Dl');[RnlusrettlYt:vlscu�woRr:aacuLnrr,:oTOADrQun'r3ttxPvnt.onrh, DISC105r, AND hMrlGATIG FOR PRoaF:cT iaa PMAS TO AUR QILAUTI' Y-14 Ww DPEIR's evaluation ofair qnH Y A likewise devoid ofsubstantial needed Y-15 Whi utation, and fails to provide arcuraw evaluation using apples4ti-apples comparisons and accepted modeling and protocols. The MAR. must be revised to address and correct significant dclicicncics by: 249 fatimry iN 2016 My i I. Plodlfyiny„ constronOwn amdchng to assess pack daily a ssio m not am"Am to provide apples -to -apples comporison aganSt SCA QNID signiticnnae lhresholds. 2. Evala ding I'mrIut ilupam, during the .30 -year construction, opmtnion ovo al period. 3. Gvalualing localized and health risk impace;. 4. Disclosing and addressing impacts from MCions sonANC lend uses"Inn" to k S and mining operations, especially where mining may be ongoing, for an indetennirlale unumnt of time. I Adopting all fc. SIQ mitigation for significant impacts k air quality and health risks. Revision and Wrculation olAw DPI IR is needed to correct the Oilrquality analysis and provide an sdequale dlsclOSofC of nbe PnOw's air quality impacts. D. IAvDPR1R MUSTnH IZEN 3h:11 AND R F,0 RCnI,A'r GD' PO PROv tile. AN ACcuaA'fe ANI! Ct11�.S'ISi'IiN'1'T'f:O.11iC1' I ESCRIWI ION AND n&SCRIPIA ONO F I I I kFXtS"1'IN , ENVIRONMENT The desaQAhm of we hasomn the Prgjcet, and evaluntion of its effects is far from certain and permanent throughout (Ile DPEIR. rhe DPI IR chili the I;he has been heavily disambed by mining; but, in fact, just 433 acres of the 1,400-ttere she has been in Wed. (DPHIR p. 1.1 1-3.) the DPFIR tiros inamajnely ponrays the un sky envOmmcnt and existing scale of the citewitb respect to mining opor"16ons. The DP6IR l els to provide any certain and date to mining activities, where mining may cootinne alongside Proicct uses in near perpetuity. The DPEIR fails to ecroshhendy consider and describe potential eooCIHMh IsO)d uses, lwaluation of the " Pm,ject" is ra from complent, eonsh Reit, accurate, and clear throughout the, DP 11114 consider ormqul ,[feet;. The DPMR omits needed derail about improvements necessary to develop the Prgjoct.'IYtc DPEIR MOST be r hUtIlated TO ensure a consistent and accurak description of the Project. IA THRDPKIRMar-rBEREVMEuAND RKCmCt3LAl`ED'roraovtoE,0MIZENI' Annr.vses eonct,anwr, rnr PRo.tet,: r, ars 1�1PACI'S, Ane rtns P rrlencv or• MIT R:A"I"]ON B1G:ASURIiS As noted in our Previous contlocnl letonr the DPBfR for this Prgject repeatedly relies on ontelated adonnation, often prepare hcrore publication of the NOP. The DPHR olso relics on shldies not prepared to sped li M y address the impacts or Ones INVea and which arc: eonscqucntly linnitcd in soopa, analysis, and accuracy. The use of only partially relevant and old data and predictions renders the DPGIR hImcnavne and unhnFarmative, and calls into question the slhs Tma reliance on this document for later i udsueming projects. Revision and iwiradmion 250 Y45 Cont. Y-16 Y-17 rmaymm Porte G Using up-to-date data and irdonna 4= and to addreNs the impacts of this Moen is needed ua evince a "rood fhah sli2sr at full disc lusurc" a9 rall tured by C11.,QA. (GuideI incs § 15151) ruldcrnxara, the DPEIR regularly conelialm thatthe mitigation nmasures proposed will be gla' ieieat in reduce signi&WA impacts h oto a level oifsignlfic'rance without providing any Gads, reasoning, or shaip to >uppon ihtd conclusion. The DPIr.IR must be revised and recirculated to evidence the cff�caey of propuscci mitigation mcasutes. It THEDI I&I R Naar el? RENRStiD AND �lzi.um Ct A:rtm ro G ENCun t.t.v KVA LUATE '1'1110. lluoju: I"s [Not Ii rc'r, SECONDARY, 0PPSN'li, AND (.1t)MULA'i'lVti IMPAC I'S. As noted in our previous comment kmq die DPHR regularly omits and &Its evaluation or indirect, secondary. off-site, and cumulative impacts of the Pr(tiact. Settle examples include the DM IR4 failure m cvntuate the effects of moWNAg Tcowscal Canyon Wash (the Will l Akers of removing significant amounts of -dirt and mina Whigs upwanls of 50 feel deep, construction of an and Wow utilities, etc. The WEIR must be revised and indituhned to evaluate. disclose, loud mitigate for these project impacts. Il. ADIIIT'IQNAI. (70h9M1?NTS O.,NI)RAVf I'RO(;RA07 L llI Please consider the following additional comments mi the DPWR in addition to the comments previously provided by this firm. A. AESTIWTlo-:S/ LICH'I & GLARE The I )MYT status that only public views, not private views, must be considered, (DIT IR In 45-24) This is taus: views firom adjacent p6 atc properties are properly considoned under CGQA. As stated in Alorlh cnasl Rivera Alliance v. Alurin A4unicipal Wale, Dal, 13d. of Dhwumm (261 3) 216 Cal. App. 40 614, 024, "oelabetlo issues, such as public and privme views, are properly .studied in an GIP. to assess the impacts of a pt ijceL" (See [also, lWirn d4ar A'h'htle C'onmteanity a Cirp ol'o"lunawk (2004) I I9 Cat. App, 41h 477, 492-495.) T'hc DPF,IR is deficient in its consideration of the project's aesthetic impact to adjacent private views. The DPMR inadequately munkiJem the impacts to views frtim adjacent pope, ties.'fhe DPEIR also fails to consider Det impact to views during Project' oonso'uction. The DPGIR .states aesthetic constrtrotion impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures AL.9-1 and -2 and because they would be "short-term and would wase upon (''reject completion..." W hors the life of Prgjec( construction is anticipated to be 20-30 years, alae tegument impacts would be short term falls Oat. AGS- I and -2 only provide some screening and setbacks; it is not clear acsdtetic intpacis will be reduced below a level oPsignificance. The WEIR states that all outdoor ligMhg tixturo would he orienteil mad shielded to direct illumination downward. Lighting figures in the Specific Plan, howom, fail to show shielded fixtures. The Specific Plan should be modified to show acceptalllc fighting fixtmros. 251 Y-17 Cont. YA 9 t°MM7 16, 2016 Page 7 R, CUIVIAMALnRNOU EMS Ile pulksuva Tri{>e enmmented to the Project I Lund in a highly sensitive region of Inc Payomkuwiclwm territory and that the possibility ol'olcorrin one. eL lrsurhtce cuhma resources A high in arias 0, bavc been cut less Than two feel lav a m og anuvoics. As the DPI',IR admits Chat lust 433 of the 1,400 acres onsite have bccn disturbed by ruining, this hny)act is likely significant The DPIAR fbilsin show this intpncl to Cultural resources has been adetluatcly and cff ANdy mitigated. Pechsng'a's comments also noted that impacts from development of improvements hu the Project on and othmn have been inadz•.gaataly disclosed and cvahated. This omission permmus the DIUR, notjust the evaluation ut unielAs to co ural csourcc5. The DFIFAR most be revised to thdail planned Project insprovcments and mitigation nloasuras (e.g. sb't:et buildout, channelizatimt of Femescal Creek, etc.) and cvahodc and Initigareinvoid the impacts Dorn such improvements/ mbigation mansures. C. GRlitarnOUSLGASRs Y-20 The evaluation of grunhouse teases should be revised to ICIiect the most recent state and Y-21 tederd laws and guidance. D. GEOLOGY/SOUS The DPLIR n,,.nissibly mita to hwumigatc mbk)r defers inwoulminn oPihe Project's hnpans to geologyls)ils. Por Instmico, the DPMR stators dee site will AWN r"Wre excavation and blasting of bedrock (DPLIR p.4 -I-191 Tltc .site is also underlain with compressible/ collapsible soils, slockpiles, etc, which will need to be excavated to depths unknown and not yet investigated (DPLIR p. 4.1 19 through 4 1-20) Shallow gnatalwnter is also present, bar its depth, location, potential Project Amen and creation ormioption measures have men generally deferred, (DMAR p. 4.1-20 Trough -21) The DPP.IR mils in its inl'ornudJonal rile by neglecting this analysis, disclosure, and the creation of mel MAI with respect to Inc hsues- What is the total geological effect ofthe i tojul.; and Uu-'econda I impacts of nntkmg this site developable for the uses proposed? I be public and decisiommakcrs most, be given a road evaluation of the Projuct's impacts. The DPMR's treaunent of impacts Nun seismicity and faulting is imperotissIN conclusory and lackmg in factual support. The DPLIR aelniote4edgos that. the presence of three major faults makes the Project's cwtquake Mom! impacts potentially significant. The DPMR then contends subsidence has been minhnized by compliance with the site's Reclamation Plan. There is. however, no codence that the same standards apply to slope stability for MOMOST) puq)oses and open space are the same as fur development of a master planned community on Ile site. In any evem there is no evidence that such complhmc;; would reduce impacts baton a level gl'fslgnifcance for Ch QA's purposes. Liquifaction is sato! W he a potential issue for which placement of till is "deskahle" to reduce such risks. First, no sire- or projec- specific invest MMI, of liq whdion poRauial, and 252 Y-22 i'Cnlll.Y Ik 2016 Page 9 We scope ofsuah jml,tacn, was underrnkcay. (UPG;I R p, 4J-18) Second, slating III placeineni is "desirable" docs not provide e111(II QconIC In itig,ation Por this potentially sign incnnt imp ut. 'fhe DPl, IR's consideration of impacts lotfame landslides, skTc Wk , and soil stability is conclusory and fails In provide IMCdcd roasOMY From evidence no C(MIJUS10n. The AW contains evidence of slope bu lures, large stockpiles of uncompacted and undocumented fill, and unstable soils, which have not leen clearly reduced below significance with the mitigation proposed. The DPP:IR insinuates septic mnksmay be allowed onsite because, timing and aatsuruetjou of needed waaWevocr VaIntent facilities are not lovown A this un , (DMAR p. 4.1-33 Mmugh -34) The Project should not be permitted to move forward without first ensuring these needed wastewater treatment facilities will te, timely handed and developed. "Phe DPIAR also Pails as an jnfor rutdon document by filing to evaluate and dj Ase the impacts of development nfdw Al chill W W'1'P and master pinnned sewer where those improvements ore essential to ir-ovitic for disposal of project wastowarcr. Omitting these improvemens from IWR consideration arcane dee DPLIR fails to evaluate the whole projectors required by CEQA. the DPI:?IR states [hat impacts to the to of mineral resoumn Qmpaa 4.1 -ti wW -7) would be initigatcd by "a complete Ieavvey of resou Ices." However, tate Project Fails to ensure such recovery, htsIcad, the EIR states mining activities and stockpiling will Continue "o) the extent they are ecommWally Feasible," not until they are co nplctcly recovered. Ru her, no Worccable unk"M on me isme or condition to this.¢ff`cct is proposed Whai is more, there is no standard for detmmining when stockpiling or mining ceases, bnpacts to [lie lois of mineral resources should be deatted significant and onnuligated, With respect to curnulativa consuaction impacts, the DPI"sIR states that "duc to Meshort- term nature of grading and construction activities, cumulative impacts resu&ng hvnn erosion and sedimentation arc not anticipated to be significant." (DP61R p. 4.1-35) This conclusion is unsupported whole this Pfoject will mquim substantial over-cuavadoo and grading wet 1, to o potential depth of' upwards of 50 fuer, and v4wre construerion is anticipated to occur over 20-30 years. CAS requims structures be designed to resist 213 of peak ncoelcration. Given Ute I'reject'y locale and the presence of documented and observed active faults in the. vicinity, Project structures should be designed to resist peals acceleration (0.79). Ci -6 is uncertain and unenforceable with respect to whethar systems such as sub -drains Por dewa¢ering will be installed to reduce potential impacts regarding subsidrnae and liquefaction- hnpnets should he stated "potentially signiFicanP' absent the implementation of certain, enforceable mitipation to address subsidence and liqueraction. G. 10 states that measu'cs may he needed to rechwe impacts from a potential rise in groundwater, bud there are no mensurcs to intplemcnt these reductions. What alternatives may he recca nneWed to be taken, or in what performance standmi? No =w d mitigation m required by to mcasme. 253 Y-22 Cont. Y-23 Y-24 Y-25 Y-26 Y-27 Y-28 Pehmmy 16,:WQ Pace 9 k;. FIAY:,�al)Sl Flnxnauous NlnrP.atnts "Ihe I WL.IR c:oncl tidos the Project Will not agateit signi (want harba zad to the pulic as result of hazardous materials (Impacts 4 A Imugh 402). The DPMRN analysis ofhxzard impacts leaves much uninvestigated. Pirst, there is no discussiorn of potential advarse impacts from havmdous soil materials, their excavation, grading, transport, into_, despite the Pr(tjeet site being Nuhstaad±lly a i3rowWWW arca. Second, there is no discussion of transport of"explosives 1br Malting, , s previously mentioned by his turn. Third. impacts from the tiARI line ere staled to be lams hmeq,mad bot there is no regaircment they be mitigated a' avoided. The conclusion hazardous mat,AN impaeis WM he less than sigma ori is reanyToned by Reis or evidence. "Phe OMAR hWcqu atcly considers potential imp tins to emergency responses and cn tt,utcy evae nation. TO DPOR pmd&s no inPousl ttion about whe-tho response times will be maintained for emergency raspmeaN or whelhcj Ile Project Will hinder emergency evacuation. As the Project proposes no emergency facilities, the nnswen to these questions arc of particuhv importance The I)PHIR states at p.2MAO Win Joe station may be required widtin the AVSD arca to `provide the necessary coverage" and that it may be located within the University Town Center (Village I) orcum of Who Shred in the t,scdull Ridge Specific plan Arca. lite WEIR should consider the impact to kalwagancy responsiveness Woos fire station is not developed to provide "accessary coverage," or if it is developed in one orthe two proposal locations. Y-29 V-30 Mitigation low.aslues pw h tznrds tri impermissibly vague, unccrtxtin to occur trncn for ccable, and defer nitintion where they just regoac. Compi 110c with Gencial Pian Y-31 Junkies without requiring the adoption of mitigation or compliance, with certain alternatives or performance standards. All feasible mitigation has not been adopted to reduce signikkant inducts involving W ITand Gros and the urban/wildhmd interlace. Mitigation measure HAW requiring s-ubsa New Y-32 projects demonstrate compliance with the Gcna Y plan policies A impermissibly Upon improperly defers the adoption of cennin mitigation. No 0WITIalives or perRxmanoc Sinn"dard3 arc nwhised to ensure i.hat davolopmott in this "Very High" and"Mode:ntt'e" fire hazind arca will be reduced below significance. lv. S:tvmlot,ot.vl h!'n'n>.a Q[in t -rig More information is neecled "M "Ming the plans to channelize'1'eincscal Canyon Wash. The secondary and off-site impacts of chann¢Iizing "Pcinoscal Canyon Wash must be evaluated in the DPFIRAlso, site hydraology anti hydraulics, and the effectiveness of mitigation, mustbe evaluated and disclosed Hary and not. defen'ad until Inter phases of rcviaw odevelopment. As discussed h0ow, the maintenance of lakes for loocational use supported by additional spring water is turiccnable given California's ongootg drought_ I he impacts and mitigatory use of the "lake" area solely es detention basins should be evaluated in the DP@IR. 254 Y-33 FAnmry IQ VAN, Page 10 The I)PIUR faits to consider whether the Projml would msull lu significant mgmct.s to water quality standards or waste discharge during.conAmown.(Impart 43-1YMQ lidding that Y-34 Me project would not MMR in opertil"nal impacts to ON threshold is rondusmy and onsupported by Facts. evidence, or reasoning. 'file DFFIR slates impacts to tno sunt will he raluced inemuse soils on r;raded slopes Y-35 ")))List be strengthened by grouncicovcr planting." When, is this wgmunem? What is the tuning of phuuing? Ile DPRI11 amcludes impacts to ch-ainage, runoff; and flooding will he less than significant on and offsite (Impact A3-4). first, the DPEIR fails u) con.siccr tine I'rgjec-t's Y-36 potential caust'lle ion impacts rel Give to this threshold, Second, the DPFIR omits needed information mipi ling proposed niteratkuls to'I cmcscal Canyon Wash (Crwk) and their ability to mitigate for imports to drainage flows, velocities, and oil' -site Hooding,. Insncad, the DPGIR provides a lot of "shoulds" ou what the alterations nein to in: designed to do, but no certniwies, mirigmGnn, pGmsor other enjorccoble mecisures that would support of fording of lost than sInd'im t impacts with proposed mitigation. 'third, the DPEIR cites to onsite clactw oo hasins. open space areas, the storm drain systcle etc. as`opporttill ities to neduee svc andvelotrl) Allows Again, howmmno data, rescuch analysis or certain, cnfoteeablc plans or mitiazion mensuto oe, provicicd I hee is no Y-37 guarantee impacts will be less than significant albsorn this I ch or informmik , evade nc< and pnenling. ",here is also no cornea) adequate drainage %vill tio, un aadled timely with Project phasing. Fourth, the DPHIR acknowledges the proposed improvements will result in a decrease in groundwater recharge dna to increase in hnpervious surfaces, inn fails to provide any mitigation for this potentia! efRa (DPGIR p. 43-31) The DPGIR finds impacts to water quality will be less than signillcant. this down-mination is unsupported by substantial evidcnve in the filR. Phe DPFdR limits evaluation of l,aotential cons`iruction impacts to runoff ( I'hreshold 43_ I Y-39 5), inucaul simply concluding that because state law requires pollutant discharges be "nninimized" such impacts will be mitigamd to a level less than significant. No Acts, data, or analysis supports this finding. To the contrary, given onsite soils issues requiring substantial ese"M on anti grading; potential bbstin g; and ew rent mete of chunage, this )aloud; is unsupported by evidence. The DPEM finds impacts from mudllows will be less than significant because or "existing basins" and the required SWPPP measures. There is inadequate evidence in the DPGIR Y-40 to support this conclusion. The site includes substantial nuningsloelcpilcs, lallings, and olher unstable soils. i'horc is no evidence the S W PFP is sufficient to adequately address mudflow issues at this site, particularly where. if only applies during construction. The frndinl; is conclusory and unsupported by evidence in To record. 255 PcbnY.uv 7=i, ?UIG Pn c!I "I -he cansida UlII oPoumulotivc impnco; to hydrology, dWEVA and water gwhq is impermissibly vague, conclusory, and devoid of fact, and in I onrau ion. 'I he amdysi:, also Iails to coositler the Project's potential cumulative elfc'As with respect to the oppllcnble significance. Mitigation nhcaarc li Y-3 is vague where it robe,; to "o" Master Plan ol'Drainagc for the arca, not "[he milacr Plan of Drainage as proposed in the 6EIR and proposed to be eoncurrethtly adopted." Any drainage- plan could be adopted that may at nmy not adequately address runnff and mainugc issues. HY- 3 of, only requires a drainage plan be designed, not necessarily irnplernented aunt canstructed loaned the demands AS whole Naiad Project. How "A' the drainage plan he implemenrad? HE share ptryments? Mitigation measure, IIY-4 is impcnrtisslbly vague and unenforceable, 1IYA provides an cnaop;y dissipatint; strucunec inaper erosion control devices shall 'be provided" but fails to sunc by w=hon, or at What stage ofthe Project. Also, the devices will only be pnvWul " if na c"My." such till, no installation is certain to occur. r`4iNcation MCaSUI'e I IY-6 fails to ensure ill feasible mitigation is adopted where the mitigmion list, "rcwnwtended practices." This mitigation measure also only applies to leduce pollutants to 1'emescal Canyon Wash, not to generally prevent the conveyance of pollutants offsite. While tate Creek should properly he priexitized, GNPs should also be ugcd during con0ruction to generally stahiiize the site and prevent runnff into storm-dmins and W adjacent propc ow, Mitigation Measrrc HY-7 fails to ensmc all feasible mitigation is adopted whole it provides a list rat'tec nimended 13MPs, but hails to actually require they be iocorpasted into any SWPPP. Mitigation Measure HY-8 is impermissibly unccr4tin ;and uncnforccahle where it only rcyuires Structural RAdps j, considered to be incorpot rated" but does not actually require that any structural BNAPs be incorporated as mitigation Por the project. The DPEIR (ails w evaluate the potentially significant secondary impacts of grading to Project site to comply with HYA M What impacts off-site, downstream, or within the tloodway? The DPEIR is also inconsistent. regarding when a CLOMP. is needed.'I'his mitigation measure requires the CLOMR only for slope reveUnent plans or street improvement plans. On the other band, DPIf1R x 4.3-d states a CLOIvIR will be prepared during the final cngincering and construction phase of the development. G. NOISti Y-41 Miupetion Measure 1vt5 G.} requires [hal construction equipntenl and staging areal; be Y-42 locarad "as far as practical" iron existing readonces to "minimize" off-site noise impacts, but Falls to require (:flat noise be reincui helot',' adopted thresholds and standards. 1'1101e is no tvidencc consnuctlou noise impacts will be reduced below it level ot'signillcance with tw 256 Ychraary IQ 2016 Pag, I " I nuorporltI Ion oI'(IIis and the bvd other Ill; nhnal mitigation measures rcaative to conalI twfioII noise, Mitigotion weasurc NSG -7 iequiICs that the Project incorporate Ill cast res la reduce opcI atfonaI noise love b; to 00 dBA from 10 p.m, at 7 a.m. (liven the ti:ity's zoning ordinance srandard of40 chi elfin in NS&I it is inyxlssiblc 1'o dclaminc noisy levels will he nsh"d below the threshold ofsigniPicence during operah0II Willi the incorporation of this Ineasure. impacts torn We Project to adjacent sensitive lc;cptors have been inadequatolq addressed and mitigated whore the majority of noise mitigation measures apply to reduce the itnpum in the Project, col Goa Me Project. TafPiC noise impacts have been inadequately considered enol mitigated. fvli t itiation nreasuro NS IF, -9 is vague, uncerhlin, and une4oree3ble where no perform:mce standard or alternatives arc provided. There, is no evidence vibration levels will he reduced beiow a Ieve I of sig lif icallu with 1110 incorporation of this mcaslrc. Y-42 Cont If. POPULA'rn)NAIOUi INC 'Phe DPMR concludes We Project will col induce substantial populnlion growth in an Y43 area. This conclusion is unsupported by the cvWwwc where We Project would eyrmd homes, utilities and othc , iniinarucwre and services to a currently undcvcloped area. - .- f. Pt16idC Tf(t,l'i'LI?51!iL2VICG $V$'1'I;MS The DPAR generally Sacks necded information concerning plans her now militics, pubhc facilities and the expansion ofexhong hlcilabs and necded to service this Project The DPMR improperly defers the planning of such facilities needed to service tine Project to a flntue date, despite the clear need for such planning to occur befory development of aspects of the Project commences. For example, the siting of necded utilities should be nailed down now where the hest locations can be selected. "I'Ile DPFAR Concludes the Project will have sufficient water supplies available to save the PROcct Unlit existing emitknine us. This determination is unsu I"Ied whore the MR has not been upda e.d to address the current drought and Executive orders mandating water cuts statewide. With respect to whether the Project would result in construction of new wswr facilities or the expansion of Facilities which could cause significant environmental effects (Impact 4.10-2), the MR declares impacts would be less than sil;nificant while, in totaf contradiction with this conclusion- stating, In hwO neos whom signii'icam impacts ham been identified" as a result ol- walcr improvements, "mitigation memules are recommended in each applicable section of this MR.' Ithe HIR mist thus conclude impacts for construction ofnew wafer facilities arc significant before mitigation, and adopt all feasible mitigation to reduce such effects. The same goes for Impact 4=10-0, regn-ding storm drainage improvements, where fhc HIR acknowleclgc:s significant impacts for storm drainage improvements have been identified. 257 Y-44 rd,t„ury �ti.:�.ota "I he 17Pf::IR fails to show tlx: Project wiIi III: seINC d by a lands III with sufficient capnchy. "rivDPEJR states 131 Sobolme t:nn(llrll is permitted to t'ccoive' 4 (loo till] Por rofus ceneratcd within Rhmisidc County, but Nils to s116w [hill ii has capacity to take on this YroiceCs additional 171) tpd or cumulative refuse gcncrntioll (DPL;1R p, 4.10-5/1) The DPF..IR also folk to state what the landfill is anticipated to reach capacity or otherwise close. The conclusion impacts would be Jess than ogniiieanl is unstp)pm'tod. Mitigation measure PLI-I requires the verification flint adequate wastewater lreatmcnI facilities exist "before the issuance ofbuilduy; penuits." I Two: is no justification for (Id'elling this needed ingairy to this fulln'e Cinne. The 1?1R proposes of finding that file PItioct would have a loss than significant impact from the construction of reereationai facilities. This finding is unvupported by evidence where tits GIR shows potential effects from development of the proposed recreational fscilitics, including the ponds, for This Projcct. III. 'rHE PI20I1 cr silom 1) BE SIGNIhAN'PLY MOIIIPIR.D 1Y) 121 D14 F, ITS haN V IRONAIEN'i'AI. IMPACTS. A. 'I'as:1'wo I2gCa[snTIclN.nf.. LAKLS" Sru)uLn ni; B,LID4tNn i'r:n The Project proposea developmcm of two huge reorcational lake facilities, totaling 39.6 acres_ to `provide lightwater activities to both local residents and visitors." (DPI:IR p. 2.0-2t1) Given California's severe ongoing drought, the creation and maintenance of thcsc lakes liar aesthetic and recreational purposes is untenable and wastclL 1. 'Ib the extent the lakes will he used to retain clarified storm flows, no WIWI` water shotdd be allowed to be dim Ied from streams or spring water to "1eplell ish and cleuIIw the 111njecC s lake(s)." (DPBIR p. 2.0-39) Such a plan nm.s in opposition to the Governor's recent csocuIive orders and mandatory water use led ucriois. 13. `I'GMESCAL CRtiCi( SHOOLD I34: MAINI'ACNED INA NATORALS I A'M, NOT CNANNEU,17XI) I'he Project proposes to channelize 1'entescal Crock w mitigtrtu for hydrologieul iMNanis. Such an action, however, precludes impottiant biological and water quality 111110ons oohs MOk, and will compound and inaease other environmental impaots. 'the PI';iR slxxOd avahtatc potential less harmful alternatives to creek chnnnclization. TV_ MISCELLANPOUS ADDITIONAL (UNINIEN'I'S "Phe common Ieaers provioled with IIIc Staff Report omit comments cited as "Lotto I" received trot) the':Sante Mtagarita Group/ Sierra Club." The Planning Conon fission should cos'ure it has all relevant intbrmation befbn: it prior to making any decision on this Projcct. 258 Y-45 Y-46 Y-47 Y-48 Y-49 Y-50 1"i man", P» gc ! rt 1 of thpsQ 71 awns, and fl s pitvioLIS Iy Slated by thr, GI'm unci oIIIn)-, the ev a In+.um1 and analyw, in ihv DPI IR must be revAd and ruenvulaled fo, addition l public and agency r"imi Y-.51 and cnenment yrior to PFIR ecrtiiic;uion and Projeal uppi'oval. I hank you for your considera tat of Ihesc additional comments. shwMeN, 1l nuux+ t�lt;3 un Isq.. AICD, L,liF;l) (;A !Ol IP tiU iR, KOM ACI< 259 Response to Comment Letter Y Johnson & Sedlack Johnson & Sedlack provided comments regarding the Dian Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated February 16, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-1 See the above Response to Comment 13-72. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-2 See the above Response to Comment 13-72 and above Response to Comment W-1. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-3 See the above Response to Comment B-26, above Response to Comment D-3 and above Response to Comment G-2. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-4 See the above Response to Comment G-3. Response to Jolurson & Sedlack Comment Y-5 See the above Response to Comment B-26 and the above Response to Comment D-5. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-6 See the above Response to Comment B-34, the above Response to Comment G-8 and the above Response to Comment G-12. 260 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-7 See the above Response to Comment B-16, the above Response to Comment D-14, and the above Response to Comment G-12. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-8 See the above Response to Comment D-14. Response to Jolurson & Sedlack Comment Y-9 See the above Response to Comment D-12 and the above Response to Comment G-10. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-10 See the above Response to Comment B-32, above Response to Comment D-8, above Response to Comment D-9, above Response to Comment D-10, and above Response to Comment G-11. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment V-11 All potential project -specific and cumulative impacts are identified and analyzed along with cumulative impacts. As discussed in the DEIR and in the responses to the these and other comments, "feasible" mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce environmental impacts have been identified. The DEIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation. If the City of Lake Elsinore determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh unmitigated significant environmental effects, it will prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing each significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the DEIR. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment V-12 See the above Response to Comment B-8. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-13 See the above Response to Comment B-2 and the above Response to Comment B-5. 261 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-14 See the above Response to Comment B-24, the above Response to Comment B-64, the above Response to Comment B-65, the above Response to Comment B-66, the above Response to Comment E-1, and the above Response to Comment E-2. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-15 See the above Response to Comment B-24, the above Response to Comment P-2, the above Response to Comment P-5, and the above Response to Comment P-6. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-16 See the above Response to Comment B-4 and the above Response to Comment K-7. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-17 See the above Response to Comment 11-7, the above Response to Comment B-13, the above Response to Comment B-24, the above Response to Comment B-51 and the above Response to Comment J-1. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-18 See the above Response to Comment B-72. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-19 See the above ,Response to Comment B-19 and the above Response to Comment J-11. Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSP, the types of light fixtures and available lighting technology at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. For this reason, examples of shielded lighting that would be required cannot be placed in the AVSP. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -9, as revised in Response to Comment B-19, will assure that shielded light fixtures will be used by future implementing development projects. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-20 See the above Responses to Letter H (Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians) and Letter R (Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians). 262 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-21 See the above Response to Comment B-25 and the above Response to Comment 0-5. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-22 See the above Response to Comment B-7, the above Response to Comment B-38, the above Response to Comment B-41 and the above Response to Comment B-46. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-23 See the above Response to Comment A-1, the above Response to Comment B-70, the above Response to Comment U-4, and the above Response to Comment U-5. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-24 The mineral resource thresholds (Impact Threshold 4.1-6 and Impact Threshold 4.1-7) on pages 4.1-34 and 4.1.35 of the DEIR are concerned with the "loss of availability" of mineral resources. The purpose of these thresholds is to identify ]mown mineral resources and locally -important resource recovery sites in order to analyze the impacts of development proposals that would prevent the excavation and use of the mineral resources. In the case of the proposed project, the DEIR identifies the applicable mineral resources and recognizes that the continued excavation and use of these mineral resources is planned; so that all such mineral resources will be excavated and utilized. Therefore, the proposed AVSP development will not result in a loss of available of the mineral resources on the project site, since all available mineral resources will be excavated and uses. Therefore, the impacts for the `loss of availability" of mineral resources is less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-25 See the above Response to Comment B-14, and above Response to Comment B-44. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-26 In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure G-1 will be revised as follows: G-1 Site specific geoteclinical investigations conducted by a California -licensed Reotechnical engineer, including subsurface fault studies, shall be completed prior to the approval of eacli implementing development proposal. All recommendations of the geotechnical study and of the geotechnical engineer shall 263 be incorporated into the design and construction specifications and shall be implemented by the construction contractors to reduce seismic hazards and hazards related to unstable soils. In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure G-5 will be revised as follows: G-5 All stnietures shall be a ed t resist seismic aeeeleratien of 0.47g (two thirds of peak . eeelefatie of 0.7g) structures shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building, Code for Seismic Zone 4 for a "Maximum Considered Earthquake," as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore and with the appropriate site coefficients. This design resistance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City's Senior Building Division Inspector on the construction design plans prior to issuance of building permits. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-27 Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSD, and the continued mining of the site until different phases are transitioned into development areas, the geotechnical condition of implementing development project sites at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. However, Mitigation Measure G-1, as revised in response to the above Comment Y-26, requires site specific geotechnical investigations for each implementing development proposal. Mitigation Measure G-1 requires that all recommendations of the geotechnical study be incorporated into the design and construction specifications. Mitigation Measure G-1 in conjunction with Mitigation Measure G-6 adequately mitigates potential impacts for potential liquefaction and subsidence impacts. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-28 See the above Response to Comment B-44. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-29 See the above Response to Comment B-7 and above Response to Comment B-39. In the above Response to Comment V-1 the references to the "SARI line" in the DEIR have been changed to "Inland Empire Brine Line" or "Brine Line." hi response to this and other comments, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 will be revised as follows: HAZ-2 As part of the approval process for a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with exposure to hazardous 1' Z 1 S f materials through implementation f General Plan D �-Z J r 264 The following: • Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with County agencies to protect the City against a hazardous materials incident • Evaluate new development on or adjacent to the Inland Empire Brine Line requiring extensive subsurface components or containing sensitive land uses such as schools on a project -by -project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs. Proposed development on or adjacent to the SARI n lifte Inland Empire Brine Line wetild shall be required to analyze r-isks s... ei fie to sensitive land uses an' the ex�efit of subfflirfaee eeffiporientg involved with building in these laeatiens. (Ref. Gene. _� nr..., ro n ::�;.."°.^ . <<;,c n�r� U a �� . - ---, e A avoid impacting the Brine Line, identify and implement implementing development rent project - specific measures that will mitigate any identified risk related to proximity to the Brine Line. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-30 Since the design of the proposed AVSP includes a circulation system that is sized to accommodate the traffic generated by the project, potential impacts related to emergency access have been addressed by the project's design. Currently, the Fire Department's service plan does not envision a fire station in the Alberhill area. The potential future need of a new fire station will be accommodated by the provision of potential sites in the project area, as described in the AVSP document. This is addressed by the DEIR on page 4.10-61 where it states that "eventually, as proposed, a new Fire Station will be constructed within the Project site." The DEIR also concludes that "With the proposed construction of the Fire Station within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and/or potential of payment of fees, the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project development would establish and meet the need for the Project's level of service goals." (DEIR, page 4.10-61) In order to reflect the requirement for payment of "fair share" public safety fees, new Project - wide Development Standards has been added to the AVSP which requires: • Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement Fire and Paramedic Services CFD Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, or Conditional Use Permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Safety) or such other Community Facilities District for Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services established at the time of such approval to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Public Safety services. Applicant shall make a seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) non-refimdable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation, formation or 265 other mitigation process, as applicable. Contact the City of Lake Elsinore Administrative Services Department at 951.674.3124. In order to reflect this project -wide development standard, the 1" sentence of the 2°`1 paragraph on page 4.10-61 of the DEIR will be revised as follows: To accommodate for the increase demand created by further phases of the Project, the applicant would be required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District ((CFD) No. 2003 1 2015-01 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services) and eventually, as proposed, a new Fire Station will be constructed within the Project site. Additionally, all references to "CFD No. 2003-1" within the DLIR will be changed to "CFD No. 2015-01." Response to Johnson & Sedlack Continent Y-31 See the above Response to Comment Y-29 and the below Response to Comment Y-32. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-32 Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSP, the specific impact associated to wildland fires for individual implementing development projects at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. However, compliance with General Plan policies 4.1 and 4.2, when applied to individual development projects will adequately mitigate any potential future wildland fire threat to the proposed project. However, in order to clarify that individual implementing development projects will be required to address the potential for wildland fire, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 will be revised as follows: HAZ-3 As part of the approval process for a implementing development projects including Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, each implementing developmcnt projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with wildfire hazards through imp fnemat4)n e f Pell jes 4.1 through 4.3 of the Wildfire lla5-�ai-dq seetioit of the Public Safety and Welfiare ehapier Elf the General (Rel —/ ._..1 n_.- _ I ,� TA;,i,•.. 54—the followmf; requirements which will be implemented through the conditions of approval for each project: • On-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary shall be required. 266 • Fuel modification zones around development shall be established within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within a minimum of 100 feet of buildings and structures The fuel modification_ zone size may be altered with the addition of fuel resistant building techniques The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire- resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-33 See the above Response to Comment B-26, the above Response to Comment B-50 and the above Response to Comment K-12. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-34 See the below Response to Comment Y-40 and the below Response to Comment Y-41. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-35 Paragraph C of Section 15.72.040 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requires: Slopes exceeding three feet in height shall be provided with irrigation systems and sufficient permanent plants chosen from a list of plants suitable for hillside grading. Said slopes shall be provided with irrigation system and planted as soon as possible after grading and before the project receives final inspection and before any structures on the project are occupied Response to Johnson & Sedlack Continent Y-36 See the above Response to Comment B-26, and the below Response to Comment Y-41. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-37 See the above Response to Comment B-11 regarding Phased Development Plans. Additionally, the description of required Phased Development Plans (PDPs) has been revised to specifically require that PDPs "circulation and infrastructure phasing milestones." Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-38 Impact 4.3-3 on DEIR Page 4-3-30 (Hydrology and Drainage) adequately analyzes groundwater recharge. Since the potential loss decrease in groundwater recharge was not determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are not required. 267 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-39 See the below Response to Comment Y-40 and the below Response to Comment Y-41. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-40 Implementing development projects within the AVSP will be required to comply with all regulatory requirements, including NPDES requirements which include the preparation of a SWPPP. Mining on the project site is a pre-existing use of the AVSP property and will continue as an interim use until the phased development of the AVSP project area is begun. The existing mining operations on the project site will not be subject to the mitigation set forth in the DEIR, because it is not part of the proposed project. The mining operations are required to comply with all State and federal laws and regulations including but not limited to the NPDES and the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). See the above Response to Comment J-2. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-41 See the above Response to Comment B-26 for revisions to Mitigation Measure HY-4. In response to this comment the following revisions to Mitigation Measures HY-3, HY-6, HY-7 and HY-8 will be made: HY-3 Site specific drainage systems shall be designed, as each planning area or phase come on line. Each implementing development application shall be required to provide all drainage improvements necessary to serve the implementing development project. All phased drainage systems shall conform to a the adopted Master Drainage Plan of r,._,.inage for the entire that covers the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project area. In the absence of an applicable adopted Master Drainage Plan all drainage facilities shall comply with City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside Count), Flood Control District requirements. HY-6 The Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be specified in the Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce the level of pollutants indicated above frorn entering the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creels) and any other receiving waters to the maximum extent feasible. Reeorriniended praetiees a teiien `nelud� nnnn to be r a :+tge�'n, kt In addition to the list of BMPs referenced within the required SWPPP prepared for each implementing development prosect the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Site Stabilization to Limit Sedimentation; 268 • Preservation of Existing Vegetation; • Seeding, Planting and Mulching of Disturbed Areas; • Dust Control; • Construction Road Stabilization; • Stabilized Construction Entrance; • Outlet ,Protection; • Temporary Debris Basins; and, • Sandbagging, Slit Fence, Straw Waddles. The Final WQMP for each implementing development project shall specifically identify pollution prevention, site -design source -control and treatment -control BMPs that shall be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff in order to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable HY-7 The site's SWPPP and WQMP shall also specify BMPs for post construction. Post construction BMPs may be divided into two categories, structural and non- structural. In addition to the addition to the list referenced within the required SWPPP and required WQMP, , list offecommended fien . FueturajN a�zs ^: prepared for each implementing development project the non- structural BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Public Education/Involvement; • Housekeeping Practices; • Catch Basin Stenciling; • Street Cleaning; and, • Storm Drain System Cleaning. HY-8 Structural BMPs shall be eonsidered to be incorporated into the design of each Phased Development Plan so that the community t-l+a�will improve water quality and potentially enhance wetland mitigation opportunities_; In addition. to the list of BMP's referenced within the AVSP WQMP (Appendix C of the DEIR) the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Retention Basins; • Grass -Lined Channels and Swales; • Detention Basins; • Infiltration Trenches; • Water Quality Inlets; and, • Water Quality Basins. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-42 See the above Response to Continent B-51, the above Response to Comment 13-52, the above Response to Comment B-54, and the above Response to Comment B-55. 269 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-43 The Growth -Inducing Impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.0.3 of the DEIR. The reasons that growth -inducing impacts are less than significant are based upon the project's consistency with existing City of Lake Elsinore General Plan land uses and projected growth, and that the project will not exceed Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) growth projections. Additionally, since the project is near other approved Specific Plans (Alberhill Ranch, Horsethief Canyon Ranch); the project itself would not influence the rate and location of growth within the project vicinity beyond that already anticipated by local and regional plans. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-44 See the above Response to Comment B-68 and the above Response to Comment U-2. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-45 The DEIR states that: "The El Sobrante Landfill is an active Class III (non -hazardous municipal solid waste), permitted landfill and accepts mixed municipal waste, construction/demolition waste, and tires. El Sobrante Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. It has a total acreage of 1,322 acres and disposal acreage of 645 acres. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 70,000 tons of refuse per 7 -day week and capped at 16,054 tons per day (tpd), of which 5,000 tpd (based on the daily cap of 16,054 tons per day) is reserved ,for refuse generated within Riverside County. 'The 2011 maximum daily average volume disposed was 7,110 toils (daily 2,263 tons in -County; 4,847 tons out -of -County). The landfill had a total capacity of approximately 126 million tons, as of January 1, 2012, and has a remaining in -County disposal capacity of approximately 50.4 million tons. This capacity quantity does fluctuate year to year due to settlement, compaction, and calculation factors. The landfill is projected to reach capacily by approximately 2045." (DEIR, page 4.10-8). [Emphasis added.] Inasmuch as this discussion shows that the El Sobrante landfill is permitted to accept approximately 2,700 tons per day additional in -County refuse than it current accepts, there is adequate capacity to accept the estimated 179 tpd generated at AVSP build -out. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-46 See the above Response to Comment U-3 and the above Response to Comment U-4 regarding wastewater facilities. 270 Due to the projected 30 -year development period associated with the AVSP, the available capacity of wastewater facilities may change many times over that period. For this reason, the precise availability of wastewater service for implementing development projects at any point during that 30 -year period would be speculative and therefore cannot be determined at this time. However, the commenter is correct in advising that this determination should not be deferred to building permit issuance stage. Inasmuch as no implementing development applications can be approved unless a Phased Development Plan (PDP) is processed either prior to or concurrently with the development application. Additionally, the implementing development application must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, in response to this comment, Mitigation Measure PU-1 will be revised as follows: PU-1 P.ior to the issuamee of buildin-14 Prior to approval of a Phased Development Plan (PDP) and prior to approval of implementing development projects for residential, commercial, mixed-use, or institutional development, the City shall require verification from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water ,District that adequate wastewater treatment facilities and treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed development. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-47 The construction of recreational facilities is a component of the entire AVSP project. Construction -related impacts for those facilities are incorporated as part of the estimated construction -related impacts for the AVSP project. Construction -related mitigation measures are discussed throughout the DEIR. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-48 See the above Response to Comment K-12. Response to Johnson & Sedlack Continent Y-49 See the above Response to Comment B-26 Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-50 See the above responses to Letter P (Santa Margarita Group/Sierra Club). Response to Johnson & Sedlack Comment Y-51 See the above Response to Comment B-72. 271 272 Pmmd n�"ttr+vrswx u,r k..�b R�iisubkc ('a:e N' -A.a ,,, 0, P raa o. t:��w. n.rr. Comment Letter Z Eastern Municipal Water District <1106 SIM i 3416 January 4, 2016 City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Attention: Roy F. Stephenson REU.:TVED CITY OF i "' ;-i.-1NORE RLANN' ;; VfSION Subject: Alberhili Viliages SF 2010.0< Location: Northwestern portion of City of Lake Elsinore APNS: 389-020-032 ET AL °"a°""' Upon review of the referenced project location, we determined that the project is located ,., raa a:vaa,+,ere within Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and not within EMWD's service area. rkr Please forward public notifications to the appropriate agency having jurisdiction in the r'"d project area. P.a,niv A. R.d If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. r.,ay. x oecin Sincerely, T�„ UeA Kt . oun "ryClf EI -Hage, M.S., P.E. Senior Civil Engineer New Business Development (951) 928-3777 x4468 EI-hademnemwd. oro ME:emn Altachm"t dfailing Addresa fact 011icc lion X300 Parris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 028-3777 1-:ra: (951) 928-6177 1,"Ilon '?701 nin;ble Road P,,, ( A 92S70 lmerner g,Y.><=•_mx_d_.g Z -I 273 Response to Comment Letter Z Eastern Municipal Water District Eastern Municipal Water District provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 4, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. 'The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Eastern Municipal Water District Comment Z-1 The commenter advises the City of Lake Elsinore that the proposed AVSP is not located within its service area and requests that public notifications regarding this project sent to the appropriate agency having jurisdiction in the project area. The appropriate agency is the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, which has received all notices regarding this project. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 274 Comment Letter AA Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit STATE OF CALIFORNIA GoN,ernoJ Oifico of Planning and Roucai-ch Sl,ata C It afi.nghouse And Planning INA &imnnd G. lboNvu Js Governer l umuny 4, 2016 Roy s1cphellsoll City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Suem Like EIsmorc. CA 92530 Subject: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) SUM: 2012061046 Demtidy Stephenson: V Nk",~ 1 C o 0 v £tl 1t 0W ~' Ken Alex Director The State Clcering)mnse submitted the above nmned Draft FIR to selected state agenoics for review. 'File rovimv period closed of 1)ecemboCr 1, 2015, and no State agencies submitted commauts by that date,. '17n1s lens. acknowledges that you have complied with theStatoClearinghousc naview requiremenu for draft envirmnneowl documents, pur8uantto the California Lmdronmemal Quality Act. Please call the Slate Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about 010 above-named p ajere, please rotor to file ten -digit Stale Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely. Scou Morgan Dhecto, State Clearinghouse ], 00 TJSN 1') Y ST HAE9' P_0 h0X 3044 S TAM F.NIT), CAM FORMA 06317,3044 TO.ai 16)A4ROG 13 rV(wr')023-3018 ... � "r.ca.pr AA -1 275 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2012061046 Projoct Title Alberhill Villages SpeCNio Plan (SP 201002) Lead Agency Lake Elsinore, City of Type EIR Draft CIR Description Note: Extended Review Specific Plan for 8,244 dwelling units; 2,507,000 sqit, of non -r ttidentiel uses including elvialmstieflonal, commercial/retail, professional office/medical, entertainment uses, and o university campus or similar educational uses to serve up to 6,000 students. Supporting uses include schools, parks, worship centers, and open space and green bell peaces. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the existing land use designations to "Specific Plan" and to amend the Circulation Element. Leat! Agency Contact Name Roy Stephenson Agency City of Lake Elsinore Phone 951.674-3124 Fax email Address 130 S. Main Street City Lake Elsinore State CA Zip 82530 Project Location County Riverside City Lake Elsinore Region Lat/Long 33" 43' 15,4'N / 117' 23'52.7' W Cross Streets Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Rd. Parcel No. Township 55 Range 5W Section 21 Base SBB$,M Proximity to: Highways Hwy 74,1-15 Airports Railways Waterways Temescal Creek Schools Rice Cyn it Tena Cotta Land Use Project Issues Air Quality; Archaoologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Drainagc/Absorption; Fiscal Impacts; Flood Plain/FRoodi ng; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Public Services; Reosorl ion/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxie/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulalive Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Office of Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services, California; California Highway Patrol; Gainers, District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development; Air Resources Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lends Commission Dato Rocuvvod 11/05/2015 Stan of Roview 11/05/2015 End of Review 12/31/2015 Note; Blanks in dela fields iesult from insufficient information provided by load agency. 276 Response to Comment Letter AA Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 4, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Comment AA -I This comment confirms that the State Clearinghouse received and distributed the DEIR as required by CEQA. This comment also confirms the completion of the 55 -day DEIR comment period. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. 277 CHAPTER 3 - CORRECTIONS, ERRATA, AND CHANGES FROM DRAFT EIR TO FINAL EIR 3.1 Introduction Corrections, errata and changes from the Draft EIR that are included in this Final EIR represent additional information or corrections that do not change the impacts of the proposed project and/or mitigation measures such that new or more severe environmental impacts result from the proposed project. Such items are sometimes added as a result of comments received from responsible agencies or are minor corrections or clarifications. These modifications and clarifications are not "significant new information" under Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines because they represent minor modifications, clarifications or amplifications to the analysis and significance conclusions already clearly stated in the Draft EIR. Further, no new issues or additional environmental impacts will result from these changes. Finally, because these additions merely clarify and amplify the discussion in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR has not been "changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the proposed project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)). Accordingly, the responses to comments, corrections, errata and changes, and other material contained in this Final EIR do not require recirculation under CEQA (Section 15088.5(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines). Any changes identified to the mitigation measures described below in Section 3.2 (Corrections/Errata and Changes) are not required to reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level, nor are they imposed due to the discovery of new significant impacts. Instead, the clarifications made to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR provide minor changes that make mitigation clearer and more specific. However, none of these clarified mitigation measures will result in any potentially significant impacts of their own. Accordingly, these clarifications do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA. (See State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.) The following discussion presents the location and types of changes or corrections made within the listed sections by this Final EIR since the Draft EIR was published. Those sections of the Draft EIR not listed below have not been modified. The revisions are presented in a strike- through/underline format, with underlines being additions and strike -through being deletions. 278 3.2 Corrections/Errata and Changes Table of Contents Page number xii of the Table of Contents is revised as follows: 12.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES.............................................................. 12.0-1 (These Technical Appendices will be Found in Separate Attached Vol ones) Appendix A.I Initial Study/NOP Appendix A.2 Notice of Preparation Distribution List Appendix A.3 Comments Regarding NOP/Received by City Appendix B Geetza.:eal4nvestigatiee Geotechnical Investigation and Reclamation Plan 112 Appendix C Hydrology/ Drainage and WQMP Appendix D Traffic Impact Study Appendix E Air Quality Green Ilouse Gas Data Appendix F Noise Data Appendix G Biological Resources Studies Appendix H Cultural Resources Study Appendix I Public Utilities and Services Section Appendix 1.1 Preliminary Wastewater Facilities Plan Appendix 1.2 Preliminary Water Facilities Plan Appendix 1.3 Alberhill Villages— Existing Dry Utility Locations and Future Utility Requirements Appendix J Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Appendix K Alberhill Villages Phased Development Plan Appendix L City of Lake Elsinore— Alberhill District (Section AH) Appendix M Alberhill Villages Retail Impact Study and Fiscal Impact Report Appendix Correspondence Section ES - Executive Summary Page ES -14 and Page 2.0-11 Conceptual Land Use Figures in the DEIR previously illustrated the Villages Plan and have now been replaced with the AVSP Land Use Plan, as shown below: 279 f' Figure 3-1 1 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Land Use Plan Specific Plan 17e� PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS Section ES -3.1.2 on Page ES -68 and Section 6.0 Page 6.0-14 of the DEIR is revised as follows: The 'Further Reduced Density' Alternative would not meet most ofthe basic objectives would not meet the r.i" al� eetives of the Project applicant, even though this alternative would: 1) create a community with integrated land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore, and would offer a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational land uses located within the City of Lake Elsinore in the northern Alberhill District Section ES -2.0 Environmental Impacts Summary on Page ES -20 and ES -34 and Section 7.0 on Page 7.0-3 and 7.0-9 of the DEIR are revised as follows to include new or revised Mitigation Measures: AES -1: During 42rejec4 construction of implementing development projects, the construction Project Manager shall ensure that the Aesthetics, appropriate screening and visual buffers are provided (such as Light, and temporary fencing with opaque material), to screen on-going Glare construction activities from residential land uses developed within 280 previous phases. AES -4: All landscaping shall be installed, in accordance with Landscape and Irrigation standards that are part of the Specific Plan at the time of approval of each n..s implementing project's Landscape Plan, and prior to issuance of occupancy permits for a particular phase or area. AES -6: Concurrent with the submittal of any detailed Landscape Plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES -3 above the applicanP/developer of the implementing development proiect shall submit a survey of the native vegetation community(ies,) and associated plant species located within the region adjacent to the implementing development project and the AVSP that has been prepared by a State -licensed landscape architect qualified biologist or other qualified specialist approved by the Communes Development Director or designee. The survey shall include a list of native plant species that are compatible with the identified native vegetation community(ies). The required detailed Landscape Plan shall incorporate said identified native plant species in order that Ddisturbed and un -landscaped areas shall be replanted with native plant materials that are compatible with the, thenie and tha4 respend to the functional eatigideration with the existing native vegetation of the region. AES -7 To the extent --a4 >ro; tRemoval of existing native trees and vegetation along Tcmescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be prohibited during Pfejecat implementing project construction and grading except when necessary to construct required hydrology or road improvements. This e-atr shall be accomplished by staking sensitive habitat at the limits of grading to avoid incidental disruption. The Prejeet implementing project's grading plan shall clearly indicate permit limits and areas to remain and to be avoided. Tree removals shall be mitigated with a ratio of 3 to 1 replacement AES -8 b . Prior to approval of the Final Map. Parcel Map, Design Review, or Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable) the implementing development proiect's applicant/developer shall annex the implementing development project into Community Facilities District No 2015-2 281 for Maintenance Services established at the time of such approval to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of- way landscaped areas and parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the proiect.. Alternatively, the applicant/developer may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the Maintenance Services. AES -9 Prior to the approval of each implementing commercial, multi -family and recreational development project, the applicant/developer shall submit photometric lighting plans that demonstrate that Aany lights used to illuminate the parking areas, driveways, and other exterior or interior areas, shall be designed and located so that direct lighting is directed and confined to the subject property. . /n,_lieN,.l,per shall ub moi—ooterriet'ri'�n•.l�f�r eommereial, „i: c.,..,f r. and recreational pects All outdoor lighC fixtures, including but not limited to street lights and operational, signage, and landscape lighting sources shall be shielded and situated so as to not cause glare or light spillage into adjacent areas. Directional lighting should shall be of=a ; ;ate—maxinmm intensity (wattage) of one foot-candle 1 lumen per square foot), or as otherwise necessary for public safety. AQ -1: Construction activities may cause NOx, ROG, PM -10 and PM -2.5 emissions to substantially exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds if multiple activities/phases overlap or are compressed into shorter time -frames. Reasonable and feasible mitigation cannot likely reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation during construction is required to achieve a reduced level of impact includes; the contractor shall implement the following measures: Dust Control: • Apply soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to inactive areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mpli. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is Air Quality &a delayed. Greenhouse • Water actively graded surfaces 3 times per day. Gas Analysis • Cover all stock piles with tarps if left undisturbed for more than 282 72 hours. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Install wheel washers, shaker plates and gravel where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 1186.1 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent sheets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered. • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation. • Diesel exhaust particulates and NOx emissions may have a significant impact during construction because of the size scope of the project. Measures to reduce exhaust emissions include: Exhaust Emissions: • Require 90 -day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if ble or equivalent technology. • Utilize diesel particulate filters or equivalent technology on heavy equipment whte. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 ho shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off- road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower: until equipment that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards where available • All construction e ui ment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized engine as defined by CARE regulations. • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.p_ material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if 2010 model year or newer 283 that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emission requirements. • A copy of each unit's certification shall be provided at the time of mobilization and a placard or other identification shall be affixed to approved equipment and haul trucks, • Contractors using equipment rated at less than Tier 4 shall be provided with information on the SCAQMD "SOON" program of financial assistance for accelerated equipment clean-up. • if ;ernof���-'road cccon$truetion equipment••r .. .,:l..l.le Fequire n1<<...„.o:... Awled off ,wid c o.,r • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators over 491-IP. If generators are over 49HP, they will have to comply with the Air Quality Management District rules. • Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. • Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the extent pfaeti • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-site and off-site. AQ -3 Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the following measures to conserve energy have been incorporated into building design Submit plans demonstrating that the new .".g: al buildings, including but not limited to residential, commercial, and educational buildings, shall exceed those California "Title 24 energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance as required by the Climate Action Plan in effect at the time. Submit plans demonstrating that the new commercial buildings shall include the following green building design features: - Utilize Low -E and ENERGY STAR windows where feasible; - Install high -efficiency lighting systems and incorporate advanced lighting controls, such as auto shut -offs, timers, and motion sensors; - Install high R -value wall and ceiling insulation; and, - Incorporate use oflew pressure sodium LED and/or fluorescent lighting, wherepraetiea1e. 284 Install electric car charging stations as preferred parkin spaces. Use light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements • Require ",.,.uisi�fne�A the use of only ENERGY STAR qualified heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances and equipment. • Implement passive solar design strategies in new construction. Examples of passive solar strategies include orienting building to enhance sun access, designing narrow structures, and incorporating skylights and atria. • Where appropriate as determined by the Eit-y s Structures shall be designed to support the added loads of rooftop solar systems and be provided with appropriate utility connections for solar panels, even if installation of panels is not planned during initial construction. • All residential projects shall incorporate the following features - A minimum of one (1) model home within each phase of proiect development shall be include an electric car charging station. Electric car charging stations shall be offered as an available option to the initial purchaser(s) of each single-family dwelling unit - All multiple -family residential projects shall incorporate the installation of electric car charging stations for the use of their residents. AQ -4 Prior to issuance of a building permit(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the following water and energy conservation measures consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code have been incorporated into the landscape plan: • Participate in green waste collection and recycling programs for landscape maintenance. Require t a with low water 1 grOW14,: Each implementing development proiect shall coa ly with the water -efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code that are in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits for that implementing development project • Plant trees or vegetation to shade buildings and thus reduce 285 heating/cooling demand. AQ -5 Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map, or Design Review application by the City's decision-making authority, applicants for any proposed new development ; 1 ftive v close imit" sensitive reeeptors which will result in sensitive receptors beim located within 1,000 feet of mining operations, Interstate 215, or any other potential Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) source shall conduct an evaluation of human health risks (Health Risk Assessment) an&or Localized Significance Threshold (L,ST) analysis to identify and reduce any potential health risks from construction and/er• operation impacts to sensitive receptors. The HRA and LST analysis shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. The thresholds to determine exposure to substantial pollution concentrations are: A Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) of greater than ten (10) in one million. For non -cancer risks, the threshold is a hazard index value greater than one (1). LST thresholds shall be those recommended by SCAQMD. If the Health Risk Assessment or LST analysis shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds these standards, the HRA and/or LST analysis shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non -cancer risks to an acceptable level Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipmentrg eater than 50 hp shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower; until equipment that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available. • All off road diesel -powered construction equipmentrr� eater than 50 lip shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. • All construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.u., material delivery 296 bucks and soil import/export) and if 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the developer shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model Year NOx emission requirements. Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters Mitigation measures identified in the HRA and LST analysis shall be identified as mitigation measures in the implementing development proieet's environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed future project The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department. BI0-1 A pre -construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities within those portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl habitat. If ground disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls during the 30 days preceding the revised ground -disturbance date. The pre -construction survey and any Feleeation aeti�vly will be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDF W Staff' Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 1995, survey, the), shall be avoided or !he awls aetivel-��, etiyi4J place a n k ,ii least inn Y� (. a. el X330Ie- i of Resta t d � b b season (F 4 i -ii August 3!)n and 1454-e�` Biological nen breediffgc Resources/ Jurisdictional avoided, passive Waters felee I 4eln Reteeation shall be eenduetpd outside IIqF- breeding season ef enee 287 tion -of owls f4+o. — the, r burrows (ou'side the reeding ��' n VC�-frac-nest-m=.crn7T�7 installing one way dears in burrow entranees. These ae, vu.. ..,..y d it the 1 to exit the b .. , but not enter :t Thee doers .all be left inila e AP hours to engtife owls have left the -burrrey-end bH3i'ENv�urrvv-aiasararv"r-a'rarr`. en ffler.ora h iffipaeted area shall he p :ded : a .atie ,.f 1 tel in d' ,t suitable habitat that is e0fitiguous 4th the foraging l,.,h:t..t of the, „ff ..red ovule The Projeet area shall be fflanitefed daily R,.. one eek to n fir,,, huffe. before exeav,. tl„g burrows the impact ared. d.••1 NeV of ..T2� shall he Sections of flexible pipe shall he inserted h,te rh r ,-1� I gig excavation to rnaintain an eseape route for any mora ray o...., ..... bta-i- Tw. If occupied burrowing owl tunnels are identified on-site during the pre -construction survey, construction may proceed if a 50 -foot avoidance buffer can be established around the affected owl tunnel entrances (no ground disturbance, equipment laydown or storage or parking inside the buffer). The owls and worker compliance with the buffer shall be monitored daily by a qualified biologist until construction and all other ground -disturbance activities in the vicinity have ceased. If the Proiect cannot avoid an occupied burrow (resulting in the possibility of taking owls through entombing or crushing them in their burrows or evicting them to be eaten by raptors or other predatory birds), relocation will be necessary to avoid unauthorized take of this declining species. The Project shall notify the Wildlife Agencies (CFWS and USFWS) within 3 business days of detecting the occupied burrow, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan for approval by the Wildlife Agencies, B10-3 Should construction of implementing development projects occur during the breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (LBV), or southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) or other riparian - obligate birds (March 15 through September 15), j.esenee/abse; e protocol -level surveys shall be conducted prior to construction; or presence can be assumed. If surveys document the presence of LBV, and SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, impacts to LBV, and SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds would be mitigated below the level of significance when occupied riparian forest/woodland/scrub is fenced and direct impacts are avoided and construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat occurs only between September 15th and March 15th to avoid 288 indirect impacts to nesting IsBV riparian -obligate birds. If avoidance is not feasible, a temporary noise barrier shall be used during construction, at the appropriate location(s), in coordination with CDFW and the USFWS. The noise barrier shall attenuate noise levels to 60 dBA or less, at the edge of breeding habitat. If surveys indicate that these species are not present, this measure will not be required. Additional or alternative measures to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to LBV, affd SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, as identified by the USFWS in Section 7 or Section 10 Consultation and CDFW, shall be implemented. However, if all avoidance measures cannot be implemented such that "take" of I.,BV and SWWF is avoided Take Authorization from USFWS through Final Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and from CDFW through issuance of a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit or compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 will be obtained BI04 Individual environmental review conducted for future AVSD implementing development projects will be required to identify any impacts on riparian areas and wetlands and in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies and applicable regional plans, must ensure incorporation of adequate mitigation to preserve the viability of these important biological resources. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit(s) for areas within the AVSP that contain riparian/riverine habitat, the applicant shall implement one or more of the following mcasures to mitigate for impact to riparian/riverine at a ' ::1—rR io that individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to regulator agency (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS), California Regional Water Control Board (CRWOCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)) approval: • Avoidance of on-site riparian/riverine habitat• • Enhancement of other AVSP on-site riparian/riverine habitat • Restoration of on-site riparian/riverine habitat followinn_ ground-distrubance activities or, • On-site or off-site Feplaee}Hent of C: `FW r rte' •�ed•�� mitigation of residual impacts to riparian/riverine habitat at no less than 1:1 replacement to impact ratio, or such other ratio as required by the regulatory agency, whicheveris greater. Off=site replacement shall include 289 the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off- site mitigation bank or payment into an in -lieu fee agreement, such as the San Jacinto River invasive removal project through Santa Ana Watershed Authority. BI0-8: The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing mitigation to reduce potential impacts to two species of native trees that were located on-site: the southern coast live oak riparian forest located in the northwest corner of the Site that includes coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and the arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The oak trees and willows are large, mature, and in good health. If oak trees will be impacted, the developer shall mitigate the Loss at a -34 12:1 replacement with 36" box 1 -gallon trees, or shall relocate the native oak trees. BIO -9: Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map or Design Review application by the City's decision-making authority, applicants for any proposed new implementing development shall submit a current site-specific biological survey prepared by a qualified biologist which evaluates the potential construction -related noise impacts upon wildlife. If biological survey determines that construction -related noise mitigation is necessary; prior to the commencement of construction activity, a temporary sound wall shall be erected adjacent to construction between the ^`'� implementing development's footprint and any Gfitieal Habitat Areas impacted wildlife resources to ensure that wildlife are not subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards (65 dBA) or ambient noise levels at 65 dBA (whichever is higher). Once construction is completed, the temporary sound wall shall be removed. BIO -11: Prior to grading each phase of the development, a Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) habitat assessment, followed by presence/absence surveys in accordance with USFWS survey protocol if habitat is present, as determined by a qualified biologist for areas where suitable habitat is identified shall be completed as follows: At least one vear prior to ground -disturbing activities, a habitat assessment for the QCB in the proposed grading area will be performed. If suitable habitat is identified, a presence/absence survey will be conducted in accordance with USFWS survey protocol. if QCB are not detected. no additional avoidance or 290 If surveys document the presence of OCB impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or through mitigation consisting of onsite or offsite Preservation, If avoidance is not feasible, a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated by the applicant with USFWS and mitisration measures to avoid or minimize impacts will be implemented in coordination with the USFWS. BIO -12: A pre -construction coast horned lizard survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction/around disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a coast horned lizard (CHI) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if the Coast Horned Lizard is present. If surveys document the presence of CHL, impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or through miti rat tion Implementation of one or more of the following measures that individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife LCDFW).ap royal: • Avoidance of on-site CHL, habitat• • Preservation of other AVSP on-site CHL habitat and the relocation of CHL individuals from the impacted habitat to the preserved on-site habitat; • The placement of an equivalent number of habitat acres occupied by CHL into permanent conservation If CHI, are not detected, no additional avoidance or minimization is reg uired. BIO -13: During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure BIO -14, a qualified biologist shall survey the implementing development project site for Coulter's Matilija poppy. If Coulter's Matilija poppy is found on site all native plant nurseries in southern California (Riverside Los Angeles Oranpe and San Diego Counties) will be notified by certified mail of the pending elimination of theselap nts by the Project and shall be i,,ivcn the opportunity to salvage the plants or seeds (on a first- come, first-served basis) prior- to the commencement of 291 Cultural Resources BIO -14: Prior to the grading of each phase, an updated vegetation map will be prepared to determine the extent of the willow riparian, coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub within the subject phase; and the amount of these special -status habitats that will be removed as a result of implementing development projects. The extent and quality of coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub will be determined by a qualified biologist. If the presence of said habitat is identified and will be removed as a result of implementing development projects, mitigation of the willow riparian, coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and/or alluvial fan scrub will be determined through a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Permit. Implementation of one or more of the following measures that individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval: • Avoidance of on-site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat; • Preservation of other AVSP on-site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USFWS and CDFW, whichever is.e€ er: • The permanent preservation of off-site willow riparian, coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USFWS and CDFW, whichever isreg ater. BIO -15: During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure BIO -14, a qualified biologist shall survey the implementing development project site for Special Status Plants, including but not limited to Parry's spineflower, particulate tarplant, and graceful tarplant. If Special -Status Plants are identified as being impacted by implementing development projects, those impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Mitigation Measure 1310-14. CR -1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) and any earthmoving activities for the Project, or off site project improvement areas, the implementing development Project applicant shall retain an arehaeelegiea4 aqualified professional archaeologist and a qualilied 292 Luiseno Native American monitor from either the Pechanga Band or the Soboba Band to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. CR-2: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the afiat• indi.., ...:, e both the Pechanea Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to notify that those Tribes of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of r Hke Lia the both Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address: the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and, treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CR-3: Prior to issuance to of any grading permit, the Project archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City and County (if requ 'ed) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CR-1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Abe retained Luiseno Native American monitor(s) in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the Project archaeologist. CR-4: All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the professional archaeologist If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50-foot radius) shall stop and the Project proponent and Project archaeologist shall notifythe Pechanea Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of I uiseno Indians. A designated Native American observer from either the Pechanea Band of Luiseno Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall be retained to help analyze the Native American artifacts for identification as evervdav life and/or religious or sacred 293 items, cultural affiliation, temporal placement, and function, as deemed possible. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseno tribes. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject t to special handling. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, ' . l..,J:.ig sacred items, 7.,...:,.7 ,., ods and all areh..eele..iea .,..N F.,..t� that are, C,. nd on the t3foJeet area t,, the .,t, e.ibe f Fprop- ve tnient and dispositieii. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the Project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation and the archaeological consultant shall deliver the materials to a federally -accredited curation facility such as University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU), or the Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology, within a reasonable amount of time. Cl2-6a: If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no '.further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. CR -7: Prior to the approval of any implementing development Project or the issuance of any grading permit, that includes the Alberhill School site, the applicant shall provide to the City of Lake Elsinore an evaluation of the School House structure completed by a qualified architectural historian and a structural engineer to determine its historical significance and structural integrity. The report shall require the review and approval by the Community Development Department — Planning Division. If the structure cannot be reasonably relocated because of it structural integrity, the structure will be closely replicated elsewhere on the project site to be used as a Home Owners Association/Communit 294 meetingfacility. The replicated structure shall be constructed with as many materials from the original structure that can be reused Prior to demolition of the original structure the structure shall be fully documented following the HABS/I-IAER format. Site documentation includes archival cruality large format black and white photography, measured architectural drawings and a detailed written historical and photographic log These documents shall be housed at a suitable repository, determined by the City of Lake Elsinore CR -7a: Prior to obtaining the first certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall present informational materials (i.e. pamphlets flyers, booklets, etc.) to educate prospective home buyers of the Historic Alberhill District to the Community Development Director or designee for review and approval The materials shall include details of the past history and uses of the area including those other than mining interesting photographs and other information pertaining to the area The Developer shall hire a qualified historian to professionally prepare the materials and shall consult with the local historic societies, Consultation with the Pechanaa Tribe shall also occur prior to finalization of the materials to include available prehistoric information. Historic information shall also be included in trail signage and at least one of the following other sources: CC&R's, HOA notices community flyers park signage and/or street names. 295 CR -8: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each implementing development project, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the Project site to determine the site specific potential of finding paleontological resources within the Project site. If the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological resources will be uncovered by earth -moving activities, grading and construction activities may proceed, subject to compliance with mitigation measures CR -1 through CR -7. However, if the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth -moving activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the Community Development Director. Following Community Development Director approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRMTP shall include the following measures: a. Identification of those locations within the Project site where paleontological resources are likely to be uncovered during grading. b. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist. ar Eltialified c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth- moving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth-mroving activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and, the paleontologist or qualified designee allows earth -moving activities to proceed through the site. If potentially significant resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner to the Community Development Director, in addition to the report (described below) that is filed at completion of grading. d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earth -moving activities, these activities shall be stopped and a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the fossil remains. 296 e. At a qualified paleontologist's or qualified designee's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport to a laboratory facility for processing. f A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable fossil remains. All fossil sites shall be plotted on a topographic map of the Project site. g. If the qualified paleontologist or qualified designee determines that insufficient fossil remains have been found after fifty percent of earthmoving activities have been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued. h. Any significant fossil remains recovered in the field as a result of monitoring or by processing rock samples shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, curated, and accessioned into the fossil collections of the San Berardino County Museum, or another museum repository complying with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines. Accompanying specimen and site data, notes, maps, and photographs also shall be archived at the repository. i. Within 6 months following completion of the above tasks or prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, whichever comes first, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program and presenting an inventory and describing the scientific significance of any fossil remains accessioned into the museum repository. The report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department — Planning Division and the museum repository. The report shall comply with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines for assessing and mitigating impacts on paleontological resources X97 298 G-1: Site specific geotechnical investigations conducted by a California- licensed geotechnical engineer, including subsurface fault studies, shall be completed prior to the approval of each implementing development proposal. All recommendations of the geotechnical study and of the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the design and construction specifications, and shall be implemented by the construction contractors to reduce seismic hazards and hazards related to unstable soils. G-5: All ,,.,. :hall- be designed to resist se ...,,:,..,eeel .. lien of 0.47g (twe thirds of peak , eel .ratien of 0.7g) structures shall be Geology, Soils, designed in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 for a "Maximum Considered Mineral Earthquake," as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore and with the Resources, and appropriate site coefficients. This design resistance shall be Seismicity demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City's Senior Building Division Inspector on the construction design plans prior to issuance of building permits. G-10: To reduce the potential of the rise in the groundwater, due to the slow-down in mining dewatering activity, the recommendations e€ eempliance wi+h his n- � - contained in Mitigation Measures G- 5 through G-9 shall be demonstrated on construction design plans for review and approval by the City Engineering Division, prior to issuance of grading permits. HAZ-2 As part of the approval process for a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials through implementation of General Pia Polieies 3.3 a fid 3.5 efa. Hazardous Materials ..,, tiers ofthe Public c„f„t and Welfare ehapter the following: Hazards and • Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with Hazardous Countagencies to protect the City against a hazardous Materials materials incident. • Evaluate new development on or adjacent to the inland Empire Brine Line requiring extensive subsurface components or containing sensitive land uses such as schools on a project-by-project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs. Proposed development on or adjacent to the SARI line Inland Empire Brine Line would shall be required to analyze risks Spee to seus4ive land uses and the extern ofsubsuf-l�teete�ts 298 299 involved with building ;n these le m + r z nz rrn n�•.;,.,.r,,.,, n,z, ,.,,,.,.� nen. t-z,.�,.,.a. �1 zyrrc��-.-mvrr�c-cru m,�sazn rwx�,.-�-c�cj avoid lmpaetlnH. the Bl'llld Line identi and implement implementing development project - specific measures that will mitigate any identified risk related to proximity to the Brine Line HAZ-3 As part of the approval process for s implementing development projects including Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, each implementing development projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with wildfire hazards through ' .,f 1],.1:,.;,... A 1 H, «......r. d 7 of the \57:1 "azards ,.f the Publie Safety and Welfare General ehapter of ♦kGeneral Plan. (Rell,Genpr6d nz rzn nn' ' aii n nnnn u c the following requirements which will be implemented through the conditions of approval for each project • On-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping_ policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary shall be required • Fuel modification zones around development shall be established within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within a minimum of 100 feet of buildings and structures. The fuel modification zone size may be altered with the addition of fuel resistant building techniques The fuel modification zone may be re 1p anted with fire-resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control. HY-3 Site specific drainage systems shall be designed, as each planning area or phase come on line. Each implementing development application shall be required to provide all drainage improvements necessary to serve the implementing development project All }biased drainage systems shall conform to a the adopted Master Drainage Plan of Drainage fief the entire that covers the Alberhill Hydrology and Drainage Villages Specific Plan Project area. In the absence of an applicable adopted Master Drainage Plan all drainage facilities shall comply with City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Flood Control District requirements. HY-4 Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be preserved in or restored to its natural condition retaining its current flood capacity and flow rate in order to maintain the drainage's function as a wildlife corridor. In order to nroteet the existing streambed of the Temescal Canyon 299 Wash (Creek), an energy dissipating structure shall be provided at the storm drain system discharge point, if necessary. Erosion control devices shall also be provided, if necessary. Consistent with Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5, implementing development projects in the vicinity of Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be designed to locate development away from the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) riparian/wildlife corridor to allow sufficient wildlife movement and access and to preserve its other biological resources and habitat. HY-6 The Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be specified in the Project Stone Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce the level of pollutants � e ve � entering the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) and any other receiving waters to the maximum extent feasible. n,_,.,.m., end a ,.bees during nst,, etion i4iodiide Bile Stabilizaiiefi to limit sedimentation. Following is a !is! or n,-rd ,.,J Ten Tn, t,. 1, ,,,7 duringeanstvje4eff,kn In addition to the list of BMPs referenced within the required SWPPP prepared for each implementing development project, the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Site Stabilization to Limit Sedimentation: • Preservation of Existing Vegetation; • Seeding, Planting and Mulching of Disturbed Areas; • Dust Control; • Construction Road Stabilization; • Stabilized Construction Entrance; • Outlet Protection; • Temporary Debris Basins; and, • Sandbagging, Slit Fence, Straw Waddles. The Final WQMP for each implementing development project shall specifically identify_ pollution prevention, site-design, source-control, and treatment-control BMPs that shall be used on site to control predictable Pollutant runoff in order to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable HY-7 The site's SWPPP and WQMP shall also specify BMPs for post construction. Post construction BMPs may be divided into two categories, structural and non-structural. In addition to the addition to the list referenced within the required SWPPP and required WQMP, a Misr of reeoniicie,•ded n structural uARDs, is pravi belay prepared for each implementing development project, the non-structural BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Public Education/hrvolvement; 300 Noise Public Services and Utilities Transportation and Circulation • Housekeeping Practices; • Catch Basin Stenciling; • Street Cleaning; and, • Storm Drain System Cleaning. HY-8 Structural BMPs shall be eonsidefed to be incorporated into the design of each Phased Development Plan so that the community that --will improve water quality and potentially enhance wetland mitigation opportunities. --m In addition to the list of BMP's referenced within the AVSP WQMP (Appendix C of the DEIR) the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Retention Basins; • Grass -Lined Channels and Swales; • Detention Basins; • Infiltration Trenches; • Water Quality htlets; and, • Water Quality Basins. NSI; -0.5 Prior to the future approval of a Phased DevelopmenC Plan Subdivision Map or Desian Review application by the City's decision-making, authority, applicants for any proposed new development shall submit a project -specific noise impact anal which evaluates potential construction -related noise impacts upon existing surrounding Iand uses and potential noise impacts from existing and projected surrounding Iand uses upon the proposed n1 oject. PU-1 p-0^^ to " i ss______ of building p_......,Prior to approval of a Phased Development Plan (PDP) and prior to approval of implementing development projects for residential, commercial, mixed-use, or institutional development, the City shall require verification from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District that adequate wastewater treatment facilities and treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed development. TC -0.5 Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP) a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence including without limitation. Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in 301 conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for'FUMF fee credits. Section 2.0 — Project Description The first paragraph in Section 2.3.2, Discretionary Approvals, on page 2.0-6 is hereby amended as follows: To administer the Specific Plan and control the build -out of residential units and commercial/office square footage I]n •f,. r,... u..E)a,.,.tS through the general a three-tier land use and development entitlement process will be followed for all development areas and projects within the AVSP area. The three-tier implementation process consists of: 1) adoption of the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance; 2) adoption of Phased Development Plans (PDPs); and, 3) the more precise Design Review/Subdivision approval process (through a Majet' or Miner Design Review Preeess) that corresponds with actual development plans. The three-tier implementation approach will ..,,auee the need to afnend the n a, eeifi. n�ezftAure by pos pe"ing postpones certain land use, development standards and design details that cannot be anticipated until economic, market, and trend development concepts become certain. Phased Development Plans (PDPs) must be processed in accordance with the provisions of the AVSD, as a Specific Plan Amendment concurrent with or prior to the processing of subdivision maps and/or Design Review site plans Tier II and Tier III entitlements will be subiect to further CEQA review and opportunities for public participation. Table 2.0-1 on page 2.0-8 of the DEIR regarding the purpose of the LEAP Process will be amended as follows: F t4ght of'way 1.1.E the A SEIGn eefe areas outside of the development eiit 14 Paeifie n1,.y a.,a the nan" F ^ lberhi" Ridge For the expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road (Lincoln Street in AVSP) and Temescal Canyon Road, except where a MSHCP Joint Project Review for circulation element roads as "Covered Roads" under the MSCHP is not required due to the terms of the MSHCP Settlement Agreement. Table 2.0-1 on page 2.0-8 of the DEIR will be revised to add an additional permit approval after the "LEAPS Process" regarding the compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 as follows: SCAQMD Form 403N (Large South Coast Air Quality Compliance with SCAQMD Operation Notification Form) Management District Rule 403 (SCAQMD) 302 Figure 2.0-15 on Page 2.0-34 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Section 4.0 — AVSP Environmental Impact Analysis The following revisions to the text of the Draft EIR are made within each appropriate section of the DEIR and within section 11.0 of the Dl --']R Bibliography: Section 4.1 — Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources and Seismicity, page No. 4.1-1/ Last (7th) bullet point of the DEIR has been revised as follows: California Geological Survey. 2002. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open -file Report 96-08, Revised 2002. California Seismic Shaking Analysis, Appendix A. 2002. (This document is located at this web -site: http://www.conscrvation.ca. gov/cgs/rghm/psha/ofi-9608/Pages/Ilidex,aspx4Figui-e3c. 041h the I epa AO - 0 .1 �11 -8 an" GeaHties S+iffimer, 2003 Map shewing the'Earthquake Shaking Petential for the hosAngeies. Accessed web -site July 17, 2012.); 303 CITY GENERAL PLAN AVSP 5 URBAN ARTERIAL - W. Nd' Wove M� STREET CONDITION I Z' A4 k — J 1 12' cauuw STREET A CONDITION 2 *h 4'Z 'gz -- ---- STREET A CONDITION 3 STREET A . ....... . ....... to LAKE STREET) TOWN CENTER COUPLET ARTERIAL -4 LANE LINCOLN STREET ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN_ AV ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CITY GENERAL PLAN . SP "" _11r FIGURENo.7 Section 4.0 — AVSP Environmental Impact Analysis The following revisions to the text of the Draft EIR are made within each appropriate section of the DEIR and within section 11.0 of the Dl --']R Bibliography: Section 4.1 — Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources and Seismicity, page No. 4.1-1/ Last (7th) bullet point of the DEIR has been revised as follows: California Geological Survey. 2002. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open -file Report 96-08, Revised 2002. California Seismic Shaking Analysis, Appendix A. 2002. (This document is located at this web -site: http://www.conscrvation.ca. gov/cgs/rghm/psha/ofi-9608/Pages/Ilidex,aspx4Figui-e3c. 041h the I epa AO - 0 .1 �11 -8 an" GeaHties S+iffimer, 2003 Map shewing the'Earthquake Shaking Petential for the hosAngeies. Accessed web -site July 17, 2012.); 303 Section 4.1 — Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Mitigation Measure G -I will be revised as follows: G-1 Site specific geotechnical investigations conducted by a California -licensed geotechnical engineer, including subsurface fault studies, shall be completed prior to the approval of each implementing development proposal. All recommendations of the geotechnical study and of the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the design and construction specifications, and shall be implemented by the construction contractors to reduce seismic hazards and hazards related to unstable soils. Mitigation Measure G-5 will be revised as follows: (1-5 All s of peak ..eeeleituion of n'g) structures shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 for a "Maximum Considered Earthquake," as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore and with the appropriate site coefficients. This design resistance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City's Senior Building Division Inspector on the construction design plans prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure G-10 will be revised as follows: G-10 To reduce the potential of the rise in the groundwater, due to the slow -down in mining dewatering activity, the recommendations of compliance with-4us ;ire contained in Mitigation Measures G-5 through G-9 shall be demonstrated on construction design plans for review and approval by the City Engineering Division, prior to issuance of grading permits. Section 4.2 — Hazards and Hazardous Materials The fifth paragraph on page 3.0-44 of Section 3.0 (Environmental Setting) ofthe DEIR has been revised as follows: Sewer Service: Sewer service in the Project area is also provided by the EVMWD. There are currently no sanitary sewer lines located on-sitc. Master Planned facilities have been added by EVMWD in their 2008 Master Wastewater Plan. There is an existing 24" SARI lie hrland Empire Brine Line — Temescal Valley Regional Interceptor Reach 5 that is within the Alberhill Service Area of EVMWD. 304 Section 4.2.1.2 (The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) Line) on Page 4.2-2 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: 4.2.1.2 The Inland Empire Brine Line (Brine Line) The Santa , .na R: •Tien&' �� - �e n n,� , i Inland Empire Brine Line (Brine line) in adjacent the Project in Lake Street and extending northwesterly near the Project's northern boundary. The SARI ic Brine Line is a regional brine line constructed to protect the Santa Ana watershed from various saline wastes. The SARI line Brine Line collects up to 30 million gallons per day (MGD) of non -reclaimable wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin; after treatment, it is discarded in the ocean. The first paragraph on page 4.2-9 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measures HAZ,-I and HAZ-2 requires future implementing projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous materials through implementation of Policies 3.3 and 3.5 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter and that proposed development on or adjacent to the S ^ "n a�1:.o Brine Line would be required to analyze risks specific to sensitive Land uses and the extent of subsurface components involved with building in these locations. The discussion titled "Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) Line Impacts" starting on page 4.2-9 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Santa Ana negiHigal >,?iere upon r h Inland Empire Brine Line (Brine Lita�e) hnpacts The SftRta^: „. i r . ,., ,.. . is n n n r Inland Empire Brine Line (Brine Line) in adjacent the Project in Lake Street and extending northeasterly near the Project boundary. As required by the Phased Development Plan (PDP) and Design Review (DR) process, and future development will evaluate potential impacts for projects requiring extensive subsurface components or containing sensitive land uses such as schools on a project -by -project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs along the SARI Brine Line. The Project will implement General Plan Goal 3 and Policies 3.3 and 3.5. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 requires future implementing projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous materials through implementation of Policies 3.3 and 3.5 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter and that proposed development on or adjacent to the c ^� RI ]in,, 305 Brine Line would be required to analyze risks specific to sensitive land uses and the extent of subsurface components involved with building in these locations. Based on the analysis above, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts will be less than sign fcant for construction impacts. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 will be revised as follows: HAZ-2 As part of the approval process for a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials through implementation c -Gefic 3 of the WaZ;4i-dRus Trt r t seetion f the Public Safety and U7..7F1...,, ,.tom.,.-.�.. The r following: • Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with County agencies to protect the City against a hazardous materials incident. • Evaluate new development on or adjacent to the Inland Empire Brine Line requiring extensive subsurface components or containing sensitive land uses such as schools on a project -by -project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs. Proposed development on or adjacent to the SARI ti Inland Empire Brine Line would shall be required to analyze risks sp ,, i4e to sensitive land ....,,.. and the extent of subsurfaee eempenents involved with building in these loeations. (Ref General Plan LR r W;,.caioH nrt ., ,. , 494E AWEai avoid impacting the Brine Line identify and implernent implementing development project - specific measures that will mitigate any identified risk related to proximity to the Brine Line. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 will be revised as follows: HAZ-3 As part of the approval process for a implementing development projects including Phased Development Plan, Subdivision, Map, or Design Review application, each implementing development projects shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with wildfire hazards through implementation of Polie;, . rt 1 ,a,.., ugh 4.3 of the Wildfire he lltibl�e Saf-+— and 117 the followin requirements which will be implemented through the conditions of approval for each project: • On-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary shall be required. 306 Fuel modification zones around development shall be established within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within a minimum of 100 feet of buildings and structures The fuel modification zone size may be altered with the addition of fuel resistant building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire- resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control Section 4.3 — Hydrology and Drainage Mitigation Measure HY-3 will be revised as follows: HY-3 Site specific drainage systems shall be designed, as each planning area or phase come on line. Each implementing development application shall be required to provide all drainage improvements necessary to serve the implementing development project. All phased drainage systems shall conform to a the adopted Master Drainage Plan of 1`1 iiag,. Aar the entire that covers the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project area. In the absence of an applicable adopted Master Drainage Plan, all drainage facilities shall comply with City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Flood Control District requirements Mitigation Measure HY-4 will be revised as follows: HY-4 Temescal Canvon Wash (Creek) shall be preserved in or restored to its natural condition retaining its current flood capacity and flow rate in order to maintain the drainage's function as a wildlife corridor. In order to protect the existing streambed of the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), an energy dissipating structure shall be provided at the storm drain system discharge point, if necessary. Erosion control devices shall also be provided, if necessary. Consistent with Mitigation Measures 13I0-4 and BIO -5 implementing development projects in the vicinity of Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be designed to locate development away from the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) riparian/wildlife corridor to allow sufficient wildlife movement and access and to preserve its other biological resources and habitat. Mitigation Measure HY-6 will be revised as follows: HY-6 The Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be specified in the Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce the level of pollutants indieated ^h^-°^ r.^n entering the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) and any other receiving waters to the maximum extent feasible. Recommended i a�� �� rin�een t3utetion inEl nde e 307 :li-Hlion to ]in it ged +11efitati ••, Following a nn. ,.n �l,tie,.......,,. ded BMPs--to be-used-durxlg-consituctten, in In addition to the list of BMPs referenced within the recLuired SWPPP prepared for each implementing development prQiect, the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Site Stabilization to Limit Sedimentation; • Preservation of Existing Vegetation; • Seeding, Planting and Mulching of Disturbed Areas; • Dust Control; • Construction Road Stabilization; • Stabilized Construction Entrance; • Outlet Protection; • Temporary Debris Basins; and, • Sandbagging, Slit Fence, Straw Waddles. The Final WQMP for each implementing development project shall specifically identify_ pollution prevention site -design, source -control, and treatmcm-control BMPs that shall be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff in order to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable Mitigation Measure HY-7 will be revised as follows: IJY-7 The site's SWPPP and WQMP shall also specify BMPs for post construction. Post construction BMPs may be divided into two categories, structural and non- structural. In addition to the addition to the list referenced within the required SWPPP and required WQMP, a list of r nded nen strueturall BMP9 is- pfevided-b,&lew:_ for each implementing development project, the non- structural BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following: • Public Education/hlvolvement; • Housekeeping Practices; • Catch Basin Stenciling; • Street Cleaning, and, • Storm Drain System Cleaning. Mitigation Measure HY-8 HY-8 Structural BMPs shall be R:lsidered lo lip. incorporated into the design of each Phased Development Plan so that the community twill improve water quality and potentially enhance wetland mitigation opportunities_AiH In addition to the list of BMP's referenced within the AVSP WQMP (Appendix C of the DEIR) the BMP's may include (but shall not be limited to) the following;: • Retention Basins; • Grass -Lined Channels and Swales; • Detention Basins; 308 • Infiltration Trenches; • Water Quality Inlets; and, • Water Quality Basins. Section 4.5 — Aesthetics/Light and Glare Section 4.5— Aesthetics/Light and Glare, page 4.5-1/ 2nd bullet point of the DEIR has been revised as follows: 'The Planning Associates, Inc. (TPA) in Association with Glenn Lukes and Associates. 2008, 2012 & 2014. Biological Assessment of Castle & Cooke, Inc. Biological Assessment of Castle & Cooke Pacific Clay Mine Site, Riverside County, California. October 2008 Report, updated May 2012 and also by Letter Update in May 25 4-4, 2014. (A copy of this report is found within Appendix G to this Program EIR Report.); Mitigation Measure AES -1 will be revised as follows: During Prajee construction of implementing development projects, the construction Project Manager shall ensure that the appropriate screening and visual buffers are provided (such as temporary fencing with opaque material), to screen on-going construction activities from residential land uses developed within previous phases. Mitigation Measure AES -4 will be revised as follows: All landscaping shall be installed, in accordance with Landscape and Irrigation standards that are part of the Specific Plan at the time of approval of each Pfeeje ! ani implementing project's Landscape Plan, and prior to issuance of occupancy permits for a particular phase or area. Mitigation Measure AES -6 will be revised as follows: Concurrent with the submittal of anv detailed Landscape Plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES -3 above the applicant/developer of the inrplerueuting development project shall submit a survey of the native vegetation conununity(ies) and associated plant species located within the region adjacent to the implementing development project and the AVSP that has been prepared by a State -licensed landscape architect qualified biologist or other qualified specialist approved by the Community Development Director or designee The survey shall include a list of native plant species that are compatible with the identified native vegetation connnunity6es) The required detailed Landscape Plan shall incorporate said identified native plant species in order that Ddishurbed and un -landscaped areas shall be replanted with native plant materials that are compatible with the theme aad :ut . ..d t th a moo,, with the :;p� existing native vegetation of the region. 309 Mitigation Measure AES -7 will be revised as follows: Te the xtent practicable, i -Removal of existing native trees and vegetation along Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) shall be prohibited during Prejeet implementing project construction and grading, except when necessary to construct required hydrology or road improvements. This can shall be accomplished by staking sensitive habitat at the limits of grading to avoid incidental disruption. The Prejee# implementing project's grading plan shall clearly indicate permit limits and those areas to remain and to be avoided. Tree removals shall be mitigated with a ratio of 3 to 1 replacement. Mitigation Measure AES -8 will be revised as follows: dseap;--- ing Aet of 197-2 (part 2, Division 15 of the b Lighting niainlenafflee of r.,,,,r..,.ape and lighting installation-,- Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map Design Review, or Conditional Use Permit or building; permit (as applicable) the implementing development project's applicant/developer shall annex the implementing development project into Community Facilities District No 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or such other Community Facilities District for Maintenance Services established at the time of such approval to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of-way landscaped areas and parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project.. Alternatively, the applicant/developer may propose alternative financing mechanisms to find the Maintenance Services. Mitigation Measure AES -9 will be revised as follows: Prior to the aanroval of each implementing commercial, multi -family and recreational development project the applicant/deve]oper sha11 suI n photometric lighting plans that demonstrate that Aany lights used to illuminate the parking areas, driveways, and other exterior or interior areas, shall be designed and located so that direct lighting is directed and confined to the subject property. The ,,.Bean«/dev.lepei- shall s„r.m4..r. .,..,o,.;e lighting plans far , ial Multi fdmil , and ,. e,ationa;�,� .� All outdoor light fixtures including; but not limited to street lights and operational, signage, and landscape lightingky sources shall be shielded and situated so as to not cause glare or light spillage into adjacent areas. Directional lighting should shall be of—a jniminum maximum intensity (wattage) of one foot-candle (1 lumen per square foot), or as otherwise necessary for public safely. 310 Section 4.7 — Traffic and Circulation Figure 4.7-1 on Page 4.7-5 of the DEIR is replaced with the most current General Plan Circulation Element map, as shown below: ��¢¢fAA�rr3 LA °n t 2 yS� q M.14 _'ft—_. ! CITY OF LAR ELSIVORC I NIL t5tt 'N n��.unl' ROADWAY CLASSI PICAI IONS In Section 4.7 — Traffic and Circulation, Figure 4.7-21 on Page 4.7-72 of the DEIR will be replaced with the figure below: 311 g\ I lM)NA1 CW. ( fU 5 A. i c 9 .ten w t Nils r. .. r. ',�• �,ci emirvnup _'ft—_. ! CITY OF LAR ELSIVORC I NIL t5tt 'N n��.unl' ROADWAY CLASSI PICAI IONS In Section 4.7 — Traffic and Circulation, Figure 4.7-21 on Page 4.7-72 of the DEIR will be replaced with the figure below: 311 Alberbill Villages Figure 4.7-21 'reraescal Canyon Road b Lane to Lake Street Teniescal Canyon Road Section Section 4.7— Traffic and Circulation, page 4.7-1 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2015. Updated Traffic hnpact Anal Supplemental Analysis-Alberhill Villages Specific Plan TIA Lake Elsinore October 14 2015 (This "Greenline" report is within Appendix D of this Program Environmental impact Report EIR). Section 4.7, Table 4.7-21 on Page 4.7-62 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: TABLE 4.7-21 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD — CITY LIMITS TO LAKE STREET Phis segment of Temescal Canyon Road is a major roadway link between the northern City limits 312 2011 GENERAL PLAN AVSP Roadway Classification Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Right -of -Way 120' 120' Lane Configuration 6 Lanes ^ 1 a es 6 banes Median i 14' Raised 14' Raised Bike Lane 1 Class II 6' Class II — 6' Parkways 12' Both Sides 24' 1- 24' with Added Wildlife, Pedestrian, Drainage Corridor Phis segment of Temescal Canyon Road is a major roadway link between the northern City limits 312 and Lake Street in the north westerly portion of Project. The Project has provided for a Major roadway section different from the City's GP recommended Urban Arterial, however, the Project proposes to keep the 120' right-of-way consistent with an Urban Arterial right-of-way. Enhancements to this segment of the roadway include two (2) 24' Parkway widths with an added pedestrian trail, wildlife and drainage corridors along the west side of Temescal Canyon Road. In tF ff., in this portion of �� ffi 1 i 1c Freeway diverted to T.. meseal r,,.,y, nead As a result e€ €ereeast congestion on -the --1 1-5 Read sinee this partieular di,,,ei-sien route is very eireuiteHs and will eantain a qigni4�eant amoun ef t+affie eentrol impedanee through the Town Center Gouplet� and, 2) �he aetkial General Plan APT and LOS an this peftion of Temeseal Ganyoft Read will ultimately be tfiefe eefisisteflt-w� a -tyre.' .—u 04--larle __ �d� � c l e bbr reperk Therefe}e. ��l3ile k#�ts segment i is teehnioafly ineongi,qent with tlip, General plan, this fouf (4) lane segment -of Temescal Canyon Road will be consistent with the Roadway Classification and Roadway Configurations stated in the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA). (See FIGURE 4.7-21.) Section 4.7, Figure 4.7-24 title on Page 4.7-75 in the DFIR has been revised as follows: "Street A (Lincoln Street to Lake Street)" "c«..,_,e_« n (Tern,,seal G __ Read - Lake Street) - Section 4.7, Figure 4.7-26 title on Page 4.7-77 in the DEIR has been revised as follows: "Loop Roads (West of Lincoln Street)" "L eep Roads (West ,.f T,,.,,,seal G,,.,..,..i n d) - A new Mitigation Measure TC -0.5 will be added as follows: TC -0.5 Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP), a TIA evaluatin cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence, including without limitation Temescal Canyon Road to Indian 'Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG To ensure that impacts of. the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated a ].'based Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF urogram, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMF fee credits. Section 4.8 — Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Section 4.8- Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, page 4.8-1 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: 313 Giroux and Associates. 2015. Letter Report Update. September 23, 2015. (This letter report is within Appendix E4 of this Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR.); Section 4.8.8.2 (State Regulations — Greenhouse Gases) on Page 4.82-51 of the DEIR has been amended to add the following description of "Executive Order B-30-15" after the subsection titled "Senate Bill (Million Solar Roofs)": Executive Order B-30-15 On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 which identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. This Executive Order set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as one way to keep California on a trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, B-30-15 calls for an update to CARB's Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Executive Order also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. The Executive Order does not require local agencies to take any action to meet the new interim GHG reduction threshold. It is important to note that Executive Order B-30-15 was not adopted by a public agency through a public review process that requires analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, has not been subsequently validated by a statute by the State Legislature or by the California Air Resources Board as an official GHG reduction target of the State of California. The Executive Order itself states it is "not intended to create, and does not, create any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers employees, or any other person." Mitigation Measure AQ -1 will be revised as follows: AQ -1 Construction activities may cause NOx, ROG, PM -10 and PM -2.5 emissions to substantially exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds if multiple activities/phases overlap or are compressed into shorter time -frames. Reasonable and feasible mitigation cannot likely reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation during construction is required to achieve a reduced level of impact includes; the contractor shall implement the following measures: Dust Control: • Apply soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to inactive areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water actively graded surfaces 3 times per day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps if left undisturbed for more than 72 homy. 314 • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of eartben materials. • Install wheel washers, shaker plates and gravel where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 1186.1 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered. • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on- site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation. • Diesel exhaust particulates and NOx emissions may have a significant impact during construction because of the size scope of the project. Measures to reduce exhaust emissions include: Exhaust Emissions: • Require 90 -day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available or equivalent technology. • Utilize diesel particulate filters or equivalent technology on heavy equipment whei-e feasible. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower; until cgmi rp nent that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards. where available. • All construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CAR -13. Anv emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g,,,,material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the developer shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emission requirements. • A copy of each unit's certification shall be provided at the time of mobilization and a placard or other identification shall be affixed to approved equipment and haul trucks • Contractors using equipment rated at less than Tier 4 shall be provided with information on the SCAQMD "SOON" program of financial assistance for accelerated equipment clean-up. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. 315 • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators over 49HP. I1' generators are over 49HP, they will have to comply with the Air Quality Management District rules. • Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. • Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off- peak ffpeak hours to the extent practicable. • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- site and off-site. Mitigation Measure AQ -3 will be revised as follows: AQ -3 Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the following measures to conserve energy have been incorporated into building design Submit plans demonstrating that the new residential buildings, including but not limited to residential, commercial, and educational buildings shall exceed those California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance as required by the Climate Action Plan in effect at the time. Submit plans demonstrating that the new commercial buildings shall include the following green building design features: - Utilize Low -E and ENERGY STAR windows where feasible; - Install high -efficiency lighting systems and incorporate advanced lighting controls, such as auto shut -offs, timers, and motion sensors; - Install high R -value wall and ceiling insulation; and, - Incorporate use of a4v-so4um LED and/or fluorescent lighting, . - Install electric car charging stations as preferred parking spaces. - Use light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Require ,.,.quis�f new the use of only ENERGY STAR qualified heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances and equipment. Ibnplement passive solar design strategies in new construction. Examples of passive solar strategies include orienting building to enhance sun access, designing narrow structures, and incorporating skylights and atria. • \171.ere appropriate as gete.....'ned to the City F....:.,eei'in. Divi ien anii Building and e..r,,,� r''� or., s Structures shall be designed to support the added loads of rooftop solar systems and be provided with appropriate 316 utility connections for solar panels, even if installation of panels is not planned during initial constriction. • All residential projects shall incorporate the following features: - A minimum of one (1) model home within each phase of eject development shall be include an electric car charging station Electric car charging stations shall be offered as an available option to the initial purchaser(s) of each single-family dwelling unit All multiple -family residential projects shall incorporate the installation of electric car charging stations for the use of their residents. Mitigation Measure AQ -4 will be revised as follows: AQ -4 Prior to issuance of a building permit(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the following water and energy conservation measures consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code have been incorporated into the landscape plan: • Participate in green waste collection and recycling programs for landscape maintenance. • Require use of land,. apitig with ie ate requifeffients and G,,. a.. Each implementing development project shall comply with the water -efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code that are in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits for that implementing development project • Plant trees or vegetation to shade buildings and thus reduce heating/cooling demand. Mitigation Measure AQ -5 will be revised as follows: AQ -5 Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map, or Design Review application by the City's decision -malting authority, applicants for any proposed new development with sensitive reeeptefs -- in tilos .-_.. ,_ efs r ____ _ Y"" "J �T" which will result in sensitive receptors being located within 1,000 feet of mining operations, hnterstate 215, or any other potential Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) source shall conduct an evaluation of human health risks (Health Risk Assessment) ander Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis to identify and reduce any potential health risks from construction and/or operation impacts to sensitive receptors. The HRA and LST analysis shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Sensitive receptors include residential, 317 schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long- term residency. The thresholds to determine exposure to substantial pollution concentrations are: A Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) of greater than ten (10) in one million. Eor non -cancer risks, the threshold is a hazard index value greater than one (1). LST thresholds shall be those recommended by SCAQMD. If the Health Risk Assessment or LST analysis shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds these standards, the HRA and/or LST analysis shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non -cancer risks to an acceptable level. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipmentrg eater than 50 horsepower_ until equipment that meets Tier 4 emission standards are available. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. • All construction e uipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARR. Anv emission control device used by the contractor shall achieve emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. • Use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and i1' 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the developer shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emission requirements. • Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters. Mitieation measures identified in the HRA and LST analvsis shall be identified as mitigation measures in the implementing development project's enviromnental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed future project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building121ans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department. Section 4.9 - Noise A new mitigation measure NSE -0.5 will be added as follows: NSE -0.5 Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan, Subdivision Map, or Design Review application by the City's decision-making authority, applicants for any proposed new development shall submit a project -specific noise impact analysis which evaluates potential construction -related noise impacts upon 318 existing surrounding land uses and potential noise impacts from existing and projected surrounding land uses upon the proposed project Section 4.10 — Public Services and Utilities Section 4.10 — Public Services and Utilities, page 4.10-1 and 4.0-2 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: KWC Engineers. 2015, Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis for Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, for Pacific Clay Project in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. April, 2015. (This document is located within Appendix C 14 to this Program Environmental Impact Report [EIR].); KWC Engineers. 2015. Preliminary Water Facilities Plan for Pacific Clay Project in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. October, 2015. (This document is located within Appendix I.2 4 -to this Program EIR -DEIR.); Butsko Utility Design, Inc. 2010. Alberhill Villages — Existing Dry Utility Locations and Future Utility Requirements, May 2010. (This updated report can be found within Appendix 1.3 4- of this Program EIR.); Mitigation Measure PU-1 will be revised as follows: PU-1 Prior- to the issuanee e f building permitsPrior to approval of a Phased Development Plan (PDP) and prior to approval of implementing develo ment projects for residential, commercial, mixed-use, or institutional development, the City shall require verification Brom the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District that adequate wastewater treatment facilities and treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed development. Section 4.11 — Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Section 4.11— Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters, paragraph l on page 4.11-1 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: The Planning Associates, Inc. (TPA) in Association with Glenn Lukos and Associates (GLA). 2008, 2012 & 2014. Biological Assessment of Castle & Cooke Pac{ftc Clay Aline Site in Riverside County, California. October 2008, updated in May 2012, and by letter update May 44-25, 2014. (A copy of this report and letter are found within Appendix G of this Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).); 319 Section 4.11— Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters, paragraph 1 on page 4.11-18 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: California satintail California satintail (hnperata brevifolia) is a perennial herb in the grass family designated as a CNPS List 2.1 species. This species is known to occur from throughout the southwestern United States. In California this plant is known from Los Angeles, Kern, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Riverside Counties. s Eles.,nated bynoxious weed. This plant is found in chaparral, coastal scrub, desert scrub, meadows, alkaline seeps and riparian scrub and flowers from September through May. Habitat exists on-site for this species, however, this species was not observed during focused surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 will be revised as follows: BI0-1 A pre -construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities within those portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl habitat. If ground disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls during the 30 days precedim, the revised ground - disturbance date. The pre -construction survey and a ..boat. n activity will be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff' Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 1-99-5. 320 Th,, t .n, l trrebvs--t-i: Fic^ri�--c�ccir`v'-ual —in the itnp'ast ar('a. B�ir-`o'vas--al-ll- be t d d d-efined t prevent ,.,ate c.� Rf flexible pipe shall be inserted inte the turniels dufifig e�ieavatiofi to maintain aii If occupied burrowing owl tunnels are identified on-site during the pre - construction survey, construction may proceed if a 50 -foot avoidance buffer can be established around the affected owl tunnel entrances (no ground disturbance equipment laydown or storage or parking inside the buffed The owls and worker compliance with the buffer shall be monitored daily by a qualified biologist until construction and all other ground -disturbance activities in the vicinity have ceased. If the Project cannot avoid an occupied burrow (resulting in the possibility of taking owls through entombing or crushing them in their burrows, or evicting them to be eaten by raptors or other predatory birds) relocation will be necessary to avoid unauthorized take of this declining species The Project shall notify the Wildlife Agencies (CFWS and USFWS) within 3 business days of detecting the occupied burrow, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan for approval by the Wildlife A eg ncies. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 will be revised as 'follows: BI0-3 Should construction of implementing development projects occur during the breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (LBV), er southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) or other riparian -obligate birds (March 15 through September 15), preserve, 4bienee protocol -level surveys shall be conducted prior to construction; or presence can be assumed. If surveys document the presence of LBV, a7nd SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, impacts to LBV, SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds would be mitigated below the level of significance when occupied riparian forest/woodland/scrub is fenced and direct impacts are avoided and construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat occurs only between September 15th and March 15th to avoid indirect impacts to nesting LBV riparian -obligate birds. If avoidance is not feasible, a temporary noise barrier shall be used during construction, at the appropriate location(s), in coordination with CDFW and the USFWS. The noise barrier shall attenuate noise levels to 60 dBA or less, at the edge of breeding habitat. If surveys indicate that these species are not present, this measure will not be required. Additional or alternative measures to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to LBV, SWWF or other riparian -obligate birds, as identified by the USFWS in Section 7 or Section 10 Consultation and CDFW, shall be implemented. However, if all avoidance measures cannot be implemented such that "take" of LBV and SWWF is avoided Take Authorization from USFWS through Final Biological Opinion and Incidental 'Fake Statement and from CDFW through issuance of a California 321 Endangered �ed Species Act Incidental Take Permit or compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 will be obtained. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 will be revised as follows: Individual environmental review conducted for future AVSP implementing development projects will be required to identify any impacts on riparian areas and wetlands and, in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies and applicable regional plans, must ensure incorporation of adequate mitigation to preserve the viability of these important biological resources. Prior to issuance of a grading permit(s) for areas within the AVSP that contain riparian/riverine habitat, the applicant shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate for impact to riparian/riverine at a-1::1 ratio that individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to regulatory agency (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS), California Regional Water Control Board (CRWOCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)) approval: • Avoidance of on-site riparian/riverine habitat • Enhancement of other AVSP on-site riparian/riverine habitat; • Restoration of on-site riparian/riverine habitat following ground-distrubance activities; or, • On-site or off-site replacement of Rct;onallstreambed�a asseeiated mitigation of residual impacts to riparian/riverine habitat at no less than 1:1 replacement to impact ratio, or such other ratio as required by the regulatory agency, whichever is greater. Off-site replacement shall include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off-site mitigation bank or payment into an in -lieu fee agreement, such as the San Jacinto River invasive removal project through Santa Ana Watershed Authority. Mitigation Measure BIO -8 will be revised as follows: The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing mitigation to reduce potential impacts to two species of native trees that were located on-site: the southern coast live oak riparian forest located in the northwest comer of the Site that includes coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and the arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The oak trees and willows are large, mature, and in good health. If oak trees will be impacted, the developer shall mitigate the loss at a J4 12:1 replacement with ballon trees, or shall relocate the native oak trees. 322 Mitigation Measure BIO -9 will be revised as follows: Prior to the future approval of a Phased Development Plan Subdivision Map or Design Review application by the City's decision -malting authority, applicants for any proposed new implementing development shall submit a current site-specific biological survey prepared by a qualified biologist which evaluates the potential construction -related noise impacts upon wildlife. If biological survey determines that construction -related noise mitigation is necessary; prior to the commencement of construction activity, a temporary sound wall shall be erected adjacent to construction between the .^VSP's implementirn, development's footprint and any Gritieal Habitat Area,Areaq impacted wildlife resources to ensure that wildlife are not subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards (65 dBA) or ambient noise levels at 65 dBA (whichever is higher). Once construction is completed, the temporary sound wall shall be removed. A new Mitigation Measure BIO -1 I will be added as follows: 13I0-11 Prior to grading each phase of the development a Quino Checkerspot Butterf9yJQCB) habitat assessment, followed by presence/absence surveys in accordance with USFWS survev protocol, if habitat is present as determined by a qualified biologist for areas where suitable habitat is identified shall be completed as follows: At least one year prior to ground -disturbing activities a habitat assessment for the QCB in the proposed grading area will be performed If suitable habitat is identified a Presence/absence survey will be conducted in accordance with USFWS survey protocol. If QCB are not detected, no additional avoidance or minimization is required If survevs document the presence of QCB impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or through mitigation consisting of onsite or offsite preservation If avoidance is not feasible a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated b t�pplicant with USFWS and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts will be implemented in coordination with the USFWS. A new Mitigation Measure BIO -12 will be added as follows: BIO -12: A pre -construction coast horned lizard survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of constructiou/around disturbing activities or vegetation removal a coast horned lizard (CHI,) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if the Coast Horned lizard is present. If surveys document the presence of CIIL impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance through onsite avoidance or tlurou�li mitigation 323 implementation of one or more of the following measures that individually combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance, subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (IJSFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval: • Avoidance of on-site CHL habitat; • Preservation of other AVSP on-site CHL habitat and the relocation of CHL individuals from the impacted habitat to the preserved on-site habitat; • The placement of an equivalent number of habitat acres occupied by CHL into permanent conservation. If CHL are not detected no additional avoidance or minimization is required. A new Mitigation Measure BIO -13 will be added as follows: BIO -13: During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure BIO -14, a qualified biologist shall survev the implementing development project site for Coulter's Matilija poppy. If Coulter's Matilija poppy is found on site, all native plant nurseries in southern California (Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties) will be notified by certified mail of theerp iding elimination of these plants by the Project and shall be given the opportunity to salvage the plants or seeds (on a first-come, first-served basis) prior to the commencement of vegetation clearing or other ground -disturbing activities. A new Mitigation Measure BIO -14 will be added as follows: BIO -14• Prior to the grading of each phase, an updated vegetation may will be prepared to determine the extent of the willow riparian, coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub within the subject phase; and the amount of these special -status habitats that will be removed as a result of implementing development projects The extent and quality of coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub will be determined by a qualified biologist. If the presence of said habitat is identified and will be removed as a result of implementing development projects mitigation of the willow riparian coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and/or alluvial fan scrub will be determined through a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Permit. Implementation of one or more of the following measures that individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tJSFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval: 324 • Avoidance of on-site willow riparian coast live oak riparian coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat• • Preservation of other AVSP on-site willow riparian coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USFWS and CDFW whichever is greater: • The permanent preservation of off-site willow riparian coast live oak riparian, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan habitat at no less than a 1 :I ratio, or such other ratio as required by the USEWS and CDFW whichever is greater. A new Mitigation Measure BIO -15 will be added as follows: BIO -15: During the biological surveys required by Mitigation Measure 13I0-14 a qualified biologist shall survey the implementing development project site for Special Status Plants, including but not limited to Parry's spineflower, particulate tarplant and graceful tarplant If Special -Status Plants are identified as being impacted by implementing development projects those impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Mitit*ation Measure BIO -14 Section 4,12 — Cultural Resources Section 4.12— Cultural Resources, page 4.12-1 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Natural History Museum. 2012 Paleontological Resources for Proposed Alberhill Project. November 6, 2012 (The Paleontological Resource Letter was from Samuel A McLeod, Ph.D). (This letter is found within Appendix H — Cultural Resources Studies of this Program EIR). Section 4.12.1.2 (Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources) on Page 4.12-12 of the DEIR has been amended to add the following definition of "Tribal Cultural Resources" after the subsection titled "Definition of Archaeological Resources": Definition of Tribal Cultural Resources (California Public Resources Code Section 21074) Section 21074 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) defines the term "Tribal cultural resources" as either of the following: (1) Sites, features places cultural landscapes sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: 325 (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. hi applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Section 4.12.2.2 (State Regulations) on Page 4.12-21 of the DEIR have been revised to add the following discussion after the discussion of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) on page 4.12.23: Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was passed in 2014 and took effect on July 1, 2015. It established a new category of environmental resources that must be considered under CEQA called tribal cultural resources (Public Resources Code $ 21074) and establishes a process for consulting with Native American tribes and groups regarding those resources. AB 52 requires "a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in thateg ographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project." AB 52 applies to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration filed or mitigated ne ag tive declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also requires "the Office of Planning and Research to revise on or before July 1, 2016, the guidelines to separate the consideration of tribal cultural resources from that for paleontological resources and add consideration of tribal cultural resources." The Notice of Preparation for the RVSP DEIR was issued on or about June 13, 2012 and therefore the proposed project is not subject to AB 52. However, any subsequent entitlement stages, such as Phased Development Plan, Design Review, or Subdivision Map review, for which a negative declaration, mitigated neeative declaration, or environmental impact report is required, will be required to comply with the provisions of AB 52. Mitigation Measure CR -1 will be revised as follows: CR -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) and any earthmoving activities for the Project, or off site project improvement areas, the implementing development Project applicant shall retain an --a ehaeologw l a qualified professional archaeologist and a qualified 1_,uiseno Native American monitor fi-om either the Pechanga Band or the Soboba Band 326 to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. Mitigation Measure CR -2 will be revised as follows: CR -2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the ,.._.-•"..fiate iridian tribe both the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiscno Indians to notify that those Tribes of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City ^° r Elsinore aft Q the both Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address: the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and, treatment and 'final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. Mitigation Measure CR -3 will be revised as follows: CR -3 Prior to issuance to of any grading permit, the Project archaeologist shall file a pre -grading report with the City ata Goiifity (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. hi accordance with the agreement required in CR -1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate tfibe retained Luiseno Native American monitor(s) in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Mitigation Measure CR -4 will be revised as follows: CR -4 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the professional archaeologist. If anv artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50 -foot radius) shall stop and the Project proponent and Project archaeologist shall notify the Pechanea Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians A desivnated Native American observer from either the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall be retained to help analyze the Native American artifacts for identification as everyday lifeand/or 327 religious or sacred items, cultural affiliation, temporal placement, and function as deemed possible. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEOA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseho tribes. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered gave Voods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including saer„a it.._,., "ttrial fiaf proper treatment and disp.sitien. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or' relocated at the Proiect site shall be orenared in a manner for curation and the archaeological consultant shall deliver the materials to a federally -accredited curation facility such as University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU), or the Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology, within a reasonable amount of time. A new mitigation measure CR -6a will be added as follows: CR -6a If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native Americanthe coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 howl. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. Mitigation Measure CR -7 will be revised as follows: Prior to the approval of any implementing development Project or the issuance of any grading permit, that includes the Alberhill School site, the applicant shall provide to the City of Lake Elsinore an evaluation of the School House structure completed by a qualified architectural historian and a structural en ing eer to determine its historical significance and structural integrity. The report shall require the review and approval by the Community Development Department—Planning Division. If the structure cannot be reasonably relocated because of it structural inteprity, the structure will be closely replicated elsewhere on the project site to be used as a Home Owners Association/Community meeting facility. The replicated structure shall be constructed with as many materials from the original structure that can be reused. 328 Prior to demolition of the original structure, the structure shall be fully documented following the HABS/HAER format. Site documentation includes archival quality large format, black and white photography, measured architectural drawings, and a detailed written historical and photographic log. These documents shall be housed at a suitable repository, determined by the City of Lake Elsinore. A new Mitigation Measure CR -7a will be added as follows CR -7a Prior to obtaining the first certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall present informational materials (i.e. pamphlets,flyers, booklets, etc.) to educate prospective home buyers of the Historic Alberhill District to the Community Development Director or designee for review and approval. The materials shall include details of the past history and uses of the area including those other than mining, interesting photographs, and other information pertaining to the area. The Developer shall hire a qualified historian to professionally prepare the materials and shall consult with the local historic societies. Consultation with the Pechanga Tribe shall also occur prior to finalization of the materials to include available prehistoric information. Historic information shall also be included in trail signage and at least one of the following other sources: CC&R's, HOA notices, community flyers, park si ,,nage, and/or street names. Mitigation Measure CR -8 will be revised as follows: CR -8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each implementing development project, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the Project site to determine the site specific potential of finding paleontological resources within the Project site. I1' the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological resources will be uncovered by earth-nhoving activities, grading and construction activities may proceed, subject to compliance with mitigation measures CR -1 through CR -7. However, if the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth -moving activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the Community Development Director. Following Community Development Director approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRM'l'P shall include the following measures: a. Identification of those locations within the Project site where paleontological resources are likely to be uncovered dining grading. 329 b. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist, or-qualified-desigiiee. c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth -moving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth -moving activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and, the paleontologist or qualified designee allows earth -moving activities to proceed through the site. If potentially significant resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner to the Community Development Director, in addition to the report (described below) that is filed at completion of grading. d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earth -moving activities, these activities shall be stopped and a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the fossil remains. e. At a qualified paleontologist's or qualified designee's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport to a laboratory facility for processing. f. A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable fossil remains. All fossil sites shall be plotted on a topographic map of the Project site. g. if the qualified paleontologist or qualified designee determines that insufficient fossil remains have been found after- fifty percent of earthmoving activities have been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued. h. Any significant fossil remains recovered in the field as a result of monitoring or by processing rock samples shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, curated, and accessioned into the fossil collections of the San Bernardino County Museum, or another museum repository complying with the Society of' Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines. Accompanying specimen and site data, notes, maps, and photographs also shall be archived at the repository. i. Within 6 months following completion of the above tasks or prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, whichever cones first, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program and presenting an inventory and describing the scientific significance of any fossil remains accessioned into the museum repository. The report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department — Planning Division and the museum repository. 330 The report shall comply with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines for assessing and mitigating impacts on paleontological resources. Section 4.13 — Retail and Fiscal Impact Analysis Section 4.13 — Retail and Fiscal Impact Analysis, page 4.13-1 of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Alfred Gobar Associates. 20121. Alberhill Villages Retail Impact Study. November 2011. (This document is located within Appendix M of this Program Environmental Impact Report (El R).); Alfred Gobar Associates 2015. Alberhill Villages DFIR Section 4.13 Letter Review. October 12, 2015 (This document is located within Appendix M of this Program Environmental Impact Report (E,IR).): 331 STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 941649 SACRAMENTO, CA £34249-0W (9113) 519-2057 FAX (916) 8192187 DISTRICT OFFICE 11391 KAI_MIA STREET, SUITE 220 MURRIETA CA 0582 1851)894-1282 FAX (951) 894 5053 January 20, 2016 �Assi'111h111 r x ,a MELISSA A. MELENDEZ ASSEMBLYWOMAN SIXTY SFVENTTi DISTRICT Mr. Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 11.00 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Mr. Stephenson, COMMITTEES VICE CHAIR: BUDGET VICE CHAIN; PUBLIC SAFE I! 7RANSPOITTP.TION SUBCOMMITTEE BUDGET BUBCOMMI IEE Nf} 5 ON BUDGET PROCESS OVERSIGHT ANDPHOGI?AM EVAt UATIOM I am writing you today to express my support for the Alberhill Villages project and Draft Environmental Impact Report. As you know, this project has been in the making for many years and has undergone various levels of research and vetting with the City and other agencies to help ensure that it is the best possible project for our community. As a mother and long time resident of Lake Elsinore, I want what is best for my family, friends and neighbors. Alberhill Villages aims to bring much-needed shopping, dining and entertainment to our City so our residents do not need to look outside of our City for those amenities. Bringing this needed retail and entertainment here could have an enormous impact on our community as it will create jobs and keep our tax dollars local. The project has been projected to create 5,500 jobs and add over $3 Million surplus income to the City's General Fund every year. These economic realities have a multiplying effect on our economy, as the new amenities paired with our City's great recreational options could lead to increased tourism and help spur interest in other developers and businesses to invest in Lake Elsinore. In addition, this project will create office buildings to provide more opportunities for local career growth for our residents and even give business owners who live in Lake Elsinore but work in a different city the chance to come home and hire locally. The project plans state that these new offices will also have the capability to hold medical offices and facilities which is extremely important in this City and will make a difference for families that need to use them and the medical professionals that want to work locally. In order to help prepare our local workforce for the influx of new jobs, the project includes plans for a 60 -acre university that will have the capacity to serve 6,000 students. This is by far one of the most vital parts of this project in my opinion, as it will provide our children with local opportunities for higher education, while improving and expanding our City's reputation throughout Southern California. While the build out of AVSP will span b phases, the major benefits to the City and residents come in phase one, including the moving of the Pac Clay mining area further West away from residents, realignment of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road, extension of Nichols Road, the shopping and commercial center, offices, the university with student housing, sports fields, parks, the Preforming Arts Center and much more. As an Assemblymember, I know that any projects of this size and scope will have "significant and unavoidable impacts" identified through the DEIR, but with the planned mitigation efforts in areas like sustainability and traffic, the benefits of this project far outweigh any impacts. The DEIR for Alberhill Villages is thorough and is representative of the years of planning that have gone in to fully vetting this project. I support Alberhill Villages and urge the City to approve this project for the citizens of Lake Elsinore. Thank you, Melissa A Melendez Assemblywoman, 67?h District LAKT ELSINORf VALLEY CHAMBER of December 30, 2015 Mr. Stephenson, The Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors is in full support of the Alberhill Villages project plan. As we have discussed over the years, we look to "Catalyst" projects within each unique segment of the market that will stimulate growth and capture the attention of corporate American. As such this project will not only accomplish this for the North end of Lake Elsinore but clearly fill the void of retail/restaurant/entertainment that is evident by the Cities most recent leakage report. With the creation of new jobs from the Alberhill Villages project, the City will have a chance to grow economically, expanding the tax base in Lake Elsinore, which in turn, generates greater revenue for the City.. it is expected that several thousand permanent jobs will be created over the course of this development. That translates to greater economic prosperity, not just for the City, but for the residents as well. Furthermore, the Alberhill Villages project plans to construct additional office spaces and a university, which will attract more >families to our community due to the convenience of the amenities, office space and that higher education brings a promise of a brighter future for our community. We need projects like Alberhill Villages to build a strong financial base for the City, provide the necessary services and amenities that will allow the City to grow to its' maximum potential. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questional Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce 132 West Graham Avenue • Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 245-8848 - Fax (951) 245-9127 • info@lakeelsinorechamber.com • www.lakeelsinorechamber.com Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE As a long time resident of Lake Elsinore, I want to offer my support of this project. The impact on our community for jobs, improved resources for shopping, better retail services, and the opportunity to offer an advanced university program will be transformational to Lake Elsinore. For too long, Lake Elsinore has reserved growth, while other communities have prospered. I believe this project will bring a new perspective to our community. Cheers, d'Amileau Baulk 25 Villa Roma Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 Mr. Stephenson, As a resident of Alberhill Ranch, I pledge my support for the Alberhill Villages project. The primary reason why I believe this project needs to be approved is the local amenities it will provide. Traveling out of the City for all my shopping needs is quite difficult and tiring. I would love for the opportunity to be able to have options in my own City and keep the tax revenue local. If the City was able to retain the tax dollars we spend every year on shopping outside of Lake Elsinore, it would be a tremendous boost to our City's budget. The DEIR found that the Alberhill Villages project would bring in over $500,000 in surplus revenue to Lake Elsinore every year! Having the opportunity to shop in Lake Elsinore would clearly be a major advantage to Lake Elsinore. Alberhill Villages' town and shopping center would clearly be a necessary and beneficial addition to our City, especially residents of Alberhill Ranch. I strongly urge our City leaders for its approval so we can start shopping locally and help the City at the same time. This project will have a positive impact on this community and for these reasons 1 would like to see it move forward. Thank you, Ronnie Naulls Mr. Stephenson, My family and I moved to Lake Elsinore to try and make my husband's commute a bit easier and so we could afford a lovely home for our family. We live in Alberhill Ranch and we love it. I am a strong supporter of the Alberhill Villages project because I believe it will contribute greatly to help make our City even more of a family orientated community and it will increase our opportunities to stay in our community for our shopping, entertainment and educational needs. In the DEIR, it states that Alberhill Villages will bring a new elementary school. This will curtail any potential issues that could arise from overcrowding in the current schools, so my children' s education will not be negatively affected. We are currently anticipating the building our own elementary school in Alberhill Ranch. With the addition of another new elementary school, more children can receive the education and attention they need so that they can achieve a strong academic foundation and add to our community in a positive way. Alberhill Villages will also bringing the first four-year university to Lake Elsinore! This will provide children like mine with an opportunity to stay local and still find the higher education that they deserve. Finally, this project would bring more amenities and activities for my family to enjoy, such as the new shopping, dining and entertainment options in the town center and the new planned parks. This would give families more options of places to spend time together around town. This project would be a great contribution to the healthy family environment we have in Lake Elsinore and hope to continue to foster and grow. I strongly urge our City to approve this project. Thank you, Teresa Kirpluk `6Y 15421 Collier Ave, Suite A Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 951.304.4133 Cherished Memories mail: risbean,emoriesplx,[eiiiorhy.con, email: info@oureherishedmemories.wm PHOTOGRAPHY To Whom It May Concern: 13 years ago I moved to Lake Elsinore with a dream. I was a mid 20 something year old looking to become a homeowner and business owner. As I drove around the city of 28,000, I could clearly see the potential Lake Elsinore had at its fingertips! Top notch housing, beautiful parks and open spaces, quality retailers and a sense of community I had never known before while living in LA. I am proud to say, that after 13 years, Lake Elsinore is on it's way of realizing my dream. I was able to purchase a home. I have established a successful business. The city is abuzz with potential developments that have many of the citizens antsy with anticipation. One of the most exciting developments upcoming is Alberhill Villages. This development in particular brings culture, jobs, tax dollars, eateries and higher education components that are badly needed in our city. As more homes are built and the population rises from other housing developments, jobs will be a main focus for our residents. Currently, we live in a commuter's paradise, but as the paradigm switch occurs in Lake Elsinore, we need to keep our jobs local. We need to entice both white collar and blue-collar jobs, and with the proposed development of Alberhill Villages, both of those needs will be met. Approval of the DEIR will allow a proven and trusted developer move their 30 year plan into motion, allowing Lake Elsinore to continue the quest to become "the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work, and play, build futures and fulfill dreams". I unequivocally support Alberhill Villages and their plan to development the north end of Lake Elsinore. I am excited to see their vision become a reality! Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, ott-44��L Mike Norkin Owner/Resident City of Lake Elsinore ? r -1 December 12, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o FIR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92862 Sent via email: rstephenson@hrgreen.com Mr. Stephenson, I am a resident and business owner here in Lake Elsinore and love living here and consider this City my home. As an owner of small business, I am a strong supporter of projects that I know will strengthen Lake Elsinore's economic sector. I believe Alberhill Villages will greatly benefit our local economy. The economic well-being of Lake Elsinore should be held to the highest priority. One of the biggest struggles to achieving a successful economy here in Lake Elsinore is making the City a business -friendly environment. To do that, we need to improve our job market. I support Alberhill Villages because it provides exactly what we need to better the job opportunities in our city. According to the DEIR, the project is set to create 5,500 jobs, a substantial improvement to our current situation. With the addition of a medical facility, university, and more office spaces, the project can help transform Lake Elsinore into a more business -friendly environment, a crucial necessity if we want to bring about more job opportunities. As shown, this project will provide many economic benefits and foster community development. I strongly urge our City leaders to swiftly approve this project so Lake Elsinore can advance towards an even more successful future. Thank you, Teddi Penewell, CSP, CET M.R.S. OSHA Safety, Inc. 52982 Astrid Way Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 Office: 951-674-1333 or 800-200-0888 Pax: 951-674-1331 www.nvsoshasafety.com A dugpn len {,irn/ December 28, 2015 VIA Email: rstephenson@hrgreen.com Mr. Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Alberhill Villages Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Mr. Stephenson: As a small business owner and a loyal citizen of the City of Lake Elsinore ("City"), I am offering my unwavering support of the Alberhill Villages project ("Alberhill Villages" or "Proposed Project"). Aside from having personally reviewed the City's budget and projections of the City's funds and allocations as compared to similar cities, the Proposed Project has a high percentage of offering many economic and lifestyle benefits to the City's residents. From an economic stance, the Proposed Project is a magnet to local entrepreneurs such as myself. Since 1995, I have started and operated various business ventures. My business plans include starting and operating additional businesses, all to employ current and future residents of the City. Alberhill Villages offers the opportunity to keep qualified employees while eliminating the need to commute an average of two hours for work. Hence, a lifestyle benefit which Alberhill Villages offers, first, is minimal commute. The second lifestyle benefit is keeping commerce local — earn and spend in the City. The third lifestyle benefit is to give the City's residents a feeling of abundance (from the amenities offered by the Proposed Project) so citizens are likely to take more pride in the City and less likely to leave. Alberhill Villages represents a mammoth opportunity to generate additional income for the City while improving economics and lifestyle. According to the DEIR, Alberhill Villages is proposing a new town center to augment shopping and retail options. According to my research, the City is known for its shops, particularly The Outlets. The City's surrounding neighbors, Murrieta and Temecula, also offer shopping, so the City could potentially gain the reputation for excellent deals, shopping and attractions. Adding an anchor store would also drive traffic to the smaller retailers while presenting a unique shopping experience for residents and visitors. As a result, local retailers and businesses are likely to thrive and add to local tax revenues, add to its labor market, and transform the City into a business -friendly environment and a commerce center, compared to the current lack of opportunity and commerce. Alberhill Villages should be keenly favored as a proponent for the City's future and ability to compete, grow and expand while lending a hand to solve local economic deficiencies. Mr. Roy F. Stephenson December 28, 2015 Page 2 Writing from the viewpoint of an experienced entrepreneur and one who routinely seeks opportunities, I currently see that the City is currently not able to compete with Orange County or San Diego County where the local Small Business Administration offices readily provide training to small business owners and assist with business development and provide various opportunities to grow their businesses. Whether starting small or big, a business requires attention, support and resources. When planting a seed in a garden that offers the wrong nutrients or is lacking certain resources to grow, a business, like a plant, is not likely to thrive. I have resided in large cities (such as San Francisco) and smaller towns (such as Escondido and Murrieta) and I find that the City of Lake Elsinore has lots of potential, which is the major reason for my support of the Proposed Project. Alberhill Villages presents a huge opportunity; perhaps you and others already share my viewpoints of the benefits. I would like to be one of the first ones to purchase a home or a storefront in Alberhill Villages. The City of Lake Elsinore is my home and home to many with whom I have been acquainted. I support Alberhill Villages because 1 am convinced that Alberhill Villages is expected to give the City of Lake Elsinore the best reputation that it deserves. I strongly approve Alberhill Villages. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Susan Vanderburgh 29991 Canyon Hills Road, #1709-240, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 .43537 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, CA 9259%, www.LiDoServ.com - 951-400-5529 City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Rd., Suite 1025 Orange Ca 92868 December 18, 2015 Mr. Stephenson, I am writing you today to express my full support of Alberhill Villages. I have called Lake Elsinore my home for 22 years. After reviewing the project plans, I strongly believe that the Alberhill Villages project would be a major benefit for our residents. The retail business development is really important to me because 1, currently, have to travel to Corona or Temecula for many of my retail needs. With all the additions from this project, Lake Elsinore can become a popular spot among residents both in the City and surrounding areas. Many perceive Lake Elsinore as a small town that they pass through while driving on the I-15 going to popular destinations like Temecula or Murrieta. We should take advantage of this unique opportunity that Alberhill Villages is providing and become a destination that people drive towards, not drive through. As a chamber member, l know that sales tax leakage is a problem and that by creating local options we can ensure that our tax dollars stay in the City. The DEIR stated that the project is anticipated to generate $3.1 million in surplus to the City on an annual basis. Those funds would be a great boost to our city budget and thus improve city services. These benefits culminate into making Lake Elsinore better than ever! We need the Alberhill Villages project approved as soon as possible so construction for this exciting development can begin! We have been waiting a long time for this project and I support you in any and all efforts to expedited development. Thank you, Debra Smith December 18, 2015 Steve Martin 4152 Alderwood PI Mr. Roy F. Stephenson Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green (951) 674-7570 1100Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 smartcor@yahoo.com Email: rstephenson@hrgreen.com Mr. Stephenson, I wish to express my total support for Alberhill Villages. I believe this project as it's designed will bring significant benefits to the residents of Lake Elsinore and especially to the much needed area of Alberhill. Based on the extensive research and the Draft EIR report there appears to be no reason why this project should not be approved and built as soon as possible. The new Town Center that this project creates, will bring the much need amenities to the local area and boost the economy of Lake Elsinore by providing local jobs, a destination spot, and entrepreneurial opportunities. I like that according to the Draft EIR, the town center will have new retail spaces and a market. This definitely has the potential to become a major hub for residents to congregate and enjoy their community while establishing a place that will attract visitors from other surrounding cities. Visiting Lake Elsinore and more specifically Alberhill Villages to shop and eat and spend their tax dollars will become the new hot spot of the western Inland Empire. Obviously as stated at the beginning, I am in full support of this project. it is fully capable of inspiring and creating more pride for our community. Alberhill Villages will provide many new options and opportunities for Lake Elsinore residents to connect and appreciate the beauty of our City. I urge the City to adopt the Draft EIR and approve this project. Regards, Steve Martin Mr. Stephenson, I am a strong supporter of the Alberhill Villages project because of the added entertainment options it will bring to the City. Lake Elsinore currently lacks any real venues for bands and other productions to come and perform. To watch a show, I'm forced to always travel to Corona, Temecula, Riverside, and other cities. It would be so much more convenient if we had options in Lake Elsinore. Alberhill Villages gives us those options. The project's DEIR showed that the project will bring in a performing arts center and town square among other great amenities to Lake Elsinore. These new additions would be a great solution to the inconvenience that many residents, including myself, have to endure to find local entertainment. Aside from the performing center, there are tons of entertainment options in the retail that this project will bring. There will more places to shop, grab a bite to eat, and hang out. I would be able to truly say that our City is a fun place to visit or stay for the weekend. I love Lake Elsinore and enjoy living in such a beautiful city. However, I recognize that in order to make our City better, we need to have greater options for entertainment. Alberhill Villages provides an answer to this immense need and thus, our City needs to approve the project. I am also including my partner's name in support of this exciting new development. Thank you, Richard A.Lloreda Stephen J. Houston Mr. Stephenson, I am a firm supporter of the Alberhill Villages project because of the economic advantages that would result from its completion. Economic success is necessary for the City to achieve any real progress as we move forward. The economic benefits that Alberhill Villages will bring stem from the new developments, schools, and shopping/dining, however, the greatest benefit that emanates from these new amenities to Lake Elsinore is the revenue that it will generate. Alberhill Villages will generate much needed revenue from the shopping and retail options that it will bring. In fact, it is projected that retail alone will bring in over $3 million in City revenue annually. That $3 million can go a very long way in helping crucial City services such as fire and police. Due to the lack of a variety of local retail options, residents complain about the inconvenience that they have to endure by shopping in neighboring towns and cities as opposed to shopping right at home. By shopping in other cities like Temecula or Riverside, the tax revenue is gained by those cities from Lake Elsinore residents. I would love to see the money that Lake Elsinore residents spend percolate into the hands of our city! Alberhill Villages is a necessary and primary step to accomplish just that. The second primary avenue that Alberhill Villages will generate revenue is through the increased housing developments. These new housing developments are attractive to new families and others interested in moving to Lake Elsinore. What this means for the City is that we will garner a greater tax base, which generates more City revenue. There are concerns of the downfalls that an increased population may entail, however, the recently released DEIR highlights how the developer has worked to reduce growth -related impacts. As I have stated, generating revenue for the City needs to be a top priority because the City's progress and future necessitates greater economic prosperity. Alberhill Villages has demonstrated that it can bring in the much needed funding for our City's budget. Therefore, the only clear option is to approve the project so that City can make positive strides towards future success! Thank you, Fred Castro "I'm enthusiastic for the huge changes that are currently developing in Lake Elsinore. With the new Alberhill Villages, it will create a welcoming gateway off the interstate 15 into the beautiful Temescal Valley. With this, our community will have an upscale place to shop & dine with venues for entertainment & outdoor living at our disposal." I'm proud to call Lake Elsinore my home. Bobbi Coon 951-,210-49£13 Mr. Stephenson, I am a resident in Lake Elsinore and a graduate student pursuing my masters degree. I am a huge supporter of the Alberhill Villages project for all that it will bring to Lake Elsinore, especially the university, which would be the first opportunity for higher education right here in our Cityl In the DEIR, it states that 1,500,000 square feet has been allocated for the university. Having a university in this City provides a more convenient, cost-effective, and local option for obtaining a higher degree. With these reasons at hand, more of our younger generations will have the opportunity to pursue their dreams of attending a university. Many obstacles that prevent them from achieving this become obsolete. In addition, the developments surrounding the school - the town center, the preforming arts center and the retail - will truly benefit the current residents of Lake Elsinore and attract visitors to our community. I urge the City to approve this project as soon as possible so we can begin to enjoy the new amenities. I am also including my partner's name to support this worthy measure. Thank you, Richard A. Lloreda Stephen J. Houston Mr. Stephenson, I write this letter to express my support of the Alberhill Villages project. Specifically, I am a huge proponent of the project because of the outdoor recreation areas that will be created. The planned community garden, parks, and trails in my opinion are a few of the facets of the project that would help enrich my life as well as my fellow residents. The community parks will be great for all the residents. This 19.5 acre community park will help create a sense of togetherness amongst the citizens of the area with its new sports field, trails, and bike paths. Projects that promote opportunities for the community to come together and enjoy the beauty of Lake Elsinore need full support. These activities are not only fun, they are healthy alternatives for our city's residents to participate in. Furthermore, they encourage healthy lifestyle options for our youth, creating a generational shift towards health and fitness. Alberhill Villages brings a mix of new retail options along with open spaces to truly enhance the quality of life in Lake Elsinore. I urge you to please move the project forward and allow these positive improvements to come about. Thank you, Ernest Everett Mr. Stephenson, What I love about Lake Elsinore is its family -friendly environment. It is a great small community that is conducive for my kids to grow up in. I am a strong supporter of the Alberhill Villages project because I believe it will contribute greatly to help make our City even more conducive to families. In the DEIR, it states that Alberhill Villages will bring a new elementary school. This will curtail any potential issues that could arise from overcrowding in the current schools, so my children's education will not be negatively affected. With the addition of a new elementary school, my children can receive the individualized attention they need from their teachers so that they can achieve a strong academic foundation. Additionally, Alberhill Villages will be bringing the first four-year university to Lake Elsinore! This will provide children like mine with an opportunity to stay local and still find the higher education that they deserve. Finally, this project would bring more amenities and activities for my family to enjoy, such as the new shopping, dining and entertainment options in the town center and the new planned parks. This would give families more options of places to spend time together around town. This project would be a great contribution to the robust family environment we have in Lake Elsinore. 1 strongly urge our City to approve this project. Thank you, Denise Valdivia Mr. Stephenson, I am writing you today to express my strong support for the Alberhill Villages project because of the economic benefits that it will bring to our community. Our City lacks many shopping, dining, and entertainment options for its residents, including myself. often, I find myself having to leave the city and go to Corona or Temecula in order to utilize the options they provide. Every time that I have to do this, I'm spending money that contributes to their tax base, not Lake Elsinore's. I am not the only one that has this inconvenience and I believe the City should recapture those lost funds. Each time we leave Lake Elsinore to satisfy these needs, our City loses an opportunity for sales taxes and overall economic development. If Lake Elsinore is going to move forward, we must strive to become a hub for dining, leisure and entertainment. Alberhill Villages will help us achieve this goal. Rather than just being a drive-by city on the 1-15, we have the potential to become a popular hotspot that people will travel to. Alberhill Villages includes many new and highly needed options for shopping, entertainment and dining. By keeping your residents in Lake Elsinore for their shopping and entertainment needs as well as attracting others to Lake Elsinore for these purposes, the tax revenue generated will be exponential. For the reasons and more, we strongly support the Alberhill Villages project and the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report. We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to approve this project as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Connie Maggiulli December 30, 2015 Dear City Council Members, As a resident of Lake Elsinore, I find myself often traveling to other cities for shopping, dining and entertainment. My elderly mother lives in Murrieta, and one of the main reasons she will NOT consider moving to Lake Elsinore is the convenience of nearby restaurants and stores. She recently asked me why our City doesn't have more to offer in this area, and I was stumped. My family and I would like to enjoy these things as well, without having to drive to Temecula or Corona. Each time we leave Lake Elsinore to make purchases, our City loses an opportunity for sales tax and further economic development. For Lake Elsinore to move forward, we must be able to offer shopping, dining and entertainment to not only our residents, but also tourists drawn to Lake Elsinore's Dream Extreme activities. The convenience of added retail and restaurants will increase the number of visitors drawn to our City as a fun destination, who can then help our economy even more through shopping and dining purchases. This is why I am urging you to release the DER for Alberhiil Villages. A project like this will help revitalize Lake Elsinore by bringing business, tourism and jobs, and by keeping residents invested in our City's success. By moving forward on Alberhill Villages, you would be taking a step in the right direction, toward Lake Elsinore's future. Sincerely, Meredith Stewart 31958 Cedarhill Lane Lake Elsinore CA 92532 (951)609-4334 Stephenson Roy From: Dennis Hart <kidspartystars@gmail.com> int: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:06 PM 10: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Villages Project Dear Mr, Stephenson, As a resident in the Temescal Valley, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Alberhill Villages Project./ While residential and commercial/retail growth can bring positive changes to a region, and provide much-needed housing and service that are utilized by neighboring communities, any such endeavor must undergo rigorous review with respect to the impact such developments will have upon the land, upon existing infrastructures and traffic. I am not sure where you may call home, Mr. Stephenson, but mine happens to be less than 1-1/2 miles to the 1-15 freeway, just off of Weirick/Dos Lagos Drive. If you aren't from this area, I would invite you to spend some time here from 6:00 am - 8:00 am and observe the 1-15 from Cajalco Road as far south as Lake Elsinore during normal work hours and peak school days. At times it has taken residents of the Trilogy/Wild Rose/California Meadows/Retreat developments nearly 30 minutes to even enter the on -ramps to the 1-15 freeway from Knabe Road and Weirick Road. I have listened to similar stories from irate residents attempting to reach the freeway from the developments south of Corona. Quoting the Public Notice, "...however, the DEIR also determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Transportation, Traffic, and project -level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance." The volume of increased vehicle traffic from over 8,000 new residents alone will be extraordinaly; the environmental and r quality impact of those vehicles, compounded by the noise impact that our division will have to endure, will be beyond anything we are now experiencing. This project indeed will GREATLY affect the entire population of the Temescal Valley. To proceed with breaking ground on this project without implementation of access and traffic flow improvements of the I- 15 corridor will be beyond irresponsible: it will pave the way for building a development that will become a ghost town within a decade: NO ONE will have the desire to remain in the center of a commuter's nightmare, and eventually, those "rooftops" you define as tax dollars will be sitting empty or will plummet in value so quickly that what you will have on your hands will be nothing less than the nightmare that Moreno Valley had become - showcase homes sold for little more than the cost to build them. This project needs to be halted, and you need to include a fix to the parking lot that is the 1-15 corridor. This project is far from "shovel ready". Thank you for your time and attention. Regards, Dennis J. Hart Homeowner, California Meadows Member, Temescal Valley Development Committee 9394 Palm Canyon Drive Ternescal Valley, CA 92883 Stephenson, Roy From: Dennis Itzkowitz <denitzkowitz@att.net> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:08 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill project With approximately 16 thousand car trips added to the 115 every day, once completed, we could be experiencing Grid - Lock on the 1-15 at all drive -time hours once this project is completed. I am, definitely opposed to this project being built. Dennis Itzkowitz Sent from my iPhone Stephenson, Roy From: duthedu818@gmail.com on behalf of kevin du <kdu.kevindu@gmail.com> int: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:01 AM o: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Development Hello Mr. Stephenson, I just wanted to add to what I'm sure is a growing list of concerned Temescal Valley residents in regards to the proposed project. I work in real estate, so I understand the importance and value of new developments. That being said, as a resident of the Horsethief Canyon Ranch community, I can also see a huge problem in terms of traffic congestion once those developments start to get filled. We have already had complete closures of the 15 twice due vehicle fires and the result was catastrophic. There is only one way in and out of Temescal Valley: a 3 lane freeway that stretches for about 25 miles before hitting another freeway. Should there be an emergency evacuation or something similar, tens of thousands of people would be gridlocked and unable to get to safety and loved ones. I am all for new developments, but please ensure a safe and reliable way to accommodate for the extra commuters, pollution, and noise before doing so. It would be unsafe and unfair to all the residents of Temescal Valley and Lake Elsinore to add to our population prior to addressing this glaring issue. I appreciate your time and attention concerning this matter and hope that logic and reason will prevail over -hatever profitable business plans have been pushed on you and your committee. Regards, Kevin Du Stephenson, Roy From: Deanna Blevin <dblevin@primeconstinc.com> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 9:00 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Comments for project at Alberhill To Whom it May Concern: I have live in Corona for the past 37years before the 15 freeway existed. Corona had gone thru many changes causing massive horrific consequences for traffic, lack if infrastructure and over populated areas. I moved to the temescal valley 6 years ago as I have always loved this area and was able to get around by not getting on the freeway once I was home. But with the senseless continuous building south of us with no plan in place to improve and expand the main artery in and out of the area, we can hardly get to the grocery store without sitting in a traffic jam. Hard to buy ice cream when its melted when you get home. Please consider what your doing to the existing residents north of your community just for the all mighty dollar. I have seen growth in other states and handled much better - take notice. Any questions, I can be reached at 909-229-9259. Stephenson, Roy From: Lisa Stoll <stollx5@icloud.com> ent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 7:34 AM X Stephenson, Roy Subject: Development I am a resident of Norsethief Canyon. We moved here to escape the madness of the city life. We don't mind long drives to go shopping. What we do mind is the tremendous amount of traffic that has come to our valley. The county and state have allowed tremendous growth and yet not improved he infrastructure to handle it all. Just recently there was a tanker fire near your proposed project, and our valley became a major traffic log jam since there is minimal access in and out of this canyon. Families couldn't get to the high school to pick up their children since the primary access is the interstate and side roads were all clogged. This goes along with the amount of noise coming from the Interstate. We can rarely leave our windows open due to the noise of vehicles driving along the interstate. The Temescal Canyon has also had a tremendous uptake in thefts, break ins and cars stolen. We believe due to the large number of vacant homes and increase in homes close to freeway (easier to get away). If we need to get to a hospital, we can no longer go North to Corona. The traffic is so bad no matter the time or day of the week. The traffic in and around the south side of the valley has continued to increase. Where do we go and at what time expense during an emergency. All the schools in the Lake Elsinore school district are already at capacity. Where are you going to send all the future children to school. Yes, they might have money to build a school. But, they don't have money to fund the running of em - salaries, books, supplies etc. The school district struggles now. Please take these thoughts into mind and deny any further development in our canyon. This canyon cannot handle more people, cars, noise and safety hazards. Sincerely, Lisa Stoll Stoll Family Stephenson, Roy From: Dana Betsworth <dbetsworth@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:49 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Village development Dear Mr Stephenson, I am opposed to the planned development of Alberhill Villages. The impact on the 15 freeway and surrounding communities would be enormous with that many additional residences being introduced. Our traffic problems on the 15 have been getting significantly worse over the past couple of years, and it would be so unfortunate to continue approving more and more new construction without addressing what would become a compounded traffic nightmare in that area, and heading into Corona. Thank you kindly for your consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, Dana Betsworth doTERRA Wellness Advocate Cell: 562-477-9301 www.mydoterta.com/lovitigessentials doTERRA — Naturally Safe, Purely Effective I Stephenson, Roy From: Juanita Gray <al,juanita@sbcglobal.net> int: Saturday, February 13, 2016 8:50 PM r. Stephenson, Roy Subject: Proposed 8,244 homes I am a long-time resident of Temescal Valley. I have watched the freeway go from being a pleasure to drive to being a nightmare. The addition of these homes without upgrading the freeway is going to make life awful for everyone. Adding a university will only compound it. Even though it is a long-term plan, it's not long enough to get this area into any condition to accommodate it. My husband and I are very much against this plan. It will have a serious negative impact on the quality of our lives here. Regards, Al & Juanita Gray 11011 Indian Truck Trail Sent from my Wad Stephenson, Roy From: Stacey Mitchell <thewickedg0l@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 8:13 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Villages Dear Sir, As the Environmental Impact Report states, the infrastructure in this area cannot support more homes. Traffic will be impacted. The infrastructure currently does not support the homes already in the area due to previous poor planning. It is starting to seem like someone is getting some kind of personal kick back for these projects that are being approved. It clearly impacts traffic, schools and the basic quality of life for people in the area and those that would purchase the homes that are proposed. There is not enough shopping and medical care for the new homes coming in, causing a further problem. While I am not opposed to more homes, I am opposed to more homes without first improving the infrastructure in the are. Thank You, Stacey Mitchell Stephenson, Roy From: David Fisher <Kj6hax@yahoo.com> nt: Saturday, February 13, 2016 3:52 PM .o: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Comments on your proposed housing project Before you begin building another house, you should add several more lanes to the 15 freeway and build another road through the hills leading to Orange County as they will all be commuters headed that way. Even with this expansion, the 15 and the 91 can't handle more commuters heading to Orange County. D.Fisher Stephenson, Roy From: James Lucas <wawzat@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:47 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Public Comment - Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and draft FIR Dear Mr. Stephenson, I am opposed to the planned development of Alberhill Villages. The draft EIR " ... determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Transportation, Traffic, and project -level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance." With only the 1-15 freeway and the single lane Temescal Canyon Rd. providing access, area residents regularly suffer extreme and prolonged traffic congestion. This is not only inconvenient resulting in significantly reduced quality of life, but unsafe as well. In the event of an emergency, medical, police and fire response times are often well below established norms. Until such time as the development is able to mitigate the traffic, noise and air quality impacts found in the DEIR, these applications should be rejected. Regards, Jim Lucas 25172 Coral Canyon Rd. Corona, CA 92883 Stephenson Roy From: Paula Hook <paulahookatwork@aol.com> Monday, February 15, 2016 1:38 PM J: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Village Mr Stephens, After much study on this project it is obvious To all residents, and neighboring communities that Riverside County has not considered the impact this would have on the current TV residents. Until the 15 freeway, has been updated to accommodate the giant increase to traffic, Air quality, and noise levels investigated, and all issues mitigated this project should be Stopped. I am asking you to consider the people who already live here, and allow no more of this greedy over building in Riverside Co. P. Hook Sent from my Whone Stephenson, Roy 'rom: Vance <vanceli@hotmail.com> .nt: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:07 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Project Hello, I like be in Horsetheif Canyon. I've been here for some time and remember when the 15 freeway was easy to travel. Now it is worse than the 91 freeway. The Temescal road expansion was a horrible failure, I'm tired of developers being allowed to pay mitigation fees which are cheaper than improving the roads; Now, when the degree of traffic is so bad, you consider allowing another major development of homes with no improvements for the roads. I understand that building another freeway is an extremely lengthy process, but it is needed before you do another major build out. I don't think they even done an EIR to even start to address this major problem. Perhaps another major road. The quality of life decreases as you allow this. In turn, people will look elsewhere to live. Property values will fall and the city will take steps back in terms of attracting people to live here. Vance Sent from my Whone Stephenson, Roy From: Lynda Brown - Wow Webs <wowwebs@gmail.com> t: Sunday, February 14, 201611:06 PM o; Stephenson, Roy Subject- new homes in Alberhill (comment) I understand that in some ways growth is a good thing for communities. However, this should ONLY be approved if RCTC expands the 15 freeway to 5 lanes through Elsinore. We are already "knee deep" in incredible traffic gridlock from Indian Truck/Temescal Canyon all the way to at least the 91. 10's of thousands of people have bought homes in the Temescal Valley in good faith, often (like us) at a time when there WAS no traffic, with the knowledge and believe that we could get to work and get out of the area in a reasonable amount of time. We are grateful for the improvements to the area like The Crossings and Dos Lagos that brought on the current traffic situation, but hope that you will treat our community with the respect we deserve by fixing the current freeway issues before adding more homes and, therefore, many more cars on an already crowded freeway. Many of us do not believe that the current construction will solve traffic issues. 1. The expanded freeway won't help unless we are going to Orange County since it was decided to put in Tall Roads rather than a carpool or additional general traffic lane. It appears this new toll road will dump off it's traffic right atCajalco which already has a massive bottleneck because lose a lane at EI Cerrito. The traffic from Temescal to the 91 and beyond is already a nightmare, with speeds going from a crawl to about 30 if lucky during rush hour. However, I find that no matter what time I get on the freeway, it is a rare day that I can go anywhere near the speed limit. if you dump 8,000+ more cars onto our freeway without fixing what is already broken, we won't be able to go anywhere, and 1 can guarantee that you will have a large group of people fighting back against this project. Please do the right thing and fix what is broken before you just add to the mess Lynda Brown Stephenson, Roy I-om: brent <brentbl07l@yahoo.com> nt: Sunday, February 14, 2.016 2:28 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: proposed housing project 100% opposed to this project. 8000 more homes??? . Our over populated area of Temescal Valley and South Corona can not handle any more traffic, or less response times for police and fire. This would make this area even worse then its getting. Sent from my Whore Stephenson Roy _ From: Jon Monroe <jonmonroe845@gmail.com> ,nt: Sunday, February 14, 2016 10:33 AM J: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Re: Aberhills Villages Good morning Mr Stevenson: I'm a homeowner in the Corona Retreat located off the 15 Freeway and the Dos Lago/Weirick exit. I've lived in the Wild Rose and Retreat communities for the last 11 years and experienced the growth first hand as South Corona has developed. As I read the proposals for this Aberhills project I am in 100% opposition of the project UNLESS the 15 freeway and locals roads and infrastructure are expanded by transportation agency PRIOR to any development. Our community has been negatively impacted and HAMMERED by increased traffic on the freeways and local roads, our existing infrastructure can in no way handle any new developing communities without significant expansion and improvements. The 15 freeway needs to be expanded to 5 lanes from Corona through Elsinore and additional roads and on ramps need to be considered. It's a MUST!!!!! In my opinion. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I'd be happy to communicate my thoughts. Jonathan Monroe 1222 Silverpoint Loop, Corona 92883 ,51)334-2233 Stephenson, Roy From: duthedu818@gmail.com on behalf of kevin du <kdu.kevindu@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:01 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Development Hello Mr. Stephenson, I just wanted to add to what I'm sure is a growing list of concerned Temescal Valley residents in regards to the proposed project. I work in real estate, so I understand the importance and value of new developments. That being said, as a resident of the Horsethief Canyon Ranch community, I can also see a huge problem in terms of traffic congestion once those developments start to get filled. We have already had complete closures of the 15 twice due vehicle fires and the result was catastrophic. There is only one way in and out of Temescal Valley: a 3 lane freeway that stretches for about 25 miles before hitting another freeway. Should there be an emergency evacuation or something similar, tens of thousands of people would be gridlocked and unable to get to safety and loved ones. I am all for new developments, but please ensure a safe and reliable way to accommodate for the extra commuters, pollution, and noise before doing so. It would be unsafe and unfair to all the residents of Temescal Valley and Lake Elsinore to add to our population prior to addressing this glaring issue. I appreciate your time and attention concerning this matter and hope that logic and reason will prevail over whatever profitable business plans have been pushed on you and your committee. Regards, Kevin Du Stephenson, Roy From: brent <brentb1071@yahoo.com> cent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 2:28 PM X Stephenson, Roy Subject: proposed housing project 100% opposed to this project. 8000 more homes??? .Our over populated area ofTemescal Valley and South Corona can not handle any more traffic, or less response times for police and fire. This would make this area even worse then its getting. Sent from my Whone From: Lynda Brown - Wow Webs <wowwebs@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:06 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: new homes in Alberhill (comment) I understand that in some ways growth is a good thing for communities However, this should ONLY be approved if RCTC expands the 15 freeway to 5 lanes through Elsinore. We are already "knee deep" in incredible traffic gridlock from Indian Truck/Temescal Canyon all the way to at least the 91. 10's of thousands of people have bought homes in the Temescal Valley in good faith, often (like us) at a time when there WAS no traffic, with the knowledge and believe that we could get to work and get out of the area in a reasonable amount of time. We are grateful for the improvements to the area like The Crossings and Dos Lagos that brought on the current traffic situation, but hope that you will treat our community with the respect we deserve by fixing the current freeway issues before adding more homes and, therefore, many more cars on an already crowded freeway. Many of us do not believe that the current construction will solve traffic issues. 1. The expanded freeway won't help unless we are going to Orange County since it was decided to put in Toll Roads rather than a carpool or additional general traffic lane. 2. It appears this new toll road will dump off it's traffic right at Cajalco which already has a massive bottleneck because we lose a lane at EI Cerrito. The traffic from Temescal to the 91 and beyond is already a nightmare, with speeds going from a crawl to about 30 if lucky during rush hour. However, I find that no matter what time I get on the freeway, it is a rare day that I can go anywhere near the speed limit. If you dump 8,000+ more cars onto our freeway without fixing what is already broken, we won't be able to go anywhere, and I can guarantee that you will have a large group of people fighting back against this project. Please do the right thing and fix what is broken before you just add to the mess. Lynda Brown Stephenson, Roy From: Kelly Adams <kats4363@me.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 201610:14 AM r. Stephenson, Roy .,abject: Horsethief Canyon I am writing to let you know that the project is too soon for Corona!! We do not have decent freeway traffic on the 91 or 15. Green River Road is severely impacted by South Corona residents trying to avoid the freeway, Before new homes are built we should have the infrastructure and jobs that lead traffic to the south. Kelly McDonald Sent from my Phone Stephenson, Roy From: Richard Lewis <richardlewis115@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:44 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Comments on additional developments in Temescal Valley area Area residents are not enthusiastic about any of these developments. The common comment is "We are already trapped in our homes now - what will be like when these developments are completed". There are many over development issues for those of us who live in the Temescal Valley and South Corona areas. 1. There are very few secondary roads. Almost any traffic issues on the 15 freeway immediately result in traffic backups into our community streets - And might I add it is often high speed traffic trying to gain a freeway advantage until a backup occurs. Some areas have no practical secondary routes at all and this results in gridlock. 2. Pipe installation work has resulted in Temescal Canyon road closures, narrowing of lanes and flagmen controlling traffic and this has further made usage of this one narrow alternate route difficult. 3. Riverside County and the City of Corona continue to approve apartment and housing developments when the 15 freeway is completely overloaded during many hours of the morning and evening. The fall brunt of just a few of these new developments has not yet hit as construction is still in progress. Within a few months some of these will begin to come online and create new traffic loads we have not yet experienced. 4. Current improvements on the 15 and 91 freeway will not alleviate the South Corona and Temescal Valley traffic issues because none of these improvements will extend beyond E. Ontario Ave and into the areas where many of the apartments and homes are being built. The traffic crisis is reaching a perfect storm level with many days where these traffic backups begin or end far to the South on into Lake Elsinore and beyond. 5. The current water restrictions have left many of us with dry lake features, dead lawns and landscaping and this fact begs the question where water is going to come from for all these new residents in the aparhnents and hones. 6. Law enforcement services in these outlying areas are stretched very thin. Response times are extremely slow and there are just not enough law enforcement resources for the existing population. Many communities seldom, if ever, see a patrol car. 7. According to some recent social media postings, employers are beginning to hear about the traffic problems in our area and are reluctant (- hire people who live in the area because they feel that employee dependability will be an issue. We are choking on traffic, concerned about public safety deficiencies and have no water for our yards and yet the County continues to approve permits that will only increase this infrastructure crisis. When will this craziness end and all this over development stop? Richard and Sue Lewis Stephenson, Roy Kram: Abby <missabigail2310@aotcom> t: Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:37 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: northern lake Elsinore housing project Me. Stephenson, While I am all for developments and improvements of areas that need a boost in their economy, I do not see where it benefits anyone when it lowers the quality of life. We are currently in a severe drought, accessibility to this area is already congested and there are no future plans to improve the highways this plan seems like a terrible idea. Greed, selfishness and overall disregard for others should never play a roll in a decision as important as this one. Respectfully, Ryan and Abby Vanderstraeten Temescal Valley Residents Stephenson, Roy -tom: Christy rogers <crogers1009@hotmail.com> ant: Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:29 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Housing projects Good afternoon, I'm just now learning of housing developments that are going on near my residents in Temescal Canyon area and the surrounding areas. As a resident this concerns me a great deal. The 15 freeway is already not equipped handle the residents now and I couldn't imagine adding any more homes until the freeway and side streets are fixed. Thank you for your time, Christy and Mario Garcia Stephenson, Roy From: Robert Hafner <bob.hafner@verizon.net> 'ent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 7:45 AM o: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberthill Project You have to get the roads infrastructure in before building anything. It needs to be worked through the builders City and County. This much development going in this area is going to put an excess strain on an already over burden under develop road system. I repeat this needs to be done before one foundation is poured. Think of it this way, if you do this first you will assist your community and assist your self by having better flow of workers and materials to your project thus completing it faster and more effectively. Stephenson, Roy From: Kelli Noss <kelli@eg-ins.com> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:07 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Villages Project -- Comments & Concerns Hello Roy, I recently was made aware of the proposal for the project. I am a Horsethief Canyon Ranch resident who lives essentially on the street closest to the proposed project boundaries (right off of Coyote Mesa). At this time, I cannot imagine that adding ANY additional homes in that stretch of land will make life for those of us who live here now any better. As it stands now, we do not have the infrastructure to support additional homes coming into the area. Take a look at Temescal Canyon running between Horsethief and Lake Street - it floods with any form of measurable rain, the bridge shortly before Lake Street is too narrow to support basic truck traffic on a daily basis. Why not widen the road, add sidewalks, put in adequate drainage expand the bridge.., or will those things only happen with the development of new homes? Or what about the students from Alberhill's current development who are currently attending Luiseno School (centrally located within Horsethief Canyon) because the schools surrounding their current development are poorly rated. Where will the Alberhill Villages students attend? Our school is over capacity as it is! Alberhill's original development not only deserves but NEEDS a school. Also on the topic of resources. Where will the water come to fund this project? We have some of the most expensive water bills in this valley (granted we were spoiled when we came from Anaheim Hills where our combined water/trash/sewer/electric/street services were the same price as our single water bill here). Why are we as current residents being told to conserve, conserve, conserve (and are being charged extra for it!) but we're going to add 8400 new homes with twice that many residents - where is the water going to come from? Please, put this issue to bed and don't allow this project to move forward at this time. There are many infrastructure issues that should be addressed and taken care of now before there's talk about adding 17,000+ new residents/drivers to the area. Thank you, Kelli Noss President Everguard Insurance Services, Inc. kelli@eK-ins.com I P: (714) 455-2950 1 F: (714) 694-6468 an Affiliate of Professional Insurance Associates, Inc. California Insurance License: 0619694 & OF45067 Stephenson, Roy From: Denise Hatfield <ricnden@gmail.com> mt: Monday, February 15, 2016 7:25 PM .o: Stephenson, Roy Subject: 8244 Homes Dear Roy Stephenson, I am writing regarding the talk of 8244 homes to be built in our community. I live in Temescal Valley, Horsethief Canyon Ranch. Don't we have enough homes here already? I think most will agree we moved to this area to get away from a mini LA. We need to keep our valley a valley. All these homes are going to cause more havoc. I mean, first before anymore homes get built, we need another fire station, another sheriff department, more CHP patrol, not to mention, we don't have the infer structure to handle all these people and cars. The last two semi fires on the freeway in last 2 months, already shows, if in an emergency or disaster we are all in trouble. We have no way out of this valley, except the 15 Freeway. We should build the freeways, before putting more people in this area. Emergency personnel are already stretched to their limits. What are we going to do in a fire, earthquake, etc. I hope these developers rethink what they want, not what they think we want, because enough is enough. This should ONLY be approved if RCTC expands the 15 freeway to 5 lanes through Elsinore. It's called safety verses greed. Thank you for listening Denise Hatfield Stephenson, Ro From: Kelly Nelson <kellyjn@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 4:02 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Development project Good afternoon Mr. Stephenson, Living in the Wildrose Ranch development in Temescal Valley for the past 21 years, I have seen numerous changes to our area. In writing to you, I am voicing my opinions as both a resident and a Realtor, having served the community for 12 years selling residential real estate. This project is going to have massive negative impact on our transportation. We are struggling with near gridlock conditions at peak hours on the 1-15 freeway due to the extensive development in Lake Elsinore, most significantly at communities of Alberhill, Summerly, and Canyon Hills. The values of homes in the area are suffering as typical homebuyers are from the Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino's more expensive areas. These are generally home buyers looking to get more for their money. However, they are passing on the areas, choosing to pay more and continue renting when they see the traffic mess they will have to deal with if they live anywhere south of the 91 freeway. The new home builders have standing inventory, and sales have slowed significantly in the resale sector as well. I sold a client's home located in Sycamore Creek in August, 2015 for $425,000. The home is almost 4,000 square feet, and we listed it at rock bottom pricing for a quick sale. It still took almost 30 days before we received an offer. Had we listed the house in January 2015, we would have been able to sell for 5% more. Today, I would be lucky to sell that same property for $390,000. 1 travel frequently to Arizona for family matters. Despite an enormous population and ongoing growth, the greater Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa metro area has excellent traffic conditions. This is due to the excellent coordinated urban planning which reflects the transportation corridors being built in advance of the development. California needs to take some lessons from their model and build the roadways first, not after the freeways are beyond their capacity to service the residents and businesses. Please take a step back and give your most serious consideration to the impact of the traffic this 8,000+ residence development at Alberhill will have on the communities. If people can't get to work, they can't pay for their homes. We need more businesses, technology based and otherwise, in the southwestern part of the county. Without more local employment, why buy in these communities? We are seeing the effects and they are only going to worsen with this project and no new or expanded highways and commuter traffic corridors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kelly Nelson, Realtor BRE 01429186 Mobile: (951) 660-5926 FAX (951) 277-3154 )ilto KellyCa7GlenAndKel]yNelson.com vVebsite: http7//glenandkellynelson.com/ or http://www movetocorona listingbook com/ Realty One Group 1260 Corona Pointe, Suite 102 Corona, CA 92879 Click here to 'like" us on Facebook: http //www facebook corn/GlenAndKelI NelsonRealtors From: Dr -Mitch <Dr_Mitch @juno.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:06 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill project I am a temescal valley resident with 3 kids and before any more bulding projects start there has to be improvements to the 15 fwy. The other day there was an accident off temescal and the 15 and our whole community was in a lockdown.... we couldnt go anywhere bumper to bumper... kids didt go to school people couldnt go.to work .... but the most scary part is what if there was a FIRE???? We wouldve been trapped! So no more development with out improving the 15 Thank Yon Michelle Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Ally Bank, Member FDIC Consistently competitive rates, 24/7 customer care, Member FDIC https://ad.doubleclick nettddm/clk/299707993 126233653v Stephenson Roy From: Tracy Davis <tracycyto@yahoo.com> ant: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:43 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill project Dear Mr Stephenson, I truly oppose the Alberhill project. The public notice in the paper is the downfall. "However, the DEIR also determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Transportation, Traffic, and project -level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance." If a project cannot meet a minimum of mitigations, why would or should the project be supported by the surrounding communities? The impact on transportation on the 15 FWY will not see any improvements until 2025-2030 south of Cajalco according updates from Caltrans. The level of service that is needed, with the Alberhill project traffic complication adding to the future EIR may likely delay the 15 FWY project futher. While residents desperately needing better transportation wait. Please reject this project, Tracy Davis 8826 Flintridge Lane Temescal Valley, CA 92883 acvcvto@vahoo.com Sent from my NOOK Stephenson, Roy From: Katie Cordova <kathryn9978@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 1:10 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Villages Dear Mr. Stephenson, I am writing to express opposition to the planned development of Alberhill Villages. I support development with adequate infrastructure. Here is why this area does not have adequate infrastructure. First, the response time of emergency personnel. We have needed Sherrif response for 2 serious matters twice in the last year and there is only the 15 freeway and Temescal Canyon Road which naturally delayed their response time. The Sheriffs Department, EMT and Fire Department are already stretched thin. If we had a large scale emergency such as a fire or an active shooter, we would literally be in complete gridlock. The next major issues are the lack of water supply and the diminishing air quality. Our water district has released multiple public notices specifically relating to our dire lack of local water supply. The 8,200 homes would put approximately at least that many cars on the road which will add a substantial amount of pollutants into our air. Consider how you would vote if you or your children lived in this area. Until we can resolve these issues, we urge you to agree that development applications should be rejected. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Kevin and Kathryn Cordova Stephenson, Roy From: ent: Terry Morairty <tpmora@sbcglobal.net> Tuesday, February 16, 2016 7:26 AM ,o: Stephenson, Roy Cc: Terry Morairty Subject: Aberhill development. Hello Mr. Stephenson. I am contacting you regarding the Aberhill development. My concern is a very obvious one. We simply cannot stand more traffic in this area. The infrastructure MUST be improved before any homes are built or sold. An alternate route to Orange County must be established prior to any more housing being built. Thank you. Terry Morairty Temescal Valley. Ca. 951-277-2545 Stephenson, Roy From: Larissa Adrian <larissa adrian@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 1:47 PM To: Stephenson, Roy Subject: Alberhill Village Development!! To whom it may concern, My name is Larissa Adrian, I have been a resident of a neighboring community to this potential future development since 2005. In my time here I have seen the rise, fall and plateau of certain developments. Sycamore Creek would be one of them. We started off strong and well desired. After the recession we fought to maintain our position as a desirable community and have done well to come back. However, we have seen schools DOUBLE in size in our short life here. Only being 11 years old we are already dealing with traffic issues that come with fully built out communities twice our age. We have had to push for school schedules to be readdressed and a Measure that was passed (Measure A) yet unable to live up to its promise to expand the 15 freeway South of Cajalco. This in turn has caused great financial burdens to my community and surrounding communities. The quality of life promised or sold with the idea of high taxes was a lie and unable to come to fruition. Sycamore Creek and Temescal Valley is already fighting a battle against the potential overdevelopment of 1800 homes off the Cajalco Bridge before the bridge (rated as an F by the way) will even begin upgrades. That is at least 3000+ more cars. A potential mine (Olsen mine) that will add 600-1000 truck trips a day. There is a new home development that is requesting homes with vehicles at 838 trips a day. As you can see with no expansion of the freeway and no pressure for developers to find a way to minimize on there end we will be trapped out here and have NO QUALITY OF LIFE!! Our kids shouldn't have to sit on freeway or backroads for an hour to go 7 miles!! That will happen! It's happening now. They are telling you upfront it will ONLY GET WORSE!! Here are their exact words: "However, the DEIR also determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Transportation, Traffic, and project -level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance" Thank you for taking the time to read this.. Sincerely Larissa Adrian 714-473-3645 Larissa adrian@sbcglobal.net Sent from my iPhone Stephenson, Roy From: Ricky Patterson <rickypatterson@ynnail.com> int: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 2:11 PM o: Stephenson, Roy Mr. Stephenson, as a nearly 11 year resident of the Valley, I am concerned about how a project of more than 8,000 homes would be allowed to proceed absent any funds from the State or Federal government to improve (widen) I-15 and adjacent roadways. I know that: the ship may well have sailed on adding my dissent on the project itself, but if this project is allowed to go forward it will have a serious negative affect for me and those that reside in this Valley. I hope that the developers are required to work in conjunction with local government to make required changes, PRIOR to breaking ground. I thank you for you time and consideration, Ricky Tuesday, February 16, 2016 CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes Planning Commission SHELLY JORDAN, CHAIR ADAM ARMIT, VICE CHAIR JOHN GRAY, COMMISSIONER LANCE RAY, COMMISSIONER GRANT TAYLOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JUSTIN KIRK, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 6:00 PM The Meeting was called to Order at 6:03p.m. by Chairman Jordan. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Jordan. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray LAKE-ELSINORF.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center Also Present: City Attorney Mann, Community Development Director Taylor, Princiapl Planner Kirk and Office Specialist Wells PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES There were no members of the Public who appeared to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) 1) ID# 16-066 Approval of Minutes It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes as submitted. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Chairman Jordan, to approve the minutes for the November 17, 2015 and December 15, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ray PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) 2) ID# 16-067 Conditional Use Permit No 2015-11: Establish and operate a food distribution facility within an existing 7,850 square foot building with outside storage by HOPE (Helping Our People in Elsinore) on property located at 506 W. Minthorn Street, APN 377-180-026 Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-11 for the establishment and operation of the HOPE Food Distribution Facility with outside storage located at 506 W. Minthorn Street. Community Development Director Grant Taylor presented staff report to Planning Commission for HOPE Food Distribution Facility with outside storage. Hope (a non-profit corporation) is a food pantry that distributes food to low income individuals and families.The facility operated three days a week (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from gam to 12pm. The facility services between 10-30 per day. HOPE activities are run by 30-40 volunteers. No food or meals are served or prepared onsite or distributed. Taylor said staff determined that the findings can be made for consistency with the General Plan, zoning code, conditional use permit as set forth in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and appropriate conditions of approval if implemented and maintained would prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties in the City. Taylor concluded his report by asking Planning Commission if they had any questions. Commissioner Ray would like to have the minimum required (12) parking stalls met. Taylor suggested on relocating dumpster and storage container to meet those requirements. Steve Faulk the Executive Director of HOPE spoke briefly about facility. He stated he would talk to the property owner about moving storage and is willing to do what Commissioners recommend with amended Condition of Approval No. 8 shall read: the applicant shall delineate 12 parking stalls on site to be approved by the Community Development Director or or there designee. City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 There was no further discussion on this matter. Public Hearing closed at 6:18pm. Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Commissioner Ray to Adopt Resolution No. 2015-15; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Conditional Use Permit No, 2015-11 for the establishment and operation of the HOPE Food Distribution Facility with outside storage located at 506 W. Minthorn Street with amended Condition of Approval No. 8 shall read: the applicant shall delineate 12 parking stalls on site to be approved by the Community Development Director or or there designee. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: None 3) ID# 16-068 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012.01 Zone Change No 2012-02 and related Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2012061046) A proposed master planned development of approximately 1 400 acres with 8,244 residential units, a University Town Center with 1,532,600 square feet of retail/community space and medical/office development a university for 6,000 students an elementary school over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi use trails, a_ 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes and a 45.9 acre sports park. 1. Adopt. Resolution No. 2016•_: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SCH No. 2012061046). 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2016•_: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of Findings of Consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the 9.09 Acre Property Also Known as LEAP No. 2005.12 and Adoption of Findings of Exemption from the MSHCP for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2016- : A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012.01. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2016-_: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012.02. 5. Planning Commission shall direct staff to make text changes to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan as referenced in the Errata Section of the AVSP Staff Report prior to review by City Council. wry of care tfsmore Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 Principal Planner Justin Kirk gave a brief introduction to this project. He explained that the City has contracted with H R Green to provide supplemental project management. He introduced Project Manager Roy Stevenson and Charles Rangal the Planner on the Project. Roy Stevenson notified Commissioners that Rob Olson, the transportation engineer was also present to answer any questions Planning Commission may have. Consultant Planner Rangel introduced himself to Planning Commission and gave a brief history of his experience as a Planner. He notified Planning Commission he will provide information on the Specific Plan Staff, Resolutions, Conditions of Approval and the final EIR. Rangel started by going over Mandatory Elements of a Specific Plan, Specific Plans and the Consistency Doctrine and Specific Plan as Zoning. Rangel said, when the Specific Plan is completely built out, the features will have: sparse rural density against Cleveland National Forest, Residential components on the outline areas, the College Campus, Medical Center, a Lake, Community Park, Sports Parks and other amenities. The project overview consists of: 1,400 of 2.2 square miles, 8,244 residential units, 6 phases over 30 years, over 4 million square feet of commercial and professional office uses, 63 acres of Private University, Elementary School, 163 acres of natural of enhanced open space with multi -use trails, 25% of Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project areas are Public or Private open space, 38 -acre lakeside park, 46 acre sports park and Medical Center with Senior Housing: Once the Specific Plan has been adopted, the second step will be the Phase Development Plan, The Phase Development Plan will consist of: Detailed Land Use Circulation Plan, Refined Development Regulations and Design guidelines. The third step will be the Design Review/Subdivision Map, this is when the site plans, elevations, floor plans and subdivision map tract are reviewed. Rangel provided his conclusion: AVSP Land Use Elements and project features represent a well-balanced mixed-use community in conformance with the City's Housing Element, the far reaching goals and elements of the Lake Elsinore General Plan Strive for an optimum to housing ratio, the AVSP is consistent with the Goals and Policies and implements all the goals and policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. Commissioner Gray questioned if the power poles have been discussed with Southern California Edison regarding any possibility for underground power. Tom Tomlinson with Castle and Cook explained that the builders do not have any authority to require SCE to do that but stated he would like to see it happen. Rangel said that an errata sheet has been added to the staff report. An Errata sheet means they would like to make changes in the text prior to City Council for final adoption. One has to do with mining activities. Mining activities will continue as each phase of development of the Specific Plan takes place. Changes have to do with the M3 and mining operations. All references to the M3 Zoning shall be deleted from the project description and existing zoning City o/ take Elsinore Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 designations shall be replaced by the proposed AVSP. Continuation of existing mining operations shall be permitted in accordance with the general plan extractive overlay designation applicable to the Alberhill Villages Specific and plot project site within the district. The applicant also asked for a refinement added to Condition of Approval No. 12. Rob Olson, Traffic Engineer spoke on circulation and traffic impact. He explained he reviewed the applicants Traffic Impact Analysis to make sure they were providing several conclusions and requirements were met. The plan is consistent with the circulation element and the general plan based on the review of the TIA for the project and all of the other guidelines. Chairman Jordan announced Vice Chair Armit's arrival at 7:19pm. Tom Tomlinson thanked staff for working with them. He stated he would like to address the other Conditions of Approval. Condition No. 7, he explained that at the last minute a Condition came up for them to build a turnkey sports park. He explained that they offered acreage to the City for the future sports park. If they build the sports park, they would be spending 40% more on quimby then they currently give within those plans and they are already way over quimby's requirement and it is 21 -million -dollar hit; to build that sports park. The second Condition of Approval No. 13, the Fire and Safety CFD. He wanted to clarify that there are no negative economic impacts within this development. He explained that this development will never cost the City for services. He would like to have that Condition No.13 taken out. Russell Williams with the Riverside County Transportation Department representing the County spoke. The County is requesting to participate in the Development of a phasing improvement plan with the City and Developer specific to improvements to Temescal Canyon Rd. Where they can evaluate this project as well as other projects in the vicinity and evaluate funding sources overall so that actual improvements can be constructed on the ground prior to impacts to critical regional roadway. They are requesting that this phasing improvement plan be completed prior to approval of the Specific Plan and that the County is ready and available to participate in that or any discussion related to that. He explained the letter he is handing out tonight had one sentence in it that says, "Riverside County of Transportation Commission has plans to further improve 1-15 freeway, however the timing of these improvements are unknown and would occur at some point in the distant future." Chairman Jordan questioned Williams, if the County was asking for the Planning Commission not to approve this Specific Plan tonight and to have a phasing improvement plan done before the Specific Plan is approved. Williams stated, the preferred option Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council to require the phasing improvement plan prior to approval. City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 Community Development Director Grant Taylor ackknowledged Mr. Williams request and explianed to him this is a City Council policy decision. Staff will pass along the information. Staff still recommends that the Planning Commission make their comments tonight and move it on to the City Council, Kim Cousins - President of Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce spoke how this project would improve the living conditions of the residents and help resolve the lack of amenities the Community has. Steve Martin, JP Lendano, Meredith Stewart, Kelly Jackson, Ian Stewart, Helen Jong. Fred Castro, Teddy Pennywell, Dee Baulk spoke all in favor of Alberhill Specific Plan Kame Ruther, Community liaison for Castle & Cooke and live Lake Elsinore thanked the Planning Commission for reviewing the project. She spoke on behalf of the Community, in favor of this project. Linda Ridenhour, a resident of Lake Elsinore- spoke in opposition of this project and requested the Planning Commission not approve the project. Charles Rangel informed the Planning Commission, the City received 24 comment letters from residents outside of the City in regards to traffic impacts. He addressed concerns and questions residents had regarding project. Commissioner Ray questioned what mitigation measures would be taken and the EIR process. Ray expressed his concern about ambiguity of the modifications to the General Plan and how it does not effect the AVSP (in his mind). He requested some language to include clarity to the various General Plan changes because it was not clear and did not make sense to him, and it needed to be elaborated on. Vice Chairman Armit questioned how mining would be phased out as project is phased in. Hardy Strozer explained the Reclamation Process Planning Commissioners. Planning Commissioners agreed that the information provided for tonight meeting was thorough and most of the questions that they may have had, were answered at this meeting. Chairman Jordan closed the Public Hearing at 8:57pm. Commissioner's agreed this was a great project for the City but details still need to be reviewed and modified and have some language cleaned up as the project moves forward. Jordan explained the applicant would like three Conditions of Approval modified, Condition 7, 12 and 13 . Jordan asked for staff's position on the changes in Conditions. Community Development Director Taylor stated Staff did not agree with Condition No. 7 regarding parks. The developer's responsibility is to build parks for the City to provide amenities for their residents and to mitigate impacts. Staff supports Condition No. 12. City of Lake Elsinore Page 6 Planning commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 Condition No. 13 is not supported by staff and will leave the decision up to City Council. Kirk stated that the Condition of approval will be modified as pall of the action no. 4. The adoption of the Specific Plan. There was no further discussion. Motion by Vice Chairman Armit, second by Commissioner Gray to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-16: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SCH No. 2012061046), AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Armit NOES: Commissioner Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Chairman Jordan, second by Commissioner Gray to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-17: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of Findings of Consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the 9.09 Acre Property Also Known as LEAP No. 2005-12 and Adoption of Findings of Exemption from the MSHCP for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Vice Chair Armit to Adopt Resolution No, 2016-18: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ray *Amended to read: with specific direction to provide clarity consistent with the comments recieved by Commissiioner Ray with respect to the ambiguities of the General Plan Amendment. Motion by Commissioner Ray, second by Vice Chair Armit to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-18: as amended City o/ Lake Elsinore Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Chairman Jordan, second by Vice Chair Armit to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-19: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No, 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02. `with modified Condition of Approval No. 12 to read: site specific traffic studies shall be required for all subsequent implementing projects in accordance with table A, B, C and D within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Conditions of Approval as approved by the Engineering Department. The subsequent traffic study shall identify nexus related specific project impact and needed roadway improvements to be constructed concurrent with each subdivision map associated with a Phase Development Plan (PDP). AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Chairman Jordan, second by Vice Chair Armit that Planning Commission shall direct staff to make text changes to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan as referenced in the Errata Section of the AVSP Staff Report prior to review by City Council. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None BUSINESS ITEM(S) - None STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Taylor said the economy is doing well. There are good applications coming to Planning and there will be more items at the next meeting. Principal Planner Kirk announced that next Planning Commission Meeting will be lighter. He informed commissioners of projects for the next few meetings. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioners thanked everyone and said great discussion this evening. Ciiy o/ Lake Elsinore Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Jordan adjourned meeting at 9:28 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2016, at the Cultural Center 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Attest: Justin Kirk, Senior Planner ChY Of Lake Elsinore Page 9 IKI .1 111 1\t. City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes Planning Commission SHELLY JORDAN, CHAIR ADAM ARMIT, VICE CHAIR JOHN GRAY, COMMISSIONER LANCE RAY, COMMISSIONER GRANT TAYLOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JUSTIN KIRK, PRINCIPAL PLANNER LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Tuesday, February 2, 2016 6:00 PM Cultural Center CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jordan Called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:03 p.rn. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Jordan led the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray Also Present: City Attorney Mann, Community Development Director Taylor, Principal Planner Justin Kirk, and Office Specialist Wells PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES There were no members of the Public who appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) 1) ID# 16-041 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2015-07 - A request by John Rowland Santa Rosa Development Consultants for approval of the installation of a 1,238 Square foot modular home, 400 SF free standing garage and related improvements on an approximately 8,000 SF lot located at 30040 Illinois Street (APN: 375-033.004 & 005 Adopt Resolution No, 2016-_: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Residential Design Review 2015.07 (Minor Design Review) for the Installation of a 1,238 Square Foot Modular Home. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Principal Planner Justin Kirk presented his staff report on the installation of a 1,238 Square foot (SF) modular home, the construction of a 400 square foot garage, and related improvements. Project located at 30040 Illinois Street. He provided Planning Commission with a detailed description of project. Kirk stated the development has been found consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code. The Design Review Committee (Planning, Building and Saftety and Engineering Staff) have reviewed the requested Design Review application, and support the proposed application. Conditions of Approval have been included that would mitigate any potential issues associated with the future development and establishment of use. There was an addec Condition of Approval which requires: prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant shall provide documentation of the connection of the project to a sanitary sewer in the event that the sewer services is not available, the applicant shall provide plans of the proposed septic tank. The documents in compliance with all applicable state law building codes and Municipal requirements to be reviewed by the building official or their designee. The location of the septic tank and the related equipment shall be identified in the site plan and grading plans. There was no further discussion regarding this project. Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Commissioner Ray to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-11: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Residential Design Review 2015-07 (Minor Design Review) for the Installation of a 1,238 Square Foot Modular Home, AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: None 2) ID#t 16-042 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-03 & COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2015-09 - A request by Joseph Karaki Western States Engineering for approval of the construction of a 36,664 square foot four (4) story 64 room hotel on an approximately 1 05 acre site 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2016- : A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adopt Findings that Commercial Design Review No. 2014.14 Is Consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2016- : A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Conditional Use Permit 2016.01 for the Establishment of a 36,664 Square Foot Hotel and Associated Improvements Located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-090-036. City of Lake E7sinote Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2016-_; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,. Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2015.09 for the Development of a 36,664 Square Foot Hotel and Associated Improvements Located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-090-036 Principal Planner Kirk detailed the project request and location for the Construction of a 36,664 square foot, four story, 64 room hotel. Project is located at the northeast corner of Dexter Ave and Third Street. He provided renderings for development. The applicant had a ITE analysis to demonstrate the total generation of parking on site met actual demands, while not meeting the LEMC requirernents. A trip generation using ITE standards was prepared and detailed no traffic was necessary. Kirk stated there was a added Condition of Approval for the Tourism Business Improvement District. The Condition reads: Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits the applicant shall provide consent to the Annexation and Inclusion of the property into the City's Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID), which will provide specific benefits directly to Lodge and Businesses by increasing room night sales through marketing sales promotion and destination product development to increase tourism. The TBID assessment shall not exceed 2% of growth short term room revenue. The applicant may propose alternative funding mechanism in lieu of inclusion in the TBID. Prior to the Meeting this Condition was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant agreed to it. Kirk stated that the project was consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code.The proposed design is found to be of a high quality and will provide appropriate addition to the adjacent land uses The Design Review Committee have reviewed the requested Design Review application, and support the proposed application. Appropriate Condition of Approval have been included that would mitigate any potential issues associated with the future development and establishment of use. Commissioner Ray requested to be noted in documentation that the 9' 3" FT set back to the ultimate right of way, note 18; should state 10 Feet instead of 9' 3". Kirk suggested that a Condition of Approval that requires all setbacks be met was included. Resident Rudy Lacayo spoke in favor of this project but had concern regarding parking. Kirk and Commissioner's addressed Lacayo's concerns, Applicant Joseph Karaki spoke and thanked staff for their hard work. He agreed with all the Conditions they were presented. He asked if Planning Commission had any questions. Commissioner Ray had concerns with parking with regards to code requirements and told applicant he would like it to be looked over again. City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Commissoner's discussed parking, it was deficient. The Traffic Impact Analysis justified a deficiency. There was no further discussion on this project. Motion by Chairman Jordan, second by Commissioner Gray to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-12: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adopt Findings that Commercial Design Review No, 2014-14 Is Consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: None Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Chairman Jordan to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-13: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Conditional Use Permit 2016-01 for the Establishment of a 36,664 Square Foot Hotel and Associated Improvements Located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-090-036, AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: None " Motion by Commissioner Ray, second by Chairman Jordan to staffs recommendation with an added Condition of Approval that states, prior to final approval by the City Council the applicant working in conjunction with staff shall explore narrowing the parking deficit to meet current code requirements or close there of, AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Armit ABSTAIN: None Motion by Chairman Jordan, second by Commissioner Gray to Adopt Resolution No. 2016-14, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of Commercial cny 01 Lake 2ISmore Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Design Review No. 2015-09 for the Development of a 36,664 Square Foot Hotel and Associated Improvements Located at Assessor Parcel Number 377-090-036 AYES: Chairman Jordan, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Vice ChairArmit ABSTAIN: None BUSINESS ITEMS) 3) ID# 16-043 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-05 MODIFICATION - Review of the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park, a 93 -acre motocross and off-road vehicle facility located at 20700 Cereal Street. (APN: 370-030-012) Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the motorsports park facility pursuant to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2001.05 Modification, Condition of Approval #2 which states in part "the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed periodically, but not less than annually, by the Planning Commission to evaluate the findings set forth in Section 17.168.060 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, including (i) the consistency of the use with the City's General Plan, applicable Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, (ii) the compatibility with neighboring uses, and (iii) compliance with the conditions of approval." CUP 2001.05 MOD was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15, 2013 when the facility was operated by Giovanni Nanci. At that time staff determined that multiple conditions of approval were not satisfied. The Planning Commission directed staff to pursue full compliance with the motocross facility operator. City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Community Development Director Grant Taylor presented the project request. He explained that this was an annual review of the Motocross and off-road vehicle facility required by the Conditions of Approval. The CUP MOD was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15, 2013. At that time staff determined that multiple Conditions of Approval were not satisfied. The Planning Commission directed staff to pursue full compliance with the motocross facility operator. Taylor explained the Motocross facility is near the Summerly Residential Master Plan and the phases are getting closer to the track and there is potential for noise and dust impacts in the future, It is critical that the track be watered daily and Compliance with Conditions of Approval be observed. The Motorsports facility has to be in compliance with the 40 Conditions of Approval, 5 of the COA's were not in full compliance during the inspection. The owner and operator accommodated an inspection on January 4, 2016. There was a follow up with the Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting on January 14, 2016. There were concerns identified. (An email regarding those concerns were attached to the Staff report.) Taylor explained that the Owner and applicant are working cooperatively with staff. Staff is recommending Planning Commission provide any comments and receive and file the request. There is no need for further action and this project will be back before PC in a year. He asked if there were any questions. *Chairman Jordan announced Vice Chair Armit's arrival 6:58p.m. Brian Milich representing Summerly Development said that he was present to emphasize the importance of continuing communication with staff and applicant Mr. Keaton. Summerly is starting to build homes directly adjacent to the property and would like to maintain good communication, so that all Conditions of Approval are met. Milich requested the applicant notify Summerly when any future events would occur, so Summerly could notify the HOA. Bruce Keeton owner of the property, introduced himself and his General Manager Chad Acevado and stated they are available for any questions. Commissioner Ray suggested the applicant put up noise buffers for any possible future impacts. Keeton explained they are open to suggestions. There was no further discussion regarding this matter. Motion by Commissioner Ray, second by Commissioner Gray to receive and file. AYES: Chairman Jordan, Vice Chair Armit, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None NONE: None City of Lake Elsinore Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 4) ID# 16-044 Work Session Review of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02) and related Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2012061046). General Plan Amendment No. 2012 01Zone Change No. 2012-02, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency A Proposed Development of approximately 1,400 acres will provide 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of residential unit types and sizes. The plan also includes a University Town Center with 1,532 500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university for 6,000 students with 1,500,000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres of recreational lake facilities as well as a 45.9 acre sports park. The Alberhill Villages project is anticipated to be developed over a period of approximately thirty (30) years Review the item, receive testimony, and provide direction and comments to staff regarding the proposed project. Community Development Director Taylor explained that this was a workshop and gave a brief introduction of Alberhill Villages Specific Plan a Proposed Development. Taylor explained that this work session was to give Planning Commission sometime to help prepare before the upcoming Public Hearing on February 16, 2016. Taylor explained that Project Manager Roy Stevenson of HR Green and his team would be working on the future project. Project Manager Stevenson introduced his team. He said the purpose of this workshop was to get some feedback from the Commission, as well as the public. Stevenson explained that tonight's presentation would be given by the applicant but advised the Planning Commission that he and his team will have a bigger role at the Public Hearing regarding this project. Tom Tomlinson with Castle and Cooke, informed the Commissioner's that Castle and Cooke has been working on this project for years. Tomlinson introduced the team working on this project. He told Commissioner's that his team has prepared a power point of the project. City o7 Lake Elsinore Page 7 Planning commission Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Hardy Stozer - gave a brief description of the project request and location. Kevin Kohan - presented a powerpoint and video of the future proposed project. It provided a full description of future Plans of the 1,400 acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Commissioner's discussed their concerns and questions such as: traffic, off ramp to the development. parks, underground power lines, updates on maps used in powerpoint and water supply. Dee Baulk - resident of the City spoke in favor of development. It's a good direction for the City to go. The Commissioners all agreed that they need to study the project further before the Public Hearing. Commissioner Ray would like the applicant to investigate the Conceptual Land Use Plan. Ray recognized that some of the plans may have evolved over time and not updated, but suggested all illustrations for the meeting should be updated. He noted corrections to applicant and also stated he needed more time to review the project. Ray offered to provide a list corrections for the applicant to review. The applicant requested that any concerns or question's or the Commissioners have, be given to staff before next meeting, There was no further discussion regarding this project. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Grant Taylor said he was looking forward to a good meeting regarding Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. He said there were lots of great things happening in Lake Elsinroe. Principal Planner, Justin Kirk said staff would try to limit items on February 16, 2016 meeting, so there is just a focus review of this item. He notified the Planning Commission of several new applications recieved. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Gray thanked applicants for tonights workshop. Clly o/ Lake Elsinore Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ADJOURNMENT February 2, 2016 Chairman Jordan adjourned at 8:39p.m, to the next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016, at the Cultural Center, 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Attest: Justin Kirk, Senior Planner City of Lake Elsinore Page 9 CITY OF ice. LADE LSIIIOKE DREAM EXTREME. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Honorable Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner DATE: February 16, 2016 PROJECT: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, Zone Change No. 2012-02, and related Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2012061046) — A proposed master planned development of approximately 1,400 acres with 8,244 residential units, a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/office development, a university for 6,000 students, an elementary school, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes and a 45.9 acre sports park. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Pacific Clay Products, Inc. 14741 Lake Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Recommendation 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2016-_ A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SCH No. 2012061046). 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2016- A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of Findings of Consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the 9.09 Acre Property Also Known as LEAP No. 2005-12 and Adoption of Findings of Exemption from the MSHCP for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 10 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2016-: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2016-_: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02. 5. Planning Commission shall direct staff to make text changes to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan as referenced in the Errata Section of the AVSP Staff Report prior to review by City Council. Proiect Request & Location The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) proposes 8,244 dwelling units; 4,007,000 square feet of non-residential uses including civic/institutional, commercial/retail, professional office/medical and entertainment uses; development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, places of religious assembly and green belt paseos. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposes that the Project site's land use designation in the 2011 General Plan be changed from individual land use designations to "Alberhill Villages Specific Plan" and to update the current General Plan land use map. The GPA also proposes changes to the General Plan's Circulation Element within the Project site. The AVSP Project site, generally located south of Interstate 15 and west of Lake Street, is bound by Lake Street to the east, the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan residential development to the southeast, the 1,000 acre Horsethief single-family planned development to the west and the Cleveland National Forest to the southwest. The AVSP Project site is currently an active mining operation; primarily for clay but also aggregate, and is surrounded by residential development and vacant property. The existing land use, overall plan designations and zoning of the subject property are summarized in the table below: EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING Project Site Mining Site; Residential Mixed Use, RMU - Residential Mixed (Pacific Clay Hillside Residential, Low Use, RH - Hillside Single Products) Density Residential, Family Residential, RMR Medium Density - Rural Mountainous Residential, High Density Residential, R2 - Medium Residential, Recreational, 1--- Residential, R3 - EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 10 A detailed analysis of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project's consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies for each Environmental Impact topic is found in Section 4.1 thru 4.13 of the Environmental Impact Report and Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan for this Project. Project Description Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 The applicant requests approval of the approximately 1,400 acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02. The proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be developed over a period of approximately 30 years. Existing mining operations will be permitted as an interim use consistent with the General Plan mining extraction overlay and will be phased out over time. EXISTING LAND EXISTING GENERAL EXISTING ZONING USE PLAN Open Space, Public High Density Residential, Institutional, General R - Recreation, OS - Commercial, Commercial Open Space, PI - Public Mixed -Use, and Extractive Institutional, C2 - General Overlay Commercial, and CMU - Commercial Mixed Use West Residential; Medium Density SP - Specific Plan (County) (Horsethiet) Residential, Recreational Open Space Southwest Undeveloped; Low Medium Residential, RMR - Rural (Cleveland National and Hillside Residential Mountainous Residential, (City Forest) (City) R1 - Single Family &County) Open Space (County) Residential (City) OS - Open Space (County) Northwest Residential Medium Density SP - Specific Plan (Count) Residential North Undeveloped Rural Residential, Scenic R -A-5 - Open Area Highway Commercial Combining Zone, (City (County) Residential &County) Floodway, Specific Plan Developments (County) (City) F - Floodway, SP - Specific Plan Cit Northeast Undeveloped Specific Plan SP - Specific Plan South Residential Low Medium Residential R1 - Single Family Residential Southeast Residential; Specific Plan SP - Specific Plan Alberhill Ranch East Residential; Specific Plan SP - Specific Plan Alberhill Ridge) A detailed analysis of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project's consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies for each Environmental Impact topic is found in Section 4.1 thru 4.13 of the Environmental Impact Report and Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan for this Project. Project Description Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 The applicant requests approval of the approximately 1,400 acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02. The proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be developed over a period of approximately 30 years. Existing mining operations will be permitted as an interim use consistent with the General Plan mining extraction overlay and will be phased out over time. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 10 Once fully developed, the 1,400 acre AVSP Project site will provide approximately 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of unit types and sizes. The Project includes a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Additional mixed-use areas will offer 974,500 square feet of retail and service uses. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site and approximately 163 acres of open space. The Project also includes several park spaces including, 35 private pocket parks, a 45.9 acres sports park, a 36.8 acre lakeside park, a 14 acre Community Park, and two 0.75 acre Town Hall Parks. The proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan divides the 1,400 acre site into six (6) separate "villages". Each village is intended to create and maintain a unique character. Each village is bounded by major roadways, topography, and intended service area. Each village will be anchored by a central focal point such as a school, park, commercial core, or plaza so that these uses are within a ten minute walk or five minute bike ride from residential uses. A three-tier implementation approach is provided in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan with a proposed 30 -year build out that will ensure that certain project design details or standards, which cannot be anticipated at this time, are identified once development becomes imminent. Tier 1 is the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, which will create an overall land use plan, backbone circulation plan, and development regulations for the entire AVSP Project site. Approval of the RVSP does not allow site-specific development without additional discretionary approvals in Tiers 2 and 3. Later, Tier 2 Phased Development Plans (PDP) will provide greater detail for a defined geographic area when development in that area becomes imminent. PDPs will be considered by the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. An approved PDP is a pre -requisite to any development within a Phase. Finally, Tier 3 will consist of design review and subdivision maps of site specific development plans in anticipation of processing building permits. General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 The applicant requests approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 to amend the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Amendments to the following sections of the General Plan will be made: Land Use Element: include amending the land use designations on the project site from Residential Mixed Use, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Low - Medium Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Recreational, Open Space, Public Institutional, General Commercial, and EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 10 Commercial Mixed -Use, to "Alberhill Villages Specific Plan" land uses with a mining extraction overlay to remain. • Circulation Element: Certain areas of the overall circulation plan within the Project area will be amended, as well as certain cross sections of roadways within AVSP. • The Alberhill Ranch District section of the General Plan: tables and certain language will be amended to reflect the change in land use designation of certain parcels from Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan to Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (i.e. 9.09 and 16.7 acre parcels). • The Parks and Recreation Element: Language regarding the parks within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be added. • Community Facilities and Protection Services Element: The graphic regarding Lake Elsinore Schools and District boundaries will be amended to reflect the proper location of the Elementary School within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. For a detailed description graphics of the above General Plan amendment please see Attachment 6 Section 1. Existing General Plan Land Uses Amended by GPA No. 2012-01 A description of the existing General Plan Land Use Designations changes to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Land Use by this General Plan Amendment is as follows: • The 9.09 parcel and the 16.9 acre parcel that were originally part of the Alberhill Ranch and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan are now included in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is Specific Plan and will be amended to Commercial Mixed -Use and Open Space by this General Plan Amendment. • The Street A couplet in the current General Plan Land Use Designation is Residential Mixed Use and will be amended in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation has been amended to Low Density Residential Land Use by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation has been reduced in size by this General Plan Amendment. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 10 • In the Western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Land Use Designation has been amended to Open Space Land Use Designation by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational and General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Medium Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Eastern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Residential Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be amended to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and a portion is amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Institutional Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational by this General Plan Amendment. • In the Southeast portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and amended to include General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. Please see attached Exhibit Al AND A2 of Attachment 6, which graphically illustrates the changes of the existing General Plan Land Use to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Land Use Designations by this General Plan Amendment. Zone Change No. 2012-02 The applicant requests approval of a change to the zoning of the City's Official Zoning Map ("Zone Change") for the AVSP Project site to modify the zoning on the subject EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 10 property by ordinance from Residential Mixed Use, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Low -Medium Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Recreational, Open Space, Public Institutional, General Commercial, and Commercial Mixed -Use to "Alberhill Villages Specific Plan" land uses. New zones found within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan include; MXU (Mixed Use), HR (Hillside Residential), RSF (Single -Family Residential), RM (Medium Density Residential), RMH (Medium -High Density Residential), and RH (High Density Residential). Zones within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan which remain the same as the City of Lake Elsinore's Zoning Ordinance include Institutional/Educational and Open Space. The previously approved Consistency Zoning Project (2012-2015), including the attached Zoning Consistency Map exhibit prepared by staff will be amended. Parcels that are a part of AVSP will be amended to be consistent with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan zone regulations. Please see Attachment 6 Section 2. Amendment to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan: The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on August 8, 1989 and incorporates the 6 acre area (identified as the 9.09 acre area in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) and a 16.9 acre area (identified as the 11 acre area in Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) portions of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, which are currently zoned as Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP), will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Parcels originally in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (9.09 and 11 acre parcels) are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be removed from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. For a detailed description, and graphics of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan amendment please see Attachment 6 Section 3. Amendment to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan: The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on June 1992 and incorporates a 16.9 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) area, will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Parcels originally in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (16.9 acre parcel) that are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be repealed from the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. For a detailed description, and graphics of the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan amendment please see Attachment 6 Section 4. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 10 Environmental Determination A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report "EIR" (SCH #2012061046) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project. The City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR on or about June 14, 2012 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. On July 17, 2012, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in orderto facilitate consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental information in the Draft EIR. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on November 5, 2015 and the State Clearinghouse posted the DEIR for a 55 -day public comment period, which ran from November 5, 2015 to December 31, 2015. A total of seventeen (17) comment letters and seventeen (17) support letters were received during the 55 -day public comment period. These comment/support letters are provided to the Commission in the EIR document. All comment letters are being reviewed and considered. The comment letters and final response to comments will be incorporated as part of the Final EIR. Final responses will be sent to the commenters at least 10 days prior to the City Council's consideration of the Final EIR. The EIR determined that the proposed project, as described above, will have no potentially significant impacts with mitigation upon Aesthetics, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Urban Decay, and Utilities and Service Systems. The EIR also determined that the project will have potentially significant environmental impacts upon Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Land Use and Planning and cumulative impacts related to Noise; but that these impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. However, the EIR also determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will have significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, and Transportation and Traffic and project -level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required at the City Council level. MSHCP Consistency The Alberhill District contains the approximately 1,400 -acre Pacific Clay Products site, owned by Castle & Cooke. The Pacific Clay Products site was annexed into the City in 2008. The site was subject to a legal settlement agreement in 2004 between Riverside County and Castle & Cooke that removed the property from the MSHCP program. The approximately 1,400 acre Pacific Clay Products area of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan is not subject to the MSHCP program. The 9.09 acre site at the corner of Temescal EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 10 Canyon Road and Lake Street, which has completed the MSHCP process will be amended from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and included in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Please see Attachment 7 to review the Pacific Clay Settlement Agreement. A 9.09 acre portion of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, was not a part of the settlement agreement mentioned above, and therefore went through the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP). Resolution No. 2007-142, is a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore making findings that the Project known as LEAP No. 2005-12 for a 9.09 acre property is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). No further MSHCP processing or biology is required pursuant to the terms of the MSHCP. Resolution No. 2007-142 was adopted and approved by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council on July 24, 2007. To review Resolution No. 2007-142 in its entirety please see Attachment 8. Analysis The proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project is not intended to conform to all standard development regulations of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The AVSP project provides its own stand-alone development standards, intended to accommodate the future mixed-use development, which will occur within the intensification overlay zones and accommodate flexible urban design based on future development and market trends. Phased Development Plans (PDPs) will include more refined development regulations, which better reflect the intensity of the development proposed in a specific zone. The development regulations within PDPs must also remain consistent with the development standards set forth in this Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. For example, a PDP can refine the development regulations to reduce the density within a zone, but cannot change the zoning to exceed the density imposed by this Specific Plan. Such a proposal would require a Specific Plan Amendment. Additional analysis, including Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA's), will be required at subsequent phased development plans, subdivision map and other site specific entitlement phases. These Specific Plan land use regulations and development standards supersede otherwise applicable City zoning ordinances. Where the Specific Plan is silent on other zoning regulations, the existing City ordinances will apply. Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the City's zoning regulations, the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will prevail. Application of these regulations is intended to encourage and create a harmonious relationship among land uses and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Errata Section The following is a summary of the following text changes within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. These text changes will be made within the Specific Plan prior to City Council review. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 10 of 10 1. Page 12, 3 -Tier Implementation Plan. Tier 2 (PDP) and Tier 3 (Design Review) shall identify Planning Commission approval. Tiers 2 and 3 shall require City Council approval. 2. Page 32, 34, Permitted uses include animal veterinary clinics and places of religious assembly. These land uses are often intensive and shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Pages 50, 51, Major Design Review. The Specific Plan (SP) authorizes Planning Commission review but the Municipal Code requires Design Review be City Council approved. The AVSP shall change from a 10 day appeal to a 15 day appeal period, which is consistent with the City's Municipal Code. 4. Page 56, Minor Modifications to SP or Phased Development Plan (PDP) allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director shall identify threshold of minor modifications (i.e. what is minor and what is major). Planning Commission shall render decision within 35 days. 5. Pages 135-138, Real Estate Signs and Political Campaign signs are regulated by State Law and shall be omitted from the Specific Plan. In addition, political campaign signs shall be regulated by Municipal Code Section 17.196.120. 6. Page 142, Definitions, Net (acres) and Neighborhood Park shall be in alphabetical order. Prepared By: Roy Stephenson, PE Charles Rangel, APA Ernie Perea, APA Approved By: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Regional Location Map 2. Aerial Vicinity Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions 4. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 5. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Draft EIR 6. Project Description Exhibit 7. Settlement Agreement 8. Resolution 2007-142 9. Conditions of Approval 10. Comment Letters Attachment 1: Regional Location Map ORANOK - 79 Attachment 2: Aerial Vicinity Map rzn��si�� COLI -N n 6nghton?P - Horaethiet a Canyem y Site r r r r sulk=i ltiu -RAwh RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 2012061046) WHEREAS, Pacific Clay Products, Inc., is the applicant for and has requested approval of the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046) which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project consists of approximately 1,400 acres to be developed over a period of approximately thirty (30) years with 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of residential unit types and sizes, a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 -acre university for 6,000 students with 1,500,000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 -acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 -acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres of recreational lake facilities, as well as a 45.9 acre sports park; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City') has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046: the "EIR") on the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR on or about June 13, 2012 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082(c)(1), on July 17, 2012, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in order to facilitate consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental information in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing on or about November 5, 2015 a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the DEIR to the State PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-_ PAGE 2 OF 4 Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on November 5, 2015. A total of 34 letters were received, 17 letters in favor of the project, and 17 comment letters. December 31, 2015 was the final date to submit comments. All comments are being reviewed and considered and final responses will be sent to the commenters and included in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the State Clearinghouse posted the DEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from November 5, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the DEIR have been taken; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was sent to the Planning Commission members on or about November 5, 2015, and was considered by the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 at a duly noticed public hearing and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the DEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered and evaluated all written and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed the DEIR, the comments submitted on the DEIR; draft responses to those comments, the public testimony, and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the public hearing on the Project and the DEIR. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and finds that the Draft EIR represents the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 3 OF 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 4 OF 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SS I, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. _ as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of February 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2016-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE 9.09 ACRE PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS LEAP NO. 2005-12 AND ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF EXEMPTION FROM THE MSHCP FOR THE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, Pacific Clay Products, Inc., is the Applicant for and has requested approval of the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046) which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project consists of approximately 1,400 acres to be developed over a period of approximately thirty (30) years with 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of residential unit types and sizes, a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university for 6,000 students with 1,500,000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres of recreational lake facilities, as well as a 45.9 acre sports park; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004, a Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding was agreed upon between the County of Riverside, Pacific Clay Products Inc., Castle & Cooke Alberhill Ranch, and Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership (Parties). These Parties agreed that the owner's properties are exempt and excluded from the MSHCP for all purposes and will not be subject to any other MSHCP regulations. Further, the Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding provided that the property owners will not be required to pay any MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees as set forth in Section 8 of the MSHCP and Section 11 of the Implementing Agreement; and WHEREAS, a 9.09 acre portion of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, was not part of the Settlement Agreement as referenced above, and therefore went through the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP). Resolution No. 2007-142, is a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore making findings that the Project known as LEAP No. 2005-12 for a 9.09 acre property is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). No further MSHCP processing or biology is required pursuant to the terms of the MSHCP. Resolution No. 2007-142 was adopted and approved by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council on July 24, 2007; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 2 of 3 WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016 at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission acknowledges Resolution No. 2007-142 which states that the 9.09 acre property also known as LEAP No. 2005-12 is consistent with the MSHCP. Furthermore, the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan is exempt from MHSCP known collectively as the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046). SECTION 2. Based upon the evidence presented in the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings for the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046) which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project' are exempt from and or have completed the MSHCP. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SS I, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of February 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2012-01 WHEREAS, Pacific Clay Products, Inc., is the Applicant for and has requested approval of the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046) which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65358 empowers the legislative body to amend all or part of an adopted General Plan if to do so would be in the public interest and so long as no mandatory element of the General Plan is amended more frequently than four times during any calendar year; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 (the "Project") is part of the City's First (1st) Cycle amendments to the Lake Elsinore General Plan for the 2016 calendar year; and WHEREAS, Public Notice of the General Plan Amendment was given on January 18, 2016 and on February 16, 2016 a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Lake Elsinore (the "City") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046: the "EIR") on the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.; "CEQA"), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects. SECTION 2. The City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR on or about June 13, 2012 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 2 of 8 SECTION 3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082(c)(1), on July 17, 2012, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in order to facilitate consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental information in the Draft EIR. SECTION 4. The City transmitted for filing on or about November 5, 2015 a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies. SECTION 5. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on November 5, 2015. SECTION 6. The State Clearinghouse posted the DEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from November 5, 2015 to December 31, 2015. SECTION 7. All actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the DEIR have been taken SECTION 8. That in accordance with the California Planning and Zoning Law and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01: The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. a. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been analyzed relative to its potential to have detrimental effects and conditions have been imposed on the subject project to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents will be protected. b. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been conditioned to amend the urban arterial, major highway, secondary highway classifications, and widths of the right of way and travel lanes. Lake Street will be realigned, Nichols Road will be extended, Temescal Canyon Road will connect directly to Lake Street, and Lincoln Street will extend to connect to existing Lincoln Street. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit reasonable development of the area consistent with its constraints. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 3 of 8 The proposed SP designation will allow for the development of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, a master planned development with approximately 1,400 acres of mixed uses including single-family residential 8,244 dwelling units; 4,007,000 sq. ft. of civic/institutional, commercial retail, professional office/medical and entertainment uses; development of a university campus or similar institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, worship centers, parks and greenbelt paseos. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 shall amend the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Amendments to the following sections of the General Plan will be made: a. Land Use Element: include amending the land use designations on the project site from Residential Mixed Use, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Low -Medium Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Recreational, Open Space, Public Institutional, General Commercial, and Commercial Mixed -Use, to 'Alberhill Villages Specific Plan' land uses. With a mining extraction overlay to remain, pursuant to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. b. Circulation Element: Certain areas of the overall circulation plan within the Project area will be amended, as well as certain cross sections of roadways within AVSP. C. The Alberhill Ranch District section of the General Plan: Tables and certain language will be amended. The zoning of parcels which were originally part of Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which are now part of Alberhill Villages will be amended (i.e. the 9.09 and 16.7 acre parcels). d. The Parks and Recreation Element: Language regarding the parks within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be added. e. Community Facilities and Protection Services Element: The graphic regarding Lake Elsinore Schools and District boundaries will be amended to reflect the proper location of the Elementary School within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The above referenced description of the General Plan Amendment is hereby referenced in Attachment 7 Section 1 of the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 4 of 8 Existing General Plan Land Uses Amended by GPA No. 2012-01 4. A description of the existing General Plan Land Use Designations changes to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Land Use by this General Plan Amendment is as follows: a. The 9.09 parcel and the 16.9 acre parcel that were originally part of the Alberhill Ranch and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan are now included in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is Specific Plan and will be amended to Commercial Mixed -Use and Open Space by this General Plan Amendment. b. The Street A couplet in the current General Plan Land Use Designation is Residential Mixed Use and will be amended in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. C. In the northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation has been amended to Low Density Residential Land Use by this General Plan Amendment. d. In the northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation has been reduced in size by this General Plan Amendment. e. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Land Use Designation has been amended to Open Space Land Use Designation by this General Plan Amendment. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational and General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. g. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Medium Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. h. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 5 of 8 i. In the eastern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Residential Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be amended to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. j. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and a portion is amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. k. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Institutional Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment, I. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational by this General Plan Amendment. M. In the southeast portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and amended to include General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. n. The above referenced description of the General Plan Amendment, is hereby referenced in Attachment 10 of the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. 5. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on August 8, 1989 and incorporates the 6 acre area (identified to as the 9.09 acre area in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) and a 16.9 acre area (identified as the 11 acre area in Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) portions of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, which are currently designated as Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP), will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. a. Parcels originally in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (9.09 and 11 acre parcels) are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be removed from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. b. The above referenced description of the General Plan Amendment, is hereby referenced in Attachment 7 Section 1 of the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report 6. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on June 1992 and incorporates a 16.9 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) area, will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-. PAGE 6 of 8 a. Parcels originally in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (16.9 acre parcel) that are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be removed from the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. b. The above referenced description of the General Plan Amendment, is hereby referenced in Attachment 7 Section 1 of the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report 7. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish a land use density, intensity and usage more in character with the subject property's location, access, and constraints. The land uses and densities associated with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan provide a variety of lot and home size product type in order to implement the objectives of the City's General Plan. It also includes land use changes from the existing General Plan designations to the Alberhill Villages Land Use Designations. Using these designations, the Alberhill Villages Land Use Designations allows a maximum of 8,244 dwelling units. 8. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. The effects of the General Plan Amendment have been analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2012061046) prepared for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, and adequate mitigation measures and/or findings of overriding consideration consistent with CEQA have been incorporated and made where necessary. SECTION 9. Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01. SECTION 10. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February 2016, by the following vote: Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-_ PAGE 7 of 8 ATTEST: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 8 of 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SS I, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-_ as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of February 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF THE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2010-02 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2012-02 WHEREAS, Pacific Clay Products, Inc., is the applicant for and has requested approval of the Alberhill Specific Plan No.2012-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2012-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2012-02, (DEIR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2012061046) which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project consists of approximately 1,400 acres to be developed over a period of approximately thirty (30) years with 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of residential unit types and sizes, a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university for 6,000 students with 1,500,000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres of recreational lake facilities, as well as a 45.9 acre sports park; and WHEREAS, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on August 8, 1989 and incorporates the 6 acres area (identified to as the 9.09 acre area in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) and a 16.9 acre area (identified as the 11 acre area in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan) portions of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, which are currently zoned as Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP), will be amended to comply with the zoning for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Parcels originally in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (9.09 acre and 11 acre parcels) are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The existing Pacific Clay mining site zoning will be amended to be consistent with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan which allows ongoing mining operations as an interim use consistent with the General Plan extraction overlay; and WHEREAS, the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted on June 1992 and incorporates a 16.9 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) area, will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Parcels originally in the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (16.9 acre parcel) that are now in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will be removed from the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The existing Pacific Clay mining site zoning will be amended to be consistent with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan which allows ongoing mining operations as an interim use consistent with the General Plan extraction overlay; and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 2 OF 7 et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR on or about June 13, 2012 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082(c)(1), on July 17, 2012, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in order to facilitate consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental information in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing on or about November 5, 2015 a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on November 5, 2015. A total of 34 letters were received, 17 letters in favor of the project, and 17 comment letters. December 31, 2015 was the final date to submit comments. All comments were responded to; and WHEREAS, the State Clearinghouse posted the DEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from November 5, 2015 to December 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the DEIR have been taken; and WHEREAS, the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and the Zone Change was sent to the Planning Commission members on or about November 5, 2015, and was considered by the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 at a duly noticed public hearing and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the DEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 3 OF 7 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02 pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan and proposed General Plan Amendment, and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and finds and determines that the proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02 are consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan and proposed General Plan Amendment and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and finds that the Draft EIR represents the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 3. That in accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law and Chapter 17.204 (SPD Specific Plan District) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for the approval of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02: 1. The location and design of the proposed development shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and with any other applicable plan or policies adopted by the City. The land uses and densities associated with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan provide a variety of lot and home size product types in order to implement the objectives of the City's General Plan and the project proponents. The following are the changes to the existing City of Lake Elsinore General Plan by the Alberhill Villages Land Use Designations: a. The 9.09 parcel and the 16.9 acre parcel that were originally part of the Alberhill Ranch and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan are now included in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is Specific Plan and will be amended to Commercial Mixed -Use and Open Space by this General Plan Amendment. b. The Street A couplet in the current General Plan Land Use Designation is Residential Mixed Use and will be amended in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. c. In the northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation has been amended to Low Density Residential Land Use by this General Plan Amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 4 OF 7 In the northwest portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation has been reduced in size by this General Plan Amendment. e. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Land Use Designation has been amended to Open Space Land Use Designation by this General Plan Amendment. f. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational and General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the High Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Medium Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. In the western portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. i. In the eastern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Residential Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be amended to Commercial Mixed Use by this General Plan Amendment. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and a portion is amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. k. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Institutional Land Use Designation will be amended to Low Density Residential by this General Plan Amendment. I. In the southern portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation will be amended to Recreational by this General Plan Amendment. m. In the southeast portion of the existing Alberhill District General Plan Land Use Designation, the Commercial Mixed Use Land Use Designation will be reduced in size and amended to include General Commercial by this General Plan Amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 5 OF 7 n. The above referenced description of the General Plan Amendment, is hereby referenced in Attachment 10 of the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. 2. The proposed Specific Plan and Zone Change will permit reasonable development of the area consistent with its constraints and will make the area more compatible with adjacent properties. The proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will allow for the development of approximately 1,400 acres with 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of residential unit types and sizes, a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/office development. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university for 6, 000 students with 1,500, 000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres of recreational lake facilities, as well as a 45.9 acre sports park. 3. All vehicular traffic generated by the development, either in phased increments or at full build -out, is to be accommodated safely and without causing undue congestion upon adjoining streets. A Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 14, 2015, was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and its related cases. The Traffic Impact Analysis provided mitigation measures through all phases of development of the specific plan. 4. The overall design of the specific plan will produce an attractive, efficient and stable development. Design standards and guidelines have been incorporated into the specific plan to ensure an attractive, efficient and vibrant project. Visual graphics and photos accompany the design guidelines that capture the atmosphere and cohesiveness that the specific plan seeks to emulate. 5. The proposed Specific Plan and Zone Change will not be a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed Zone Change has been analyzed relative to its potential to have detrimental effects and conditions have been imposed on the subject project to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents will be protected. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 6 OF 7 SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02 and Zone Change No. 2012-02 by ordinance. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February 2016, by the following vote: Shelly Jordan, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - PAGE 7 OF 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SS I, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016- as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of February 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared for: PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. 14741 Lake Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Prepared by: e- TPA THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES 495 E. Rincon Street, Suite 212 Corona, CA 92879 (951)444-5600 In Association with: ENGINEERS CIVIL FNOMFFflfl . Pt4NN[P3. 3VRVFYOfl B KWC ENGINEERS 1880 Compton Avenue, Suite 100 Corona, CA 92881 (951)734-2130 October 2015 Chapter 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY =9 1.1 Project Overview........................................................................................ 6 1.2 Purpose of the Specific Plan.................................................................... 10 1.3 Regulatory Framework............................................................................. 11 1.4 Document Organization- .............. ......................................................... 13 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Location....................................................................................... 14 2.2 Physical Setting....................................................................................... 14 2.3 Historical Background.............................................................................. 15 2.4 Entitlement Background........................................................................... 15 2.5 Governmental Authority...........................................................................17 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN......................................................................................... 3.1 Vision, Goals and Objectives................................................................... 18 3.2 Land Use................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Overlay Zones......................................................................................... 22 3.4 Villages and Planning Areas.................................................................... 22 3.5 Circulation Network, ................................................................................. 25 3.6 Public Services and Utilities..................................................................... 25 3.7 Grading....................................................................................................29 4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS......................................................................... 4.1 Purpose and Intent.................................................................................. 30 4.2 Development Regulations........................................................................ 30 4.3 Land Use Regulations.............................................................................. 32 4.4 Circulation Requirements......................................................................... 37 4.5 Parking Requirements............................................................................. 41 4.6 Recreation/Open Space Development Regulations ................................. 42 4.7 Stormwater Management Techniques..................................................... 45 5. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................... 5.1 Implementation Process.......................................................................... 46 5.2 Design Review Procedure....................................................................... 50 5.3 Transfer of Development between Villages and Planning Areas ............. 51 5.4 Development Approvals Required........................................................... 52 5.5 Development Status Matrix...................................................................... 54 5.6 Specific Plan/PDP Modifications and Amendments ................................. 56 5.7 Phasing.... ................................ ...................... ............... ........................ 56 5.8 Financing and Maintenance..................................................................... 57 6. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ..................................................... 6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 58 6.2 Alberhill District Plan Consistency........................................................... 59 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 2 7. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN COMPLIANCE............................................................. Purpose................................................................................................. 7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 87 7.2 General Plan............................................................................................ 87 7.3 Population & Employment........................................................................ 88 7.4 Transportation & Land Use...................................................................... 89 7.5 Energy & Water Use................................................................................ 93 7.6 Solid Waste.............................................................................................. 96 7.7 Community Education & Outreach........................................................... 97 8. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES......................................................................... 10.9 8.1 Purpose................................................................................................... 98 8.2 Landscape Plan.. ..................................................... ............................... 98 8.3 General Landscape Requirements........................................................ 100 8.4 Entry Monumentation & Signage.......................................................... 103 8.5 Streetscape............................................................................................108 8.6 Landscape Interface Between Uses ...................................................... 111 8.7 Community Walls & Fences................................................................... 119 8.8 Slope Management & Fuel Modification ................................................ 121 8.9 Community Plant Palette....................................................................... 123 8.10 Bikeway System.................................................................................... 123 8.11 Multi -Use Trail System........................................................................... 124 8.12 Parks & Open Space............................................................................. 125 8.13 Themed Site Materials, Finishes, Street Furniture ................................. 137 9. LIGHTING DESIGN GUIDELINES............................................................................... 9.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 128 9.2 Lighting Design Guidelines.................................................................... 128 9.3 Lighting Fixture Examples....................................................................... 19 10. SIGN REGULATIONS 10.1 Purpose................................................................................................. 131 10.2 General Sign Guidelines........................................................................ 131 10.3 Sign Regulations................................................................................... 134 10.4 Special Signs......................................................................................... 134 10.5 Temporary Real Estate Signs................................................................ 134 10.6 Directional and Kiosk Signs.................................................................. 135 10.7 Political Campaign Signs....................................................................... 137 10.8 Construction Signs................................................................................. 138 10.9 Flags, banners, pennants, balloons, window and interior signs ............. 138 10.10 Residential Signs.................................................................................. 138 10.11 Commercial & Professional Office Signs .............................................. 139 11. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................... 142 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 3 List of Figures 1-1 Regional Location................................................................................................... 1-2 Pacific Clay and Alberhill Ranch Areas.................................................................. 1-3 Implementation Process......................................................................................... 2-1 Vicinity Map........................................................................................................... 2-2 Pacific Clay and Alberhill Ranch Areas.................................................................. 3-1 Conceptual Land Use/Circulation Plan................................................................... 3-2 Open Space Vicinity Map....................................................................................... 3-3 Open Space Map. ................. ................................................................................. 3-4 Sample Open Space Corridor Sections.................................................................. 3-5 Overlay Zones........................................................................................................ 3-6 Villages and Planning Areas Map........................................................................... 3-7 Circulation Plan...................................................................................................... 3-8 Slope Analysis........................................................................................................ 4-1 Lake Street Road Sections..................................................................................... 4-2 Temescal Canyon Road Sections.. .................................................. ................ - — 4-3 Nichols Road Sections........................................................................................... 4-4 Street A Sections.................................................................................................... 4-5 Street B Section...................................................................................................... 4-6 Street C Sections.................................................................................................... 4-7 Street D Section..................................................................................................... 4-8 Streets E and F Sections........................................................................................ 4-9 Preliminary Park Plan............................................................................................. 5-1 Example Tier II Land Use Map.. ..................... - ..................... ................................ 5-2 Example Tier II Structure Diagram......................................................................... 5-3 Conceptual Phasing Plan....................................................................................... 8-1 Circulation & Monumentation Master Plan............................................................. 8-2 Planting Master Plan.............................................................................................. 8-3 Typical Wall and Fence Program............................................................................ Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 4 List of Tables Table Page 3-1 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas.............................................................. 24 4-1 Zoning Requirements.........................................................................................31 5-1 Transfer of Development Criteria.., . ........ ............ .. .. ...... ......... ................... 52 5-2 Required Development Approvals......................................................................52 5-3 Implementation Table......................................................................................... 54 5-4 Development Status Matrix................................................................................ 55 5-5 Financing Mechanisms....................................................................................... 57 6-1 General Plan Content......................................................................................... 59 APPENDICES Appendix A: Entitlement History A-1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 A-2 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 A-3 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment A-4 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3 A-5 Alberhill/Lake Elsinore Sports and Entertainment Complex A-6 Pacific Clay Annexation Appendix B: Sample Traffic Calming Devices B-1 Roundabout/Divided Road B-2 Neckdown B-3 Cul-de-sac (1) B-4 Cul-de-sac (2) B-5 Cul-de-sac (3) B-6 Knuckle B-7 Pocket Parks (1) B-8 Pocket Parks (2) Appendix C: Sample Stormwater Management Techniques C-1 Stormwater Conveyance Swale C-2 Techniques for Cleansing Runoff - Large Areas C-3 Techniques for Handling Detention C-4 Parking Lot Bio -infiltration Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 5 Contents 1.1 Project Overview 1.2 Purpose of the Specific Plan 1.3 Regulatory Framework 1.4 Document Organization 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Chapter 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP or Villages) is a blueprint for the development of a sustainable new community, at the northwestern gateway of the City of Lake Elsinore in southwestern Riverside County. The fully developed site of approximately 1,400 acres will provide 8,244 residential units, distributed over a wide variety of unit types and sizes. The plan also includes a University Town Center with 1,532,500 square feet of retail/community space, and medical/ office development. Additional mixed use areas will be placed in two other strategic phased locations offering 974,500 square feet of retail and service uses. Regional and community amenities include a 63.1 acre university for 6,000 students with 1,500,000 square feet of indoor facilities, an 850 student capacity elementary school on a 12 acre site, over 163 acres of natural or enhanced open space with multi -use trails, a 36.8 acre lakeside park with two lakes totaling 39.6 acres recreational lake facilities, as well as a 45.9 acre sports park. When fully developed, over a period of approximately thirty (30) years, Alberhill Villages will be a thriving sustainable community of nearly 27,000 people enjoying the advantages of a highly livable, environmental friendly and socially inclusive community. The Villages' facilities and services will also attract the greater Lake Elsinore community and surrounding county residents. The "sustainable community" of today embodies many of the familiar concepts that are already finding their way into the "best planning practices" of urban redevelopment and new community design. Many of the best practices are embodied in the concept of "new urbanism," "traditional neighborhood design," "smart growth," and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Neighborhood Development." AVSP embraces the new urbanism as embodied in its mixed-use village core, its grid -inspired street design, its compact design, its walkable, pedestrian -friendly development patterns, and its extensive recreational facilities among many other attributes. Sustainable community design builds upon these approaches and adds a new dimension that can be summarized as a deep concern for the environmental and the social consequences of development, at all levels — the individual, the community, the region, and the planet as a whole. As described by the Urban Land Institute, the concept of sustainability speaks to the idea of "balancing economic and social forces against the environmental imperatives of resource conservation and renewal for the world of tomorrow." The principal element in this New Urbanism is job growth and job creation sustained in a localized" village area that provides thousands of new temporary construction and permanent jobs meeting the resident needs of this city sized community. The public revenue projections from the 4,007,000 new square feet of commercial retail, service and professional office uses will be significant for the long term economic viability of the City of Lake Elsinore over the next 30 years and into the future. The Alberhill Villages is the significant economic "blueprint" for sustainable communities of today and tomorrow. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan AVSP is distinguishable as a sustainable community for 27,000 new residents and 5,000 new permanent employees by the following characteristics: 1. Balanced uses of land affording the opportunity to live, work, shop, attend school, and recreate within the Villages. The distribution of these facilities is dispersed throughout the Villages while being interconnected by a system of walking and bicycling paths. This arrangement helps reduce automobile use and encourages social interaction. 2. Provide the region with higher education in the form of a 6,000 student university that will offer both traditional as well as adult education programs 6 days a week morning till night. Educated related office uses will support this university complex. The university will provide for a performing arts center, chapel, entertainment center, and other attractions for students, Lake Elsinore residents and visitors, thus reducing miles of travel for students and residents seeking higher education and cultural enrichment. 3. At least one elementary will also be located within the community, paired with neighborhood and community parks, and places for religious assembly for joint uses and shared parking reduction. The elementary school site has been designed large enough to provide for a K-6 to K-8 expansion. Two mixed-use town centers that meet the needs of the Alberhill area in the City of Lake Elsinore and the region. The regionally focused University Town Center is coupled with a university and large community park with a significantly sized lake complex. The Alberhill Town Center is located in the southeast portion of the project at the intersection of Nichols Road and Lake Street, across from an existing Alberhill Community Park, planned school, and existing Boys and Girls club. Both Town centers will offer a full range of land uses ranging from residential, retail, civic, office, medical office, and public gathering places. This commercial and office space will greatly benefit the City of Lake Elsinore by creating jobs, increasing sales tax revenue, and contributing to other city revenues such as property taxes as wage earners gain purchasing power to buy real estate within the City. 5. Restoration of hundreds of acres of mined land into new and restored natural areas, public facilities, a university, parks, schools, housing, retail, and business park. Mining is a permitted land use within the Specific Plan. Current mining activities will be phased out in segments as the AVSP urban land uses are developed. The Mining Reclamation Plan will be amended from open space and industrial land uses as the "end use" of mining reclamation to AVSP urban land uses to coincide with the phased development of AVSP over the next 20 to 30 years. S. A compact development pattern adjacent to the existing 1-15 freeway and future transit corridor. The project is located at the northwestern gateway to the City of Lake Elsinore. The community plan is organized into a series of walkable villages that have their own identity or focal point thus helping to reduce the dependency on the auto. 7. A wide choice of housing opportunities that promotes affordable, moderate, student, as well as upper income housing. This residential mix assists in creating a diverse social make up in the community and assists the city in attaining their fair share of the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 8. An employment / business park which help provide a jobs/housing balance - generating significant temporary and permanent jobs. The medical profession is targeted in conjunction with the university's nursing program and potential new hospital and medical office center. 9. This project will support the establishment of the Alberhill area waste water facilities, which will allow additional needed industrial, commercial, and residential development to occur in north-western Lake Elsinore, an area which has previously been hindered by a lack of sewer availability. Although EVMWD, the water district for the region, proposed a wastewater treatment plant for the area, it is analyzing an alternative method for wastewater treatment, which includes a series of lift stations and force mains conveying sewage to the existing regional wastewater treatment plant. 10. A multi-purpose park and open space system that meets the needs of the MSHCP and Quimby Act while providing visual relief, passive and active recreational opportunities, biological habitat, wildlife corridors, and ground water recharge of the area. All park, recreation and open space facilities both public and private shown in this Specific Plan are deemed consistent and in conformity with the Quimby Act and all other City recreation and open space regulations. 11. A modified grid system of road ways that provides for a simple organized element of urban landscape, and hence, provides an easier to negotiate environment for both the motorist and the pedestrian. This system also provides the opportunity to create visual destinations with landmarks, such as public art or open space vistas of mountains and lakes. 12. Domestic water will be provided by EVMWD, which has concluded that they have sufficient water supply for the project. In addition to domestic water, the water district is analyzing the regional opportunity for reclaim water to be used at parks and open space. 13. Landscape, site design, and design guidelines promote water and energy conservation, including affordable and economic passive solar and "green building" design. 14. The project will expand the existing roadway system with the improvements to Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, Lincoln Avenue, and Nichols Road 15. Natural spring water from south of the site will flow into the lakes to provide a natural water source to the Alberhill Village lakes. Low flow storm water will be captured within each development to percolate into the groundwater table to replenish water supplies. High storm water flows will safely be conveyed through the site into Temescal Creek as existing flows currently exist today during a storm event. In the unlikely event natural spring water is not sufficient for the lake use; alternate water supplies will be utilized in consultation with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District The AVSP (Villages) project area is located in northwest Lake Elsinore, just south of Interstate 15 (1-15), in the vicinity of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road (see Figure 1-1, Regional Location). It encompasses the site of the old mining community of Alberhill, which emerged in the early 1900s as a result of incentives offered by mining corporations that encouraged workers Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Figure E-1 Alberhill Villages Vicinity Map Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS P U 3 -WO' 6M0' TPA to build their homes in the area. Although the community was full of promise and was later considered to be one of the area's most important suburban towns, it was abandoned when construction of the 1-15 Freeway began. The goal of the Villages is to build on the history of the area by re-establishing a community based around an on-going mining operation in existence since the 1880s. As mineral resources become fully extracted from phased mining areas, and mining operations cease, the land will be reclaimed in phases for community development, and the former Alberhill mining areas will have then evolved into a dynamic and vibrant community of regional importance serving as one of the major gateways to the City of Lake Elsinore. The "project core" of the Villages, as represented in blue and red colors on the Conceptual Land Use Plan (see Figure 1-2, Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ranch Areas), consists of a regional University Town Center with retail, office, high density housing, a University campus with performing arts facilities, libraries, meeting centers, and housing which merge into the adjacent commercial and office areas, and a community park and lake with a variety of recreational amenities. The Villages contain a series of focal points or event areas such as a public plaza, town green, or amphitheater. These distinct and active public use areas construct the "spine" of the community. Surrounding the "project core" are themed residential Villages, as represented in yellow on Figure 1-2 also contain focal points such as a park or school located within a five minute walk of most housing units. Interspersed throughout the community are a series of parks, plazas, paseos, and walking / biking areas. The following—graphic illustrates the structure of the AVSP planned community in a more abstract form: Pedestrian Spine Focal Point Community Gathering Place Town Green Event Area Alberhill Ridge m vim 000�rz� Residential District District �r w.aw mr aw aoor`% t Amphitheater/Like AutoJI'eilestian/ , Bio.cle Linages Focal Point 'Neighborhood Gathering Place 2_. Residential District =i Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 9 An important feature of the AVSP is the creation of naturalized and restored open space on the edges throughout the planned community and connecting to adjacent areas of the City, which provides important connections to the off-site and adjacent MSHCP areas. Although the naturally occurring wildlife corridors have long ceased to exist on the site due to over 100 years of mining activities, a series of re-created natural wildlife and open space connections are provided throughout the project area to allow for the safe passage of wildlife through or around the Specific Plan area and interfacing with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on the periphery. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN The purpose of the AVSP is to: 1) Incorporate the March 2008 city annexed 1,374 acre Pacific Clay site into a specific plan document to implement the Pre -annexation Development Agreement which allocates 8,244 units to the site. In addition to these residential units, the Pacific Clay site will include approximately 4,0507,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, which are also contemplated in the development agreement and the 2011 General Plan, adopted 13 December 2011; 2) Incorporate the 9.09 acre area owned by Castle & Cooke Commercial, LLC and a 16.7 acre portions of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, which are currently zoned as Commercial -Specific Plan (C -SP), into the land use plan for the AVSP; 3) Incorporate the areas noted above into a single Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Figure 1-2 identifies Alberhill Villages, and the 9.09 and the 16.7 acre areas in relation to the 1-15 Freeway / Lake Street interchange. The maximum entitlements for development as set forth in this Specific Plan are consistent with what has been allocated to the project area based on the 2011 General Plan, Zoning, the respective development agreements with the City of Lake Elsinore, and including the proposed 2011 General Plan update. It is anticipated that these maximum entitlement limits will be reached approximately 20 to 30 years into the future, or possibly beyond, depending on economic cycles. Development of this Specific Plan is expected to continually urbanize, change, and evolve as market demand conditions change. Areas within the Specific Plan may develop initially at a lower suburban intensity observable in today's market, but as additional development pressures arise in the future, re -intensification or private redevelopment may occur at a higher intensity, similar to other urbanizing areas in Southern California (San Diego and Irvine). The AVSP establishes a basic framework or foundation for future phased development with a carefully developed, illustrated, and protected backbone system of circulation rights-of-way, land uses, open space, public facilities, and interface with on-going mining operations. The content of this Specific Plan meets state requirements for a specific plan under Government Code §65450- 65457: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 10 (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures for development including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. The AVSP, as adopted, also includes a planning process that provides local decision makers with discretionary authority to review additional project design and engineering details at predictable stages in the development process once marketing, economic, and architectural design trends become certain. The proposed process should minimize the need to amend the AVSP in the future, thereby reducing costs while maintaining oversight by the Planning Commission within certain entitlement parameters. 1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A three-tier implementation approach provided in this Specific Plan will ensure that certain project design details or standards which cannot be anticipated at this time, are identified once development becomes imminent (refer to Figure 1-3, Implementation Process). This three tier implementation plan allows for the establishment of: Tier 1 An overall land use and backbone circulation plan and development regulations for the entire project area within the Specific Plan. Tier 2 The preparation of Phased Development Plans (PDPs), providing more detailed land use, circulation, development regulations, and design guidelines for a defined geographic area when development in that area becomes imminent. Tier The processing of detailed site plans through the City's Design Review process when site specific development plans are prepared in anticipation of processing building permits. Tier I Specific Plan The Specific Plan sets general guidelines for future development, but requires additional details to be provided in a subsequent Phased Development Plan document. This Alberhill Villages Specific Plan contains: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 11 • General land uses • Backbone circulation patterns • Regional trail connectivity • Open space connections • Anticipated public facilities • Maximum allowable dwelling units and square footage based on development agreements • Districts and planning areas • General development regulations Tier 11 Phased Development Plan (PDP) A Phased Development Plan (PDP) will be submitted for each phase or stage of the Specific Plan once the marketing and economic environment dictate that additional details for development within each phase become more certain. The information to be included in the PDP includes: • Refined land uses by subarea • Design Guidelines • Specified access points • Traffic calming devices • Entry statement locations • Treatments for important edge conditions including school/residential interfaces, park/residential interfaces, and neighborhood center/residential interfaces • The relationship and separation of ongoing mining operations to new development PDPs will be considered for final action at a noticed Planning Commission hearing. Tier 111 Design Review Design review will occur at a later point in the process similar to other developments within the City. At the Design Review stage detailed drawings and information are submitted to City staff for processing to the Planning Commission for approval, provided the subject site or lots are within the area of a previously approved subdivision map. Specific information submitted at this stage includes, at a minimum: 1) Residential Single -Family: a. A Tentative Tract Map, scaled and fully dimensioned, indicating the type and location of all buildings and structures, entrances, parking, landscape areas, signs, walls, preliminary grading information, and the location of existing improvements on adjacent properties, b. Architectural Drawings of the Elevations and Floor Plans c. Technical Studies 2) Commercial, Mixed -Use, Multi -Family, Schools: a. Conditional Use Permit b. A Site Plan, scaled and fully dimensioned, indicating the type and location of all buildings and structures, entrances, parking, landscape areas, signs, walls, preliminary grading information, and the location of existing improvements on adjacent properties, c. Architectural Drawings of the Elevations and Floor Plans Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 12 d. Technical Studies e. Sign and Lighting Design Design Review to be pursuant to Chapter 17.184, Title 17 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Other Discretionary Actions Subdivision maps may be processed at any time in the development process, concurrently with the Specific Plan, concurrently with a PDP for all or a portion of the area subject to the PDP, or subsequent to the approval of a PDP. Design Review of site plans, floor plans, and elevation drawings may also be processed concurrently with subdivision maps and PDPs or subsequent to these discretionary approvals. A PDP for Phase I of the development has been filed concurrently with this Specific Plan as part of the initial entitlement action. 1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This executive summary (Chapter 1) introduces the project, the purpose behind the AVSP, and the approach to accommodate the ever evolving development that is expected to occur within the specific plan area. Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the Specific Plan including the project location and physical setting, the historical background of the area, and the governmental authority by which specific plans may be adopted. Chapter 3 provides the vision, goals, and objectives for the project along with a summary of the development plan including land use, circulation, infrastructure, and grading. Chapter 4 contains general development regulations. Chapter 5 outlines the implementation process. Chapter 6 includes a consistency analysis of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. Chapter 7 assesses compliance of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP). Chapter 8 contains the landscape design guidelines and standards for use in the preparation of the landscape plans throughout Alberhill Villages. Chapter 9 includes all lighting design guidelines for Alberhill Villages. Chapter 10 includes signing regulations to maintain and enhance the physical appearance and economic value of the Alberhill Villages community. Chapter 11 includes Alberhill Villages Specific Plan definitions. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 13 Figure 1-1 Alberhill Villages Regional Map - — - ---- Specific Plan ��� � 01 15,0001 30,000' "�''Ti n PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS .z•w 1 71 Ov 60 91 1 1 91 ,;,tvA,ztnp 79 IN v� 241 � ♦ a�q�e° ,.1, d34 MOJXCT SITE •.� 74 1 74 ..m.�....." •, 113 , 79 73 47 � 1--faSi� nE 74 1� 9 Figure 1-1 Alberhill Villages Regional Map - — - ---- Specific Plan ��� � 01 15,0001 30,000' "�''Ti n PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 7 of Lake Elsinore (2008) ity, of Riverside eland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Alberlijll Villages Specific Plan Pacific Clay SCALE NORTH MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Figure 1-2 Alberhill Ranch Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ranch Areas Specific Plan s -L PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS PPA Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Figure 1-3 Implementation Process li r PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Overall Project Tier One: Specific Plan •Landuse • Backbone Circulation � -Broad Development Regulations I -Maximum Allowable DU's/SF/ADT's _ A N I. C L It 1 � A -- One Phase of Project S P D R Tier Two: -,.� Phased Development Plan I (PDP) "u C -Detailed Land Use/Circulation �� T -Refined Development Regulations Design Guidelines --- r A A L R .l,c 5 —= One Portion of Phase � Tier Three: Design Review •Site Plans -Elevations -FloorPlans Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Figure 1-3 Implementation Process li r PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Contents 2.1 Project Location 2.2 Physical Setting 2.3 Historical Background 2.4 Entitlement Background 2.5 Governmental Authority 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Chapter 2 INTRODUCTION The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) is located in northwest Lake Elsinore and includes approximately 16 acres of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, approved on August 8, 1989, in addition to approximately 1,374 acres which was recently annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore (known as Pacific Clay) (refer to Figure 1-2, Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ranch Areas) and 9 acres of commercial property. The AVSP area is located just south of Interstate 15 and is west of Lake Street (refer to Figure 2-1, Regional Map). The eastern project boundary borders Lake Street, the southeastern project boundary borders the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan residential development, and the 1,000 acre Horsethief single-family planned development is located along the western boundary. (Refer to Figure 2-1, Vicinity Map). 2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING The project area is significantly isolated from existing development with the exception of the 1,000 acre Horsethief Planned Development along the western boundary and a portion of the Murdock Alberhill Ranch development along Lake Street south of Nichols Road. Lake Street is an existing two lane road which connects the mainly residential northwest portion of the city with the 1-15 freeway. The project area has been heavily impacted by the vested mining operations that have occurred onsite for over a hundred years. The site consists of rolling terrain and contains a series of stock piles of mined raw and finished material interspersed with various sizes of depressions, including mining washout areas and various locations of mining manufacturing operations. The project area is divided historically by five ephemeral drainages. Only two of these drainages remain intact today. The western portion of the site has two existing unnamed drainage that trends southwest to northeast and drains to the north generally along or near the boundary with the Horsethief Canyon Planned Development to the west emptying into an area that crosses Hostettler Road, exiting Horsethief Canyon. The central portion of the site picks up storm water from two drainages from Rice Canyon to the south, holds it in a series of washout ponds and detention basins, and then releases the storm water to the north along Lake Street toward Temescal Creek along the south side of the 1-15 freeway. The fifth drainage is Temescal Creek that flows through portions of the project area along the 1-15 freeway. Formerly a natural ephemeral water course, Temescal Creek has been turned, at least temporarily, into a modified ephemeral water course due to intermittent upstream reclaimed water discharges by two upstream water districts. All of these drainages have been mined and disturbed by human activities for over 100 years, and two former stream courses connected with Rice Canyon are partially disconnected from the upstream and downstream areas due to the historical mining operations. These streams now flow into large water detention basins and discharge to Temescal Creek only during storm events after storm water cleaning. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 14 2.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The most unique attribute of the AVSP area is its mining history as part of the Alberhill area. Mining in the Alberhill area, including today's Pacific Clay mine, began roughly around the same time that the region's first railroad, the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad, was completed in the 1880s. The railroad, along with various mining opportunities, greatly increased migration to the Lake Elsinore area. Portions of Lake Street and Coal Road (now named Nichols Road) are generally aligned with a section of the railroad that has since been removed in that area. The mining industry began with John D. Huff's founding of the Southern California Coal and Clay Company in the 1880's. Huff's company became part of a newly established community, Terra Cotta, which was later considered to be one of the area's most important suburban towns. The name of the community was later changed to Alberhill after CH Albers and JH Hill, the two men who originally discovered the coal and clay resources in the area in 1886. The community of Alberhill contained two markets, Gahagan's General Store, a post office, a smoked turkey restaurant, Winks Cafe, a gas station, and a school which accommodated 100 students from first through eighth grade. The Alberhill School, the only remaining building and a locally recognized historic resource, is located along Lake Street and served the area from its inception in 1912 until it was abandoned in 1964. The Alberhill School building is dilapidated and currently unsafe for human use. The mines at Terra Cotta operated until the 1940s when Pacific Clay Products Company acquired them. Pacific Clay subsequently purchased the Alberhill Coal and Clay Mine and became the sole operating clay mine in the region. Because of the richness and abundance of resources within the Alberhill Ranch area, mining operations have continued to exist since the late 19'h century and occupy a significant portion of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area. Development will be phased to allow mining activities to remain in operation until resources are fully extracted. 2.4 ENTITLEMENT BACKGROUND The surrounding Alberhill Ranch area has been included in several entitlement applications: In 1989, it was the subject of an annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore of 2,667 acres including an annexation -wide area Specific Plan 89-2. This annexation, together with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, includes the 9.09 and 16.7 acre commercial designated parcels located near Lake Street and the 1-15 freeway near Pacific Clay properties (previously mentioned in Section 1), and will be included within the AVSP commercial areas. This Alberhill Ranch annexation and Specific Plan zoning did not include the Pacific Clay ownership at that time (see Figure A-1, Appendix A). In 1991, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 (ARSPA#1) separated the Brighton ownership area of approximately 1,000 acres from the rest of the Alberhill Ranch planning area and added a public golf course along Temescal Creek and the 1-15 freeway (see Figure A-2, Appendix A). In 1992, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 was amended and entitled the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan for a 511.4 acre portion of the 2,667 acre specific plan area (see Figure A-3, Appendix A). In 1997, the Horizon Group, Inc. processed an Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3 (ARSPA#3) for the 202 acre area at Nichols Road and the 1-15 freeway for a commercial development as an expansion for the Outlet Center to the south of the 1-15 freeway along Collier Avenue (see Figure A-4, Appendix A), Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 15 • In 2000, following a bankruptcy proceeding, the ARSPA#1 (Brighton) 1,000 acre area was subject to a draft Specific Plan amendment that was never finalized for the now defunct Alberhill/Lake Elsinore Sports and Entertainment Center Specific Plan Race Track project. This Specific Plan Amendment and its full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were circulated for public comment, but never approved by the City (see Figure A-5, Appendix A). In February 1, 2012 the second operating memorandum of understanding became affective. • On February 24, 2004, Castle & Cooke properties throughout Riverside County were removed from the MSHCP pursuant to a lawsuit settlement agreement with Riverside County. The Pacific Clay properties were part of this settlement agreement and this 1,374 acre portion of the project area is not subject to the provisions of the MSHCP, but will include de facto MSHCP corridors and connections throughout the Alberhill Villages area. • In 2006, the Pacific Clay 1,374 acre (now Alberhill Villages) mining site was the subject of an annexation and a pre -annexation Development Agreement with the city. The annexation and pre -annexation Development Agreement became effective in 2008 upon certification of the annexation by LAFCO (see Figure A-6, Appendix A). • In 2007, the 9.09 acre portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan near the intersection of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road was the subject of a MSHCP Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation process (HANS) also called Lake Elsinore Acquisition and Negotiation Process (LEAP). This LEAP process resulted in a decision of the Lake Elsinore City Council to identify a 2.09 acre MSHCP conservation "linkage" area out of the 9.09 acre commercial specific plan area. Therefore, 7 acres were designated for commercial development. This 9.09 acre property was acquired by Castle & Cooke after the MSHCP settlement agreement and as such was subject to the MSHCP program. Since this project area has a final LEAP determination pursuant to MSHCP 6.1.1.C., no further LEAP and CEQA/NEPA processing for biology matters is required pursuant to the MSHCP Section 6.1.1.A., p. 6-3. At least eight (8) separate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents have covered the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan areas including four Specific Plan EIRs, two mitigated negative declarations, one EIR addendum, and an EIR/EIS for the Countywide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Several certified EIR's have covered the AVSP area. The AVSP incorporates the recently annexed 1,374 acre Pacific Clay site, and approximately 17 acres of commercially zoned land within the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and 9 acres of existing commercial into one specific plan document covered by one project EIR. This new Alberhill Villages Specific Plan implements the Pacific Clay pre -annexation development agreement which allocates 8,244 dwelling units to the site'. It also includes a total of 4,007,000 square feet of commercial and office uses for the Pacific Clay, 9.09 and 16.7 acre portions of the site. (refer to Figure 1-2, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan located in the Executive Summary. The governing General Plan Land Use Designation pursuant to the City Ordinance adopted development agreement for the Pacific Clay portion of the Specific Plan is contained in the 1990 — 1992 General Plan and designates the area for "6 dwelling units per acre with commercial uses and other support facilities'. The current 2011 General Plan designates the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project area as Future Specific Plan and an extractive overlay. The Circulation and Land Use Element of this 2011 General Plan has used the AVSP land uses and circulation ' Note: There is a scrivener's error in the pre -annexation development agreement for Pacific Clay. The agreement designates the area for 6 dwelling units per acre over 1,450 acres, which would yield a total dwelling unit count of 8,760. The actual acreage for Pacific Clay is 1,374 acres; therefore, the maximum number of dwelling units allocated to this portion of the project site pursuant to the AVSP is 8,244 units. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 16 intensities now reflected in the various Elements of the 2011 General Plan. The General Plan text under the Alberhill land use District plans notes that this future Specific Plan, area is subject to the 2006 Development Agreement described above. 2.5 GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY The adoption of the AVSP zoning ordinance by the City of Lake Elsinore is authorized by California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, §65450 through §65457. As set forth by the Government Code, Specific Plans must contain the information outlined below in either text and/or exhibits. References to the location of this information within the AVSP are shown in bold. • The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Plan. (Chapter 3 Development Plan, Land Use section) • The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Plan. (Chapter 3 Development Plan, Circulation and Infrastructure sections) • Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (Chapter 4 Development Regulations) • A program of implementation measures including land development regulations, capital improvement programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the above items. (Chapter 5, Implementation) • A statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. (Chapter 6, General Plan Consistency Analysis) Chapter 17.204 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance repeats the same state mandated requirements, but sets forth some additional requirements for specific plans including: • General plan, regional and sub -regional or community plan land use designations (Chapter 2 Introduction, Historical Background section) • Slope analysis (Chapter 3 Development Plan, Grading section) • General objectives/concepts (Chapter 3 Development Plan) • Tabulation of land area to be devoted to various uses including open space (details to be provided in a subsequent Phased Development Plans) • A calculation of the overall density and the average densities per net residential acre of the various residential areas (to be provided in a subsequent Phased Development Plan) • The AVSP will be adopted as a zoning ordinance and, as such, modifications may be made to the additional non -state mandated Specific Plan requirements contained in the City Municipal Code. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 17 Figure 2-1 Alberhill Villages Vicinity Mal) Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0, 3,000' 6,000' TPA ❑ City of Lake Elsinore (2008) ❑ County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 1-189-2" Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 0 Pacific Clay SCALE NORTH MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Figure 2-2 Alberhill Ranch Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ranch Areas — -- Specific Plan - v" PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Contents 3.1 Vision, Goals, and Objectives 3.2 Land Use 3.3 Overlay Zones 3.4 Villages and Planning Areas 3.5 Circulation Network 3.7 Public Services and Utilities 3.8 Grading 3.1 VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Vision Chapter 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The vision for the AVSP is to reclaim a 100 year old mining site and develop a land mark university -oriented mixed-use planned community over the span of several decades, which will define the northwestern entrance into the City of Lake Elsinore. The AVSP combines the existing development agreements, and existing and approved development into a comprehensive and functional community that blends with the City of Lake Elsinore and provides a major entry statement for the north end of town. Land Use Goal 1: To provide a jobs/housing balanced and integrated community offering a diverse range of residential densities and housing types, community mixed-use centers, and a comprehensive open space system focused around a university campus and regionally -oriented mixed-use core. Objective 1-1: Establish a major regionally -oriented mixed-use village core, which can be conveniently accessed from the 1-15 freeway. Objective 1-2: Provide employment opportunities through the establishment of a university campus, a medical complex, and mixed-use centers which have the capability of providing commercial retail and office uses, civic uses, social entertainment, active and passive recreational opportunities, and cultural uses. Objective 1-3: Provide residential housing opportunities for a variety of family types and individuals of varying economic means. Objective 1-4: Strive to locate all neighborhoods conveniently close to an overall open space network and trail system that will provide access to the mixed-use centers, parks, schools, and employment areas within the planned community. Objective 1-5: Allow for the provision of parks, schools, and other public facilities necessary to serve the specific plan area. Objective 1-6: Provide for flexibility, especially in the "intensification zones", for private redevelopment to accommodate the future needs of the community. Circulation Goal 2: To create a multi -modal circulation system that involves close coordination of land use and transportation planning to provide adequate roadway capacity for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 18 the automobile, reduce the length and number of vehicle trips, provide alternate routes to several destinations, and accommodate the needs of community residents and visitors traveling by foot, bicycle, and transit, as well as the automobile. Objective 2-1: Widen and realign Lake Street to provide a major arterial roadway to serve the project area and northwestern portion of the city. Objective 2-2: Re-route Temescal Canyon Road as well as relocating the bridge over Temescal Creek to tie into Lincoln Avenue as a major alternate arterial highway through the northern portion of the city towards the 1-15 freeway. Objective 2-3: Create street networks directly connecting local destinations that are safe and inviting to use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other various modes of transportation such as bus and automobile. Objective 2-4: Utilize a modified grid system that aids in dispersing vehicular traffic throughout the project site to minimize congestion on backbone roads. Objective 2-5: Minimize signalized intersections along Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road, the main north/south routes within the project area, in order to allow for the smooth flow of traffic to the freeway and mixed-use centers. Objective 2-6: Provide pedestrian linkages and hiking trails to open space and recreational areas. Objective 2-7: Adopt a transportation management plan in conjunction with each independent Phased Development Plan to reduce trips and add capacity to the internal and external roadway systems. Infrastructure and Public Facilities Goal 3: To ensure the timely provision of adequate infrastructure and community services that promotes a healthy and safe living environment through a coordinated planning approach. Objective 3-1: Work with EVMWD to initiate the establishment of: (1) Phase I of the Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility, or (2) a lift station and a sewer force main, to provide sewer treatment service and sewer trunk lines to the area. Objective 3-2: Provide sewer, water, and other infrastructure and services in phases in conjunction with development in order to properly accommodate growth. Objective 3-3: Work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and/or other agencies to set funding and development priorities for the use of water and other resources, provide monitoring of infrastructure systems, and evaluate new products and processes for inclusion into community systems. Objective 3-4: Optimize the use of both public and private resources through efficient siting of public facilities near to and easily accessed by the end user. Objective 3-5: Assist in planning for community services that are efficiently staffed, managed, and conveniently located to meet the needs of residents and the greater community. Objective 3-6: Utilize reclaimed water if available from EVMWD or will be feasible for the future for the region. Encourage the use and installation of reclaimed water. Objective 3-7 Encourage the use of swales or other permeable surface water conveyance devices to maximize local infiltration of runoff. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 1g Extractive Activities/Reclamation Goal 4: To reclaim mined lands while ensuring that the health, safety, and welfare of residents is protected. Objective 4-1: Ensure proper reclamation and land use compatibility between mining activities and surrounding uses pursuant to the adopted reclamation plan, the City of Lake Elsinore's M3 mining ordinance, and Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements. Objective 4-2: Provide for phased development within the AVSP area to ensure mining activities will continue until resources are fully extracted. Sustainability Goal 5: To incorporate sustainable design concepts into the community which balance environmental, economic, and social equity concerns. Objective 5-1: Promote the efficient use of natural resources and environmentally sustainable behaviors through the thoughtful siting and design of buildings and associated infrastructure and the use of feasible technological advances that reduce the environmental impact of development. Objective 5-2: Create quality employment opportunities that will provide living wages, encourage commercial uses that will generate sales tax revenue, and reduce resource and infrastructure costs through compact development and sustainable design. Objective 5-3: Promote community interaction by establishing a variety of both private and public gathering places for residents and the community at large and promoting a variety of cultural and recreational sports activities and events. 3.2 LAND USE The land use plan contains a total of six (6) land use categories: Regional Mixed -Use, Institutional/Educational, Residential, Hillside Residential, Community Mixed -Use, and Open Space (refer to Figure 3-1, Conceptual Land Use Plan), described as follows: Regional Mixed Use (University Town Center) The University Town Center, a regional mixed use area, is the largest of the mixed-use and has a regional focus due to its proximity to the 1-15 Freeway and two major roads: Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road. It is intended that this area will accommodate a wide variety of uses including civic/institutional, commercial/retail, professional office/medical, and entertainment. A maximum of 1,940 dwelling units and 1,532,500 square feet of non-residential uses have been allocated to this land use category (refer to Table 3-1, Land Use Summary by Planning Area). Institutional / Educational (University Village) The institutional/educational land use category has been set aside for the development of a university campus or similar educational institutions which are intended to accommodate up to 6,000 students. This university is intended to serve the existing and Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 20 Albe Specific Plan LL (Y LUXEO USE ME P"m5.-o' I-M?11C MA7£717,CYV1y FASV✓% `Hlvwvzl) Figure 3-1 Conceptual Land Tj Plan IPA Go PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS q orthern Connection J J J u a a �q MSHCP Linkage NlMSHCP Linkage 46� J IY��� Y"" J Greenbelt Connection 0 ^1 j j O Temescal Connector m eo JJ Fg� J LEGEND . =Open Space Connection I - - -Offsite Connection tea. Existing Wildlife Movement y Underpasses Town Green (Potential Site) Community Park (Potential Site) 4�c L Lake (Potential Site) jj Offsitc Parks Street Connection Connection Figure 3-3 Alberhill Villages Open Space Map Specific Plan � tx PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0' 1,000' 2,000' TPA V II 'anl h '9 Mae. gopc �"� �• ala y Muandming l.nn Vlma .i i ..�'� y. .� Ged:Uupom t c i �( �� � 111 (TI'S ••ILU' I'U' 31>Irrpr v �' z. Tic<llsi 9 unl l.artn MmiLin V VA Mu, ei��.�t;—y ep' WiIJLh Cnnidnr 9C•'pptC V.a L�blu ptin-AU'ro 8rp' F Rlln. Me.uiJednp. IlaO —�-i�`IVllilile(n��nitin�Vnr aLln (i5'M� n_I — Figure 3-4 Alberhill Villages Sample Open Space Corridor Sections Specific Plan '� TPA PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS Figure 3-2 Alberhill Villages Open Space Vicinity Map Specific Plan rPROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0' 1,500' 3,000' PPA '� proposed communities as well as the larger region, which has a shortage of higher educational facilities. Approximately 1,500,000 square feet of institutional/office uses have been allocated to the university area. Some retail use may also occur along the campus's northern edge in an effort to seamlessly integrate the campus into the community. A maximum of 452 dwelling units have been allocated to this area to help meet the housing needs of the university as well as the surrounding community. Residential (Parkview Village, Lakeside Village, and Ridgeview Village) This residential land use category covers the greatest area within the Specific Plan as well as the flexibility to provide a variety of residential uses with specific densities to be determined in subsequent Phased Development Plans (PDPs). The higher density residential neighborhoods should surround the mixed-use areas to enhance the success and viability of these areas while the lower density residential uses should be located towards the edges of the Specific Plan community with the least intense uses in the southwest hillside area. A variety of housing types for seniors, including congregate care, will also be available for future residents. A maximum of 5,696 dwelling units has been allocated to the residential land use category. There are two worship centers located within these three Villages that are anticipated to offer day care as well as some schooling facilities. Supporting land uses such as schools, parks, neighborhood commercial, and pedestrian paseos can also be accommodated within this land use category and will serve as focal points for the Villages and neighborhoods. Hillside Residential (Highlands Village) This hillside residential land use category is located within the southwestern portion of the site where there is some steeper terrain and will contain a maximum of 8 custom residences at a very low density. The individual home sites will be located in a manner as to minimize pad grading while providing privacy and views. This area will also include a linear greenbelt, detention basin facilities, a water tank facility, and a paseo that links to the community Lakeside Park. A wildlife connection is also included in this Village adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road and leading to the east -west Lakeside Park connection and beyond to the MSHCP. Community Mixed Use (A/berhil/ Town Center Village, Lakeside Mixed Use) Town Center, a community mixed use area, is intended to serve the needs of the surrounding proposed and existing communities without intruding on smaller residential neighborhoods. A maximum of 150 dwelling units and 592,500 square feet of non- residential uses have been allocated to this land use category. Lakeside Mixed Use is also intended to serve the community. This center will have a maximum of 75 units and 382,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Open Space The AVSP includes re-created and restored natural wildlife and open space connections in key locations in the Specific Plan area to provide continuity to the National Forest off- site to the south and the MSHCP core areas off-site to the north (refer to Figure 3-2, Open Space Vicinity Map). The intent of these wildlife connections is not to encourage, but also not to discourage, large wildlife into the community, but to facilitate connections to allow for safe passage of wildlife around the community and towards the existing under passes Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 21 that permit wildlife to safely cross the 1-15 freeway into core MSHCP areas (refer to Figure 3-3, Open Space Map). These open space connections can be designed to separate wildlife from humans through the use of lighting, educational signage, and fencing. Multi- purpose trails are also a component of these connections, generally located along the outer edge in order to maximize the effectiveness in moving wildlife along and through these open space areas (refer to Figure 3-4, Sample Open Space Connection Sections), 3.3 OVERLAY ZONES A mining overlay zone will be maintained over the entire AVSP area in order to accommodate ongoing mining operations. The City of Lake Elsinore's M-3 Mining District Ordinance provides standards for these mining operations to avoid conflicts with adjacent urban development (refer to Figure 3-5, Overlay Zones). This document provides the ability for the AVSP area to evolve by establishing intensification overlay zones for targeted planning areas where higher intensity developments will be permitted to occur in the future as a result of changing market conditions (refer to Figure 3-5, Overlay Zones). The initial stages of development within the intensification overlay areas are expected to proceed at a rate that the current market can support with an ability to privately redevelop or intensify in the future, once market conditions warrant the intensification. For example, an initial PDP for the University Town Center (UTC) may specify a plan for low rise commercial development, but as the community becomes more highly populated, the 1-15 Freeway corridor intensifies, alternate modes of transportation become available, and housing demand increases, a subsequent PDP may be prepared which intensifies the area with the addition of housing units. There is no limit to the number of PDPs that can be processed for the areas within the intensification overlay zones provided that the maximum entitlements allotted under the AVSP are not exceeded. Subsequent PDPs do not necessarily have to follow the same geographic boundaries as the previous PDP(s); they may cover all or a portion of the intensification overlay zone area identified in the previous PDP and they may or may not include areas outside of the intensification overlay zone. Areas outside of the intensification overlay zone are not suitable for re -intensification and shall be governed by only one PDP. 3.4 VILLAGES AND PLANNING AREAS The Specific Plan area has been organized into Villages and Planning Areas (refer to Figure 3-6, Village & Planning Areas Map). Each Village is intended to create and maintain a unique character. There are a total of six Villages and each is bounded by major roadways, topography, and intended service area (i.e. regional or community focused). In addition, each Village will be anchored by a central focal point such as a school, park, commercial core, and plaza so that these uses are within a ten minute walk or five minute bike ride from residential uses. Village 1: University Town Center and University Village This Village includes regional mixed use and the site for the university campus. At ultimate build out it is intended to be the most intense, active, and vibrant area with regionally -focused commercial uses adjacent to 1-15, housing for various types of occupants including students, teachers, alumni, senior citizens, working professionals, and families, a potential office/medical center. and entertainment uses. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 22 ES Elemuntiry Schur ](1°alm�lial Site) I`j':'> Offsite Elnmartaty Rhm ] T lVmer Tnnk (Potominl Sitej j Otfeit,w.ter'lunk Figure 3-5 Alberhill Villages Overlay Zones Specific Plan /\ - — - - - ' I=tf?' PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0' 1,000' 2,000' TPA Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 4 0000' Figure 3-6 Village and Planning Areas Map �� ;- PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS Tr Village 2: Parkview This District is bounded by the wildlife connection adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road/Lincoln Street, steep slopes to the south, and the project boundary to the north and west. The Greenbelt District is named after the Greenbelt open space connection formed by a tributary of a canyon drainage, which will carry a portion of the storm water runoff and serve as wildlife and pedestrian connection. Wildlife move mostly at night and early evening when these pedestrian/movement corridor areas are not used by humans. A park and elementary school will provide a focal point and social gathering place for the neighborhoods within this District and should be centrally located to facilitate safe and easy walking. A place of worship site will round out the variety of land uses in this Village. Village 3: Highlands This hillside area consists of two major components: custom hillside estate homes that will be located in and along the highest portions of the site and the open space connection that runs along Temescal Canyon Road/Lincoln Street. The open space connection will serve a multitude of functions including drainage, sediment collection, wildlife conveyance, and recreational pursuits. In addition, the open space connection will buffer the low density residential development from the more intense development to the east. Village 4: Lakeside The central portion of the Specific Plan area contains the Lakeside Village. A lake and community park is designed for this area to serve as a transition between the intense University Mixed -Use District and the adjacent residential districts to the south, east, and west. A series of interconnected open space areas for pedestrians, bicyclists, and wildlife will be provided. This Village is within easy walking distance of the community Alberhill Town Center along Lake Street and Nichols Road. A lake front mixed use area is also located in this Village. Village 5: Ridgeview The Village will be anchored by residential and is also within easy walking distance of the existing Alberhill Ranch Regional Park and the community Alberhill Town Center along Lake Street and Nichols Road. In addition, the Village includes a 45.9 -acre sports park. Overall, the Village is surrounded on the south and west by open space. Village 6: Alberhill Town Center The site is intended to accommodate a mix of uses such as a major market, office, smaller retail businesses, and residences, located in a manner which creates a pleasant pedestrian environment complete with public spaces. Planning Areas Each Village is divided into smaller Planning Areas or Neighborhoods that can number as little as two or as many as six. Individual Planning Areas or Neighborhoods have boundaries that are defined by major and minor roadways or distinct topographic features. In addition, they are sized so that uses are within a five minute walk or quarter mile radius. Table 3-1, on the following page, identifies the maximum allowable dwelling units, non-residential square footage, and students permitted by Planning Area or Neighborhood. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 23 TABLE 3-1 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas PLANNING AREA LAND USE DWELLING UNITS (MAX) NON- RESIDENTIAL (SQ.FT.) SCHOOL CAPACITY (STUDENTS) University PA 1a Institutional / Office / Residential 450 1,500,000 6,000 University Town Center PA 1b Re .Mixed -Use 346 1,029,500 PA 1c Reg. Mixed -Use 1,594 503,000 PA 1b Pocket Park Parkview PA 2a Residential/Park 1,132 - 600 (Worship/ School) PA 2b Residential 1,026 - PA 2c Residential/Park 287 850 Elementary School Highlands PA 3a Hillside Residential 8 PA 3b Oen Space / Park Lakeside PA 4a Residential/Park 1,684 PA 4b Residential/Park 701 PA 4c Mixed -Use 250 382,000 Rid eview PA5a Residential 287 PA5b Residential 329 Alberhill Town Center PA 6a Comm. Mixed -Use 100 392,500 PA 6b7 omm. Mixed -Use 50 200,000 600 (Worship/ School) TOTAL ' 8,244 4,007,000 8,050 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 24 3.5 CIRCULATION NETWORK Regional access to the specific plan area will occur from 1-15 Freeway which connects to the project site via an interchange at Lake Street. Two parallel routes, Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road, will function as the main north/south roadways through the project site. Temescal Canyon Road will be reconfigured with a relocation of the bridge over Temescal Creek in order to link to Lincoln Avenue rather than Lake Street. In order to minimize congestion near the freeway, the first signalized intersection within the project site has been located on Lake Street approximately 1,000 feet from the 1-15 on and off ramps utilizing trap lanes. This same minimum spacing has been used for four-way intersections along both roads (refer to Figure 3-7, Circulation Plan). The project has been designed to accommodate several multi -modal forms of transportation including transit, walking, and bicycling, that will evolve over a 25 to 30 year period. The framework and right of ways have been planned to accommodate these potential future features. The 1-15 freeway is envisioned to become a future transit corridor. A future transit station or stop may be located in the University Town Center area and a future bus route may serve Nichols Road and Lake Street connecting residential areas with the University and Alberhill Town Center. Walking and bicycling is encouraged through the establishment of multi -use trails that permit both forms of transportation and have a rest stop located approximately every quarter mile. A project core area with a variety of intense uses ranging from regional commercial and office/medical uses, a university of 6,000 students, housing at 35 dwelling units per acre, and a large lakeside park also contribute to pedestrian activity through the incorporation of a pedestrian spine which contains a series of special event gathering places or focal points such as plazas, mini -parks, or a town green. A transportation management plan will be adopted to spread out peak travel times through ridesharing, van -sharing, employee flex -time, and bike -to -work programs. A modified grid system has been utilized within the project area in order to disperse traffic and to maintain road sections as narrow as possible for a safe pedestrian -oriented community. Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road are joined by east/west two-lane collectors at various key locations where community and regional mixed uses will generate the most traffic. The system is augmented by other two-lane streets that further disperse traffic throughout the project site. This arrangement allows local trips to occur by foot, bicycle, or automobile and reduces pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicular traffic on wide four- or six -lane streets. To further contribute to the pedestrian oriented environment, a number of different traffic calming or speed reducing devices or designs may be implemented in PDPs including roundabouts, neck - downs, cul-de-sacs, divided roadbeds, knuckles, pocket parks, and neighborhood focal points (refer to Appendix B, Sample Traffic Calming Devices). Similar devices may be utilized as long as they meet the goals and intent of the circulation system for this Specific Plan. 3.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Water Existing and proposed tanks and other water facilities will serve the project's three different pressure zones. The portion of the project within the 1434 pressure zone will be served by the existing 8.0 MG tank located north of the site along Lake Street. The proposed 1601 zone tanks Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 25 LEGEND Highway Interchai 0 Full Tura Movenx 0 Right Turn Only = = Future Transit Cot iiiiiiii m 6-8 Lane Major U 4 Lane Major Roa ® 2 Lane Collector F T Potential Transit S B Potential Bus StoF ... C,T wry Figure 3-7 Alberhill Villages Circulation Plan Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0' 1,000' 2,000' TPA will be located on the eastern ridge to the east of Lake Street as well as along the western border of the Hillside Residential District. Homes in the Hillside Residential will be served by the existing 1801 zone tanks. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report was prepared in March 2012 by MWH, which determined that the district has sufficient water supply for the Alberhill Village project. Water will be supplied by EVMWD which supplies water from a combination of water wells and imported water. Sewer Wastewater treatment may occur at the proposed Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant, which may be located west of the project and north of the 1-15 Freeway along Temescal Canyon Road. The collection system of appropriately sized pipes will accommodate sewer service for the area with the backbone sewer lines located in Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street. Pipes will be sized to convey ultimate sewer flows at build -out. EVMWD is analyzing an alternative to the Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant which includes a series of lift stations and sewer force mains in order to convey wastewater flows to EVMWD's Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant. Drainage A multi -faceted storm drain system utilizing above and below ground facilities will be used to treat, detain, and convey storm flows where necessary. Low flows are intended to be managed in surface systems such as naturally vegetated bio-swales while major flows are intended to be conveyed in underground facilities. The major offsite flows from Rice Canyon District and Horsethief Canyon District drainage areas will first pass through sediment basins in order to remove debris from the storm water runoff. On a periodic basis the remaining debris will be removed from the sediment basins. The proposed lake system will also be used to retain portions of clarified storm flows. A stream or series of streams will utilize on-site spring water to replenish and cleanse the project's lake(s). A series of channels, large pipes, and box culverts will be used to convey flows ultimately to the Temescal Creek Channel. Solid Waste The City of Lake Elsinore has a franchise agreement with CR&R Disposal, Inc. to provide solid waste services within the City. The solid waste that is collected within the project area can be hauled to the EI Sobrante Sanitary Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill located within Western Riverside County. These facilities are Class III landfills that accept construction/demolition waste and mixed municipal refuse. Electrical and Natural Gas The City of Lake Elsinore receives electrical service from Southern California Edison (SCE). Gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company). There are existing 11 5K power lines in Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road as well as an existing 6" high pressure gas line. Both SCE and the Gas Company must for Franchise Agreements and Public Utilities Commission work with developers and the City as development proposals come forward in order to determine the appropriate location for additional facilities needed to meet future demand. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 26 Police Protection The City of Lake Elsinore, through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, will provide police protection for the AVSP area. The nearest Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue in Lake Elsinore, approximately 5 miles southeast from the AVSP site. Currently, the City of Lake Elsinore's contract provides for 146.3 hours of daily patrol time. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the total number of sworn officers serving the City is 43.6, which equates to a ratio of 1 sworn officers per 1,000 population. This ratio only includes patrol time and is consistent with countywide police staffing levels. If an additional police substation is required to service the AVSP area, it shall be located within the College Core Mixed -Use District. Fire Protection The City of Lake Elsinore, through a contract with the Riverside County Fire Department, will provide fire protection. The nearest Fire Station is Fire Station No. 85 located at McVicker Park at 29405 Grand Avenue, approximately 10 miles southeast of the AVSP site. All of the Riverside County fire stations are part of the Integrated Fire Protection System, under contract with the State, and may have a mix of State, County, contract City, or volunteer staffed equipment. All calls for a fire substation may be required within the AVSP area to provide the necessary coverage. If required, the fire substation may be located within the University Town Center or east of Lake Street in the Alberhill Ridge Specific Plan area subject to review and approval by the appropriate fire agencies. Fire services are dispatched by the same County Fire 9-1-1 Center. In addition to emergency and fire services, the City receives services such as administration, personnel, finance, dispatch, fire prevention, hazardous materials, training, emergency services and arson investigation from the Department. Schools School sites have been provided in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District's criteria for sizing facilities. One elementary school student capacity of 850 has been identified within the AVSP area. Library City residents have access to all libraries and bookmobiles within the Riverside County library system. In addition, all new subdivisions, apartments, condominiums, four-plexes, triplexes, duplexes, mobile homes, and single-family residences are required to pay a library fee, which is used to fund a city operated library facility pursuant to a Resolution passed by the City of Lake Elsinore in 1989 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 27 Parks The City's standard requirement for the provision of public parks in new developments is a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 population. If a new development does not meet the minimum requirement, the City may collect a fee in lieu pursuant to the Quimby Act. The AVSP meets and exceeds the Quimby Act requirement by providing 5 acres per 1,000 project generated persons, with 183 acres of pockets parks, a community park, a sports park, lakeside park, community garden, multi- use trails, paseos, plazas and two town greens. The total combined minimum public and private park acreage per Quimby is 110 acres, and is based on the generation rates from the three residential land uses within AVSP. They are calculated as follows: Total AVSP Single Family Absorption: 3.482 Persons Per Household, 2,675 Single -Family Units ( Persons per Household x Total Dwelling Units ) x 5 = Required Acres 1,000 ( 3.48 x 2.675 ) x 5 = 46.55 = 47 Acres 1,000 Total AVSP Mixed -Use Absorption: 1.85 Persons Per Household, 2,150 Mixed -Use Units ( Persons per Household x Total Dwellinq Units ) x 5 = Required Acres 1,000 ( 1.85 x 2.150) x 5 = 42.75 = 43 Acres 1,000 Total AVSP Multi-FamilV Absorption:2.50 Persons Per Household, 3,420 Multi -Family Units ( Persons per Household x Total Dwelling. Units ) x 5 = Required Acres 1,000 ( 2.50 x 3.420 ) x 5 = 19.89 = 20 Acres 1,000 Total Quimby Acreage Required Based on AVSP Persons by Household Breakdown: • 47 acres (Single -Family) + 43 acres (Mixed -Use) + 20 acres (Multi -Family) = 110 acres The Quimby formula above is based on the persons per household and total dwelling units of each residential land use provided within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The persons per 2 Per statement of Jason Simpson, City of Lake Elsinore Financial Director, on Monday, March 9, 2015 during the Castle and Cooke and the City of Lake Elsinore "All Hands Meeting" persons per household in AVSP must be based on a blended multiplier ofthe generation rates from the three proposed residential land uses within AVSP. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 28 household were derived from DPFG's "Fiscal Impact Analysis for Alberhill Villages" report that was completed in March 2015. The total Quimby acreage required based on this person per household breakdown is 110 acres. It should be noted, that the Lake Elsinore General Plan recognizes the following types of park facilities. Park and recreation facilities needed to serve the AVSP area will be provided by developers within the AVSP. Upon completion of the park facilities, the developer will offer the park land to the City of Lake Elsinore Parks & Recreation District or a private Homeowner's Association, via an offer of dedication, at the direction of the City. Funding of the park facilities may be through the park capital improvement fund fees collected by the City, prior to the issuance of building permits on all new development. The location and definition of these recreation areas shall be reviewed and approved as part of a subsequent Phased Development Plan and Design Review process. The design concept of joint use of facilities through the location of public parks adjacent to school playgrounds is encouraged. 3.7 GRADING A mining reclamation plan is required by RP -112, governed by the City Reclamation and M-3 Ordinance, and will address re -grading of the mined landform upon completion of the mining reclamation. Refer to Figure 3-8 for a general slope analysis of the existing conditions of the site. During development, highly visible slopes along major roadways that are over approximately 30 feet in height, such as those along Lake Street and Lincoln, will be set back from the roadbed and contour graded. The bottom of these slopes will be 3 to 1 or slightly less and will transition into a 2 to 1 slope. This technique will "soften" the most visual portion of the slope while landscaping is being established. The perimeter slopes along the western side of the project will only be visible from afar. These slopes will be located below the adjoining residential neighborhoods and will be somewhat screened by homes and landscaping. The central slope on the southern boundary will be substantial due to the mining operation. It will be visible to those traveling north on Lincoln Road and Lake Street and will serve as a reminder of the mining history of the site. The slope will be 3 to 1 transitioning to a 2 to 1 slope and placed adjacent to the wildlife connection and drainage swale area. The slope on the south side of the lake and park near the middle of the project will also be contour graded when over 15 feet high in order to visually soften the slope for the users of the park. All other slope gradients can be 2 to 1, or steeper, if their stability is certified by a registered geologist. The separate ongoing mining activity within portions of the project area may leave the landform in a condition that may require additional grading of up to 150 feet of cut or fill in order to establish the desired pad elevations. As a result, the project will incorporate appropriate measures to reduce potential impacts from the grading and haul operation. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 29 Lq0--m-77ram Legend tNID651opatNcs with Occansmnnl, , IsrdAmne ovcr 50A. r Vaiying T(!tidln 0.20"ti+-Slopm Wqn g'1', rAf 0-50%, Slopes 2:1. Slopes or Sleeper �J CPI'Wloh ¢oars f Figure 3-8 Alberhill Villages Slope Analysis Specific Plan - - r4, PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0' 1,000' 2,000' TPA - Contents 4.1 Purpose and Intent 4.2 Development Regulations 4.3 Land Use Regulations 4.4 Circulation Requirements 4.5 Parking Requirements 4.6 Recreation / Open Space Requirements 4.7 Stormwater Management Techniques 4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT Chapter Ll DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The Specific Plan zones contained herein provide a menu of regulatory options for implementation of the land uses identified in Chapter 3 Development Plan. The precise location of these zones within the Districts and Planning Areas of the Specific Plan will be determined at the time a Phased Development Plan (PDP) is approved by the City. The development regulations contained in this chapter are intended to accommodate the future dense development which will occur within the intensification overlay zones and accommodate flexible urban design based on future development and market trends. PDPs may include, but are not required, to contain more refined development regulations which better reflect the intensity of the development proposed in a specific zone. The development regulations within PDPs must also remain consistent with the development standards set forth in this specific plan. For example, a PDP can refine the development regulations to reduce the density within a zone, but cannot change the zoning to exceed the density imposed by this specific plan. Such a proposal would require a specific plan amendment. These zoning regulations supersede otherwise applicable City zoning ordinances. Where the Specific Plan or a subsequent PDP is silent on other regulatory areas, the existing City ordinances will apply. Application of these regulations is intended to encourage and create a harmonious relationship among land uses and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Table 4-1, Development Regulations identifies the zones that implement each land use category and the development regulations or standards to which development within each zone must adhere to. The Hillside Residential land use category shall rely on the Hillside Residential (HR) development regulations. The Residential land use category may be subdivided in a PDP into Residential Single -Family (RS), Medium Density Residential (RM), Medium High Density Residential (RMH), or High Density Residential (RH). The Regional (Reg.), Community (Com.), and Institutional (Inst.) land use designations fall under the mixed-use (MXU) development regulations. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 30 TABLE 4-1: Zoning Requirements Zone HR MXU RSF RM RMH a RH Regional UniversityLA10b nity TownlUniversityCenter, Institutional Lakeside Village m m « « « Villa e a ou ¢ a Development Regulations Density 0-0.5 2 6 6-12 6-12 12-18 12-18 18-24 35 Multi Family Lot Size (min SF NA 50,000 50,000 50,000 -NA---- NA NA 2,250 NA 1,350 1,000 Single Family Lot Size min SF) 25,000 NA NA 5,500 5,000 NA 2,400 NA NA Multi Family Lot Coverage max NA 100% 100% 100% NA NA 600/. 70% 70% 80% Single Family Lot Coverage 30% NA NA NA 50% 55% NA 70% NA NA max Building Setbacks: (min) 50 35 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 Thoroughfares (Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street) measured from ROW Existing residential 50 50 NA NA 35 35 50 50 50 50 O en S ace Connections 50 30 NA NA 20 20 20 20 25 25 All other setbacks To be addressed in a subsequent PDP Height 30 100 46 50 30 45 45 4545 55 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size No minimum FAR_ To be addressed in a subsequent PDP Use Regulations __ Refer to Section 4.3 _ Parking I Refer to Section 4.4 I Bonus density tied to performance criteria. 2 Single Family Lot sizes allow for a variety of single-family product types including, but not limited to, patio homes, wide and shallow lots, single family cluster, and zero lot lines. 3 Allows for potential 3 story product. 4 Allows for potential 4 story product to achieve proposed 35 DU / Ac. 5 These setbacks address the adjacency of existing residences in the -loreathief development and the buildings and structures along the project's northwest boundary. 6 Minimum project area for each zone is 5 acres. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 4-31 4.3 LAND USE REGULATIONS Mixed Use (MXU) • Distributed throughout the Villages to provide easy and convenient access • Three primary markets – regional, community, and institutional • Typical mix of land uses could include: retail, office, medical, student housing, age -restricted housing, live/work lofts, high density condominiums, apartments, public plazas, public services, and commercial recreation. Permitted Uses: • Retail uses, excluding adult businesses • Office uses Personal service uses including, but not limited to, hair and nail salons, spas, and massage parlors, dry cleaning, and tailors • Medical and dental offices and clinics • Animal veterinary clinics • Entertainment uses including, but not limited to, bowling alleys, movie theaters, playhouses, and game arcades (excludes adult entertainment businesses) • Restaurants and eating places, including places with outside eating areas • Grocery and specialty food stores • Banks, financial institutions • Lodging facilities including hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts • Civic uses including, but not limited to, government buildings and service facilities, libraries, and cultural exhibits • Health and exercise clubs • Places of Religious Assembly • Live/work units and work/live units • Single-family detached and attached dwelling units • Multi -family residential dwelling units including, but not limited to, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, row houses, and apartment housing • Dwelling units located above ground floor commercial or office uses. • Home occupations; subject to the completion and approval of an application for a home occupation permit issued by the Planning Department and compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.48 • Small family day care homes and residential day care facilities pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. Operation of a large family day care home shall be subject to the review and approval of a residential care permit by the Director of Community Development. • Public utility distribution and transmission facilities including private radio, television, antenna and —cell towers, subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit per Chapter 17.168. • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, plazas, and recreational buildings • Open space/wildlife connections • Trails; Drainage and flood control facilities Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Bars or cocktail lounges not in conjunction with a restaurant • Public and private elementary, and high schools and colleges and universities • Animal Boardina facilities Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 32 • Wireless Cell Towers • Drive-through or drive-in establishments • Gasoline dispensing establishments subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.112 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Motor vehicle, motorcycle, and recreational vehicle sales and services • Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 • Other uses that the Community Development Director determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. Hillside Residential (HR) • 0-0.5 dwelling units per acre • Assigned to hillside areas where large lot, single family detached residences will be located • See Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: • Single-family residential detached dwelling units • Second units pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, and recreational buildings • Open space/wildlife connections • Drainage and flood control facilities, water tanking facility • Trails • Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Section 17.72 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • HOA managed storage facilities Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Horticultural uses, including growing of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and ornamental plants for commercial purposes • Places of Religious Assembly • Cell Towers • Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 • Other uses that the Planning Commission determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. Single -Family Residential (RSF) • 2-6 dwelling units per acre • Assigned to areas where single family detached residences will be located • See Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: • Single-family residential detached dwelling units • Second units pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Neighborhood retail, provided that the site is limited to three acres in size, includes all uses permitted in Chapter 17.120 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, and recreational buildings • Open space/wildlife connections • Drainage and flood control facilities • Trails Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 33 • Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Section 17.76 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Small family day care and residential care facilities pursuant to Chapter 17.16 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Public utility distribution and transmission facilities including private radio, television, and paging antenna and towers • Government buildings and service facilities • Public and private elementary and high schools and colleges and universities • Manufactured houses in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance • Places of Religious Assembly • HOA managed storage facilities Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Large family day care homes in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Horticultural uses, including growing of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and ornamental plants for commercial purposes • Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 • Other uses that the Planning Commission determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. Medium Density Residential (RM) • 6-12 dwelling units per acre • Assigned to areas where both detached and attached residences will be located • Typical products could include: patio homes, single family cluster, duplexes, townhomes, zero lot lines, and wide & shallow. • See Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: • Single-family residential attached and detached dwelling units. • Second units pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Neighborhood retail centers, provided that the site is limited to three acres in size. Typical retail stores could include: —apparel, appliances, bicycles, food, florists, general merchandise, hardware, health clubs, hobby shops, jewelry sales and repair, bookstores, newsstands, music, barber and beauty shops, dry cleaners , pet shops, restaurants (subject to compliance with Chapter 17.148, dance and music schools, sporting goods, toys, auto parts (new or rebuilt only), Other uses that the Community Development Director determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter. • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, and recreational buildings. • Open space/wildlife connections. • Drainage and flood control facilities, water storage, pumping facilities. • Trails. • Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Section 17.80 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Small family day care and residential care facilities pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 34 • Public utility distribution and transmission facilities including private radio, television, and paging antenna and cell towers, subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit per Chapter 17.168. • Government buildings and service facilities • Public and private elementary, and high schools and colleges and universities • Manufactured houses in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.14 of the Zoning Ordinance • Places of Religious Assembly • HOA managed storage facilities. Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. Large family day care homes in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 Other uses that the Planning Commission determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. Medium -High Density Residential (RMH) • 12-18 dwelling units per acre • Assigned to areas where both detached and attached residences will be located • Typical products could include: single family cluster, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. • See Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: • Single-family residential attached and detached dwelling units. Density ranges to be established in the Phase Development Plans (PDP) for each Phase. • Second units pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Multi -family residential dwelling units including, but not limited to, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, row houses, and apartment housing • Neighborhood retail centers, provided that the site is limited to three acres in size—Typical retail stores could include: —apparel, appliances, bicycles, food, florists, general merchandise, hardware, health clubs, hobby shops, jewelry sales and repair, bookstores, newsstands, music, barber and beauty shops, dry cleaners , pet shops (no boarding), restaurants (subject to compliance with Chapter 17.148, dance and music schools, sporting goods, toys, auto parts (new or rebuilt only), Other uses that the Community Development Director determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter. • Places of Religious Assembly • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, and recreational buildings • Open space/wildlife connections • Drainage and flood control facilities, water storage, pumping facilities • Trails • Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Section 17.80 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Small and large family day care and residential care facilities pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Public utility distribution and transmission facilities including private radio, television, antenna and cell towers, subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit per Chapter 17.168 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 35 • Government buildings and service facilities • Public and private elementary, and high schools and colleges and universities • Manufactured houses in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance • HOA managed storage facilities Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 • Other uses that the Planning Commission determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. High Density Residential (RH) • 18-24 dwelling units per acre (up to 35 DU/Ac with performance criteria being met) • Assigned to areas where both detached and attached residences will be located • Typical products could include: townhomes, multi family, condominiums, and apartments. • See Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: • Multi -family residential dwelling units including, but not limited to, condominiums, triplexes, four-plexes, row houses, and apartment housing Neighborhood retail centers, provided that the site is limited to three acres in size—Typical retail stores could include: —apparel, appliances, bicycles, food, florists, general merchandise, hardware, health clubs, hobby shops, jewelry sales and repair, bookstores, newsstands, music, barber and beauty shops, dry cleaners , pet shops (no boarding), restaurants (subject to compliance with Chapter 17.148, dance and music schools, sporting goods, toys, auto parts (new or rebuilt only), Other uses that the Community Development Director determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter. • Parks, playgrounds, community centers, and recreational buildings • Open space/wildlife connections Drainage and flood control facilities, water storage, pumping facilities • Trails • Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Section 17.80 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Small and large family day care and residential care facilities pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance • Public utility distribution and transmission facilities including private radio, television, antenna and cell towers, subject to approval by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit per Chapter 17.168 • Government buildings and service facilities • Public and private elementary, and high schools and colleges and universities • Manufactured houses in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance • HOA managed storage facilities Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.168 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. • Uses which exceed the height limit established in Table 4-1 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 36 Other uses that the Planning Commission determines to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. Non -Permitted Uses • The keeping of farm animals and/or livestock is not permitted in any zone within the AVSP project area, with the exception of schools with animal keeping programs. Any areas not covered in this Specific Plan, a PDP, or Design Review submittal will rely on the zoning requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore in effect at the time a development proposal comes forward. 4.4 CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS One of the most important unifying elements in a new community is the circulation system. The circulation system consists of streets, walkways, paseos and trails, providing not just the means for transportation and personal mobility, but also as the backbone for landscape elements. Street design is important in providing for safe and convenient circulation for autos, pedestrians and bicyclists, and when designed with a curvilinear element, it can be efficient and aesthetically pleasing. To achieve this goal, there must be a set of design standards The overall project circulation design standards are established at this Tier One Level (Specific Plan), and are further defined more specifically at the Tier Two Level (Phased Development Plan). The Tier One Level address the backbone circulation system which includes Lake St., Temescal Canyon Rd. (extension), Lincoln Avenue (extension), Nichols Rd. (extension), and Streets "A" through " F", as well as open space connections, major multi -use trails, transit routes, paseos and bicycle routes (see Figure 3-7, Circulation Plan). The Tier Two Level address the circulation system on a project or Tract level, and includes local streets, walkways, bicycle routes, pathways and minor multi -use trails. The circulation system of the AVSP shall comply, at specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore Public Works general circulation system design standards for the AVSP: Design Standards Parkway Medians: a minimum, with the standards and Department. The following are the Width: Overall width, including curb, to be no less than the min. width specified in the City of Lake Elsinore Standard Specifications. Curbs: Standard City design for arterials (8 in, high), collectors (6 in. high), and locals (6" high). Local streets may also incorporate wedge (beveled) and rolled designs. Planting Area: 4ft. minimum width. Concave surface levels are preferred; however, raised levels are acceptable provided water from irrigation and precipitation are controlled within the median. Landscape Treatments: Native, drought tolerant, and non-invasive plant species is strongly encouraged. Bio -retention design is strongly encouraged. Dry streambeds, weirs, and ponds are encouraged. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 37 Walking Paths / Mixed Use Trails: • Width: Extends from street curb through parkway area to building fagade with planting areas (tree wells) dispersed throughout. • Material: Durable paving which emphasizes pedestrian scaled patterns. Focal points, such as mid -block crossings, plazas, street art locations, and intersections are strongly encouraged to use enriched paving, utilizing pedestrian -scaled patterns. • Features: Dry streambeds, weirs, and ponds are encouraged. • Open -Space Corridor Widths: Non-contiguous Regional Trails: 8 ft. minimum width. Includes Lake St. and Temescal Canyon Rd.; Hiking Paths: 3 ft. minimum width within open space corridors; Surfaces: Permeable encouraged, such as decomposed granite, depending upon road gradient. 6% or less permeable material strongly encouraged. Travel Lanes: Width: 11 ft. minimum, 16 ft. maximum. Material: Recycled content is strongly encouraged. Parking Lanes: Width: 7 ft. minimum, 8 ft. maximum. Materials: Recycled content is strongly encouraged. Emergency / Bike Lanes (Lake St., Nichols Rd., Temescal Canyon Rd.) Width: 5 ft. minimum, 6 ft. maximum. Striping: Required per City standards. Street Planting Areas: • Mixed Use Zones: Planter pockets predominate in urban conditions; Tree well -grates encouraged in high traffic areas; Close tree spacing encouraged; Materials: Plantings, mulching, limited non -pervious materials, recycled content encouraged, Close tree spacing encouraged. • Local Residential Streets: Planting width: 3 ft. minimum when walks are contiguous to streets, 5 ft. minim when parkway is adjacent to curb; Materials: Plantings, mulching, limited non -pervious materials, recycled content encouraged; Close tree spacing encouraged. • Collector Streets: Planting width: 4 ft. minimum when walks are non-contiguous, encourage meandering walks that join curb at bus stops, loading zones, and other key features; Materials: Plantings, mulching, limited non -pervious areas, recycled content encouraged; Close tree spacing encouraged. • Arterial Streets: Planting width: 5 ft. minimum, non -adjacent to curb; Not required when regional trail (8 ft. minimum) occurs on same side of street; Materials: Recycled content encouraged. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 38 figure 4-1.1 Lake Street 8 L :mc kigurc 4-11 Lakc St,w 6 L..c - North ofNchols R.A Pigu.' 4-1 Alberbill Villages _. Lake Street Road Sections Specific Plan __ a m.aeer.ee�.. cons....... xmn Figure 4-1.3 Lake Street 6 Lane South of Nichols Road Rn Alberbill Villages Lake Street Road Sections Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 'rI'A Intersection Treatments: • Round -a -bouts: Planting area: Concave surface levels are preferred, however, raised levels are acceptable provided water from irrigation and precipitation are controlled within the median; Landscape materials: Drought -tolerant, native, non-invasive plants encouraged; Signage is to be appropriately placed. • Traffic Circles: Planting area: Concave surface levels are preferred, however, raised levels are acceptable provided water from irrigation and precipitation are controlled within the median; Landscape materials: Drought -tolerant, native, non-invasive plants encouraged; Signage is to be appropriately placed. • Corner or Curb: Variable radii depending on particular street type. • Crosswalk: Special striping and color contrasts on high traffic volume streets strongly encouraged; Neck -downs at mid -block crossings encouraged in residential districts (required in Mixed Use Districts). • Mini -Parks / Pocket Parks: Encouraged for traffic calming and "wayfinding". • Commercial Districts: Material change and color contrasts strongly encouraged; Curb extensions strongly encouraged. • Bus Stops: Design to meet standards of the Riverside Transit Agency; ADA compliant; Sheltered from sun and rain; Comfortable seating; Bike parking may be available; Lighting for safety; All bus stops should be clearly set behind walk in order to allow for free flow of pedestrian traffic; Signage and schedules clearly posted. • Speed Bumps: Not allowed in public streets. • Pedestrian / Bicycle Priority: Create plazas for autos, bicycles and pedestrians, all 3 sharing space equally, in typically narrow and circuitous routes. • Lighting: Pedestrian scale reinforces overall community identity; Dark Sky policy. Any areas not covered in this Specific Plan or PDP, or subsequent PDP's will rely on the street requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore in effect at the time a development proposal comes forward. The following is a list of backbone roads that form the framework for the entire project. They include a new realigned Lake Street, a new realigned portion of Temescal Canyon Road, Nichols Road, Street A which bisects the campus and the UTC area, Street B which runs south of the campus, Street C which runs north -south in the Lakeside Village, Street D near the Alberhill Town Center, and Street E and F in The Parkview Village area. (Refer to Figure 2-12 Circulation Plan). Lake Street Lake Street, which will serve as the northern gateway to the City of Lake Elsinore, will be realigned and widened. Lake Street is a major thoroughfare off the 1-15 Freeway and will serve as the main entrance into Alberhill Villages. In addition, a new widened bridge will extend over Temescal Creek along Lake Street. Monumentation will be placed at key location(s) to identify one of the City's key entries at Lake Street. A major feature of this "gateway experience" will be a variable width median ranging up to 26 feet wide, and is complimented by a 100 foot by 250 foot open space corridor on the east side of Lake Street that stretches from the freeway to the intersection at Nichols Road that is a part of the Alberhill Ridge project. This is a multi -functional corridor, which provides wildlife linkage, meandering pedestrian and bicycle paths, utility easements, a perennial flowing creek, ponds, and a native re -vegetated landscape. A landscape setback has been set in place on the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 39 western edge of the street to ensure a visually appealing environment and complement the wildlife movement corridor on the east side of Lake Street. With the landscapes corridors and edges on both sides of Lake Street, combined with the landscaped roadway median, this Lake Street entry will form a broad canopy of native landscape that will be one of the central features of the AVSP. Lake Street's cross section will vary from 6 to 8 lanes, the 8 lanes occurring near the Temescal Canyon Road intersection and transitioning to 6 lanes as it approaches Nichols Road. Bike lanes will be provided on both sides of the street (Refer to Figure 4-1). Temescal Canyon Road Temescal Canyon Road will consist of 6 lanes and be realigned along with replacement and relocation of the Temescal Creek Bridge in order to link directly to Lake Street. Temescal Canyon Road will also connect to Lincoln Street, which will consist of 4 lanes as it moves south. Lincoln Street Lincoln Street consists of 4 lanes and will include bike lanes on both sides of the road, as well as an 8 -foot minimum multi-purpose path along its western edge. As with all divided roads, Lincoln Street will incorporate a "depressed" or concave median with "broken" curbs in order to minimize runoff in the pavement area. The corridor will also provide: trail rest stops, off-site siltation collection, drainage, utility easement, enhanced wildlife connection, and a naturalized landscape (Refer to Figure 4-2). Nichols Road Nichols Road will be a 4 lane divided road with wide medians that links Lake Street and Lincoln Street. There are two distinct cross sections for Nichols Road. The section that bisects Alberhill Town Center, which employs unique left turn pockets and a wide median; and the section that extends westerly between Lakeside and Ridgeview Villages. Both sections will have bike lanes and non -adjacent sidewalks along each of their sides in order to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for the residents. This road will serve as one of the three main east -west links between Lake Street and Lincoln Street. Street A and B provide the other two links near the University and UTC Villages. These three roads, when combined with other streets and the pedestrian, bicycle paths, provide the inter -locking modified grid that allows residents and visitors a variety of choices when moving around, though, and among the Alberhill Villages (Refer to Figure 4-3). Street A Street A is one of the main east -west connections located in the northern portion of the project. It plays a major role in providing a seamless connection between the UTC and University Villages. This road will have bike lanes and an "urban edge" consisting of a wide walk with tree wells along the street's sides. This "urban edge" or main street design configuration is important in balancing automobile and pedestrian safety. Its unique configuration is based on small town central squares where residents and visitors socialized on a daily basis. There are three distinct cross sections that when combined form an environment both conducive to moving automobile traffic as well as providing safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings. The three sections consist of a traditional divided 4 lane road, a "main street" section with buildings and parking on both sides, and the "town square" section that provides the social gathering space so important in establishing community pride (Refer to Figure 4-4). Street B Street B, a two lane divided road employing extra wide travel lanes, is another important east - west link in the northern portion of the project. When combined with the other east -west links, it provides alternative traffic routes through the project as well as serving as the main entry to the University. This road will have bike lanes and non -adjacent sidewalk along its northern side and Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 40 Figure Temeseal Canyon Road 41 North of "A" Street- Town Center Co, miycn Road 4 South of "A" Street- Town Center Co Figure 4-2 Alberhill Villages _ _ Temeseal Canyon Road Sections Specific Plan _.. Ll` GI PIIDJ[CT DPCIDXCON[D[TP�I}O n to y n F i T 1p 11 I fs.Y • y Figure 4-3 Alberhill Villages Nichols Road Sections Specific Plan a PROJECT DESMA CONSULTANTS PPA VanaMe 4nJKgte $vy Street A Condition 11 ba 4 rk nB�ewe P *.eb.. T... ....... AVPrOs 11D' ...... ..... •FJpe ____.. aUii6PPk---meeRow q'.V._-b�...-.i JP.,.fiW-11 60-HOW EJ.• StreetFig W'c� A Condition Miz tlU U /W kRo1mIG Jrl C JIIXM1 /Apanm hAbove M d UW LiIeMQAlt l Gmund it T -(�� C Co dolGY /A r4n tsAbP Ang t- QS l Qp r'c b e� t g. T ... "--n7,=, s`0°"E viW A- IT u oa lilt °a+�@ eve P M T�+.q�l 1APP— <0 aAW.weAtgk,l •6V ._.APP tlD ipPA. V aLlo np peh tY PA VenebleI"PAP tXI pir RI4LLene" M pUrbBY� --Ba'flOW DeP,eaaM fitlewalX -. A45mx%D 6JeweIM-/DaPreased Etl9o. P tklnp Caun - ""'68 no. --• Fig,we 44 Street Condition FL gure 44 Alberltffi Villages___ Street A Sections Specific Plan t PROJttE OE01pN 60Xt VLTAHii 1'f'A Figure 4-5 Alberhill Villages Street B Section Specific Plan in a?` PROJECT DE810N CONSULTANTS PPA �- V elaNe [—d ..le6o,Un2k � v V I IC Bnildiny,'- Ib �k� U1&I�;e- 1 Trail Lane MIn O +nJ 1ILuno 4�6 .._ p dc'a�k PA f6 I JY! 1: Figure 4-5 Alberhill Villages Street B Section Specific Plan in a?` PROJECT DE810N CONSULTANTS PPA an "urban edge" consisting of a wide walk with tree wells along its southern side The street's wide median and extended curbs design also facilitates the pedestrian and bicycle movement across its section. This feature is important because the street separates the University Village from the Lakeside Park and the southern Villages. Refer to Figure 4-5. Street C Street C, a two lane road with curb extensions, is the north -south connector for the Lakeside and Ridgeview Villages that will extend from Nichols Road to Street B. It will be composed of two different cross sections that are designed to both calm traffic and alert the driver to his or her surroundings. Street C1 is the northern portion of this road and will incorporate a median to bring attention to the Lakeside Park area. Street C2, the southern portion, will travel through a residential neighborhood that will utilize alley -loaded homes whose entries will face the street. These features will assist in bringing "eyes on the street" and encourage social interaction to this main north -south auto, pedestrian, and bicycle route. Refer to Figure 4-6 Street D Street D forms the north and south western boundaries of the Alberhill Town Center. It is a two lane divided road with parking on both sides. Due to the anticipated traffic the travel and parking lanes are slightly wider than other two lane streets in the community. Where possible on this street, curb extensions will be employed to facilitate the safe street crossings due to the strong draw of the mixed use Town Center. Refer to Figure 4-7. Street E and Street F Streets E and F are very similar to Street D, but service primarily residential traffic. They are each two lane divided roads with parking on both sides. Where possible on this street, curb extensions will be employed to facilitate safe street crossings. Refer to Figure 4-8. 4.5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS The amount, location, and utility of vehicle (motorized and non -motorized) parking areas plays an important role in the success of any mixed use project. The goal is to provide for safe and convenient parking while reducing conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Higher fuel costs and increased environmental awareness are expected to lead to the wider acceptance and use of alternative modes of transportation such as electric/hybrid and natural gas fueled vehicles, van pools, and public transit (i.e. bus and train). The increased use of alternative modes of transportation along with design concepts that include dedicated lanes for multi -passenger vehicles, and land use juxtapositions which locate higher density housing near public places and business, which will decrease the need to drive leading to lower parking ratios, shared parking facilities, and transportation management programs. These on-going and new transportation trends and techniques will be permitted and encouraged within the Specific Plan. Due to the uncertainty of the future timing of newer parking trends, specific parking and loading requirements will be addressed at either the PDP or Design Review stages for the AVSP to take advantage of future transportation technologies and planning expertise that will become available. Parking and loading requirements will include typical passenger and delivery vehicles, as well as off-street bicycle parking. It is within these subsequent documents and plans that the following subjects will be addressed: • Shared parking ratios between complementary land uses • Parking requirements by land use or district • The use of alternative parking surfaces (i.e. pervious paving materials, bio -retention techniques within parking areas.) Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 41 1 , T OvI. LArzrminn SU' :`Gab tFtmeiw�.. t'l Vurlabl I I prSrllrnc4 1 g _ •nJr-dt --Y 711ParF' Tmn9 L. M19 1` i ] IL nc P. 1 �y' y /If --i' i 5'ild..1111 VA Il piuwJ I`.A. _I11L.a . /POIq U�y.� Figure 4-6.1 Street C Northern Condition �-- All, Loaded Pra.L¢I II, l.nnv1,11. du,l I NA_ ID'_—_ __._L D.-...._.-.._...µ0` i V Ilo60 'Idiy S•M1aek� ...1 Il lixv 11 9 dle 1 LnL� �.;Ad.nvk VA I`A Figure 4-6.2 Street C Southern Condition Figure 4-6 Alberhill Villages Street C Sections Specific Plan _ (7e PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 'lPA Figure 4-7 Alberhill Villages Street D Section Specific Plan f PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Figure 4-8 Alberhill VillagesStreets E and F Sections Specific Plan Ge PROJECT DESMA CONSULTANTS TPA • Parking stall sizes and configurations • Landscaping requirements • Aisle widths • Lighting • Loading areas for passengers and freight • Trash enclosure access and locations • Patron, resident, and employee parking • Vehicle space markings and signage • ADA parking Any areas not covered in a PDP or Design Review submittal will rely on the parking requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore in effect at the time a development proposal comes forward. 4.6 RECREATION / OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS The open space system is comprised of various public and private components including community gardens, town greens, neighborhood parks, private pocket parks, community parks, two large recreational lakes, school and university recreation areas, multi -use trails, and rest stops with benches along trails. These open space elements are modeled after Section 4 of City of Lake Elsinore's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and provide the project and surrounding community with a diverse, multi -use open space system that meets the needs of the project's residents and visitors. The project provides a total of 183 acres of parks, which is 73 acres more than is required by the Quimby Act per population. The Quimby Act requires a total of 110 acres of parks based on population, which the project meets and exceeds. Final determination of park dedication will be made at the subdivision map level consistent with this AVSP. AVSP park and open space programs, policies and standards will be found consistent with and in accordance to the Quimby Act. The project's parks will consist of: a 36.8 acre regional park that borders 39.6 acres of two large recreational lakes, an active 19.5 acre community park bordering a 12 acre elementary school with its own recreation play fields and shared school play facilities, a 6 acre community garden, two (2) town greens which are approximately % acres each, and a 9.3 acre neighborhood park across from a community place of worship. The thirty five (35) smaller private pocket parks are approximately one (1) acre each and will be built and maintained by the HOA. Thirty five (35) acres of private pocket parks will be distributed throughout the Villages within easy walking distance of the surrounding residences and each private pocket park will provide specialized private amenities such as private pools, basketball courts, volleyball courts, and tennis courts. The project's parks will consist of: a 36.8 acre lakeside park that borders 39.6 acres of two large recreational lake facilities, an active 14.3 acre community park bordering a 12 acre elementary school with its own recreation play fields and shared school play facilities, a 45.9 acre sports park across from the existing Alberhill Ranch community park, a 6 acre community garden, two (2) town greens, which are approximately 0.7 acres each, and 4 acres of multi -use trails throughout the project. Approximately thirty-five (35) smaller private pocket parks are approximately one (1) acre each and will be built and maintained by the HOA. Thirty five (35) acres of private pocket parks will be distributed throughout the Villages within easy walking distance of the surrounding residences and each private pocket park will provide specialized private amenities such as private pools, basketball courts, volleyball courts, and tennis courts. Each Village illustrated in Figure 2-9, will contain some form of open space such as a private pocket park, town green, plaza, trail, rest area, or a school so that all homes will be within Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 42 approximately one-quarter mile or a five (5) minute walk to an open space area. Open space areas can vary in size, form, and function, and are clarified below. Each park classification below is modeled after Section 4 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which is used as a guide for development of a city-wide system of parks and recreation areas. Private Pocket Parks — Parks of this nature are typically less than one (1) acre in size according to Section 4 of the Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The project provides approximately thirty-five (35) one acre private pocket parks, which are distributed throughout the five different Planning Areas. These private pocket parks are built and maintained by the HOA and are intended to serve the immediate surrounding residents. Each private pocket park will provide its own specialized programing and include different private amenities such as private pools, basketball courts, tennis courts, and volleyball courts. 2. Sports Park — This 45.9 acre Sports Park is found in Phase 2 of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The sports park includes: four baseball fields in a wagon wheel design, four volleyball courts, four basketball courts, four soccer fields, tot -lots, water park play area, restrooms, and concession stands. The Sports Park is situated along Lake Street and across from the existing Alberhill Ranch Community Park and future school site. The developer will dedicate the land of the sports park and build all private and public parks depending on the developer's schedule as needed by the Quimby Act. The developer will dedicate the 45.9 -acre land of the sports park with the City having responsibility of development implementation. The developer may assist in the sports park development and the land of the sports park will be dedicated at final map approval. 3. Community Park — Section 4 of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan classifies community parks between 11 - 40 acres in size and are designed to serve 15,000 - 20,000 residents within a one and one-half mile (1 '/z mile) service radius, as well as visitors to the area and utilized for active and passive recreation. The project provides a 19.5 acre community park bordering a 12 acre elementary school with its own recreational fields. This 19.5 acre community park will include lighted sports fields and courts for joint -use with the elementary school, picnic facilities, play areas, and restrooms. This community park will focus on sports and other active uses due to its adjacency to an elementary school and its relatively level terrain. 4. Lakeside Park — Section 4 of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan classifies regional parks between 25 -100 acres in size and are designed to offer a broad range of amenities to attract the greatest range of users from within and beyond the City limits. Amenities can include open space, bodies of water, and trails. The 36.8 acre Lakeside Park will be located at the heart of the project and boarder two recreational lakes totaling 39.6 acres of light water activities. The 36.8 acre Lakeside Park alongside the recreational lakes makes it the largest park in the entire project. Along with the university, the Lakeside Park and recreational lake will be the focal point of Alberhill Villages. Two large recreational lakes totaling approximately 39.6 acres will be surrounded by playfields, picnic areas, active areas, as well as passive park uses such as an outdoor amphitheater. The 36.8 acre Lakeside Park will also serve as a wildlife corridor to allow connections of local wildlife. 5. Recreational Lake Facilities — Two large recreational lake facilities totaling approximately 39.6 acres will be the main attraction of the AVSP. The 13.6 -acre west Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 43 lake and the 26.0 -acre east lake at the heart of the project will provide light water activities to both local residents and visitors. Trails and pathways will surround the lake and provide opportunities for biking, jogging, and scenic walks. Town Green — Two (2) town greens approximately % acres in size will be located near single family homes and near the University Town Center. The town green in the University Town Center will serve the university and regional mixed -uses, and act as a social gathering place / outdoor event area for the Lake Elsinore community and region. In addition, the Town Green has the potential to establish a unique character for the regional mixed-use area and act as a gateway to the university. 7. Plazas / Hardscapes — The project will contain a series of primarily hardscaped open spaces such as private and public plazas, or other unique gathering places. These hardscaped areas may contain water features, decorative paving, ornamental landscaping and shade trees, seating, and other amenities, which contribute to a pleasant urban gathering place. 8. Community Garden — The project will provide a 6 acre community garden in the detention basins located along Lincoln Street. This community garden will be built the developer and operated and maintained by the HOA in order to create a sense of community and togetherness amongst residents and visitors. Each plot in the community garden will be rented by residents of the community and will provide beautification and preservation to the natural environment. 9. Trails — The project will provide approximately 8,000 lineal feet (approximately 4 acres) of open space connections for the entire community. The public trails preserve and restore open space, as well as provide opportunities for physical activity to improve fitness and mental health. Residents and visitors will be able to connect to the multiple recreational facilities and parks through these public trails. These trails also function as wildlife corridors, which connect to the Cleveland National Forest to the north and connect to through the Ridge Project to the south under 1-15 Freeway into the MSHCP CORE areas. Trails & Greenbelts Mini Parks Trash Receptacles Amphitheater Wildlife Corridors Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 44 ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN: PRELIMINARY PARK PLAN '•!;CPvi r r tri x � f k '�]Ac ♦ � 177 �- "RE�5 i s tdSN �� ♦`♦ ♦ MXU ♦ Y� . .: .'.. I22 9F45 So� \8/ '__"mil ��°'�` ,,. ♦0�\ ��b Uh o4i EP> I ♦�� A MF 95 ♦�V uvu- / ELM \. UM✓F/ASpY vsi S H A/F.45 1�. i (♦ ���H"" ♦ 4 CQUMUb6s4,� Cas 0 m SF JS ia8 b m f LAXE i Mm yg bm LAkE Ie lu 3F-6 \ 5r. fb1C AX° FAW o a 0 fiR-5 w �4^ .SF XJ htl&CE m ® l / ♦a x,... em♦m♦ m � �mS 5 S/'l f MF 16 i �� MAU ...... el I • PW 0 cz>ic ♦♦ r �. ®A q,.,rras` �ba Wim® LANG USE LEGEND: \ a' C.♦®fXp♦7meo HR /NLLSME MS/DEA'ILIL � 1m sc ♦ /( S/NGLE F"ILY RESYDENIUL \ A36+1ar a➢" b \, SF> MF Ls Ib mm W ® NULA-FAAI/LY RESL� MXU mum USE SCH St'NODL am P m WRS IMRSH/P m� ��ro N m SPORTS � m EVB WATER FACW4U' S PARK g' �f A Y5.9AC L OS OPEN SPACE-RESTORED �� c am •_�•� y -t n b PUBLIC PARK LEGEND: RECREATIONAL LAKE FACILITIES........ 39.6 AC[(p� LAKESIDE PARK ....................... 36.8 AC PARK LEGEND: 0 SPORTS PARK ..... ........ .......... 45.9 AC 5MO ANIMAL CROSSING COMMUNITY GARDEN.................... 6.0 AC +T$ ALBERHILL RANCH COMMUNITY PARK...... 10 AC }Y TOWN GREEN (0.7 ACRES EACH)......... 1.4 AC (EXISTING)g COMMUNITY PARK ...................... 14.3 AC POCKET PARK (ABOUT 1 ACRE EACH)..... 35.0 AC � s ♦ e MULTI-USE TRAILS.................... 4.0 AC TOTAL PUBLIC PARK ACRES PROVIDED: 183 AC FIGURE 4-9 TOTAL PUBLIC PARK ACRES REQUIRED: 110 AC (BY QUIMBY ACT POPULATION CALL) 4.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES A variety of storm water management techniques are permitted including the use of swales, wetland enhancement areas, bio -retention basins, storm water detention areas that serve a dual purpose as recreational facilities, and parking lot bio -infiltration (refer to Appendix C, Sample Storm water Management Techniques). Additional techniques may be implemented in a PDP provided that they meet the goals and intent of this specific plan. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 45 Contents 5.1 Implementation Process 5.2 Design Review Procedure 5.3 Transfer of Development between Villages and Planning Areas 5.4 Transferring Development Outside of the Specific Plan Area 5.5 Development Approvals Required 5.6 Development Status Matrix 5.7 Specific Plan/PDP Modifications and Amendments 5.8 Phasing 5.9 Financing and Maintenance 5.1 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Chapter 5 IMPLEMENTATION To administer the Specific Plan and control the build out of units and commercial/office square footage allocated to Pacific Clay through the development agreements and previous Specific Plan entitlements, a three-tier zoning implementation process will be followed for all development areas and projects within the AVSP area. The three-tier process consists of 1) adoption of the Specific Plan ordinance, 2) adoption of Phased Development Plans (PDPs), and 3) the more precise Design Review approval process that corresponds with actual development plans. The three-tier implementation approach will reduce the need to amend the new specific plan in the future by postponing certain details which cannot be anticipated until economic, market, and trend development concepts become certain. Specific Plan (Tier)) This Specific Plan is developed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan District (SPD) Zone, Chapter 17.204, of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. The adoption of the Specific Plan is the first step of a three-tier implementation process for development pursuant to the AVSP. The information in this Specific Plan meets state mandated requirements and provides enough flexibility to accommodate future changes in urban design and architectural preferences. Phased Development Plans (Tier ll) Phased Development Plans (PDPs) must be processed in accordance with the provisions of this section of the AVSP concurrent with or prior to the processing of subdivision maps and/or Design Review site plans. The purpose of PDPs is to delineate the specific goals, objectives, refined development regulations, and design guidelines of each phase of the Specific Plan while maintaining flexibility as the area builds out incrementally over time. The PDPs will provide more detailed information regarding the arrangements and types of land uses, the circulation pattern, development regulations, and design guidelines for a geographic area within the Specific Plan when development in the area is imminent based on market demand. The Land Use Plan in each PDP will include more detailed design and regulatory information. For example, the areas identified as 'residential' in the Specific Plan will be delineated in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 46 Intc�elmc 1i s7 s Figure 5-1 Alberhill Villages ExampleTier 11 Land Use Map Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0. 1,000- 2,000' TPA PDP as low, medium, or high density residential areas and the associated average densities for these land uses will be identified. Refer to Figure 5-1, Example Tier II Land Use Map for a sample of the level of detail to be provided in a Tier II PDP Land Use Plan. Overall dwelling unit count and commercial/mixed-use square footage is provided for in the Specific Plan and cannot be exceeded. Each PDP will delineate the applicable Villages and Planning Areas it covers into smaller Subareas. Subareas earmarked for current development will be defined by approximate size, number of detached and attached residential units permitted, square footage of retail, office, and educational space permitted, and permitted roadway carrying capacity or Average Daily Trips (ADTs) by residential type. Adjacent Subareas within the same Planning Area not scheduled for current development will continue to be designated as mining areas. These adjacent Subareas containing ongoing mining activity will be included in a subsequent PDP once urban development for these areas becomes known. Land Use Structure Diagrams must be included within the PDP for each specific Subarea, which will address automobile and pedestrian access points, regional trail linkages, open space linkages, neighborhood form, and transitional edges (refer to Figure 5-2, Example Tier II Structure Diagram). An important edge condition that will be considered includes the existing ongoing mining activity that will continue to occur within and/or adjacent to the specific plan area as development proceeds according to the M3 mining ordinance. The development regulations within the PDP may be more focused based on current conditions and criteria at the time the PDP is submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore for review and approval. For example, a PDP can refine the development regulations to reduce the height limit of structures within a zone, but cannot change the zoning to exceed the height limit imposed by this specific plan without approval of a Specific Plan Amendment. A PDP can also introduce ADT transfers from one planning area to another or from one subarea to another, based on the criteria set forth in Section 5.3. PDP's will include design guidelines for the public edge conditions that occur within the project. These edge conditions include, but are not limited to, major streetscapes, school/residential interfaces, park/residential interfaces, neighborhood center/residential interfaces, and open space/trails. Location of traffic calming devices, entry points, pedestrian access points and architectural focal points will also be addressed in the PDP document. The following is a list of items to be addressed in more detail within a PDP: I. Introduction A. Project location within the Specific Plan. B. Project Description C. Specific Goals and Objectives of the Tier II development II. Development Plan A. Detailed Land Use Plan 1. Specific Design Intent 2. Land Use Plan indicating locations of some or all of the following land uses as applicable: a. Rural residential b. Residential by type and density c. Institutional d. Mixed use e. Open space corridors Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 47 f. Potential schools g. Location of park(s), lake(s), and other recreational amenities h. Public facilities B. Applicable Districts and Planning Areas divided by Subarea 1. Statistical analysis indicating acres, number of units and square footage of retail and office space 2. Any proposed transfers of ADT's or intensity of development between Districts and Planning Areas C. Circulation Network 1. Backbone roads, collectors, access points 2. Regional and off-site trail linkages D. Public Facilities and Services Master Plan (Proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, police, fire, schools, and other essential services and utilities proposed to be located near the plan area and needed to support the land uses described in the PDP) E. Subarea Grading Concept 1. Project perimeter edge conditions 2. Major roads III. Design Guidelines A. Purpose and Intent B. Residential Design Criteria C. Mixed Use Design Criteria D. Institutional Design Criteria E. Open Space Criteria F. Lighting Concepts G. Signage Concepts H. Sustainable Concepts I. Landscape Plan (only if added to PDP) J. Public Art (only if added to PDP — not a City requirement) IV. Refined Development Regulations A. Land uses divided into more specific zones based on density B. Development regulations may specify 1. Setbacks 2. FAR 1 Height 4. Lot coverage 5. Parking requirements 6. Other regulations as necessary to implement the development's purpose and intent. C. Development regulations may be articulated in a form -based manner or other zoning approach which ensures appropriate implementation of the intended development concept. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 48 V. Graphics A. Project Location Map B. Land Use Plan C. Structure Diagram D. Circulation Plan E. Water, Sewer, and Drainage Plans F. Conceptual vignettes, as necessary, to depict site planning and design guidelines PDPs shall be reviewed by staff in the same manner as a Specific Plan and considered for final action at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Several PDPs may be processed concurrently with development occurring in several PDPs at the same time. Design Review (Tier 111) Prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure or sign, Design Review shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 17.82 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance, amended as outlined below. The Design Review process requires review of detailed dimensioned site plans showing the location of all property lines, buildings and structures, entrances, parking, landscape areas, signs, walls, and preliminary grading information. Elevations and floor plans are required for all buildings. In addition to the items required by section 17.82.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following items must be submitted with the site plan application, if applicable: A. Design Elements 1. Building materials and colors 2. Refuse collection areas 3. Site loading and special equipment areas 4. Roof design and rooftop equipment screening elements B. Signage 1. Materials and color schemes 2. Lighting 3. Monument signage 4. Wall -mounted building signs 5. Multi -tenant building signs 6. Projecting signs 7. Informational and directional signs 8. Temporary signs 9. Stand traffic signs C. Conceptual Landscape Plans, including: 1. Entry statements 2. Streetscapes 3. Parks and open spaces Subdivision Map Processing Subdivision maps maybe submitted concurrently with Tier II or Tier III applications. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 49 5.2 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE Minor Design Review The Community Development Director may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the following projects subject to the provisions of LEMC Section 17.184.110(G): • Additions to commercial and industrial structures or permitted accessory structures 500 square feet in area or less; • Development of single-family residential uses; • Duplexes and multi -family developments not involving more than a total of four units; • Second units pursuant to Chapter 17.17 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance; • Residential accessory structures; unenclosed structures such as non-commercial stables, corrals, and appurtenant facilities for the keeping of animals, carports, gazebos, and patio covers (both trellis -type and solid) as well as enclosed structures containing less than 600 square feet of floor area such as sheds, cabanas, children's playhouses, and workshops; • Alterations to existing structures which substantially change the appearance of the structure even though the floor area may not be affected; • Reconstruction of commercial or industrial structures which have been destroyed or substantially damaged provided said structures were legally in existence and said reconstruction returns the structure to its original size and appearance; • Signs pursuant to Chapter 17.94 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance; and • Fences and walls. The applicant submitting the project for "Minor Design Review" may appeal the Director's decision and/or conditions to the Planning Commission; provided that said appeal be submitted to the Director of Community Development within 10 days. The Planning Commission shall hear the appeal within 30 days in the same manner as prescribed for "Major Design Review' pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.82, as amended in this section. The Community Development Director shall be required to make the following findings before approving a "Minor Design Review": 1). The project as approved will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and development standards specified in the AVSP document and the approved PDP. 2). The project complies with the design guidelines outlined in the approved PDP and other applicable provisions of the municipal code. 3). Conditions and safeguards pursuant to the AVSP, including guarantees and evidence of compliance, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project. 4). The project, as proposed, has demonstrated compliance with section 15162 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Major Design Review The Planning Commission shall approve, deny, or conditionally approve all projects which do not qualify for "Minor Design Review" as described above and shall hold at least one hearing on each application for a "Major Design Review". The hearing shall be set and notice given as Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 50 prescribed in Chapter 17.92. At this hearing, the Commission shall review the application and drawings submitted and may receive comments from the public concerning the proposed development and the manner in which it will affect the subject property and surrounding properties. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final ten (10) days from the date of decision unless an appeal is filed with the City Council pursuant to the City procedures outlined in Chapter 17.80 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance, The Planning Commission shall be required to make the following findings before approving a "Major Design Review": 1). The project as approved will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and development standards specified in the AVSP document and the approved PDP. 2). The project complies with the design guidelines outlined in the approved PDP and other applicable provisions of the municipal code. 3). Conditions and safeguards pursuant to the AVSP, including guarantees and evidence of compliance, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project. 4). The project, as proposed, has demonstrated compliance with section 15162 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 5.3 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN VILLAGES AND PLANNING AREAS Transfer of development between Villages and Planning Areas may occur in the following situations: 1). If a development proposal is under the maximum allowable dwelling units or square footage permitted for the area per Table 3-2 of the AVSP, the additional units or square footage can be added in future development proposals within the same District or Planning Area or the excess can be transferred to a different District or Planning Area. 2). Some of the units or square footage allocated to one planning area can be transferred to a different District or Planning Area thereby exceeding the initial maximum development allowed in the original District or Planning Area provided there is no significant un-mitigable traffic impact. See Table 5-1 for transfer parameters. 3). All of the dwelling units and square footage allocated to one Planning Area within the Specific Plan may be reallocated to one or more different Planning Areas for the purpose of developing a park or institutional use in the original Planning Area. Average Daily Trips (ADTs) shall be the basis for transfers of units or commercial/office square footage, thereby assuring that adequate roadway and intersection capacity exists in the area receiving the transfer. The number of trips that will be allowed to transfer is Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 51 Figure 5-3 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Phasing Plan Specific Plan - -- ie rf-", PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0. 1,000 2,000' `UPA influenced by whether the transfer occurs between Districts, Planning Areas, within Planning Areas, or across major roadways (refer to Table 5-1). Non-residential commercial and institutional transfers are restricted to occur between Mixed -Use Districts so that a predominantly residential district is not impacted by a transfer of non-residential traffic. Transfers may be considered during the PDP or Design Review phases. Any transfers beyond these limits would require a traffic analysis that would look at daily traffic flows and peak turn movements to determine the proposed transfer feasibility. TABLE 5-1 Transfer of Development Criteria Transfer Criteria for Planning Areas ADTs Allowed to be Transferred; Between Like Subareas 50% Between Adjacent Planning Areas 25%* Across One Major Thoroughfare 15 % Across Two Major Thoroughfares 10 % / Max. 1000 Transfer Criteria for Mixed -Use Districts and Planning Areas ADTs Allowed to be Transferred' Between Like Planning Areas Between Adjacent Districts No transfers between regional and community MXU are allowed use plan for the area. A maximum of 2000 ADT is allowed across a 2 lane thoroughfare, a maximum of 3500 ADT is allowed across a 4 lane thoroughfare, and a maximum of 5000 ADT is allowed across a 6 lane thoroughfare. 5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS REQUIRED To implement the AVSP, various discretionary and ministerial permits and applications must be submitted and approved, as summarized in Table 5-2. TABLE 5-2 Required Development Approvals PERMIT/APPROVAL -AGENCY `:PURPOSE Specific Plan Amendment Lake Elsinore Modify to incorporate the Pacific Clay Planning Department site into a specific plan to implement the pre -annexation development agreement and revise previous land use plan for the area. Phased Development Plan Lake Elsinore Specifies greater details regarding the Planning Department type of development that will occur within a phase of the specific plan. Subdivision Maps Lake Elsinore Create legal lots. Planning and Engineering Depts. Site Plans Lake Elsinore Review architectural details prior to Planning Dept. I building permit issuance. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 52 PERMIT/APPROVAL AGENCY ;PURPOSE Right -of -Way Permits Lake Elsinore Work in public right-of-way. Engineering Dept. Grading Permits Lake Elsinore Site preparation. Enqineerinq Dept. Final Map Lake Elsinore Final mapping of approved subdivision Engineering Dept. lots. Improvement Plans Lake Elsinore Plans for roads/utilities. Engineering Dept. Building Permits Lake Elsinore Construction of buildings. Building Dept. National Pollutant Discharge Santa Ana Regional Discharge approval. Elimination System (NPDES) Water Quality Permit Control Board SARWQCB General Construction Storm SARWQCB Storm water runoff. Water Permit Waste Discharge SARWQCB Waste discharge. Requirements Permit Water District Approval EVMWD Water service Sewer District Approval EVMWD Sewer service School District Approval LEUSD School service Fire District Approval Riverside County Fire service Fire Caltrans Approval California Modification of on -ramps and off -ramps Department of Transportation CDF&G 2081 or 1600 Permits California Incidental take and streambed Department of Fish alteration and Game PERMIT/APPROVAL AGENCY PURPOSE 401 Water Quality Permit Regional Water Discharges into waters of the US Quality Control Board USACE 404 Permit US Army Corp of Construction activities within the waters Engineers of the US LEAPS Process City of Lake Elsinore For right-of-way within the MSHCP core areas outside of the development agreement for Pacific Clay and the MOU for Alberhill Ridge Some of the discretionary actions listed above can occur simultaneously. Subdivision maps may be processed concurrently with the specific plan amendment. Subdivision maps and design review plans may also be processed concurrently with a PDP for all or a portion of the area subject to the PDP. Alternatively, a PDP may be processed prior to subdivision maps and design review plans. Subdivision maps may also be processed concurrently with or prior to design review plans (refer to Table 5-3). Site plans are required at the Design Review stage. In addition, a development status matrix identifying the number of units, mixed-use square Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 53 footage, and ADTs used to date must be updated at the PDP and Design Review stages (refer to Table 5-4). The following table indicates at what stage each entitlement implementing action can occur: TABLE 5-3 Implementation Table IMPLEMENTING TIER I ' TIER II ` TIER III ENTITLEMENT SPECIFIC PLAN PHASED - DESIGN REVIEW.: ACTION DEVELOPMENT PLAN Subdivision Mas O O O Transfer of N/A O O Development (within or outside of the Specific Plan area Updating N/A R R Development Status Matrix Site Plan N/A O R O = Optional; R = Required Tentative maps and/or parcel maps shall be submitted in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Lake Elsinore. Future tentative, or parcel maps and site plan review packages must be in substantial conformance with the development standards and design guidelines of the AVSP and the associated PDP. Mitigation measures for environmental impacts shall be reviewed during the tentative map/site plan review stage. The tentative map shall be conditioned as necessary to mitigate any remaining impacts at the construction stages. Final subdivision or parcel maps, grading plans, and improvement plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative or parcel map, as well as the approved site plan package. Building permits for dwelling units shall be issued only after a final subdivision map has been recorded and design review approval has been obtained. Permits may be issued for model units prior to the final map recordation subject to the requirements of the City. 5.5 DEVELOPMENT STATUS MATRIX Regardless of whether or not an applicant chooses to transfer development within or outside of the specific plan area, for each PDP and Design Review Site Plan, the following Development Status Matrix shall be updated for each District in order to document the approved ADTs, mixed-use square footage, and number of dwelling units approved to date as well as the ADTs still available for transfer. This matrix will be updated at the PDP and Design Review stages and utilized to track the approved development to ensure that the maximum entitlements allotted per the AVSP are not exceeded. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 54 TABLE 5-4 Development Status Matrix Alberhill Villages °i j a m u a x ° ¢ Units Square Feetotal T A allocated per Specific Plan ADT's Previously Transferred ADT's Transferred per this Phase One PDP Max. Allowable Transfer in (See Specific Plan for Criteria) Total Available ADT's )not cumulative See Specific Plan criteria) Total ADT's Used with this Phase One PDP Remaining ADT's Available a v ❑ a u ¢ u O Universit Villa e PA 1a I University Town Center - PA lb `Parkview Villa e PA 2a PA 26 PA 2c -- Highland Villa PA 3a le PA 36 Lakeside Village PA 4a PA 4b PA 4c T Rideview, Villa e PA Sa PA Alberhill Town Center PA 6a TOTALS Alberhill Villages 5.6 SPECIFIC PLAN/PDP MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS Minor modifications to the approved AVSP and any subsequent PDP may be allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Any minor modifications must be consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved AVSP document. Appeals of the Community Development Director's decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall act on appeal within thirty (30) days. All modifications or amendments to the approved Specific Plan or an approved PDP, other than such minor changes, shall be processed as a Specific Plan amendment and/or a PDP amendment and are subject to all Specific Plan and/or PDP procedures. The following modifications constitute minor changes to the approved Specific Plan or an approved PDP: 1. Roadways: Minor changes in roadway alignments and street sections are allowed, provided such changes are consistent with the streetscape concept for roads, and are subject to approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Specific Plan Phasing Program: The phasing program may be modified, provided the objectives of the program continue to be met, and provided that all infrastructure including, but not limited to, roads, sewer facilities, water supply, and drainage facilities is available to serve the proposed development. Any deviations from the Specific Plan Phasing Plan shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 5.7 PHASING The conceptual phasing plan identified in Figure 5-3 is dependent on the mining operation phasing and the market conditions for materials and manufactured products, as well as the demand for housing and commercial space. This phasing plan is an estimate of the order in which the development will proceed; however, major controlling factors that will affect the actual phasing plan include economic forces, the development of water, sewer, street, flood control, and other public infrastructure improvements; current and future trends in regional and local housing demand and supply; and decisions of local agencies regarding public improvements and future individual development plans. The actual rate and phasing of development will be determined by these factors over the continuous evolution of the project area. See Figure 5-3 for the conceptual phasing plan and the corresponding phases shown in the colors below. 1. Phase 1: Red (University Town Center, University, Lakeside Village, Alberhill Town Center, Single -Family Residential) 2, Phase 2: Yellow (Sports Park and Single -Family Residential) 3. Phase 3: Green (Single -Family Residential) 4. Phase 4: Orange (Elementary School, Community Park, Worship Center) 5. Phase 5: Purple (Hillside Residential) 6. Phase 6: Blue (Single -Family Residential and Commercial Mixed -Use) Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 56 5.8 FINANCING AND MAINTENANCE The recommended financing mechanisms listed in Table 5-5 are provided as guidelines and should not be considered as final recommendations. Actual implementation of a specific financing mechanism will be accomplished pursuant to certain proceedings as established by special financing districts, the City of Lake Elsinore, and relevant state and federal laws. The developer will provide private funding in conjunction with any approved pubic financing to allow for the timely development of public facilities, streets, utilities, and other necessary capital improvements. Maintenance will be provided by a combination of maintenance districts and homeowner associations. The City and the developer will use their best efforts to establish community facilities districts pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities act of 1982, assessment districts, improvement districts, maintenance districts, or other public financing mechanisms, as necessary, for the purpose of financing the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the public facilities. TABLE 5-5 Financing Mechanisms REQUIRED FACILITY RECOMMENDED FINANCING MECHANISM(S) Circulation and street Developer financing, formation of assessment district, improvements and expansion reimbursement agreements, fees in lieu of facilities Drainage and Storm Water Developer financing, formation of assessment district Management and/or reimbursement agreements, and citywide Park, Open Space, and Storm Drain Community Facilities District (CFD), fees in lieu of facilities Water Developer, payment of connection fees to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), CFD, fees in lieu of facilities Sewer Developer, payment of connection fees (EVMWD), CFD, fees in lieu of facilities Schools Payment of fees, school site purchase Parks and trails Parkland dedication in lieu of fees, and citywide Park, Open Space, and Storm Drain Community Facilities District CFD Fire, paramedic, and law Citywide Public Safety Community Facilities District enforcement I (CFD), Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 57 O.S. Connection Trail Views %`„A Ampitheater 'Pedestrian Bridge r� Major Entry Minor Entry Pedestrian Access mm Major Road Minor Road 000' Context Road Single -Family 18.7 AC 10 DWAC -1 m to Park/Lake/Campus Pad Elevated Above Road For Privacy/Noise Attenuation ff�t'f Figure 5-2 Alberhill Villages Example Tier II Structure Diagram Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS NTS TPA Contents 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Alberhill District Plan Consistency 6.3 General Plan Format 6.5 Community Form 6.5 Public Safety and Welfare 6.6 Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter 6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 6.1 INTRODUCTION California State law requires that Specific Plans must demonstrate consistency with goals, objectives, policies and programs of a jurisdiction's General Plan. To ensure that the Alberhill Village Specific Plan (AVSP) is consistent with City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, a thorough review of the General Plan's stated goals, objectives, policies and programs was made (see Table 6-1, General Plan Content). The General Plan provides the guidelines for how the new projects are to be configured and implemented. Additionally, the General Plan contains various area plans, or Districts, which are incorporated into a separate "Districts" chapter of the General Plan, and contain specific required policies to guide the development for specific areas of particular importance. The Districts, by virtue of their adoption, are consistent with the General Plan, and address those issues that are unique to a locality or that require special policies, and which also reinforce City regulatory provisions, preserve special lands or historic structures, require or encourage particular design features, or restrict certain activities. The AVSP is located within the Alberhill District (See Figure 6-1, City of Lake Elsinore Planning Districts). 6.1.1. Methodology The Alberhill District is considered consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan by virtue of its incorporation into said General Plan. If the AVSP goals and policies are consistent with the goals and policies of the Alberhill District, and the Alberhill District is consistent with the General Plan, it can be reasoned that the AVSP is consistent with the General Plan. Section 6.2 below lists the Alberhill District's goals and provides discussion and analysis as to AVSP consistency. Following Section 6.2 are the General Plan Chapters of Community Form (Section 6.3), Public Safety and Welfare (Section 6.4), and Resource Protection and Preservation (Section 6.5), which contain the underlying General Plan goals and policies that established the foundation for the Alberhill District. Following the policies within each of these General Plan Chapters is a reference to the corresponding Section where AVSP conformance to the Alberhill District was discussed. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 58 TABLE 6-1 General Plan Content Resource Biological Resources, Open Space, Water Resources, Protection and Conservation Mineral Resources, Cultural & Paleontological Open Space Resources, Historic Preservation, Aesthetics, Preservation (Chapter Sustainable Environment (greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation). 6.2 ALBERHILL DISTRICT PLAN CONSISTENCY The Alberhill District (District) is located in the northernmost part of the City of Lake Elsinore, a 4,240 acre predominantly vacant area of rolling hillsides and mining operations. The District is planned to develop into master -planned, and sustainable mixed use communities. The District is surrounded primarily by vacant lands, conservation areas and residential communities. The District plan includes a Land Use Map (see Figure 6-2, Land Use Plan) and sets forth the land use policies that will guide the future development. The goals and policies contained within the District plan reflect the general intentions of the City's adopted specific plans. 6.2.1 Overall District Goal and Policies 6.2.1.1 Primary Goal The primary goal of the Alberhill District is to support and maintain a healthy transition from extractive / mining activities to a network of residential communities within a balanced mix of commercial, light industrial, business professional, educational, institutional / public uses, open space and conservation areas that provide a sense of place and high quality of life. Discussion: The Alberhill District area has long been an area dominated by the extraction of materials though concentrated and vested mining operations, and as the mining operations wind down, and the land is reclaimed, opportunities will arise for this "diamond in the rough" area to blossom into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable master plan community. The Alberhill District is of such size and strategic location, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 59 Land Use Diversity of Land Uses, Recreation, Aesthetics, Community Form Circulation Environmental Resources, Historical & Cultural (Chapter 2.0) Housing Resources, Circulation, Growth Management, Housing, Parks & Recreation. Air Quality, Hazards & Hazardous Materials Flooding, Public Safety Public Safety Seismic Activity, Noise, Community Facilities & and Welfare Noise Protection Services (fire, police, schools, libraries, (Chapter 3.0) animal services, water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, refuse, recycling, telecommunications). Resource Biological Resources, Open Space, Water Resources, Protection and Conservation Mineral Resources, Cultural & Paleontological Open Space Resources, Historic Preservation, Aesthetics, Preservation (Chapter Sustainable Environment (greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation). 6.2 ALBERHILL DISTRICT PLAN CONSISTENCY The Alberhill District (District) is located in the northernmost part of the City of Lake Elsinore, a 4,240 acre predominantly vacant area of rolling hillsides and mining operations. The District is planned to develop into master -planned, and sustainable mixed use communities. The District is surrounded primarily by vacant lands, conservation areas and residential communities. The District plan includes a Land Use Map (see Figure 6-2, Land Use Plan) and sets forth the land use policies that will guide the future development. The goals and policies contained within the District plan reflect the general intentions of the City's adopted specific plans. 6.2.1 Overall District Goal and Policies 6.2.1.1 Primary Goal The primary goal of the Alberhill District is to support and maintain a healthy transition from extractive / mining activities to a network of residential communities within a balanced mix of commercial, light industrial, business professional, educational, institutional / public uses, open space and conservation areas that provide a sense of place and high quality of life. Discussion: The Alberhill District area has long been an area dominated by the extraction of materials though concentrated and vested mining operations, and as the mining operations wind down, and the land is reclaimed, opportunities will arise for this "diamond in the rough" area to blossom into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable master plan community. The Alberhill District is of such size and strategic location, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 59 that if well designed development policies and guidelines are established, the area could not only showcase how a progressive and sustainable community environment should look, but it could also become the major City "gateway' that would help transform Lake Elsinore's image into a premier southern California destination. The following are the District's stated overall policies: *AH1.1 "Continue to encourage proper reclamation and enhancement of areas impacted by extractive / mining activities for the public's health, safety, and welfare." AH1.2 "Consider the preservation of vacant lands in areas with high elevations in the north, east, and southwest, in order to provide an adequate amount of conserved lands, open space and wetland areas." AH1.3 "Encourage proper land use compatibility between mining activities and surrounding uses." AH1.4 "Impose conditions, as necessary, on mining operations to minimize or eliminate the potential adverse impact of mining operations on surrounding properties and the environment." AH1.5 "Encourage new non -mining land uses adjacent to existing mining operations based on an evaluation of. noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions and operating hours, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic and air quality." AH1.6 "Periodically revise and update the City's surface mining reclamation ordinance to ensure the most recent SMARA developments are reflected in the City's municipal code." Response: The AVSP details a phased development approach that: • Provides consistency with final reclamation to heavily impacted mining areas following, and in concert with, post -mining interim reclamation measures under Reclamation Plan RP -112; • Provides public access to 30+/- acres of enhanced open spaces with trails, and quality urban development including parks, schools, housing and commercial uses; • Provides appropriate buffers and mitigation measures at mining operation/public interfaces; • Ongoing Pacific Clay and Pacific Aggregate vested mining operations are to comply with all applicable SMARA requirements. AH1.1: Alberhill District policy designation nomenclature Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 60 6.2.2 Urban Design 6.2.2.1 Distinct Design The stated Urban Design goal of the Alberhill District plan is to create a strong urban design that would support the Alberhill District as a distinct community. Discussion: The rolling hills, pronounced ridgelines and varied elevations of the AVSP site afford the opportunity to create a dynamic and distinctive community. Lake Street is the primary artery which will serve the future land uses within the Alberhill District. Lake Street also is bordered by a moderately dense landscape of trees and a natural riparian corridor that could be enhanced to offer opportunity as an entry statement in the Alberhill area, and as an opportunity for incorporation into a public open space access trail system. The following are the District's stated Urban Design policies: AH2.1 "Through the project and CEQA processes, create strong connections to Lake Street between neighborhoods and community supporting uses." AH2.2 "In areas outside approved specific plans, the City should strive to establish design standards that are consistent with the Alberhill District's adopted specific plans in order to ensure a standard design motif for new developments." AH2.3 "Consider the establishment and construction of a series of pedestrian routes as part of the City's trail system from residential areas to Lake Street's commercial and institutional uses and to the open space and MSHCP areas to the north, west, and southeast areas of the Alberhill District. " AH2.4 "Support the placement of community identification signs along the commercial/institutional uses and intersections along Lake Street and the 1-15 Freeway. " AH2.5 "Encourage the use of distinctive trees along Lake Street identified in the City's Street Tree Program." Response: The AVSP complies with the Urban Design goals and policies in that it has a unique design identity as a university -oriented master planned community, and it incorporates a balanced mix of residential and supporting commercial, professional and mixed use opportunities. The AVSP further complies with the Alberhill District Urban Design policies by establishing standards and guidelines for the development of a unique and sustainable mixed-use planned community as follows: Lake Street will connect to the University Town Center and Alberhill Village commercial areas via bicycle/pedestrian routes and Streets A and B; and connect with neighborhoods via Streets A, B, D, Nichols Road, and an enhanced open space corridor through Planning Areas A&B; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 61 • Encourages the incorporation of designs that take advantage of existing topographical features into community land plans; • Incorporates sustainable design standards such as natural water flows and aquifer recharging along a 1 mile +/- long reclaimed wetlands corridor along the east side of Lake Street of and other greenbelt areas, as well as the location of residential areas within short distance to employment centers, commercial centers, and transit hubs; • Encourages residential, commercial and institutional developers to utilize designs and materials that evoke a sense of quality, permanence and local mining history such as the use of clay brick and tilos • Provides for a native plant palette focused on oak trees and other native species along Lake Street. 6.2.3 Historic Preservation 6.2.3.1 Preserve and Enhance The stated Historic Preservation goal of the Alberhill District plan is to preserve and enhance the cultural and historical resources of the Alberhill District. Discussion: The Alberhill area has a 100 year history of mining operations. The mining of coal was followed by the mining of clay and other aggregates. The settlement of Terra Cotta, a post office, and the Alberhill School were once part of a thriving community, but now no longer exist. As no other significant cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources have been known to have occurred, mining, or perhaps the reclamation aspect of mining presents opportunity for historical enhancement and preservation. The following are the District's stated Preserve and Enhance policies: AH3.1 "Support the relocation and restoration of the Alberhill School as a 20,000 square foot community center promoting education awareness of the District's cultural heritage including mining, homesteading, the railroad, and the Terra Cotta town." AH3.2 "Support educational awareness programs that inform residents and visitors of the District's cultural heritage." AH3.3 "Encourage the use of signs within recreational areas along Lake Street depicting the Alberhill District's historical and cultural significance." Response: The AVSP complies with the Alberhill District Historic Preservation goals and policies as follows: The Alberhill Schoolhouse will be reconstructed in a nearby location using new materials that will match the original building as close as possible. The AVSP provides a framework for the reclamation of significant surface mining operation into a well-functioning, multi -used, educationally focused, conservation friendly community; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 62 The development of the AVSP will re-establish natural elements into an area which through mining destroyed these natural elements; The AVSP successfully interfaces new residents and visitors to enjoyable landforms and natural elements that once may have been thought not possible given the condition of the land through enhanced open space corridors and alongside educationally signed wildlife corridors; The AVSP positively solves the environmental conservation vs. development conundrum by providing corridors for animal movement. through the development. 6.2.4 Transportation/ Circulation The vehicular circulation system that supports the Land Use Plan for the Alberhill District is shown on ADP Figure AH -1. The vehicular circulation system is anchored by the 1-15 Freeway which runs east and west and generally forms the northerly boundary of the District. Lake Street runs north south through the Alberhill District and will serve as the major transportation artery to serve the future planned communities within the Alberhill District. 6.2.4.1 Connections The stated Transportation / Circulation goal of the Alberhill District plan is to support a multi -modal transportation system with connections to new development, Interstate 15, recreational and open space areas, and districts to the south that serve the needs of residents through the following land use policies: Discussion: Lake Street currently is a two-lane road that serves as the main transportation artery to the AVSP from the 1-15 Freeway, and basically forms the easterly boundary of the AVSP. No significant roads transverse the site in either a north/south or east/west direction. The AVSP includes transportation guidelines and policies designed to adequately serve the future communities and incorporate desired multi -modal forms of transportation. The following are the District's stated Transportation / Circulation policies: AH4.1 "The interchange at Lake Street and 1-15 shall be improved to meet the future traffic demand and satisfy the minimum level of service required by the City." AH4.2 "Through the project and CEQA processes identify and require improvements to Lake Street and Nichols Road as the most significant roadways within the Alberhill District for transit, landscaping, pedestrian travel, and bikeways." AH4.3 "Through the project and CEQA processes, require the construction or expansion of roadways serving new development located east and west of Lake Street." AH4.4 "Lake Street shall be constructed in accordance with Urban Arterial standards. " Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 63 AH4.5 "Encourage the use of traffic -calming measures within commercial and institutional developments along Lake Street when recommended by traffic studies." Response: The AVSP complies with the Alberhill District Transportation / Circulation goals and policies as follows: • The portion of Lake Street serving the AVSP will be improved as an urban arterial highway (6 to 8 lane themed divided highway) and will serve as the main link to the 1-15 Freeway. Nichols Road will be improved to major highway standards (4 -lane themed divided highway). Lake improvements will provide connection points to future streets that will access property to the east; • Lake Street and Nichols Road improvements will include delineated and signed bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways, and themed landscape improvements (see Figure 6-3, Bikeway Plan); • Street A (4 -lane) and Street B (2 -lane) will serve to connect Lake Street from the west to Temescal Canyon Rd. (4- lane major highway) and internal neighborhoods; • A number of landscaped "roundabouts", landscape medians and islands, curb extensions and other traffic calming improvements are planned for throughout the AVSP. Review and approval will be at the Tier 11 (Phased Development Plan) level. 6.2.5 Parks and Recreation The Alberhill District currently contains only 1 community recreational facility, namely the City recreational facility located on the easterly side of Lake Street in the south-central portion of the District. The facility is a 20 acre park that includes a 15,000 square foot City recreation center, several soccer fields, play areas, basketball courts, tot lot, and a 5,500 square foot Boys & Girls Club. The nearest other park and recreation facilities are located approximately one mile from the Alberhill District. 6.2.5.1 Wide Variety The stated Parks and Recreation goal of the Alberhill District plan is to encourage a wide variety of open space and recreational opportunities that are integrated within adopted master planned communities and future developments. Discussion: As future developments are built within the Alberhill District, adequate numbers and varying intensities of parks and recreational facilities will need to be built to support the needs of the residents and ensure a higher quality of life. The following are the District's stated Parks and Recreation policies AH5.1 "Encourage the creation of an extensive system of open space and preservation lands throughout the Alberhill District to ensure a healthy balance between development and the natural environment." AH5.2 "Support joint -use of recreational facilities with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD)." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 64 AH5.3 "Pedestrian and hiking trails shall be considered between neighborhoods and surrounding open space and MSHCP preservation areas." Response: The AVSP complies with the Alberhill District Park and Recreation goals and policies as follows: • The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan proposes 140 +/- acres of community parks, pocket parks and open space corridor / multi -use trials, a 15 +/- acre lake, and various open space /wildlife corridors. • Lake Street will be bordered by a 1 mille +/- long reconstructed and - natural riparian corridor that will be linked to other open space corridors and multi -use trails (see Figure 6-4, Elsinore Area Trails System); • The AVSP meets it's Quimby Act requirement by providing 5 acres per 1000 project generated persons, with 3.8 acres per thousand persons devoted to traditional public and private parks, and 1.2 acres per 1000 project generated persons; • The AVSP encourages the side-by-side siting of public parks with school playgrounds for greater impact and expanded usage. Developers of the parks will be encouraged to partner with the LEUSD to optimize recreational opportunities; • Pedestrian, hiking and multi -use trails will connect neighborhoods with open space corridors, and provide access to the Cleveland National Forest, Lakeside Village Lake, and the University Town Center. 6.3 GENERAL PLAN FORMAT The City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan was adopted December 2011. The General Plan directs the City's land use and development in strategic locations, as well as sets forth the foundation for the development of its economic base, transportation system framework, and the preservation of valuable natural and cultural resources. Land uses are organized at the General Plan level under three (3) foundational Chapters: Community Form, Public Safety and Welfare, and Resource Protection and Preservation. Within these Chapters are found the seven (7) State mandated General Plan elements (see Table 6-1). The following sections list the Chapters, mandatory elements, and policies of the City's General Plan. 6.4 COMMUNITY FORM The Community Form Chapter sets forth the City's policies for guiding local development and growth that strive to promote development in an orderly manner that is physically attractive in both form and appearance. 6.4.1 Land Use 6.4.1.1 Diverse and Balanced Land Uses Create a diverse and integrated balance of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses, in accordance with the following land use policies: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 65 a. "Promote innovative site design, and encourage the preservation of unique natural features, such as steep slopes, watercourses, canyons, ridgelines, rock formations, and open space with recreational opportunities." b. "Encourage development of unified or clustered community -level and neighborhood -level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses." c. "Encourage the development of sit-down restaurant establishments where appropriate and discourage the proliferation of drive-through fast food establishments." d. "Encourage development of a mix of industrial uses including light industrial, clean manufacturing, technology, research and development, medium industrial, and extractive uses." e. "Encourage the development of large planned industrial and/or professional office parks on large parcels." f "Encourage development of institutions including hospitals and educational campuses and facilities." g. "Encourage the use of paseos, greenbelts, linear parks, and trails within future developments." h. "Encourage a jobs/housing balance of one job for every 1.05 households by the year 2030." i. "Encourage rehabilitation and new construction to replace aging commercial facilities. " AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.1.2 Recreational Destinations Establish and maintain the City as a year round recreation destination, through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage recreational uses including parks, beaches, marinas, and a multipurpose trail within the City's rights-of-way." b. "Consider the feasibility and encourage, if feasible, the development of a new pier near the end of Main Street to connect the lake with the Downtown area." c. "Consider the feasibility of development of geothermal; resources such as a spa or bathhouse establishment in the Downtown area." d. "Consider to evaluate the provisions of public access to the lake and open space areas when making land use decisions." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 66 e. "Encourage a pedestrian circulation route around the lake to improve public access to this amenity. " AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.5, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.1.3 Aesthetics and Environmental Resources Establish a development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the City, through the following land use policies. a. "Consider the establishment of hillside grading standards that address unique natural features and encourage the sensitive treatment of hillsides in the site design and architecture of new construction." b. "Encourage new commercial and/or industrial developments, incorporate buffers which minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility, or activity and vehicular traffic on residential uses and MSHCP conservation areas." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.1.4 Historical and Cultural Resources Develop a viable downtown area that preserves potentially significant historical structures and provides civic and cultural opportunities as well as a destination for shopping, meeting, and gathering for both tourists and residents, through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage the historic registration of potentially significant historic buildings as identified in Section 4.7 of the General Plan." b. "Encourage the preservation, innovative reconstruction, and re -use of historic buildings in and around the Historic District." c. "Consider locating additional civic, public, and cultural facilities, and encourage both residential and commercial mixed uses, in and around the Main Street Overlay area." d. "Encourage the revitalization of the Historic District through the revisions of the Historic Elsinore Architectural Design Guidelines and implementation of the Downtown MasterPlan." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.1.5 Climate Action Plan Promote land use strategies that decrease reliance on automobile use, increase the use of alternative modes of transportation, maximize efficiency of urban services provision and reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, as Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 67 detailed in the Climate Action Plan (see Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Climate Action Plan). 6.4.2 Circulation 6.4.2.1 Efficiency & Safety Optimize the efficiency and safety of the transportation system within the City of Lake Elsinore, through the following land use policies: a. "The interconnection and coordination of traffic signals shall be achieved through two processes, namely the requirements in the conditions of approval on development projects and/or through the implementation of Capital Improvement Programs projects." b. "Enforce and comply with proper intersection "sight distance" requirements as described by the Engineering Division." c. "Maximize the use of shared driveways and on-site circulation to minimize conflicts at access points to the roadway network." d. "Maintain the system of bike lanes and multi -use trails throughout the City. Encourage the implementation of the network of Class 1, // and It/ bike lanes on all development projects through construction of the facility as described in the Bike Lane Master Plan and/or the Trails Master Plan." e. `The City will monitor traffic and congestion on Grand Avenue and Corydon Street through the review of project -specific traffic studies, and apply mitigation measures to ensure that projected traffic does not count daily capacities as new development occurs in the area." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.4, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.3 Growth Management 6.4.3.1 Orderly Growth Maintain orderly, efficient patterns of growth that enhance the quality of life for the residents of Lake Elsinore through the following land use policy: a. "Encourage mixed-use developments to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.1, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.4 Housing The Housing Element is one of the seven General Plan elements mandated by the State of California in Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the Government Code. State Law requires Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 68 that the Element consist of "an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing". The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population. It establishes policies that will guide the City in its decision making, and sets forth an action plan to implement the housing goals. 6.4.4.1 Housing Opportunities Provide decent housing opportunities and a satisfying living environment for the residents of Lake Elsinore, through the following land use policies: a. "Utilize the General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, and other land use controls to provide housing sites that can facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing consistent with the City's identified local needs and it's regional housing needs." b. "Encourage the infilling of vacant residential land and the recycling of underutilized residential land, particularly in downtown." c. "Establish incentives and regulatory concessions to promote the development of housing for very low, low, and moderate income persons, and especially those with special needs in accordance with the City's Density Bonus Ordinance." d. "Promote development within specific plans that provide a variety of housing types and densities based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of infrastructure, the provision of adequate services and recognition of environmental constraints." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP provides a variety of housing opportunities consistent with the City's General Plan policies. 6.4.4.2 Affordability Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock., through the following land use policies: a. "Prevent the encroachment of incompatible commercial and industrial uses into residential neighborhoods." b. "Continue to provide proactive code enforcement activities to maintain and improve housing and neighborhood qualities." c. "Promote the City's repair/rehabilitation programs that provide financial and technical assistance to low and moderate income households for the repair and rehabilitation of housing with substandard or deteriorating conditions." d. "Facilitate the removal of housing units that pose serious health and safety hazards to residents and adjacent structures." e. 'Ameliorate housing conditions that contribute to overcrowding." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 69 AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP provides for proper location of commercial and industrial land uses, and mitigated commerciallresidential interfaces. The City is responsible for items "b" through "e" above. 6.4.4.3 Low Income Assistance To assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of very low, low and moderate income households, including large families, single -parent households, the disabled, senior citizens and shelter for the homeless, through the following land use policies: a. " Pursue programs and funding sources designed to maintain and improve the affordability of existing housing units, and for the construction of new housing to very low, low, and moderate income households." b. "Create collaborative partnerships with non-profit agencies and for-profit developers to maximize resources available for the provision of housing affordable to lower-income households. Support the efforts of non-profit organizations and private developers to obtain State and/or Federal funds for the construction/preservation of affordable housing for lower-income households. " c. "Discourage the conversion of existing apartments to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing." d. "Promote construction of units consistent with the new construction needs identified ion the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)." e. "Locate higher -density residential development in close proximity to public transportation, services and recreation. " f "Encourage the development of rental units with three or more bedrooms to provide affordable housing for large families." g. "Continue to support non-profit and for-profit organizations in their efforts to construct, acquire, and improve housing to accommodate households with lower and moderate incomes." h, "Provide access to emergency shelters with emergency support for City residents, including disadvantaged groups." i. "Promote use of the Density Bonus provisions of the Zoning Code as a way to integrate affordable housing into the community fabric." AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of providing adequate and affordable housing for all segments of the population. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 70 6.4.4.4 Maintain and Rehabilitate To address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of affordable housing, through the following land use policies: a. "Review and adjust, as appropriate, residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, departmental process procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and construction that are determined to be a constraint on development of housing, particularly for lower- and moderate - income households, and for persons with special needs." b. "Streamline the City's development review process to minimize the indirect cost of time spent in this process, and where appropriate, reduce direct cost in fees of developing new affordable housing opportunities. " c. "Monitor all regulations, ordinance, departmental processing procedures and fees related to the rehabilitation and/or construction of dwelling units to assess their impact on housing costs. " d. "When feasible, consider reducing, subsidizing, or deferring development fees to facilitate the provision of affordable housing." AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of providing adequate and affordable housing for all segments of the population. 6.4.4.5 Homeownership Opportunities a. "Pursue a variety of private, local, State and Federal assistance options to support development or purchase of housing within the income limits of lower-income households." AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of providing adequate and affordable housing for all segments of the population. 6.4.4.6 Fair Housing Practice To promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color, through the following land use policies: a. "Promote fairhousing practices throughout the community." b. "Prohibit practices that restrict housing choice by arbitrarily directing prospective buyers and renters to certain neighborhoods or types of housing." C. "Publicize fair housing programs and services offered to the community by the City and other agencies." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of fair housing practices and the provisions of housing for all segments of the population. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 71 6.4.4.7 Energy Conservation To encourage the incorporation of energy conservation features in the design of all new housing development and the installation of conservation devices in existing developments, through the following land use policies: a. `Promote development of public policies and regulations that achieve a high level of energy conservation in new and rehabilitated housing units." b. "Comply with all adopted Federal and State actions to promote energy conservation. " c. 'Promote the Sustainable Environment section in the Resource Protection and Preservation Element of the 2011 General Plan." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP requires that structures to be built comply with all local and state building codes and energy conservation measures. 6.4.5 Parks & Recreation 6.4.5.1 Adequacy of Facilities Maintain an adequate quantity, quality, type, and distribution of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City that serve the current and future needs of residents and visitors, through the following land use policies: a. "Continue to utilize the City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a guide for decision making and implementation of the Parks and Recreation Program." b. "Ensure parkland and recreation facilities support new development through acquisition and/or dedication. Meet the requirement of the Park Capital Improvement Fund, Resolution No. 91-42 and the Quimby Act by acquiring five (5) acres of parkland per 1, 000 population." c. "Explore the use of public-private partnerships, corporate sponsorships, and leasing agreements that provide for additional parks and recreational facilities, and other programs, including cooperation with applicable school districts to allow joint use of facilities." d. "Consider the addition of a centralized forum for community activities such as a convention center, amphitheater, cultural arts center, or waterfront promenade." e. "Continue to develop public beach lands and recreational facilities such as campgrounds, boat launches, and water access to the Diamond Stadium, to complement the state and county recreation system." f. "Encourage the development of private recreational facilities within residential and mixed-use developments." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 72 g. "Ensure that recreation facilities are accessible to the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities as set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act including increased wheelchair access, height variations on drinking fountains, and any other requirements necessary to serve these individuals." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.5, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.4.5.2 Trails Establish a primary trail network for equestrians and hikers through the following land use policy: a. "Encourage public and private systems that interface with other existing and proposed trails (i.e. bikeways) assuring links with the City, County of Riverside, and State recreational facilities." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.5, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.5 PUBLIC SAFETY and WELFARE The Public Safety and Welfare Chapter address public safety and welfare issues, including: Air Quality, Hazards & Hazardous Materials Flooding, Seismic Activity, Noise, Community Facilities & Protection Services within the City and it's surrounding sphere -of -influence, with the stated goals to: 1) Maintain a healthy and safe physical environment, and 2) Ensure community welfare through access to effective and efficient high-quality public services. 6.5.1 Air Quality 6.5.1.1 Fugitive Dust Continue to coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and the City's Building Department to reduce the amount of fugitive dist that is emitted into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites, through the following land use policy: a. "Continue to implement requirements identified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). " AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.1, Chapter 6 of this document, and Chapter 7, Climate Action Plan Consistency. 6.5.1.2 Agency Measures Work with regional and State governments to develop effective mitigation measures to improve air quality through the following land use policies: a. "Support the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in it's development of improved ambient air quality monitoring capabilities and establishment of standards, thresholds, and rules to address, and where necessary, mitigate the air-quality impacts of new development." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 73 b. "Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions." c. "Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.1, Chapter 6 of this document, and Chapter 7, Climate Action Plan Consistency. 6.5.2 Hazardous Materials 6.5.2.1 Reduce Risk Reduce the level of risk associated with the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials to protect the community's safety, health, and natural resources, through the following land use policies: a. "Continue to require hazardous waste generators to implement a waste reduction program per the Riverside Plan with necessary inspections Materials Handlers Program." County Hazardous Waste Management >er the Riverside County Hazardous b. "Require any proposed development within close proximity to an active and/or inactive landfill to complete a technical analysis that focuses on public safety and hazard issues. The analysis shall be prepared by a professional consultant. " c. "Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with County agencies to protect the City against a hazardous materials incident." d. "Continue operating household hazardous waste education and collection programs in collaboration with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health." e. "Evaluate new development on or adjacent to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) line requiring extensive subsurface components or containing sensitive land uses such as schools on a project -by -project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.1, Chapter 6 of this document, and Chapter 7, Climate Action Plan Consistency. 6.5.3 Wildland Hazards 6.5.3.1 Integrated Approach Adhere to an integrated approach to minimizing the threat of wildland fires to protect life and property using pre -fire management, suppression, and post -fire management, through the following land use policies: a. "Require on-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban / wildland interface boundary." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 74 b. "Create fuel modification zones around development within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within 100 feet of buildings and structures. The fuel modification zone size may be altered with the addition of fuel resistant building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire-resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control." c. "Establish fire resistant building techniques for new development such as non-combustible wall surface materials, fire -retardant treated wood, heavy timber construction, glazing, enclosed materials and features, insulation without paper facing, and automatic fire sprinklers." d. "Encourage programs that educate citizens about the threat of human wildfire origination from residential practices such as outdoor barbeques and from highway use such as cigarette littering." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of requiring brush clearing, fuel modification, special fire suppression techniques, and education programs for greater fire safety. 6.5.4 Flooding 6.5.4.1 Minimize Risk Minimize risk of injury to residents and visitors, and property damage due to flooding, through the following land use policies: a. "Continue to ensure that new construction in floodways and floodplains conforms to all applicable provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program in order to protect buildings and property from flooding. " b. "Utilize the Capital Improvement Program for storm drainage projects and maintenance and improvement of local storm drain systems including channels, pipes, and inlets to ensure capacity for maximum runoff flows." AVSPIAlberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of national and local minimum construction standards to protect life and property from damaging floods. 6.5.5 Seismic Activity 6.5.5.1 Minimize Risk Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social displacement due to seismic and geological hazards resulting from earthquakes and geological constraints, through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage the pursuit of State and Federal programs that assist in the seismic upgrading of buildings to meet building and safety codes." b. "Continue to require Alquist-Priolo and other seismic analyses be conducted for new development to identify the potential for ground shaking, liquefaction, slope failure, seismically induced landslides, expansion and settlement of soils, and other related geologic hazards for areas of new development in Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 75 accordance with the Fault Rupture Hazard Overlay District adopted by the City. The City may require site-specific remediation measures to during permit review that may be implemented to minimize impacts in these areas. " AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP requires that structures to be built comply with all local and state building codes and seismic safety measures. 6.5.6 Noise 6.5.6.1 Reduce Excessive Noise Maintain an environment for all City residents and visitors free of unhealthy, obtrusive, or otherwise excessive noise, through the following land use policies: a. "Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-1, Chapter 3.0, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, 2011) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3- 2, Chapter 3. 0, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, 2011) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City." b. "Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas." c. "Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the 1-15 Freeway." d. "Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3.6 (Chapter 3.0'City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, 2011), Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City." e. "Participate and cooperate with other agencies and jurisdictions in the development of noise abatement plans for highways." AVSPIAIberhill District Conformance: The AVSP requires that structures to be built comply with all local and state building codes and noise attenuation measures. 6.5.7 Community Facilities and Protection Services 6.5.7.1 Fire and Police a. "Provide efficient and effective public safety services for the community, through the following policies." b. "Continue to follow Riverside County Fire Department's most current guidelines to achieve standard response times and staffing levels. " c. "Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide adequate police service and staffing levels." d. "Continue to provide Lake Patrol personnel who enforce boating rules and regulations, and perform rescue tactics." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 76 e. "Promote the establishment of programs such as Neighborhood Watch and Crime -Free Multi -Housing in conjunction with law enforcement agencies to encourage community participation in the surveillance of neighborhoods." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of promoting effective police and public safety standards to protect life and property. See Section 3.6, Chapter 3. 6.5.7.2 Schools Encourage all school districts serving Lake Elsinore to provide school facilities that are adequate to serve all students, through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage the establishment and development of a trade school, community, and/or four year college campus within the City boundaries." b. "Continue cooperation between school districts and the City to provide joint use of recreational facilities." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP provides for the location of a four (4) - year University and supporting University Town Center, and encourages the joint use concept of locating public parks adjacent to school yard facilities. See Section 3.6, Chapter 3. 6.5.7.3 Libraries The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System, providing the citizens of Lake Elsinore access to 29 libraries and 2 bookmobiles. The policy of the City of Lake Elsinore is to encourage the County of Riverside/City Public Library System to provide adequate library facilities for City residents. 6.5.7.4 Animal Services The City of Lake Elsinore currently contracts with a private company for all animal control services (Animal Friends of the Valley). The Goal of Animal Services is to provide high quality animal control services to ensure timely response and effective control that protects both citizens and animals. The following land use policies will ensure that the goal is met: a. "Continue to foster and participate in the operation of a regional animal control facility through participation in the South Western Communities Financing Authority." b. "Continue to develop an educational program in conjunction with Animal Friends of the Valley regarding animal control services, including spay and neuter programs. " AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of participating in a regional animal control facility and public education efforts regarding spaying and neutering. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 77 6.5.7.5 Water, Wastewater, Reclaimed Water The City of Lake Elsinore receives potable water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). EVMWD is responsible for the planning of water and sewer facilities to meet future demands on supply and distribution through projected needs assessments and it's Water Distribution Master plan. 6.5.7.6 Electricity and Natural Gas Ensure that adequate electrical, natural gas and telecommunications systems are provided to meet the demand of new and existing development, through the following land use policies: a. "Coordinate with the utility agencies to provide for the continued maintenance, development and expansion of electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems to serve residents and businesses." b. "Encourage developers to contact Southern California Edison (SCE) early in their planning process, especially for large-scale residential and non- residential development or Specific Plans, to ensure the projected electric loads for these projects are factored into SCE's load forecasts for the community. " c. "Encourage developers to incorporate energy efficient design measures into their projects and pursue available energy efficiency assistance programs from SCE and other utility agencies." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of promoting coordination and effective communication between SCE and project developers. 6.5.7.7 Refuse and Recycling Encourage the City's franchise trash hauler(s) to provide and expand service for the collection, storage, transportation, recovery, and disposal of solid waste to meet the needs of the City, through the following land use policies: a. "Request the City's franchise trash hauler(s) to establish long-term solid waste management plans that include goals for recycling and source reduction programs." b. "Request that the City's franchise trash hauler(s) provide a public education program in recycling and source reduction techniques for homes, businesses, and construction." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of providing long term solutions to waste hauling. See Section 7.6, Chapter 7. 6.5.7.8 Telecommunications Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 78 Encourage the pursuit of state of the art Information Technology through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage the use of information technology as a communication tool to improve personal convenience, reduce dependency on non-renewable resources, and take advantage of ecological and financial efficiencies of new technology." b. "Maintain and update the City's website with information about current events and issues, key leadership figures, community involvement opportunities, and educational tools such as solid waste management techniques and emergency preparedness programs." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP supports the City's policies of encouraging the expanded use of information technology throughout the community, and in particular, into residences and businesses to reduce vehicle trips and energy use. 6.6 RESOURCE PROTECTION and PRESERVATION The Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter sets forth the City's policies for the protection and preservation of biological resources, open space, water resources, mineral resources, cultural and paleontological resources, historical preservation and aesthetic resources. 6.6.1 Biological Resources 6.6.1.1 Biological Habitats Identify and conserve important biological habitats where feasible while balancing the economic growth and private property right interests of the City, it's residents, and landowners, through the following land use policies: a. "The City shall continue to participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan (MSHCP), the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) program, and the Implementing Agreement; with a strategy that focuses on quality assemblage of conservation acreage beginning at the start of the conservation range." b. "Evaluate the installation of barrier fencing or other buffers between MSHCP conservation areas in order to minimize illegal/unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, or dumping in the conservation areas while not impeding wildlife movement." c. "The City's Conceptual Reserve Design shall be developed in accordance with Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP as amended, and may rely upon the flexibility permitted by the MSHCP where appropriate in conducting the Reserve Assembly Accounting set forth in Section 6.7 of the MSHCP." d. "Encourage re -vegetation with native plants compatible with natural surrounding habitat where soils have been disturbed during construction, and discourage plants identified ion the MSHCP as unsuitable for conservation areas." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 79 e. "The City shall coordinate with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to have that agency acquire native habitat areas as permanent open space and allow public trail access where appropriate." "The City shall establish a plan for a trail network intended for active or passive use within public open space areas and traversing around and through MSHCP conservation areas where compatible with guidelines set forth in the MSHCP and City Council MSHCP policies." g. "The City shall require all new trails, trailheads, conservation signage, interpretive centers, and maintenance facilities established within MSHCP conservation areas to follow the Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities, as set forth in Section 7.4.2 of the MSHCP." h. "The City shall consult with the HCA and adjacent jurisdictions to ensure proper adherence to MSHCP guidelines and to allow for a maximum level of regional interconnection of trails systems. The City shall reduce, modify or add to the regional interconnections and linkages based on new biological analyses brought forward during the CEQA and Lake Elsinore Acquisition Processes (LEAP)." • AVSPIAlberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.2, Chapter 6 of this document, Section 3.5, Chapter 3, and "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. 6.6.1.2 Plants and Wildlife Protect sensitive plant and wildlife species residing or occurring within the City through the following land use policies: a. "Biological resources analyses of proposed project shall include discussion of potential impacts to any plant or wildlife species that is officially listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Game, but not covered by the MSHCP." b. `Development or modification shall be discouraged in areas containing riparian habitat of high functions and values or corridors with 80% or more of natural native habitat that link larger patches of natural native habitat containing 80% or more native plant species. Further, development in areas described for conservation, including areas planned for riparian / riverine restoration included in the MSHCP shall also be discouraged." c. `The City shall encourage the development of a Native Tree Planting and Maintenance Program that presents guidelines for selecting and locating trees to support wildlife, improve air and water quality, and reduce energy consumption. " Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 80 AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 3.5, Chapter 3, and "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. 6.7.1 Open Space 6.7.1.1 Recreation Provide an open space layout within the City that will enhance the recreational visual experiences of all City residents and visitors through the following land use policies: a. "Maximize the MSHCP conservation areas and other open space that is available for public use." b. "The City shall ensure that passive and active open space uses are incorporated into development areas." c. "Development on steep slopes in public or private property shall require contour grading." of. "Preserve the City's visual character, in particular, the surrounding hillsides, which topographically define the lake region." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.5, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.7.2 Water Resources 6.7.2.1 Water Quality Provide improved water quality and ensure sustainable water supply through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage developers to provide clean water systems that reduce pollutants being discharged into the drainage system to the maximum extent feasible and meet required federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards." b. "Support public education and awareness programs to reduce pollutant discharges into the drainage system." c. "Require Best Management Practices (BMPs) through project conditions of approval for development to meet the Federal NPDES permit requirements. " d. "The City shall utilize the 1998 North American Vertical Datum to be consistent with the national standard for mean sea level, which would increase the measurement of the mean sea level for Lake Elsinore by approximately 2.4 feet." AVSPIAlberhill District Conformance: See Section 4.7, Chapter 4. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 81 6.7.3 Mineral Resources 6.7.3.1 Extraction and Conservation Balance the importance of conserving mineral resource areas that have been determined to be significant, the need for extracted materials for local construction, and the potential impacts and conflicts that may result, through the following land use policies: a. 'The City shall consider the public benefits in allowing extraction activities of mineral resources when making land use decisions." b. "The City shall require mined property to be left in a condition suitable for reuse in conformance with the General Plan land use designation and the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)." c. "The City shall encourage the reuse and recycling of existing aggregate and construction material for new residential, commercial, and industrial development. " AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: The AVSP area is presently a vested mining operation. The mining operation is subject to Reclamation Plan RP - 112 mitigation measures prior to final reclamation from development of the AVSP. The current vested mining operation will be phased out commensurate with the phasing of the development. 6.7.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 6.7.4.1 Cultural Heritage Preserve and promote the cultural heritage of the City and surrounding region for the education and enjoyment of all City residents and visitors, as well as for the advancement of historical and archaeological knowledge, through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage the preservation of significant archaeological, historical, and other cultural resources located within the City." b. 'The City shall consult with the Native American tribes for projects identified under SB 18 (Traditional Tribal Cultural Places) and AB 52." c. "When significant archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered on a site, coordination with professional archaeologists, relevant state agencies, and concerned Native American tribes regarding preservation of sites or professional retrieval and preservation of artifacts prior to development of the site shall be required. Because ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs and practices, developers should waive any and all claims to ownership and agree to return all Native American ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony that may be found on a project site to the appropriate tribe for treatment. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 82 d. '7f archaeological excavations are recommended on a project site, the City shall require that all such investigations include Native American consultation, which shall occur prior to project approval." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document, and "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. 6.7.4.2 Analytical Approach Support state-of-the-art research designs and analytical approaches to archaeological and cultural resource investigations through the following land use policies: a. "Consult with California Native American tribes prior to decision-making processes for the purpose of preserving cultural places located on land within the City's jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed plan, in accordance with State requirements." b. "Continue to identify, document, evaluate, designate, and preserve the cultural resources in the City." c. "Continue to update a citywide inventory of cultural resources in conformance with State standards and procedures. " d. "Support the permanent curation of archaeological artifact collections by universities or museums." e. "Increase opportunities for cultural heritage tourism by promoting the history of Lake Elsinore to attract cultural heritage travelers." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document, and "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. 6.7.4.3 Paleontological Resources Preserve paleontological resources occurring in the City through the following land use policy: a. "For development in areas delineated as "High" or "Undetermined" potential sensitivity for paleontological resources, require the project applicant to hire a certified paleontologist who most perform a literature search and/or survey and apply the relevant treatment for the site as recommended by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document, and "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. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 83 6.7.5 Historic Preservation 6.7.5.1 Heritage Assure the recognition of the City's heritage through preservation of the City's significant historical sites and structures through the following land use policies: a. "Require the developer to obtain a professional, qualified historian to conduct a literature search and/or survey for any project that entails demolition or modification of an existing structure that may be of historical value in relation to the City's cultural heritage." b. "Apply the General Plan "Historic Elsinore Design Standards" to the Lake Elsinore historic district as defined in the City zoning ordinance. " c. "Work with the Lake Elsinore Historical Society to create and periodically update a historic register of structures and other landmarks valuable to the cultural heritage of the City." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document, and "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. 6.7.5.2 Preservation and Restoration Encourage the preservation, protection, and restoration of historical and cultural resources through the following land use policies: a. "Continue to implement the Historic Preservation Guidelines that guide historic preservation efforts as set forth in the Historic Elsinore Design Guidelines and the Downtown MasterPlan." b. "Integrate historic and cultural resources in land use planning processes where feasible to avoid conflict between the preservation of historic resources and alternative land uses." c. 'All City owned sites designated as historical resources should be maintained in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. " d. "Encourage owners of historic resources to utilize Federal incentives including Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, fagade and conservation easements, and to coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document, and "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. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 84 6.7.6 Aesthetics 6.7.6.1 Natural Environment Provide and maintain a natural and built environment that is visually pleasing to City residents and visitors through the following land use policies: a. "For new developments and redevelopment, encourage the maintenance and incorporation of existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on the site, whether naturally occurring or planted, into the landscape design." b. "Maintain and improve the quality of existing landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights -of -ways, and other public open areas." c. "Where appropriate, encourage new planting of native and/or non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands. " d. 'Incorporate the City's identification symbol into street signage, planters, benches, public buildings, City vehicles, streetscape furnishings, and other appropriate applications." e. "Support a high level of Code Enforcement to encourage neighborhood beautification and to maintain property values and quality of life." f "Coordinate with agencies to screen, landscape and otherwise obscure or integrate public utility features, including electric power substations, domestic water and irrigation wells, switching and control facilities." g, "Promote and facilitate the placement of public art that creates a unique setting and enhances a cultural and aesthetic character throughout the City." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Section 6.2.2, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.7.6.2 Public Views Preserve public views throughout the City through the following land use policies: a. "Encourage development designs and concepts that provide public views of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines through proper siting, building design, and landscape design." b. "Encourage the dedication of open space land in hillside development proposals to preserve and enhance view opportunities from transportation corridors and surrounding development." c. 'Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate views of Lake Elsinore from roadways and other public spaces that provide residents and tourists with scenic vistas to the water, marinas, and lakeshore activities." d. "Establish a series of City and community gateways and entry statements to promote the visual character of the Districts" Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 85 e. "Consider petitioning Caltrans to take control of portions of the SR -74 corridor, in order to promote signage and landscaping that enhance and preserve the corridor's aesthetic setting." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, Chapter 6 of this document. 6.7.6.3 Visual Distractions Minimize activities, development, and landform modification that could distract viewers from the City's visual character through the following land use policies: a. "Discourage extractive mining activity from being conducted in highly visible areas and require reclamation of these mining areas. If such uses must occur in visible areas, City shall require extensive visual screening with landscaping and/or fencing." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Sections 6.2.3, Chapter 6 of this document. The current vested mining operation will be phased out commensurate with the phasing of the development. 6.7.7 Sustainable Environment 6.7.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all activities within the City boundaries to support the State's efforts under AB -32 and to mitigate the impact of climate change on the City, State and world, through the following land use policies: a. "By 2020, the City will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from within it's boundaries to 1990 levels consistent with AB32." b. "Measures shall be established that aim to reduce emissions generated from City uses, community uses (community actions) and new development (City discretionary actions). " c. "The City shall strive to increase public awareness of climate change and climate protection challenges." d. "The City will participate in the Sustainable Communities Strategy/ Regional Blueprint Planning effort to ensure that local plans are consistent with the Regional Plan." AVSP/Alberhill District Conformance: See Chapter 7, Climate Action Plan Consistency. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 86 Contents 7.1 Introduction 7.2 General Plan 7.3 Population & Employment 7.4 Transportation & Land Use 7.5 Energy & Water Use 7.6 Solid Waste 7.7 Community Education & Outreach 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Background Chapter 7 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN COMPLIANCE In compliance with California State Assembly Bill AB32, Executive Order S-3-05, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and the Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter 4.0 of the City of Lake Elsinore (City) General Plan, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 13 December 2011. The purpose of the CAP is to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from all activities within City limits. The CAP is not intended to limit future development or economic growth, rather, it is a strategy to attain sustainability, reduce GHG emissions, and promote a vibrant and livable community. 7.1.2 Purpose & Methodology The purpose of this Chapter is to assess compliance of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) with the City's CAP. Using the Consistency Worksheet found in Appendix D of the CAP as a guide, project level GHG emissions impacts are addressed as to the AVSP's consistency with the City's General Plan land use, General Plan's Population and Employment projections, and consistency with various Project Design Components of the AVSP to those set forth in the CAP's Implementation Measures Matrix. The end result is an overall compliance determination with the CAP. 7.2 GENERAL PLAN The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term blueprint for guiding the future land use, development, growth, livability, and character of the City. The AVSP is located in the Alberhill District of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (see Figure 7-1, Alberhill District Land Use Plan). The Land Use Plan for the AVSP (see Figure 3-1, Conceptual Land Use Plan) establishes a mix of land uses and activities, all of which are consistent with those corresponding land uses found on the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Plan, and further, since the planned land uses are deemed consistent between the two documents, the impacts upon climate generated by the AVSP are also considered consistent. Therefore, the finding can be made that the AVSP is consistent with the City's CAP. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 87 7.3 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT The General Plan sets forth the future development pattern and intensity of land uses, including housing and business. The type and number of housing units, as well as their location in terms of distance to employment centers has a direct correlation upon the volume of anticipated GHG emissions. The City's CAP was prepared, and adopted concurrently with the City's General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and as such, assumed future population numbers generated had a base of reasonable information in order to generate a probable assumption of GHG emissions. The AVSP is anticipated to generate population increases from the land uses of Residential, Institutional (Education), and Commercial (Retail, Service) / Office. Utilizing a State housing unit ratio of 3.27 persons per 1000 units, an estimated population of 27,000 persons is anticipated. In addition, the AVPS includes a future University (6,000 students), future Elementary School (850 students), as well as an indeterminate number of employees of new local businesses and visitors to the various multi -use trails, parks, businesses, and schools that are originating from outside the AVSP area. The City's General Plan Land Use Map, at the time of CAP preparation, contained the same mix and intensity of planned land uses reflected in the AVSP. Since consistency exists between the AVSP and the General Plan Land Uses existing at the time of CAP preparation, the conclusion can be reached that the AVSP is consistent with the CAP. 7.4 TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE The co-dependency found in the relationship between transportation and land use is no more apparent anywhere than in Southern California. The land use pattern that has developed after World War II has been both a direct result of the automobile. "Urban sprawl" is a multi -faceted term that describes the spreading outwards of a City and it's suburbs into more rural areas due to the desire for lower density housing that can easily be reached by automobile. Once lower density communities are established as a result of the automobile's reach, mass transit options become less desirable or even practical, making additional community development even more car dependent. The City of Lake Elsinore is not unlike other suburban communities in Southern California relative to the transportation / land use relationship, and the resultant GHG emissions that result. Transportation related emissions are the largest component of Lake Elsinore's 2008 GHG inventory, the majority of transportation emissions being derived from the use of fossil fuels (i.e. gasoline and diesel fuel) to power automobiles, trucks and buses. How a General Plan Land Use Plan, and in this case Specific Plan is crafted, can minimize incrementally, and possible reduce cumulatively, the impacts of regional GHG emissions. The key to lower transportation related emissions is to implement strategies that decrease vehicle miles traveled and encourage the replacement of traditional vehicles with fuel efficient and alternative energy vehicles, and offer more travel choices including mass transit, biking and walking, and more efficient land use patterns. The following presents Transportation and Land Use Strategies and Measures taken from the City's CAP that are designed to help reduce GHG emissions, followed by a Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 88 response as to how the AVSP complies with said Strategies and Measures. Table 7-1, Implementation Matrix, contains this information in a matrix format. Strategy T-1 Increase Bicycle, Pedestrian and Public Travel Measure T-1.1 Safe Routes to School. "Continue to pursue and utilize grant funding when needed to construct safe pedestrian and bicycle routes within a two mile radius of schools where appropriate." Response: The AVSP does not contemplate the pursuit of grant funding, which is solely the responsibility of the City of Lake Elsinore. The AVSP does, however, propose the location of two levels of schools: elementary and university. The overall length and width of the AVSP site is approximately 1-1/2 miles in any direction, therefore, proposed pedestrian and bicycle routes will comply with Measure T-1.1. Two (2) future schools will be located within the AVSP. The elementary school will be centrally located in Phase 4 (Parkview Village) - Planning Area (PA) 2c, within walking and bicycle distance along public sidewalks and multi -use trails. The university will be located in Phase la (University Village) — Phase la, and will be designed with a central plaza that is linked to a town green, surrounding residential areas, bus stop, and transportation nodes via a central north/south and east/west pedestrian walking/bicycle trail. All Planning Areas will be linked to one another via pedestrian and/or multi -use trails. Measure T-1.2 Pedestrian Infrastructure. "Through the development review process, require the installation of sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets. Also require new subdivisions and large developments to provide sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses where applicable and provide connections to neighborhood activity centers, major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the project site; implement through conditions of approval." Response: The circulation system of the AVSP will provide a variety of sidewalks, pathways, trails and paseos to facilitate increased pedestrian movement throughout the community to schools, businesses, parks, lake, open space corridors, bus routes and transit nodes. Residential areas will connect to institutional and commercial uses via sidewalks, paseos and other pathways. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Measure T-1.3 Street and Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvements. "Continue, through the Pavement Management and Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repair programs, to preserve the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system by annually identifying and scheduling street and sidewalk improvement and maintenance projects." Response: Upon the exoneration of the developer's performance, payment and maintenance bonds, all street, sidewalk and pathway improvements constructed within public right-of-ways will be accepted by the City of Lake Elsinore for perennial maintenance and repair. Certain developments within the AVSP may contain private streets, sidewalks and pathways, which will be the responsibility of private homeowner associations (HOA) or special maintenance district (i.e. Landscape Maintenance District, Community Service Area) to maintain. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 89 City, HOA or special district must be diligent in correcting any physical deficiencies in the pedestrian and bicycle route system so as to not impede or discourage access or movement throughout the community. Measure T-1.4 Bicycle Infrastructure. "Through the development review process, require new development, as applicable, to implement and connect to the network of Class I, lI and ll/ bikeways, trails and safety features identified in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails Master Plan and Western Riverside County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan; implement through conditions of approval. The City will also continue to pursue and utilize funding when needed to implement portions of these plans." Response: The AVSP will provide bikeways within street right-of-ways as well as within multi -use trails and pathways throughout the community. Lake Street, and the planned extension of Nichols Road are the primary transportation routes through the AVSP site, both of which have been designated as Class II Bikeways (see Figure 7-3, Bikeway Plan) in the City General Plan. The AVSP will contain: • Off-street Class I bike trails inter -connecting the various PAs. • On -street Class II and Class III bike trails throughout the PAs. • Arterial street bike trails connecting the five (5) Villages via Lake Street and Nicholas Road arterials. • Bicycle and pedestrian footpath connections from the internal residential PAs to core commercial, office, recreational and university areas. Bikeways will also connect to open space / conservation corridors and regional trails such as the "Lake Elsinore Lake, River, Levee Regional Trail' at Temescal Creek, and along a regional trail at the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Measure T-1.5 Bicycle Parking Standards. "Through the development review process, enforce.... short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards for new non-residential development (consistent with 2010 California Green Building Code fCalGreen], Section 5.106.4), and implement through conditions of approval." Response: The AVSP contains three (3) areas where businesses and commercial uses will be located, namely, the University Town Center, the Alberhill Town Center, and PA 4c of Lakeside Village. Bicycle racks and storage areas will be provided in accordance with CalGreen standards in these locations, and may also be located at university, elementary schools, and at multi -use trails. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Measure T-1.6 Public Transit Incentives. "Coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency to implement regional transit strategies in Lake Elsinore, expand transit routes, and provide public transit incentives to residents and employees, such as free or reduced -cost monthly transit passes." Response: Although it is not the responsibility of the AVSP to coordinate regional transit strategies with the Riverside Transit Agency, the project has been designed to accommodate several multi -modal forms of transportation including Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 90 transit. The 1-15 Freeway is envisioned to become a future transit corridor serving the AVSP area. A future transit station or stop may be located in the University Town Center area, and a future bus route may serve Nichols Road and Lake Street, connecting residential areas with the University and the Alberhill Town Center. Strategy T- 2 Manage Vehicle Parking Measure T-2.1 Designated Parking for Fuel -Efficient Vehicles. 'Amend the Municipal Code to require that new non-residential development designate 10% of total parking spaces for any combination of low -emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1, Sections A5.106.5.1 and A5.106.5.3), and implement through conditions of approval. Parking stalls shall be marked "Clean Air Vehicle." Response: The City of Lake Elsinore is the sole entity responsible for amending the Municipal Code. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Strategy T- 3 Increase in Efficiency in Land Use Patterns Measure T-3.1 Mixed -Use, High Density, Infill and Transit Oriented Development. 'As part of the General Plan Update process, revise the Land Use Map and Municipal Code to allow for and/or increase the amount of mixed- use, high density, infill and transit oriented development. Mixed-use projects should be targeted in the Historic and Ballpark Districts, as well as other areas where services are within walking distance. High density projects should be located in urbanized areas adjacent to services and transportation. Update the Municipal Code for consistency between zoning regulations and General Plan land use designations. " Response: The AVSP is organized into six (6) Villages containing fifteen (15) Planning Areas. Each Village is bounded by major roadways including either Temescal Canyon Road or Lake Street, each a major transportation route. Eleven (11) of the fifteen (15) PAs are either mixed-use or residential areas that contain multi -family uses such as high density condos and apartments, and/or student housing, with densities ranging from 6 to 24 units per acre. The higher density housing developments will be located within a five (5) minute walk to area services and major transportation routes. Measure T-3.2 Mixed -Use, Infill, and Transit Oriented Development Incentives. "Identify and provide incentives to promote mixed-use, infill and transit oriented development, such as: a streamlined permitting process, less restrictive parking requirements, less restrictive height limits, lower permit fees and/or reduced impact fees. " Response: The use of incentives to promote mixed-use, infill and transit oriented developments noted in Measure T-3.2 are solely an agency function, not that of the AVSP. Should the City incentivize as suggested, the AVSP provides flexibility to effectuate said Measure through it's Transfer of Development Rights provisions found in Chapter 5, Items 5.3 & 5.4, of the AVSP. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 91 Measure T-3.3 Density Bonus Incentive. Amend the Municipal Code to allow for a Density Bonus Incentive for a residential project that is located within 1,500 feet of a regular bus stop or rapid transit system stop; is located within one- quarter (1/4) mile from a public park or community center, or is located within a one-half (1/2) mile from school grounds/facilities open to the general public, a full-service grocery store, hospital, medical clinic, or pharmacy. " Response: Amend the Municipal Code to allow for a Density Bonus Incentive is solely an agency function, not that of the AVSP. Measure T-3.4 Neighborhood Commercial Centers. "Identify potential neighborhood commercial center sites and rezone identified areas to Neighborhood Commercial as part of the General Plan Update." Response: Rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial is a discretionary act solely of the local agency to approve. Neighborhood commercial areas are found in the University Town Center (PA 1b, 1c), Lakeside Village (PA 4c), and the Alberhill Town Center (PA 6a, 6b). Strategy T-4 Reduce Trips Measure T-4.1 Commute Trip Reduction Program. "Institute a commute trip reduction program for employers with fewer than 100 employees (below the requirements of the existing Transportation Demand Management Program). Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation." Response: The AVSP includes a provision to adopt a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) that spreads out peak travel times through ride -sharing, van -sharing, employee flex -time, and bike to work programs. The TMP should include, at a minimum, measures that include ride -sharing and off-peak staggered work -hours programs from businesses. Strategy T-5 Increase the Use of Low and Zero -Emissions Vehicles Measure T-5.1 Hybrid and Fuel -Efficient Vehicle Incentives. "Facilitate the voluntary replacement of inefficient vehicles with hybrids, plug-in electric, and other low -and zero -emissions vehicles by connecting residents and businesses with technical and financial assistance through the City's website. " Response: Although voluntary replacement of vehicles is a function of public desire and response to incentive, the AVSP promotes: Preferred parking for small fuel efficient/electric/alternate fuel vehicles, van pools, ride -sharing vehicles, and bicycles. Public Transit hubs and 1-15 proposed rail system. Natural gas filling stations at marketplace costs within PAs to facilitate the use of natural gas fueled vehicles. . Measure T-5.2 Municipal Fleet Vehicle Purchasing Policy. "Develop and adopt a low- and zero -emissions replacement/purchasing policy for new and replaced official City vehicles and equipment." Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 92 Response: It will be the City's responsibility to institute a municipal fleet vehicle purchasing policy. 7.5 ENERGY & WATER USE According to the City's CAP, energy accounts for thirty-two percent (32%) of Lake Elsinore's total 2008 GHG emissions. Heating, cooling, and the provision of power to the various residential, commercial and industrial buildings originate from power plants that are fueled by fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Increasing efficiencies in site design, land use juxtapositions, alternative modes of transportation, alternative fuel vehicles, reduced water demand, and forthright agency policy management, all work together toward the goal of reduced energy consumption and long term energy resource availability. Strategy E-1 Reduce Energy Demand of New Construction Measure E-1.1 Tree Planting Requirements. "Through the development review process, require new development to plant, at a minimum, one (1) 15 - gallon non -deciduous, umbrella -form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length near buildings, per the Municipal Code. Trees shall be planted in strategic locations around buildings or to shade pavement in parking lots and streets." Response: The AVSP area is largely devoid of trees due to past and ongoing mining activity. The provision of trees provides both enjoyable aesthetics, but also shade that reduces "heat island" effects and reduces air conditioning use. The AVSP will provide for: • New street trees along all roadways. • New native and/or drought tolerant trees along all trails. • New trees in all parks and paseos. • New trees in all public and quasi -public institutional parking and building areas. • New tree placement in all residential, commercial, office, institutional and public facility areas, including parking lots, and is spaces adjacent to buildings. • Restoration to a perennial stream and native landscape palette of one (1) mile of degraded ephemeral streambed along the Lake Street corridor. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Measure E-1.2 Cool Roof Requirements. "Amend the City Municipal Code to require new non-residential development to use roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal emittance of Solar Reflectance Index (SRI)3 consistent with CalGreen Tier 1 values (Table A5.106.11.2.1), and implement through conditions of approval." Response: Buildings constructed in the AVSP will comply with City ordinances. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 93 Measure E-1.3 Energy Efficient Building Standards. "Adopt an ordinance requiring that all new construction exceed the California Energy Code requirements, based on the 2013 or current Energy Efficiency Standards by 15% (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1) through either the performance based or prescriptive approach described in the California Green Building Code; implement through conditions of approval. Alternately, a solar photovoltaic system and/or solar water heating may be used to assist in meeting all or a portion of the 15% requirement." Response: Buildings constructed in the AVSP will comply with City ordinances. Energy efficiencies in buildings will be addressed and verified at the Design Review stage. Strategy E-2 Increase Energy Efficiency of Existing Buildings Measure E-2.1 Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Retrofits. Measure E-2.2 Green Business Certification Program. Measure E-2.3 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb (CFL) Distribution Program. Response: Not applicable to the AVSP. Strategy E-3 Increase Energy Efficiency of Existing Buildings Measure E-3.1 City HVACs. Measure E-3.2 Energy Efficient Street and Traffic Signal Lights . Measure E-3.3 Street Light Automatic Day lighting Control Devices. Measure E-3.4 Energy Efficient Lights, Ballasts, and Occupancy Sensors at City Facilities. Measure E-3.5 Municipal Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Purchasing Standards. Response: Not applicable to the AVSP. Strategy E-4 Decrease Water Consumption Measure E-4.1 Landscaping Ordinance. "Though the development review, enforce the City's Assembly Bill 1881 Landscaping Ordinance; implement through condition of approval." Response: The AVSP requires the planting of drought tolerant plant species, in addition to the re -vegetation of native plant materials where possible. The AVSP landscaping and irrigation policies are as follows: All PAs will focus the landscaping programs on the use of drought tolerant plant programs reducing the dependency on water, water supplies, and the electrical energy required to deliver the water. Within the PAs, provide for the use of native and/or drought tolerant plant palettes and species in and along the trails, animal movement corridors, and open space areas of the planned development, thereby reducing or eliminating the use of power driven imported water to irrigate these restored native landscaped areas. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 94 The AVSP also proposes the following policies for the use of alternate water sources Take advantage of the shallow groundwater and artesian springs existing underground throughout the PAs to provide gravity fed water to the recreational lake and restored streams. • The use of reclaimed water will be promoted when the reclaimed water source becomes available from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. • The use of local water to grow food crops in the community park garden(s) is an example of one action producing multiple benefits — reduction of imported foods, an edible product from irrigation, soil enrichment, shade, gardening enjoyment, and a social outlet for residents keeping residents inside the local community. Measure E-4.2 Indoor Water Conservation Requirements. "Amend the Uniform Building Code to require development projects to reduce indoor water consumption by 30% (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1, Section A5.303.2.3.1), and implement through conditions of approval." Response: Buildings constructed in the AVSP will comply with City ordinances. Indoor water conservation will be addressed and verified at the Design Review stage. Strategy E-5 Increase Renewable Energy Opportunities Measure E-5.1 Renewable Energy Incentives. "Facilitate the voluntary installation of small-scale renewable energy systems, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar hot water systems, by connecting residents and businesses with technical and financial assistance through the City website. The City will also revise the permit processes and fees as appropriate to remove barriers to and incentivize the installation of renewable energy systems, in accordance with applicable safety and environmental standards." Response: Developers of the various PAs will be encouraged to incorporate or offer PV systems, solar hot water, and other renewable energy systems into their buildings. Systems proposed by developers will be addressed at the Design Review level. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 95 7.6 SOLID WASTE According to the CAP, in 2008, the City of Lake Elsinore and the community generated approximately 83,710 tons of solid waste. Fifty -percent (50%) of the solid waste was diverted from the local landfill through recycling and composting programs. As solid waste decomposes, it releases methane gas, a contributing Greenhouse Gas. Two (2) primary ways to reduce methane emissions associated with solid waste are to increase recycling efforts, and reduce waste production. Strategy S-1 Increase Solid Waste Diversion Measure 5-1.1 Commercial Recycling (renegotiate City contract). Measure S-1.2 Tiered Solid Waste Rate Structure (renegotiate City contract). Measure 5-1.3 Recycling Receptacles at City Buildings and Facilities. Response: Not applicable to the AVSP. Measure S-1.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion. "Amend the Municipal Code to require development projects to divert, recycle or salvage at least 65% of non -hazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site by 2020 (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1, Section A5.408.3.1). Require all construction and demolition projects to be accompanied by a waste management plan for the project and a copy of the completed waste management report shall be provided upon completion." Response: The AVSP will require that developers of construction projects prepare and manage a Waste Management Plan (WMP) throughout the course of construction. Compliance will be verified at the Design Review stage. Measure S-1.5 Green Waste Program (renegotiate City contract). Response: Not applicable to the AVSP. Strategy S-2 Decrease Solid Waste Generated. Measure S-2.1 Municipal Purchasing Policy. Response: Not applicable to the AVSP. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 96 7.7 COMMUNITY EDUCATION & OUTREACH The City can encourage community members to take necessary steps to reduce their contribution to GHG emissions by providing the public information about climate change science and potential impacts, as well as by providing public education through outreach programs. The following Measures are solely City functions, however, there will be public facilities constructed within the AVSP that will provide venues for public outreach programs and dissemination of educational information. The University, and University Town Center could offer such a venue. Strategy EO -1 Expand Community and Outreach Measure EO -1.1 Green Page on City's Website. Measure EO -1.2 Quarterly Brochure with Specific Emissions Reduction Information. Measure EO -1.3 Themed Outreach. Measure EO -1.4 Multi -Modal Transportation Access Guide. Response: The public dissemination of information about climate change is not a responsibility or obligation of the AVSP. However, by virtue of it's land use design encouraging multi -modal forms of transportation, the incorporation of many multi -use trails, and the embracing of the natural environment throughout the project, the AVSP, as it develops, will be a prime example of climate conscious community. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 97 Contents: 8.1 Purpose 8.2 Landscape Plan 8.3 General Landscape Requirements 8.4 Entry Monumentation & Signage 8.5 Streetscape 8.6 Landscape Interface Between Uses 8.7 Community Walls & Fencing 8.8 Slope Management & Fuel Modification 8.9 Community Plant Palette 8.10 Bikeway System 8.11 Multi -Use Trail System 8.12 Parks & Open Space 8.13 Themed Site Materials & Finishes Appendices 8.1 Purpose Chapter 8 LANDSCAPE DESIGN REGULATIONS The Landscape Design Regulations contain the guidelines and standards that will provide the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan community visually unifying landscape, monumentation and wall themes that are intended to create elements of design continuity, and that reinforce an established theme of clay brick, oak trees, and a native plant palette and integrated low water use system. These regulations incorporate the City — Wide Design Guidelines, are also intended to build off of the design elements existing at the adjacent Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan development. 8.2 Landscape Plan This section contains the landscape design guidelines and standards for use in the preparation of the Landscape plans throughout Alberhill Villages. 8.2.1 Landscape Plan -Guidelines 1. Create a landscape plan that respects the mining and clay brick making heritage of the Alberhill District and the community design plan concept of villages, public parks, open spaces, natural wildlife corridors, and the pedestrian linkages as the focus; 2. Incorporate rock and historical clay and brick materials in thematic site features. 3. Provide a native plant palette which is sensitive to the environment and visually blends the development into the community; 4. Create a landscape environment that encourages walking and bicycling as a form of transit and recreation through a network of multi -use trails and open spaces corridors that provide connectivity to all the land uses; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 98 5. Incorporate the latest design principles of environmental sensitivity, water conservation and sustainability into the landscape planning and design; 6. Streetscape for most streets within the community will include sidewalks separated by parkways with simple landscaping composed of shade forming formal rows of large canopy trees under -planted with native dominated shrubs and groundcover; 7. Select native plant materials that complement the overall theme, and that have low water use demand and low long term maintenance; 8. Use a combination of formal and informal plant and tree groupings along open spaces and against community architecture that are dominated by native plantings; 9. Buffer perimeter walls where they occur by using evergreen trees and large evergreen shrubs, and large masses of groundcovers and vines; 10. Consider view opportunities from the neighborhoods to the surrounding landscape terrain and mountains. Enhance views toward the outside of the immediate project limits wherever possible; 11. Pedestrian connections, bus stops and residential streets should offer canopy trees and flowering accent trees to provide shade and color; 12. Specimen and flowering accent trees should be used at entries and at the end of long streets within open space areas, as appropriate; 8.2.2 Landscape Plan Regulations 1. The project proponent and/or master developer and/or merchant builder shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all slope planting, common landscape areas and irrigation systems until such time as these operations have been officially transferred to a Home Owners Association, Landscape Maintenance District, or other approved legal entity. 2. All final landscape plans and exhibits for residential neighborhoods, public parks and recreational areas, institutional/school, and commercial uses shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for City of Lake Elsinore approval. 3. Project entries shall incorporate thematic landscaping and hardscape architectural features that project an appealing, quality image that will enhance the surrounding community. 4. The proposed location of Community Entry enhanced landscape treatment areas will be determined with the preparation of more detailed site plans at the Phased Development Plan (PDP) level. 5. The landscaping plan shall be designed to conserve water utilized for irrigation, consistent with City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Title 19 Chapter 19.08, and California Code of Regulations Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 2.7., unless otherwise provided for in the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for Alberhill Villages, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 99 (see Appendix A). Methods of irrigation may include the use of drought -resistant, low water demand plants and groundcovers, grouping of plants or similar water needs to reduce over -irrigation or under -irrigation, mulching to retain moisture and reduce opportunity for invasive plants. Refer to Appendix C, ALBERHILL VILLAGES PLANT MATRIX. 6. High efficiency irrigation methods shall be utilized, including, but not limited to, above surface low volume technologies and/or sub -surface drip systems. Acceptable low volume irrigation systems may include, but not be limited to, above ground drip emitters, micro -spray, MP Rotators (or equal), undercut nozzles, mist emitters, low volume bubblers, and sub -surface drip systems or other appropriate devices. 7. Future merchant builders of single-family residential projects in Alberhill Villages shall provide front yard landscaping automatic irrigation systems. Commercial, Institutional/ School, Municipal, and Multi -Family residential projects shall provide automatic irrigation systems for all landscaping areas. 8. Where special design conditions exist (e.g. to enhance prominent views and vistas, or to soften edge conditions), focused design features shall be included within the design of development for those particular planning areas at the PDP design review stage. 9. Neighborhood (residential subdivision) entrance designations shall consist of a neighborhood identification sign on a decorative wall/monument with a minimum depth of landscaping of 12 feet measured from the nearest roadway right-of-way line surrounding the wall/monument. 10. Prior to the approval of any final subdivision map, improvement plans for the respective landscape areas shall be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division for review shall include, at a minimum, the following: a. Final Grading Plans; b. Certified Irrigation Plans; c. Landscaping Plans satisfying the requirements of City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Title 19 Section 19.08, and California Code of Regulations Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 2.7., and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for Alberhill Villages; d. Wall and Fence Plans; e. Lighting Plans. 8.3 General Landscape Requirements The landscape character of the ALBERHILL VILLAGES community is established by the initial development. Subsequent landscape improvements are defined in terms such as: 1) Hardscape: includes walkways, driveways, planters, fountains, columns and pilasters.; and 2) Softscape: includes lawns, shrubs, ground cover, trees, and flowers. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 100 8.3.1 Landscape Maintenance - Guidelines There are many different elements of landscape requiring maintenance including: street right-of-ways, common areas, slopes, sports parks and community parks, pocket parks, paseos, multi -use trails and other common open spaces. Responsibility to maintain these areas is as follows: 1. Street right -of ways including parkways, medians, round -a -bouts (turnarounds), and certain slope areas should be maintained by the City Public Works Department, Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) or other approved legal entity. 2. Active sports parks and community parks should be maintained by the City Parks and Recreation Department, LMD or other legal entity. 3. Common areas such as open spaces, pocket parks, multi -use trails, paseos and pedestrian corridors should be maintained by a Homeowner's Association (HOA), LMD, or other approved legal entity. 4. Playgrounds and landscaping at primary and secondary school sites should be the responsibility of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District, or in the case of the University, the entity having legal authority over the University (e.g. University of California, California State University and Colleges, or private school board). 5. Private homeowners shall be responsible for all maintenance within their private lot area, including all walls and fences, and public street landscape adjacent to their lot frontage, unless otherwise maintained by an HOA or LMD. 8.3.1 Landscape Maintenance - Standards Where HOA maintained landscape areas are adjacent to non -HOA landscape areas, there should be a definitive physical separation in order to eliminate confusion as to the limits of maintenance responsibility. 2. The maintenance of the approved landscaping shall consist of regular watering, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, the removal and replacement of dead plants and trees with the approved landscape types within 90 days, and the repair and replacement of faulty irrigation systems. 3. Lawn and groundcovers are to be trimmed or mowed regularly. All planting areas should be kept free of weeds and debris. 4. Stakes, guys, and ties on trees shall be checked regularly for correct function. Ties are to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling on trunks or branches. 5. Where landscaping is not maintained by a private entity or HOA, the developer will be required to cause a landscape maintenance district to be formed, or annex the landscape area into an appropriate landscape maintenance district to fund maintenance of monumentation and streetscapes, Public parks will need to have a maintenance entity determined. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 101 8.3.2 General Residential Yard Landscape - Standards The following are general standards for installation of landscape in residential yards, and are intended to be incorporated into the landscape requirements of the respective HOA or project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs): Except for patio covers, gazebos, and play equipment, the top of all landscape hardscape features, such as garden walls, fences, statues, sculpture, outdoor fire places, waterfalls, and fountains, must be below the height of the project perimeter wall so as not to be viewed at adjacent ground level from surrounding streets, parks, greenbelts, schools, and adjacent homes. Decorative rock, wood chips, sand, gravel, or any other rock -like substance, in yards visible from streets or other public views are not generally acceptable, however, these materials may be acceptable when installed as an accent in the visible areas. Non -plant materials are not to be used as a substitution for hardscape, lawn, groundcover, or shrubs. 3. Hedge -type plants if used, exceeding eighteen inches (18") in height, and/or shrubs with thorns planted adjacent to public or common sidewalks. 4. Paved areas should be minimized in yards visible from streets. Permitted paving materials including concrete, brick, and flagstone, in colors compatible with the house. 5. A minimum of two (2) 15 -gallon trees are required in each front yard, if feasible in the planting area provided. At corner lots, three (3) 15 -gallon trees are required. The preferred location is as close to the street as possible. Trees should be selected from the native plant palette recommended in these Landscape Guidelines. 6. The unpaved ground area visible from the street must be covered with plant materials. Large areas of bare earth are not permitted. Shrubs should be planted at the base of the house wall, any garden wall, and any fence visible to the street. At corner lots, the areas in the side yard between the street and the side yard fence must be planted with groundcover and shrubs or vines. 7. Thematic landscape features with distinctive colors, forms, or materials that establish an independent theme that conflicts with the overall street scene, such as mirror balls, statues, sculpture, rock gardens, and gravel yards, are not permitted in private yards visible from streets. 8. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed for all front yard landscaped areas, including single-family lots, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 9. All common area landscaping and public right-of-way landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system. Adjustments, replacements, repair, and cleaning shall be a part of regular irrigation system maintenance. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 102 8.4 Entry Monumentation & Signage 8.4.1 Entry Monumentation - Guidelines This section contains the standards and guidelines for the implementation of entry monumentation within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area. These guidelines and standards are intended to: 1. Provide a visual element to the vision and character of a community strongly connected to the land and its traditional historical mining and clay brick manufacturing past; 2. Provide project identification and create gateways into the community at primary access points, village, neighborhood and specific activity areas; 3. Integrate landscaping and signage with the entry monumentation that is visually pleasing and consistent with the theme of the Alberhill Villages community. 4. Develop and maintain a hierarchical format for primary, secondary and other points of access to the major land uses and features of the community; 8.4.2 Entry Monumentation — General Standards 1. Entry monumentation hierarchy, from the most dominant to the least dominant form is as follows: Primary Entry (major community entrances), Secondary Entry (minor community entrances), and Village Entry (neighborhood entrances). 2. The architectural style of key features of the entry monumentation should be complemented with clay and brick accents. 3. Specific entry monument locations, heights and widths will be determined by the natural topography and surrounding conditions. 4. Acceptable materials may include: clay brick, stone, concrete ranch -rail, pre -cast concrete, split -face masonry block, and vinyl. The use of clay brick is strongly encouraged as the main thematic design element. 5. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent element. The monument walls will be made of the materials noted above and should be formed into natural land forms as much as possible as if growing from the site. 6. The Specimen trees and other accented planting where noted and especially at entry areas should be highlighted with accented and energy efficient landscape lighting. 7. Landscaping around entry monumentation should be native and drought tolerant. 8. Signage incorporated into entry monuments shall be firmly affixed to the wall/monument so as to prevent easy removal, and shall not be made of gold, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 103 silver, copper or other precious metal. The use of bronze, aluminum or other metal of high recyclable value is discouraged. For locations of entry monuments, refer to Figure 8.1, CIRCULATION & MONUMENTATION MASTER PLAN. 8.4.3 Primary Entry -Standards Primary entry treatments are to occur at 4 major roadway locations entering the community. The Community Entries are on Lake Street just south of the 1-15 Freeway, on Lake Street at Alberhill Ranch Road, on Temescal Canyon Road (new) just south of the 1-15, and on Lincoln Avenue just north of the project boundary. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, the Community Entry monumentation shall comply with the following: 1. The Primary entry monumentation iE when arriving at the Alberhill Villages scale reflective of its prominence. the largest of the entry monumentation community and should reflect a size and 2. The location, height, width and depth will be determined by the natural topography and surrounding conditions. 3. The monuments should include a project identification sign and logo, pedestrian and landscape lighting and enhanced paving. Signage should be constructed with weather -resistant words and logo. Both the sign and wall should have wash and focused lighting. 4. Walls, columns, pilasters and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick with stone and lap siding accents as the predominant visual elements. 5. The predominant landscape materials shall be native and drought tolerant. 6. Specimen trees and other accented planting, where noted, should be highlighted with accented and energy efficient landscape lighting. 8.4.4 Secondary Entry - Standards Secondary entries are used to identify entries into special use areas of the community such as the Alberhill Town Center, University Village, and University Town Center areas (refer to Figure 8.1 CIRCULATION & MONUMENTATION MASTER PLAN). In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, the Secondary entry monumentation shall comply with the following: Secondary entry monumentation should be matched on each side of the street approaching the special use area. The design for the monuments may match that of the Community Entry monument. 2. The location, height and width of the certain site constraints including, but r commercial lotting, natural topography other architectural features. monument will in part be determined by of limited to, proximity to residential and and overall site conditions and scale to Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 104 3. Each village entry monument should be identified with a unique sign, logo or symbol representing the characteristic or theme of that particular community for easy readability and neighborhood identity. Both the wall and sign should have wash and focused lighting. 4. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent material. 5. The Village entry monument sign may have wash lighting as an option. 6. The landscape will be native and drought tolerant with a mix of evergreen specimen and accent trees behind the monuments. 7. The specimen trees and special planting should be highlighted with accent uplighting as appropriate. 8. Additional village identification logo placement opportunities may occur in areas such as enhanced paving, post carvings in portal or shade structures, smaller directional signage, historical references to the Alberhill town and mining history of the area, art in the landscape. 8.4.5 Village Entry - Standards Village entries encourage a sense of smaller neighborhoods amidst the larger community. These entry monuments are located on streets classified as collector and lower. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, the Village entry monumentation shall comply with the following: 1. Though smaller in scale, the neighborhood entry monumentation shall reflect the same character and materials utilized in the primary, secondary, and village entry monumentation. 2. Neighborhood entry monumentation will be positioned at the entrance to individual residential neighborhoods. 3. The basic materials, signage lettering, and landscaping shall remain consistent; however, unique designs are encouraged for the neighborhood entry monuments in order to foster and celebrate neighborhood diversity and identity. Incorporation of the Village logo or character symbol is encouraged. 4. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent material. 5. Where appropriate, landscaped center medians are encouraged at all neighborhood entries when located at streets classified as a local collector or wider. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 105 ALBERHILL VILLAGES CIRCULATION & MONUMENTATION MASTER PLAN CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS LEGEND INR45iAlE lS wmrrr MWR NTRW ROCll1VAY µ.WR M1WAl POAO\VAY .,. �. _. nM. Dwwunc Rl o MWEMw o TUNmrs �1 '� -c NORTH N.T.S. Figure 8.1 mow., ws� n���.�.��. oniv mrz ravv.Kr rNnrrnowxnwunory 5[CIX-0MY EMRY MONIMwIAndl yM�. Y4T NW¢M1UWALLNIA1gN CIXMYINnY fKK tIX:tlION CWMIYIIYIMF �1 '� -c NORTH N.T.S. Figure 8.1 mow., ws� n���.�.��. oniv mrz ALBERHILL VILLAGES PLANTING MASTER PLAN. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS LEGEND pgq p MyJ0. M1FAV10.QWWAV WNO0. NIIRW.PQNWAY rv�n. ...0 1pAl µp WIIdIRCCAIII%M coxx[clmrc ortwwlnlRs ww.Rr eMPr wn..wwuRroN Figure 8.2 u--. NCPvoMrIMaY FgMIMINAM a� WUQ M1'b..AWNlA1pN �. pW.WNIIr iKPIaGIYJN N.T.S. T,. VR U&4Yl MACE COMMUNITES _____. ......... unrz Pan UKf51Uf NlULF (RPP0.I.W MFAWWI l PAPKNfW VI1 (a alo¢vinv nwcR (W�0UN05 ftIOG[1 HILHIPNIn NHALf towvrau xlusiUd Figure 8.2 u--. NORTH N.T.S. T,. unrz Pan 8.4.6 Commercial Use -Standards Commercial monuments will be located in the Regional and Community Mixed -Use, and Institutional/Educational land use. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, the Commercial monumentation shall comply with the following: 1. Commercial monuments will be consistent with the design themes of the Community Entry and Village Entry monumentation, and should contain the same features of clay brick and/or stone walls, or pilasters. Clay brick shall be incorporated. 2. Incorporation of the applicable Village identification logo is encouraged 3. Directional and project signage is allowed. 4. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent. 5. Evergreen specimen trees, flowering trees, and low growing native vegetation and rock outcroppings may be placed adjacent to and/or in front of the monument walls. 8.4.7 School and University -Standards In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, the School and University monumentation shall comply with the following: 1. Elementary and University monumentation should incorporate the same basic materials of clay brick and stone in keeping with Alberhill Villages theme. 2. Signage lettering, logo and landscaping should be in keeping with the Alberhill Villages theme, however, unique designs are encouraged for school monuments which will foster neighborhood identity and promote school spirit. 3. Incorporation of the respective Village logo is encouraged. 4. Formal or informal evergreen specimen trees, flowering trees, and low growing native plantings are encouraged. 5. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent material. 8.4.8 Park -Standards Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 106 In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, Park monumentation shall comply with the following: 1. Park monuments will be consistent with the design themes of the Community Entry and Village Entry monumentation, and should contain the same features of clay brick and/or stone walls, or pilasters. Clay brick shall be incorporated. 2. Incorporation of the respective Village logo is encouraged. 3. Formal or informal evergreen specimen trees, flowering trees, and low growing native plantings are encouraged. 4. Wall, column, pilaster and other hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent material. 8.4.9 Trail - Standards There are many unique hiking, biking, walking and multi -use trails that are woven into the fabric of the Villages, open spaces, and parks. Monumentation style should reflect the uniqueness of the respective trail. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.1.2 above, Trail monumentation and signage shall comply with the following minimum standards: 1. Each trail system should have trail head monumentation and signage. The trail head monumentation may consist of an interpretative kiosk noting the significance of that particular trail, and include seating and a plaque or similar signage identifying the trail name. 2. The style and design of trail signage found throughout the trail experience should have a hierarchy and direction and will be appropriately scaled for its use. Signage may vary in materials depending on surrounding conditions. 3. Materials used should reflect the surrounding topographical conditions and adjacent architectural influences visually related to the trail head area, and where walls or other structures are constructed, the materials should feature clay brick. Materials may vary depending on the appropriateness of the scale, size, and proximity to other use areas. 4. The use of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover plant materials is highly encouraged at all trail heads. 5. Where grades are steeper than 1:1 at a trail edge, and the native surrounding flora subject to possible destruction, there should be a split rail guard rail, vinyl rail fence, or similar obstruction will constructed to deter pedestrian traffic from wandering off the designated trail. Also, where grades are steeper than 35%, steps and hand rails should be considered. 6. Where applicable, low growing native plant materials shall be planted adjacent to the trail path to enhance the trail experience and deter pedestrian traffic from wandering off the path. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 107 8.5 Streetscape 8.5.1 Streetscape -Guidelines 1. Strongly connect the aesthetic of the larger community theme while maintaining the individual character identity of each smaller village and/or neighborhood. Uniformity will come from the configuration of trees, street furniture, sidewalks, monumentation, pedestrian crossings, and the emphasis of treatments at numerous view corridors. 2. All arterial and collector streets will have meandering sidewalks, removed or setback from curbs whenever possible. 3. Street trees and shrubs should be native, will be randomly planted and natural in occurrence, diverse in species reflective of individual villaqe plant material palettes, with varying size rock and decomposed granite ground mulch where appropriate. 4. Shrubs will be more formally used in the Town Center Village, and both trees and shrubs being less formally used in all village neighborhood parks. 5. Trees should be limited along bluff tops, ridgelines, and other view corridors in order to protect naturally occurring vistas 6. Streetscape landscapes are to highlight special features, enhance and blend with the natural topography, provide direction, circulation, and movement through the community. 7. A variety of native oak trees found throughout Riverside County are to be the featured tree throughout the community. 8.5.2 Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road - Standards A typical street section may include a meandering multi -use concrete walk within a wide landscape buffer on both sides of the street when possible. When applicable the multi -use walk shall provide connectivity to the greater circulation master plan for the City of Lake Elsinore. Other featured street amenities to be considered would be an adjacent bike lane on both street sides, connection to an equestrian master plan, and a planted median. Minimum standards are as follows: 1. The landscape buffer, parkways, and raised planted medians shall be accented with low landscaped berms (where appropriate) and combinations of large, evergreen and deciduous canopy trees randomly spaced at irregular intervals framing and screening desirable view sheds throughout the site. 2. Native oak trees are highly desired as the predominant street and specimen tree. 3. Turf is to be avoided wherever possible. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 108 4. Hardscape elements shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual accent element. 5. Masses of high, medium, and low growing native and drought tolerant, evergreen, and flowering shrubs and ground covers are encouraged for visual interest and streetscape continuity. An 18" wide (minimum) concrete maintenance band at the perimeter edge of median islands should be considered. Maintenance banding should incorporate clay brick pavers, or be clay colored stamped or decorative concrete. 8.5.3 Village Entry (Streets A & B) - Standards A typical street section may include a meandering multi -use concrete walk within a wide landscape buffer on both sides of the street when possible. When applicable the multi -use walk shall provide connectivity to the greater circulation master plan for the City of Lake Elsinore, 1. Village Entry street tree plantings should be more formalized in these locations to promote the specific character for that particular village. The use of native oak specimen trees is highly recommended; 2. Enhanced paving at crosswalks, where appropriate, is encouraged. Crosswalks may be enhanced at this location with either a color or change in paving materials such as brick or interlocking pavers. Clay brick pavers of terra cotta color are highly recommended. 3. The landscaped parkways should be accented with low landscaped elevated land forms (where appropriate) with combinations of colorful, large, native evergreen and deciduous canopy trees 4. Turf is not permitted in the parkways; however, natural and native grasses and similar are encouraged. 5. Masses of high, medium, and low growing drought tolerant, evergreen, and flowering shrubs and ground covers are encouraged for visual interest and streetscape continuity. 6. Median street trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting will reflect the native plant and tree theme. 7. An 18" wide maintenance band at the perimeter edge of the median islands is encouraged. Where appropriate, the median paving materials should include clay brick or similar elements. 8.5.4 Nichols Road - Standards A typical street section may include a meandering multi -use concrete walk within a wide landscape buffer on both sides of the street when possible. When applicable, Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 109 the multi -use walk shall provide connectivity to the greater circulation master plan for the City of Lake Elsinore. Other featured street amenities to be considered would be an adjacent bike lane on both street sides, connection to an equestrian master plan, and a planted median. Minimum standards are as follows: 1. Enhanced paving at crosswalks, where appropriate, is encouraged. Crosswalks may be enhanced at this location with either a color or change in paving materials such as brick or interlocking pavers. Clay brick pavers of terra cotta color are highly recommended; 2. The landscaped parkways should be accented with low landscaped elevated land forms (where appropriate) with combinations of colorful, large, native evergreen and deciduous canopy trees; 3. Turf is not permitted in the parkways, however, natural and native grasses and native plants are encouraged. 4. Masses of high, medium, and low growing drought tolerant, evergreen, and flowering shrubs and ground covers are encouraged for visual interest and streetscape continuity. 5. Median street trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting shall reflect the native plant and tree theme. 6. An 18" wide maintenance band at the perimeter edge of the median islands is encouraged. Where appropriate, the median paving materials should include clay brick or similar elements. 8.5.5 Streets C. E, and F - Standards Streets C, E and F are local collector roads, which are typically two lanes. Local collector roads provide easy connectivity between villages, residential areas, the university, schools, and commercial developments. A typical should include a meandering multi -use concrete walk, a landscape buffer on both sides, a bike lane (on both sides of the street when possible) and vehicular lanes. Minimum standards are as follows: 1. Enhanced paving at crosswalks, where appropriate, is encouraged. Crosswalks may be enhanced at this location with either a color or change in paving materials such as brick or interlocking pavers. Clay brick pavers of terra cotta color are highly recommended; 2. The landscaped parkways should be accented with low landscaped elevated land forms (where appropriate) with combinations of colorful, large, native evergreen and deciduous canopy trees; 3. Turf is not permitted in the parkways, however, natural and native grasses and similar are encouraged. 4. Masses of high, medium, and low growing drought tolerant, evergreen, and flowering shrubs and ground covers are encouraged for visual interest and streetscape continuity. 8.5.6 Town Center Main Street / Nichols Road from Street D to Lake St. - Standards Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 110 Alberhill Town Center Main Street is found in Village 6. The Alberhill Town Center Main Street consists of wide, angled parking on both sides of the street, with ADA compliant accessible ramps. Trees in tree wells and planters, and smaller, appropriately sized canopy understory street trees frame the Main Street buildings and first floor store front shopping and eatery areas. Minimum standards are as follows: 1. Enhanced paving at crosswalks, where appropriate, is encouraged. Crosswalks may be enhanced at this location with either a color or change in paving materials such as brick or interlocking pavers. Clay brick pavers of terra cotta color are highly recommended. 2. If medians or round -a -bouts occur, the medians should include street trees and low growing drought resistant groundcover accented with flowering shrubs. Turf is not permitted in the medians, however, natural and native grasses and similar are encouraged. 3. Masses of high, medium, and low growing drought tolerant, evergreen, and flowering shrubs and ground covers are encouraged for visual interest and streetscape continuity. 4. An 18" wide maintenance band at the perimeter edge of the median islands and round -a -bouts, where occurring, is encouraged. Where appropriate, the median paving materials should include clay brick or similar elements. 8.5.7 Traffic Circles / Round -a -Bouts - Standards The landscaping within traffic circles and round -a -bouts is to be a visually important focal point. The minimum landscape standards to be found within round -a -bouts may include: Enhanced brick, interlocking pavers, or colored/stamped concrete recommended in hardscape areas, artwork, water features, and specimen trees may be considered as focal point elements. 2. Trees, which should be large, flowering evergreen trees surrounded by flowering shrubs and groundcovers. 3. Turf is not allowed as a groundcover within the traffic circle or round -a -bout. A rolled curb and a clay brick paver or terra cotta colored paving maintenance banding is suggested. 8.6 Landscape Interface Between Uses Landscape Interface is defined in this section to mean a typical edge condition or description of a landscape buffer between differing uses or activities. The basic difference of an interface will be whether it is a view condition or a buffer condition. In some cases, landscape transition zones may apply even in view situations depending on adjacent land uses. The guidelines for landscape interfaces are: 1. Carefully blend the edges of plant materials from one treatment type to another. The transitions may be abrupt or gradual. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 111 2. Smaller structures can be buffered with shrubbery and elevated land forms. Larger structures can be buffered through a combination of elevated land forms with tree clusters. 3. All plants should be native, and be chosen from the plant palette at the end of these guidelines. Care should be taken when selecting plants to consider their initial size, growth expectations, form and seasonal characteristics. 4. Buffering between uses may be achieved by incorporating hardscape (e.g., walls or fencing) and softscape elements. Material selection must be compatible with other materials used nearby. 5. All planting should be drought tolerant, native or naturalized plant material suitable to the region. There are typical landscape interface conditions that may apply to parcels within each village and developed area. The landscape interfaces are, but may not be limited to, the following scenarios: 8.6.1.1 Residential / Paseo 8.6.1.2 Residential / School 8.6.1.3 Residential / Streetscape Landscape Buffer 8.6.1.4 Residential / Open Space 8.6.1.5 Residential / Park 8.6.1.6 Residential I Village Center / Commercial 8.6.1.7 Natural Area or Open Space at Street Edge 8.6.1.8 Street Edge / Open Space 8.6.1.9 Street Edge I Commercial 8.6.1.10 Street Edge I Residential 8.6.1.11 Park/School/Places of Religious Assembly 8.6.1.12 Detention Basin 8.6.1.13 Bio -Swale 8.6.1.14 Trail Edge 8.6.1 Residential / Paseo Interface - Standards A "paseo" is defined as a landscaped walkway or pedestrian path located between areas of development that provides a street -to -street, or area -to -area connection. Visual and physical access to paseos is desirable from residential areas. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential paseos shall include the following: 1. Landscaping should be low and unobtrusive shrubs and groundcover. Plantings should be used to enhance and screen view sheds where appropriate. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 112 3. Plantings used to screen any area of use should be well thought out so as to keep views open for safety officers to be able to drive by and monitor any activity. 4. Lighting should be low and unobtrusive, only lighting the pathways as a safety precaution. 8.6.2 Residential / School Interface - Standards Screening and privacy, but with ample visual open character, are important considerations both from the school and the residences' perspectives. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential/school interface include the following: 1. Landscaping against walls should be evergreen but remain low and unobtrusive. 2. Use planting and berming to screen views of structures where appropriate. 3. Plantings used to screen any area of use should be well thought out so as to keep views open for safety officers to be able to drive by and monitor any activity. Plantings shall not completely screen or prevent public use of any pedestrian pathway at a residential/school interface), and views must be kept open for safety officers to be able to monitor any activity. 4. Lighting between school uses and residential parcels may not be necessary or desired and will be determined on a case by case basis. However, sports lighting for potential baseball and soccer fields at the University Town Center will most likely be required. All sports lighting will be focused specifically on the field being lit, and required to be hooded shielding to prevent glare upon surrounding properties pursuant to the "Dark Sky" lighting policy of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (see Chapter 9, Lighting). 8.6.3 Residential / Streetscape Landscape Interface - Standards Screening, privacy, and attenuation of roadway generated noises are important considerations for the residences. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential/streetscape interfaces include the following: A solid wall with a double row of evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs along arterial highway and collector street edges of the streetscape are suggested for this particular interface. 2. In areas of terrain elevation where views are desirable, a view fence with low growing groundcovers would be appropriate. Refer to Section 8.7.3 for types of allowable view fences. Most areas at this interface will require evergreen landscaping against solid walls. Use planting and berming to screen or enhance views where appropriate. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 113 8.6.4 Residential / Open Space Interface - Standards Optimization of open space views and security of residential areas are considerations of this interface. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential/open space interfaces include the following: 1. If fencing is required along boundaries of residential parcels that have views of natural open spaces and landscaping, then view fencing (i.e. tubular steel, glass wall) should be installed for parcel security and enhancement of view. 2. Landscaping separating the residential parcel from the natural open spaces should enhance and frame the natural view sheds from the residential parcels. 3. Physical access (trail heads and other such local amenities) should be highlighted and enhanced with native landscaping. 4. Any landscaping required in the open space perimeter edge should remain native or naturalized, low, and unobtrusive to adjacent land uses. 5. Lighting between residential and open space uses should be held to the pedestrian and bollard style lighting and focused only the areas intended to be lit, if they are to be lit at all (see Chapter 9, Lighting Design Guidelines). 6. The residential and open space interface may fall under the Fuel Modification Zone Use Plan, and will be subject to the recommendations set forth in Section 8.8 of this document. 8.6.5 Residential / Park Interface - Standards Screening and privacy as well as enhanced view opportunities are important considerations both from the park and the residences perspectives. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential/park interfaces include the following: Landscaping against walls and fences should be evergreen including evergreen canopy trees framing views where appropriate for maximum impact on the visual aesthetic for the resident. Use planting and berming to screen views where appropriate, such as parking areas. 3. Plantings used to screen any area of use should be well thought out so as to keep views open for safety officers to be able to drive by and monitor any activity. Plantings shall not completely screen or prevent public use of any pedestrian pathway at a residential/park interface), and views must be kept open for safety officers to be able to monitor any activity. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 114 4. Lighting between residential and parks uses should be held to the pedestrian and bollard style lighting and focused only the areas intended to be lit. Enhanced and focused lighting is appropriate for community centers, restrooms, ball parks, and soccer fields. and will be considered on a case by case basis. 8.6.6 Residential / Village Center / Commercial Interface - Standards Screening, privacy, and noise attenuation are important considerations for the residences. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for residential/village center/commercial interfaces include the following: 1. A solid wall with a double row of evergreen trees (where possible) and shrubs along the residential edge of the streetscape are encouraged. 2. Landscaping against walls and tubular steel fences should be evergreen but remain low and unobtrusive. Use planting and berming to screen views where appropriate. 3. Plantings used to screen any area of use should be well thought out so as to keep views open for safety officers to be able to drive by and monitor any activity. Plantings shall not completely screen or prevent public use of any pedestrian pathway at a residential/village center interface), and views must be kept open for safety officers to be able to monitor any activity. 4. Pathway and safety lighting is to be considered and all lighting will have a shields and screens as to not reflect back into any residence. 5. Views into and out of the University Village, University Town Center, and the Alberhill Town Center should be enhanced and / or screened as appropriate. 6. Additional commercial signs and monumentation will also be in this space. Trees, shrubs, and groundcovers should be planted as to not block or hinder the readability of any commercial or project identification signage. 8.6.7 Natural/Open Space Conditions/Street Edge Interface -Standards Preservation and reclamation of the natural environment is and is greatly desired and considered a key and unique amenity to the community. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for natural area and open space conditions at street edge interfaces include the following: 1. These special designated areas may contain either an underground or overhead utility easements. The guest developer shall call Dig Alert at 811 anytime and prior to installing any landscape item within these areas. 2. Underground Utilities — Guest builders and developers shall consult the local or regional agency responsible for the underground or open utility for landscape installation recommendations prior to installation. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 115 3. Overhead Utility - Transmission lines and power lines may exist in areas where excavations may take place, therefore, the guest builders and developers will be responsible to verify with the local utility company, and the City, the current excavation and planting guidelines prior to any excavation. 8.6.8 Street Edge / Open Space Interface - Standards Views from an arterial highway or collector street within the site and borrowed views from the region at large should be enhanced and highlighted whenever possible to enhance the visual desirability and character of the vehicular experience within the community. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum standards for natural area and open space conditions at street edge interfaces include the following: 1. Locate fences sparingly and only when necessary. Street lighting and pedestrian scaled pole and bollard lighting should be placed as to not detract from the overall experience of this transportation corridor and used sparingly and only when necessary. 2. Park and paseo edges against a street edge may be screened through the use of berming or enhanced landscaping, depending on the desired effect. 3. Landscaping should enhance the open space and should identify it separately from the street edge as a unique use area. The guest developer may not plant as to completely screen any area of use from the public and must keep views open for safety officers to be able to monitor any activity. 8.6.9 Street Edge / Commercial Standards Interface - Standards Commercial edges should be integral and visible from a street edge. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for natural area and open space conditions at street edge interfaces include the following: Sight lines should be considered when placing trees along a street edge. If the commercial use adjacent to a street edge is the side, back, or delivery entrance or the view into the site is undesirable, then a solid wall with a double row of evergreen trees and evergreen screening shrubs should be considered. 2. Plantings used to screen any area of use should be well thought out so as to keep views open for safety officers to be able to drive by and monitor any activity. Plantings shall not completely screen or prevent public use of any pedestrian pathway at a residential/park interface), and views must be kept open for safety officers to be able to monitor any activity. 8.6.10 Street Edge / Residential Interface - Standards Screening, privacy, and noise attenuation are important considerations for the residences. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for street edge/residential interfaces shall include: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 116 1. A solid wall with a double row of evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs along a street edge should be considered at this particular interface. 2. Where views are desirable, a tubular steel fence and low growing groundcovers would be recommended. Use planting and elevated lands forms to screen or enhance views where appropriate. 8.6.11 Park / School or Park / Places of Religious Assebly Interface - Standards A strong and aesthetically pleasing visual connection should always try to be achieved along the landscaped edge of any park / places of religious assembly and school. In addition to the general standards in Section 8.3, minimum landscape standards for street edge/residential interfaces shall include: Where conditions require shared access from the school to the park, then a direct physical connection and accessible access will be made between the park / places of religious assembly and school. This landscaped buffer may include, but will not be limited to, berms, turf, open fields, evergreen and deciduous trees, flowering shrubs and groundcovers. 2. Security and safety fencing will be required to separate uses and allow for public safety. 3. Security and safety lighting will be required at this interface. All lighting shall comply with the lighting standards set forth in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (see Chapter 9, Lighting Design Guidelines). 8.6.12 Detention Basin Standards Minimum landscape standards for detention basins shall include: Detention basins within the community should be surrounded with tubular steel or other secured view fencing. This fence style shall be the typical, standard fencing type required on all sides of the detention basin between the local collector and the detention basin edge if the grading and conditions require a fence. 2. Perimeter landscaping should include heavy screening with large evergreen canopy trees and a hierarchy of masses, large, medium, and smaller shrubs. 3. All lighting shall comply with the lighting standards set forth in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (see Chapter 9, Lighting Design Guidelines). 8.6.13 Bio -Swale - Standards Not every streetscape landscape requires a bio-swale but there may be conditions where a surface drainage bio-swale may be required. The bio-swale is a naturally Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 117 landscaped surface water flow filter that will serve as part of the overall water quality management plan. Minimum landscape standards for bio-swales shall include: The bio-swale shall consist of a naturalized landscaped edge behind the meandering sidewalk and shall drain at a 1 % or greater slope. 2. The bio-swale shall have a rock or stone edge and shall include naturalized or native plant material. 8.6.14 Trail Edge - Standards Provide a minimum amount of enhanced or supplemental landscaping and hardscape at trail heads or on a trail. Should a trail system require additional grading to mitigate erosion or other similar issue to provide safe access, it is important to minimize grading while allowing the natural topography and native flora to prevail wherever possible. Minimum landscape standards for detention basins shall include: 1. All planting shall be native or naturalized to the general region. All plant material should be drought tolerant and require little supplemental irrigation beyond natural rainfall patterns for the area. 2. Any material used at a trail head or along a trail system should be natural and understated. Natural stones, timber, "timbercrete" cast stone, and decomposed granite are encouraged. 3. A trail head and trail may reflect architectural features noted adjacent to trail so as to blend with the intent and theme for that section of trail. 4. At residential/openspace interfaces, maintain views of the trail edges by framing views from residences across or into a trail system. Trails crossing open spaces shall be unobtrusive and shall not visually interfere with the overall aesthetic of the open space. 4. At trail heads, enhanced planting including larger trees and shrubs should be planted at all trail heads to highlight the entrances to all trail systems. Enhanced paving, seating, and interpretive kiosks are encouraged at trail heads. 5. At trail crossings, if two or more trail systems cross one another, clear and easily read directional signage shall be placed at the intersection as to the direction of each trail. Enhanced landscaping at these trail intersections may also help with trail identification and direction. 6. At transit stops, where a trail intersects with a transit feature, (i.e., bus stop), then clear directional signage and easy accessibility between the trail intersection and the amenity is encouraged. Enhanced planting and hardscape, including removable bollards as required, is encouraged to distinguish the transit stop as a separate amenity from the trail system. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 118 At trail rest stops, inadvertent and random trail rest stops are encouraged along a trail system. These may include, but not be limited to, resting boulders at seating height with shade, wood, brick, or metal view benches, or half cut lodge pole timber informal bench seating- Trail rest stops should be unobtrusive and restrained from the overall trail path and not to impede upon the design intent of the trail. 8. At observation points, enhancement of certain view sheds or opportunities unique to a particular trail system are encouraged and desired as a visual amenity. Observation Points may be similar to trail rest stops, however, enhanced planting, permanent seating and shade, and possible drinking water and trash receptacle amenities are encouraged. 9. Materials used for all hardscape elements should be natural such as clay brick, stone, timber, and decomposed granite pathways. Enhanced native plant materials are encouraged to highlight, frame, or feature the amenity to which the observation point was planned. 8.7 Community Walls & Fences 8.7.1 Community Walls & Fences — Guidelines Community walls and fences will be located around the perimeter boundaries of each Village area where it interfaces with natural open space, roads, parks, schools, commercial and other multi -use planned areas. The walls and fences throughout the community are major visual elements which are designed to complement the overall character of the project. General guidelines area as follows: 1. Solid walls will be used when a visual screen or physical barrier is desired. 2. Ranch rail fencing, vinyl rail fencing and other non -visually obstructing fencing types will be used where separation of uses is desired for safety and lifestyle reasons and visual aesthetics exists that enhance the character of the community. 3. Native, naturalized, and drought tolerant plant materials and the use of elevated land forms and boulders may be used as barriers, but also that encourage the connectivity of the natural open space with the community. 4. Wall and fence types should be developed to provide the following characteristics: Sound attenuation, privacy, containment and definition, view preservation and enhancement. 5. The use of high quality, low maintenance materials is recommended. 8.7.2 Community Wall & Fence —General Standards As appropriate, block, brick, concrete, and where appropriate vinyl walls, shall be covered by a shrub or vine type plant material on full height walls as a graffiti deterrent. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 119 2. Decorative entry walls, minor walls, pilasters, and fence types may include the following acceptable materials: brick, stone, decorative tubular steel, concrete ranch -rail, precast concrete, brick, or stone cap, split face concrete masonry block, and vinyl. 3. Walls and pilasters may be split face masonry unit block, stone and brick, pre -cast or poured in place concrete with a precast concrete or stone cap. 4. The use of clay brick is recommended to be the predominant material used on walls and pilasters in order to present a harmonious and unified community element of historical local. 5. Walls and fences should be 5' high minimum, 6' high maximum from the property owners' side of the fence. Ranch rail (both concrete and vinyl) fencing may be as low as 3' high depending on slope and site conditions. 8.7.3 View Fence -Standards View fencing should be used where significant views are not to be obstructed, and may be constructed of vinyl, clear acrylic, tempered glass, tubular steel, or wrought iron where deemed appropriate. Wrought iron is not recommended due to perennial costly maintenance needs. Clay brick columns and pilasters, are encouraged to be a major visual element of the view fence in order to promote character identity of the developed area. If the site conditions dictate that a portion of these walls are to be retaining, then the base portion of the wall may be concrete, block, stone, concrete masonry unit or masonry unit with brick veneer. As with solid walls all materials, textures, and colors shall be compatible with the architecture and character of the developed area therein. 8.7.4 Single -Family Yard Fence -Standards Refer to Figure 8.3 TYPICAL WALL AND FENCE PROGRAM for a depiction of the typical single-family residential fence and gate program. The following are minimum single-family residential fence and gate standards: 1. Side yard fences and gates facing a street shall be comprised of same materials as noted above. This would include using wood fencing or vinyl fencing on non -street facing side yard conditions. Although wood fencing is a minimal option, it is not recommended due to ongoing homeowner and HOA maintenance costs and anticipated deterioration due to the hot, dry weather conditions of the area. 2. All fencing should have a minimum height of 5' and a maximum height of 6'. 3. Street facing gates and side yard fences shall be solid for privacy and sound attenuation. All side yard fencing heights shall comply with the City of Lake Elsinore Landscape Standards and municipal codes. 4. Where residentially zoned property lines abut property designated for commercial, non-residential, or industrial zoned districts, or where residential properties are located within mixed-use areas, there shall be a 6' high masonry block wall, or other solid material wall within the development in order to provide a landscape buffer between the development and Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 120 LBERHILL EQUALSPACE WALL TYPE VARIES WITH LADSCAPE INTERFACE CONDITION BRICK, CMU EQUALSPACE VILLAGE - TYPICAL WALL AND FENCE PROGRAM CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS SIDEWALK LOCAL STREET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 8.3 residential use. Trees shall be located within this planter for screening and shall be native evergreen. 8.7.5 Pilasters —Standards 1. Pilasters and columns shall be of similar materials as the concrete masonry unit walls adjacent to these elements, and shall feature clay brick as the predominant visual material. 2. Pilasters used at entry monuments (see Section 8.4) may be of differing materials. 8.7.6 Materials Not Used I. Chaln-Ilnk fencing (with or without vinyl mesh weaving), exposed precision masonry block, wood fencing in public view areas, razor wire fencing, lattice fencing, and similar types of fencing are not permitted. The only exception for chain-link fencing would be at sport field conditions, such as a baseball backstop, and at the perimeter or trail edge condition. 8.8 Slope Management & Fuel Modification 8.8.1 Slopes — Guidelines It is the intent of the slopes management program to reduce the visual and biological impact of the grading operations adjacent to undisturbed open space, resulting in a blending of the re -vegetated slopes with surrounding undisturbed terrain. In order to accomplish the successful re -vegetation of slopes, the following guidelines shall apply: 1. The planting concept for the slopes is informal, with curved masses of colorful native or naturalized shrubs and groundcovers. 2. Soil testing and preparation, the specific timing of planting, a well-designed and monitored irrigation system, and an ongoing weed eradication program. 3. Erosion control through the employment of Best Management Practices (BMPs). 4. Utilization of low -maintenance, drought -tolerant plant material. 5. Preservation of existing landscape material, when possible. v. Minimize grading wherever possible utilizing the existing topography and terrain into the design of the project. All slope areas shall be planted in coordination with the City of Lake Elsinore Fire Department and all approving agencies. 8.8.2 Slopes — Standards 1. A mixture of native or naturalized evergreen and deciduous trees should also be planted in groups or masses in a random pattern. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 121 2. Slopes less than 3:1 shall receive 3 -inch -deep organic mulch under all planting. 3. All manufactured slopes shall receive 100 percent irrigation coverage or 100 percent point to point irrigation depending on the planting design. The irrigation mainline shall be buried at tops and bottoms of slopes and at mid - slope whenever possible. All laterals at top and bottom of slopes shall be buried and at mid -slope whenever possible. 4. Valves and all irrigation equipment shall be placed flat on slope benches and buried whenever possible. 5. Landscaping consistent with the adjacent existing vegetation shall be provided to screen the down-slope side of buildings. Where the understory of a structure is exposed, it shall be screened from view with the use of landscape elements, if not screened architecturally. 6. Drainage structures shall be appropriately screened. 7. All landscaping installed on slopes for screening or other purposes shall be chosen from the ALBERHILL VILLAGES PLANT MATRIX. 8. Slopes adjacent to natural open space shall be planted with indigenous grasses and California native species. 9. Trees should screen approximately 20 percent of the rear elevation of homes at maturity. The trees shall incorporate "windows" to view corridors where appropriate. 10. Retaining walls and perimeter walls exposed to public views shall be landscaped where appropriate while maintaining the overall theme of the community. 11. Selection of plant material shall be subject to adaptability to prevailing wind and soil conditions and maintenance considerations. 8.8.2 Fuel Modification - Standards The intent of the fuel management program is to minimize opportunities for brush fires, particularly near development, while considering all biological constraints. The following minimum fuel modification standards apply: 1. A fuel modification plan shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of the County of Riverside Fire Department and the City of Lake Elsinore Fire Department. The fuel modification plan may be developed at the Subdivision Map approval stage. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 122 8.9 Community Plant Palette 12. The Community Plant Palette identifies the plant material appropriate for the various public green and open spaces, including the public right of ways and streetscape landscapes. Individual plant palette matrices will be developed for the various Villages throughout the community from the Community Plant Palette. These Village plant palettes will be developed at the PDP design stage, with the selection of plant materials being taken from the ALBERHILL VILLAGES PLANT MATRIX. 8.10 Bikeway System A primary and secondary bicycle trail system is to be incorporated into the transportation fabric of the Alberhill Villages community, which will provide connectivity to the Lake Elsinore Downtown Core as part of the larger master plan for the City of Lake Elsinore. A primary bicycle trail is defined as a paved, accessible, multi -use path providing non -vehicular transportation corridors connecting each neighborhoods, University, schools, and villages to one another throughout the community. Refer to Section 4.6, TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION, for locations of designated primary and secondary bicycle lane locations. Primary bikeways are divided into two classes: Class I and Class II. A Class I Bikeway path has its own, completely separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles only. A Class II Bikeway provides a restricted right-of-way for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles with the permitting of vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross flows. Lake Street and Nichols Road are listed as Class II Bikeways in the City General Plan (Figure 2.5, BIKEWAY PLAN). 8.10.1 Bikeway Standards A Class II bike trail is a separate but painted lane within the roadway adjacent to the curbside of a vehicular road way, and shall be paved and be a minimum 6 feet wide. Class II bikeways in the Alberhill Villages project are proposed to be located: a. Lincoln Street — Between Nichols Road and the southerly project boundary; b. Street "A" — Between Temescal Canyon Road to Lake Street; c. Nichols Road — Temescal Canyon Road to Lake Street; d. Nichols Road — West end extension of existing Nichols Road. 2. Secondary bicycle paths are also connective corridors, but are defined as secondary as they service, and are located throughout the local residential community within each Village, ultimately connecting to the primary bicycle trail system for total connectivity to the community at large. Secondary bike trails are also paved and are 4 feet wide minimum. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 123 8.11 Multi -Use Trail System Providing easily -accessible and maintained multi -use trails will stimulate pedestrian and multi -use connectivity within the community. The multi -use road and trails epitomize the traditional ranch character of the community and should tie into the master trail system for the City of Lake Elsinore. 8.11.1 Multi -Use Trail System Standards: When developing a multi -use trail, the following standards are to be followed: 1. Trail shall remain accessible, unblocked, and continuous. 2. Where a trail and a driveway or sidewalk interface, the lift separating the trail and the sidewalk and/ or driveway shall never exceed 1/2". 3. Landscaping shall not encroach into the trail to provide clear and unhindered passage for user. Landscaping shall remain clear up to a height of 8' above the trail. 4. Trail material shall consist of native soil, decomposed granite, or other approved similar material. Trail shall be graded smooth and maintained at 90% compaction. Compaction of trail should occur upon development and on a routine basis, to maintain 90% compaction. 5. Lighting shall adhere to the overall theme and intent for the Alberhill Villages and shall meet all City of Lake Elsinore lighting requirements for equestrian trails. 6. Trail signage shall be similar to bike trail signage. Trail signs will be clearly marked at all roadways per local development codes for the City of Lake Elsinore. 7. Motorized vehicles shall be prohibited from the multi -use trail except authorized maintenance, utility, law enforcement and emergency vehicles. 8. When a trail crosses a vehicular corridor, then a small swing gate with a spring loaded button shall be installed to protect both the vehicle and the user. 9. Privacy is desired along trail landscape interfaces with residential and commercial use. The developer may consider: a. Sloped Buffer - Where appropriate, a sloped buffer may be installed, from the rear property fence line down to the trail, thereby reducing the height of line of sight of the user. b. Denser and Taller Vegetation — Where appropriate, in landscape easements between a rear property fence line and a trail, denser and taller vegetation may be installed to reduce the visual sight a user may have into private property. c. Disclosure — It is recommended that developers disclose to potential homeowners the proximity of their property to any multi -use trail and the specific use of this trail. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 124 8.12 Parks & Open Spaces 8.12.1 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks will range in size providing localized opportunities for outdoor recreation within each village or planning area. At a minimum, neighborhood parks should incorporate the following guidelines: 1. Neighborhood parks may be located either on the perimeter, interior, or at the entry to each village. 2. Neighborhood parks may be as simple as multi -use lawn and some shade trees to more structured amenities such as community pools or play areas and sports fields. 3. All neighborhood parks should feature a central point of interest and will most likely bisect or be a focal node for various trail systems found throughout the community. In the case of bisecting trails, clear directional information including enhanced planting and hardscape should highlight the trail intersection and path of travel for each trail. 4. Neighborhood parks should consider and include where appropriate, the following uses, facilities and functions: • Play Areas for 0-12 year age groups. • Multi -use Open Fields • Individual picnic table and charcoal barbecues. • Group picnic and barbecue areas at each event area. • Park benches and trash receptacles throughout. • Meandering trails and view benches. • Individual and Group Shade Structures • Park benches and trash urns throughout. • Seating Areas • Automobile parking area. • Bicycle parking area. • Drinking Fountains • Optional Dog Walking Designated Areas. • Dog walking maintenance "bag" service devices. • Restrooms 8.12.2 View Parks A View Park is defined as an enlarged open space or node along a bluff top edge or trail offering the opportunity for the pedestrian to experience a special view highlighted and framed with plant material and / or hardscape. A View Park is generally for passive use by the pedestrian or bicyclist to rest and reflect. At a minimum, view parks should incorporate the following guidelines: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 125 I . Features include benches or seating areas and shade from either a hard structure or large canopy trees. 2. Overall forms for the parks should be natural and plant material used should be native or naturalized to the local area. 3. Any hardscape elements shall incorporate clay and brick materials themed throughout the community. 4. Views from the parks should remain unobtrusive to the overall environment blending with the natural surroundings. The intended view and focus of the park should be well labeled, clearly visible, and easily accessible. 5. View Parks adjacent to a residential or commercial parcel should reflect the architectural theme of the adjacent use. 6. Lighting should be low key and conform to any 'night skies' ordinances set forth by the City of Lake Elsinore and all approving agencies. 8.12.3 Sports Parks and Active Parks Any planned Sports Park and/or Active Park should reflect the overall theme consistent to their respective Village or adjacent neighborhoods. At a minimum, view parks should incorporate the following guidelines: 1. Features such as the restrooms, shade structure, play areas, sports fields and courts with benches and view seating should also reflect the overall theme for the park and Village at large with appropriate material use such as brick, and stucco. 2. Large, specimen canopy trees are recommended for immediate shade, visual impact, and perception of permanence to the park landscape (refer to Section 8.6 (Landscape Interfaces) for additional information and edge treatment at the active park areas. 3. Sports Parks and Active Parks may include areas of both passive but mainly active uses, including but not limited to: a. Age tiered tot lots. b. Outdoor full- and half -court basketball. c. Baseball fields. d. Soccer fields. e. Football fields. f. Volleyball courts g. Multi -use open fields. h. Meandering trails and view benches. i. Trash dumpster enclosures throughout the site accessible from the roadways and dog walking "bag" dispensaries. j. Individual picnic tables with charcoal barbecues throughout. k. Provide group picnic and barbecue areas at each event area. I. Park benches and trash receptacles throughout. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 126 in. Seating areas n. Automobile parking areas. o. Bicycle parking areas. p. Lighting at sports courts and fields. 8.12.4 Community Park A Community Park serves the recreational needs of the overall community. The hardscape, architecture, and planting should reflect the clay brick and oak tree theme consistent to Alberhill Villages. At a minimum, view parks should incorporate the following guidelines: 1. Features such as the restrooms, shade structure with picnic seating, and community gardens, should reflect the overall theme for the park and Village at large. 2. Large, specimen canopy trees are recommended for immediate shade and visual impact and permanence to the park landscape. 3. Community Parks should consider, but not be limited to, the following active and passive uses: a. Clubhouse with meeting rooms, offices, kitchen, restrooms. b. Olympic size swimming pool with cabana and shaded seating. c. Age tiered tot lots. d. Full-size soccer fields. e. Football field. f. Multi -use area with meandering trails and view benches. g. Meandering trails and view benches. h. Pedestrian trails and park site walkways. i. Trash dumpster enclosures throughout the site accessible from roadways and dog walking "bag" dispensaries. i. Individual picnic table and barbecue areas at each event area. k. Park benches and trash receptacles throughout. 1. Seating areas m. Automobile parking area. n. Restrooms 8.13 Themed Site Materials, Finishes, Street Furniture In order to communicate a consistent theme throughout the Alberhill Villages community, several hardscape elements, fixtures and street furniture need to be pre -selected. In some cases, a specific product (model, color, finish) will be selected; in other cases, the implementing builders may select from several options. Where product specifications are not provided, an implementing builder should select hardscape and fixtures that carry similar themes as those items presented. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 127 DARK IRON SPOT MODULAR BRICK MEDIUM IRON SPOT MODULAR BRICK DARK I IERITAGE RED MODULAR BRICK RED FLASH MODULAR BRICK BURGUNDY MODULAR BRICK NAPA MODULAR BRICK Example Brick Colors From Pacific Clay To Be Used For Monumentation Signage & Throughout Alberhill Villages Note: All mommnentalion signage shall use Weston Ridge - Rink Hills Connnoli'I'um bled Standard Pueific Clay color in combination wish mhe, brick and mammal, Providing cominuiiy of III between Albcrhill Villages and AR,, hill lunch developments. Figure 8.4 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Wall & Fence Detail Specific Plan �S PPOJECf OEBtON CON6U4TANie VVI In rHum 0MK.n Brick Pilaster With Texture Block Concrete Wall N.T.S. 2EDl CMU COLORED Figure 8.5 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Wall & Fence Detail Specific Plan �,,�`PPUJECT 0681CN CON9U4'MNY6 MA: WITn rAut nniun Brick Pilaster With View Fencing N.T.S. TEXTURED/CMU 3LOCK COLORED Figure 8.6 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Wall & Fence Detail Specific Plan yVROJECL OEBIOX CON6ULThNi6 ri .v 10 1r 111o1111— TEXTURED/ COLORED CMU BLOCK Combination Low Wall/ View Fence N.T.S. Figure 8.7 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Wall &Fence Detail Specific Plan �' PPOJF4T➢EBION CON6V4TnXTS Vinyl Fence N.'rs. Figure 8.8 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Wall & Fence Detail Specific Plan r-? PXUJ[p pE81pN CONBUtTnxTa S'-0" MAX Vinyl or Precast Concrete Rail Fence N.T.S. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Figure 8.9 Conceptual Wall & Fence Detail 61.E P.O,KC OE810X dON6V LTANT@ Primary Monumentation N.T.S. Figure 8.10 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Monumentation Signage Specific Plan (:i PflOJF0T OE810N CON6lILT.NiB Secondary Monumentation- Professional N.T.S. Figure 8.11 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Monumentation Signage Specific Plan 17i' PROlfCi 0E810N <ONEVLTnNiB Secondary Monumentation- University N.T.S. Figure 8.12 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Monumentation Signage Specific Plan r? PROJ[4T F610N CON6VLTANiB Secondary Monumentation- Commercial N.T.S. Figure 8.13 Alberhill Villages Conceptual Monumentation Signage Specific Plan C> PPOJ6GS 06810N CON6VLTNNIB Figure 8.14 Alberhill Villages Trail Monumentation Specific Plan r^ PXVJECt bF810N CONFUtYnxTs Informational or Directional Monumentation N.T.S. Figure 8.15 Alberhill Villages Trail Monumentation Specific Plan `.v....' PPOJEGi 0EE1tlH CONEU4T2NY8 Contents 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Lighting Design Guidelines 9.3 Light Fixture Examples Appendix 9.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 9 LIGHTING DESIGN GUIDELINES All lighting for ALBERHILL VILLAGES will be designed with a 'Dark Sky' approach. This means that where and when lighting is required all lighting shall have uniform lighting standards with regard to hierarchy, style, materials, and colors in order to ensure consistent design and shall be directed or focused downward whenever possible and not into the general night sky. All public street lighting should comply with City of Lake Elsinore standards where applicable. Lighting proposed within the commercial, residential, park and recreational and street areas shall conform to a uniform set of criteria established for the ALBERHILL VILLAGES community. Each village may develop its own lighting standards, provided that the selected lighting fixture style is used consistently throughout the village and is complementary to the style selected for ALBERHILL VILLAGES community as a whole. Lighting fixtures shall be well integrated into the visual environment and the appropriate architectural theme. 9.2 LIGHTING DESIGN GUIDELINES All of ALBERHILL VILLAGES shall be subject to and shall comply with The California Title 24 - Energy Efficiency Standards for Resident ial and Non -Residential Buildings (both 2005 and 2008 standards). Guest developers are expected to understand the noted ordinances and follow all permit application procedures to obtain the proper permits prior to installation. The following guidelines shall be followed in order to ensure appropriate design, placement, and application of lighting to be achieved: 9.2.1 Lights shall be durable, easy to maintain and be designed so as to be of unbreakable plastic if possible, and may be recessed or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and replacement of fixtures. Fixtures shall be vandal -resistant. 9.2.2 All exterior lighting designs shall address the issue of security. Parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and building entrances shall be well lit for security reasons. 9.1.1 No freestanding lighting fixtures shall exceed the maximum height as noted by the lighting ordinance for the City of Lake Elsinore. All pole lighting heights and light spread shall comply with the City of Lake Elsinore's lighting requirements. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 128 9.1.2 Any service area lighting shall be contained within the service yard boundaries and enclosure walls. 9.1.3 The lighting concept of the entry monumentation features is to illuminate the sign graphics and gently wash the site elements, walls, and pilasters with light. Concealed uplight fixtures should illuminate trees and other site features. Refer to Monumentation section of the guidelines for additional information. 9.1.4 The type and location of lighting should minimize direct glare onto adjoining properties. Lighting should be shielded to confine all rays within the property. 9.1.6 Light fixtures upon buildings shall complement the architectural design of the building. Lighting should be designed to satisfy function, as well as contribute to overall design quality. 9.1.6 In order to maintain light spill-over, lighting and illuminated signs shall be located to confine illumination to the premises. 9.1.7 All electrical meter pedestals and light switch / control equipment shall be located with minimum public visibility, if possible, or shall be screened with appropriate plant materials 9.1.8 The level of on-site lighting as well as lighting fixtures shall comply with any and all applicable requirements and policies of Riverside County. Energy conservation, safety and security should be emphasized when designing any light system. 9.1.9 Industrial type utility type lights are not permitted. 9.1.10 Future facility signs should be used to identify and provide arrow direction to residential subdivisions and other development areas. 9.3 LIGHT FIXTURE EXAMPLES Light Fixture Family The following decorative street light family of fixtures may be used along all framework streets and neighborhood streets. All lighting elements listed below can be 'mixed and matched'; however, the design intent is to implement a consistent design throughout the project. All fixture heads can either be pole mounted, wall mounted, twin head fixture, or pendant mount depending upon site conditions. The following are acceptable styles of light fixtures: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 129 ( SHOW A MIN. OF 2 EXAMPLES FOR EACH TYPE OF FIXTURE: POLE MOUNT, WALL MOUNT, TWIN HEAD, PENDANT MOUNT, SECURITY) Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 130 Contents 10.1 Purpose 10.2 General Sign Guidelines 10.2.1 Approved Signs 10.2.2 Prohibited Signs 10.3 Sign Regulations — General 10.4 Special Signs - General 10.5 Temporary Real Estate Signs 10.6 Directional and Kiosk Signs 10.7 Political Campaign Signs 10.8 Construction Signs 10.9 Flags, banners, pennants, balloons, Window and interior signs. 10.10 Residential Signs 10.10.1 Single Family Residences 10.10.2 Multi -Family Residences 10.11 Commercial & Professional Office Signs 10.1 Purpose Chapter 10 SIGNAGE REGULATIONS Special signage guidelines and standards are necessary for the regulation of all matters concerning signs, advertising structures, and advertising devices within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, height, design, quantity, content, and illumination. Effective signage will contribute to the unique feel and the pedestrian scale of the development. These guidelines and standards, when combined with the architectural, site, and landscape guidelines and standards, will help create a "sense of place" in the Alberhill Villages community. The purposes of these regulations are to: 1. Maintain and enhance the physical appearance and economic value of the Alberhill Villages community; 2. Direct and inform persons as to the location and nature of activities. 3. Provide guidance for design of advertising displays, structures and devices which will harmonize with their surroundings, avoid confusion, and result in signage which is architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings or structures. 4. Reduce the potential for distraction of or hazard to motorists or pedestrians; 5. Reduce the potential for creation of visual nuisances; and 6. Establish guidelines and standards for the City of Lake Elsinore in the review of temporary and/or permanent sign approval and permitting. 10.2 General Sign Guidelines 10.2.1 Appropriate Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 131 1. Generally, small low key signage program for tenant spaces; 2. Encourage the use of graphics and less text to create more pedestrian oriented signs; 3. Building mounted signs for project identity; 4. Eye level signs; window and door signs, including pedestrian oriented projecting signs over storefronts and boardwalks; 5. Signs consistent with building texture, color and architectural style; 6. Uniquely shaped signs that are related to the product or service provided (e.g. barber poll); 7. Signs which have illumination sources consistent with Mount Palomar lighting standards and restrictions; & Acceptable sign types include wall mount individual letters, which may have interior illumination; 9. Freestanding monument signs shall be low profile and incorporate ALBERHILL VILLAGES entry monument type features and landscaping; 10. Any outdoor advertising structure shall contain thereon only such matter or advertising which refers to goods or services produced, sold, or displayed on the premises upon which such sign or structure is located, excepting off-site real estate signs as provided in Section 10.5. 10.2.2 Inappropriate / Prohibited 1. Typical 'ban" or "box" signs with entire face areas in plastic.; 2. Individual plastic channel letters; 3. Roof Siqns. Signs projecting above the roof -line of a building or structure, except in the case of a sign incorporated as an integral part of the design and construction of a building and approved by design review; 4. Signs which interfere with or conflict with any traffic control device, create a safety hazard by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or interfere with or conflict with efficient operations of emergency vehicles; 5. Emergency Access. Signs which prevent free access to or from any fire escape, door, window or exit, or access to any standpipe; 6. Temporary of Semi -Permanent Signs. It is expressly prohibited to erect temporary or semi-permanent signs such as paper paste-up, painted, portable poster board, and mobile types when such signs are located outside of buildings, on exterior walls, and/or on window surfaces, unless a temporary sign permit has first been issued; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 132 7. Billboards. Billboards, non -appurtenant or other off-site, outdoor advertising structures, except temporary real estate directional or kiosk signs as provided for in Section 10.5; 8. Detached Signs. All detached signs shall be located within a landscape planter, as approved by design review. The base of any detached sign shall be constructed of masonry, wood or other suitable building material, and shall have clay brick accents; 9. Statue Signs. Statues designed primarily for commercial -promotional activity shall be subject to design review and approval; 10. Inflatable Signs. Inflatable signs are not allowed; 11. Vehicle Signs. No person shall park, or cause to be parked, any vehicle on any public or private property right-ot-way for the sole purpose of commercial advertising. A sign or signs on vehicles used in conjunction with a business and the use of that vehicle will be allowed, subject to the following provisions: a. A vehicle sign is a sign permanently or temporarily attached to, or permanently painted on a vehicle that is used in conjunction with the business that it identifies or advertises. b. The vehicle must be used as a part of the business to which the advertising in the vehicle pertains (i.e., regular use for delivery of business products or obtaining supplies. c. No vehicle sign shall be attached in such a manner as to render a door, window, hood, trunk, or tailgate or a vehicle unmovable or unusable or to violate the California Vehicle Code. d. No vehicle sign shall have an arrow pointing towards the business that it identifies or advertises. 12. Distraction to Motor Vehicle Operators No sign shall in any way endanger the health or safety of operators of motor vehicles on the streets and/or highways through the use of motion, sound, or other mechanical devices. Blinking, flashing, unusual lighting, or other means of animation which cause distraction to operators of motor vehicles shall not be permitted on or by any sign. Signs that revolve, rotate or orbit (except symbolic and common signs such as barber pole, and mortar and pestle, which are traditional in nature and size) shall not be permitted; 13. Wall Decorations. In the Mixed-use areas, where walls are decorated with scenic or artistic paintings or murals which do not in themselves either advertise a product, or tend to become a mere extension or enlargement of a sign or other advertising materials, such as scenic, architectural, or artistic paintings or murals, shall be considered as a textural treatment of the wall surface and shall be subject to review and approval by the design review process. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 133 10.3 Sign Regulations — General 1. Sign Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a neat, attractive condition, and in adequate repair, as determined by the City Director of Community Development, or his/her designee. 2. Lighted Signs Near Street Intersections. All lighting of signs or outdoor advertising located within 150 feet of any street intersection shall be of such color and design that there will be no confusion with public signs or signals regulating the flow of vehicular traffic. 3. Outdoor Advertising Structure Landscaping. All outdoor advertising structures hereafter erected in conformity with these regulations shall be landscaped, and such landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 4. Advertising Structures Near Residential Uses. No outdoor advertising structure may be placed or located on any vacant lot or parcel of land lying between two residential buildings, structures, or uses where such structures or uses are less than 100 feet apart, nor may any such outdoor advertising structure be located within 50 feet of any residential use in the same block frontage. 5. Projections Over Right -of -Ways. All projecting signs shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following requirements: a. No sign shall extend over a public sidewalk or right-of-way, except: • Signs attached under canopies or marquees, which shall not exceed dimensions of 12 inches high by 48 inches long, and shall clear the surface below by not less than 8 feet may be permitted through design review approval. • Signs of historical significance which shall not exceed 16 square feet in area, and shall clear the surface below by not less than 8 feet may be permitted through design review approval. b. A sign(s) for which an encroachment permit or license has been granted by the City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to this section may encroach over a public right -or -way. c. Sign(s) affixed to the vertical face or valance of an awning or canopy for buildings in the Mixed -Use areas may be permitted through design review approval. 6. Special Signs. All special signs as permitted in Section 10.4 may be permitted. 10.4 Special Signs - General Subject to compliance with Section 10.3, the following special types of signs may be permitted subject to compliance with the limitations and conditions prescribed herein; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 134 provided further, that the area of any such sign(s) shall not be included in computing the total allowable sign area or number of signs permitted for any lot or use. 1. Name signs or nameplates, which do not exceed 1 square feet in areas and displaying only the name of the property or the premises upon which displayed or the owner or lessee thereof, or of the address thereon. 2. Informational signs, provided such sign is not more than 5 square feet in area, bearing no advertising message and located wholly within the lot to which the sign is appurtenant. 3. Street address number, no trespassing no parking and other warning signs provided such sign is located on the lot to which the sign is appurtenant and note exceeding 4 square feet in area; 1 non -illuminated nameplate not exceeding 2 square feet in area for each dwelling unit. 4. Memorial signs or tablets including names of buildings and dates of erection, provided they are cut into the surface or the fagade of the building or structure not more than 2 inches from the face of the building. 5. Public utility company signs, provided such sign indicates danger or serves as an aid to public safety, or shows the location of underground facilities or of public telephones. 6. Signs located in the interior of any building or within an enclosed lobby or court of any building or group of buildings, which signs are not visible from a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot. 7. Time and temperature devices, provided such sign is not higher than permitted detached signs, located on private property and bearing no advertising message. 8. Traffic or other Municipal Siqns (sign required by law) Railroad crossing signs, legal notices, and such temporary emergency or non -advertising signs as may be authorized by the City. 9. Public Convenience Signs.- Signs not exceeding 1 square foot in area, erected for the convenience of the public, such as signs identifying restrooms, walkways, and similar features or facilities. 10. Community Activity Signs. Signs specifically approved by the City for the purpose of advertising or identifying special civic events or activities deemed to be of city-wide significance and/or general public interest. 11. Temporary Real Estate Signs. Permitted in accordance with Section 10.5. 12. Parkways. NO signs shall be posted at any time in median or parkway. 10.5 Temporary Real Estate Signs Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 135 Temporary real estate signs for the purpose of sale, lease or rental of real property or buildings may be permitted subject to the following limitations: 1. Conditions for Approval — General a. The Master Homeowner Association, Sub -Association, or City may impose design review procedures and permit application procedures to permit a temporary real estate sign, which may include the following: 1) A certificate of letter of authorization shall be obtained from the property owner of the property where the sign is to be located (granting authorization to install said sign); 2) All signs shall be set back not less than 10 feet from the right-of-way line of any public street.; 3) Not more than 1 real estate sign may be located within any 300 linear feet of street frontage, nor may more than 1 real estate sign be located on the frontage of any 1 parcel; 4) No sign shall be so located as to create a hazardous traffic condition,]; 5) Except as may be otherwise specified hereinafter, any temporary real estate sign shall be removed within 12 months from the date of approval or within 15 days after the close of escrow or date of lease or rental of such property, whichever period is the lesser, provided, however, that such time limitation may be extended (for good cause shown) by the City Community Development Director. 2. On -Site Real Estate Signs. One (1) unlighted sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area nor exceeding sixteen (16) feet in height may be permitted on any lot in any zone, subject to the following limitations: a. Subdivision Sales. Signs may be erected along each street frontage for the purpose of land and/or building sales in tracts, parcel maps, or records of survey, when two (2) or more lots are involved and when the signs are located on the land to which the signs refer. Not more than four (4) signs of any type or description shall be employed, and no one sign shall exceed an area of 50 square feet or 16 feet in height nor shall the aggregate area of all such signs exceed 100 square feet. 3. Off -Site Real Estate Signs. Off-site directional real estate signs, for the purpose of directing potential buyers or tenants to new residential subdivisions are permitted subject to the design review approval process. 4. Temporary Residential "For Sale" Signs. a. No signs shall be placed in any parkway of the Alberhill Villages community, on a street tree, or on a utility pole Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 136 b. All signs shall be placed not less than 10 feet back from face of curb on the residence side of any sidewalk. 5. Temporary Residential "Open House" Signs a. One (1) open house directional sign may be placed in the parkway at any 2 intersections in Alberhill Villages. An additional 3rd sign will be allowed if the home is located within a cul-de-sac street. b. Two (2) flags and one (1) open house sign may be place in the parkway of the open house. c. No open house flags or signs shall be allowed in the parkways.. d. No sign shall be posted at any time in the Lake Street median or parkway. e. Any open house signs(s) remaining in the parkway after the weekend or holiday shall be subject to confiscation by the Master Homeowner Association, Sub -Association or City. 10.6 Directional and Kiosk Signs Directional and Kiosk signs are part of a city-wide program for providing directional signs to new residential projects, while minimizing confusion among prospective purchasers who wish to inspect housing project, and promoting traffic safety and reducing visual blight from the proliferation of signs. The City regulations for Directional and Kiosk Signs are found in Section 17.196.12 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and are made a part of these sign regulations for the Alberhill Villages community. 10.7 Political Campaign Signs 10.7.1 Political Signs—General Political signs are permitted in a district subject to the following limitations: 1. Time Limits. No sign shall be posted more than 90 days prior to the election to which it pertains. All political signs shall be removed within seven days following the election to which they pertain; 10.7.2 Political Signs — Exceptions Political signs shall be prohibited in locations listed below: 1. Public Right -of -Way. No political sign shall be posted within the street right-of- way (including, but not limited to, median islands, tract entry planters, treewells and parkways), or on any traffic -control sign, private or public utility company poles; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 137 2. Public Facilities. No political sign shall be posted on any building or on any land owned by the City. (ref: City Ord. 937, 1992. Code 1987 § 17.94.110). 10.8 Construction Signs Construction signs not exceeding 32 square feet may be maintained in any zone on an active construction site. A valid permit must be obtained prior to erection of the sign. Any such sign(s) shall be removed not later than three working days after the building department the project to be completed. 10.9 Flags, Banners, Pennants, Balloons, Window and Interior Signs 1. Use. The use of flags, banners, pennants, balloons, and exterior window signs is prohibited except in connection with promotional sales sign programs of businesses which meet the requirements as described in this section. 2. Time Limitations. Flags, banners, pennants, and exterior window signs will be permitted for a maximum of 8 weeks within each quarter. 3. Size of Signs Flags or Banners. a. The maximum size of any banner, flag or pennant shall not exceed 120 square feet. b. Interior and window signs shall not obscure more than 50 percent of the total window area of any window visible from a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot. 4. Maximum Number. Not more than 1 banner or pennant shall be displayed on each frontage on a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot. 10.10 Residential Signs -General Except as provided in Section, no outdoor advertising sign shall be erected, installed, or maintained for the identification or advertising or any residential use except as permitted herein; provided, further, that the following additional provisions apply; 1. All signs shall be stationary; 2. No signs, excepting nameplates, shall be directly lighted; 3. Roof signs shall be prohibited; 4. All signs shall be subject to review and approval by the design review board. 10.10.1 Single -Family Residential 1. Identification Signs. Two (2) single -faced or one (1) double-faced identification sign at the main point of entry to the development, containing only the name and street address of the development, not exceeding 24 square feet in area for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 138 each face, and not exceeding 4 feet in height. One (1) additional 24 square feet, 4 -foot high single -faced identification sign shall be permitted along any other public street right-of-way upon which the property has frontage, providing such street frontage exceeds 330 feet. The setback of the particular zone shall apply. 10.10.2 Multiple -Family Residential In addition to signs permitted in Section 10.4, the following signs may be permitted: Identification Signs. Two (2) single -faced or one (1) double-faced identification sign at the main point of entry to the development, containing only the name and street address of the development, not exceeding 24 square feet in area for each face, and not exceeding 4 feet in height. One (1) additional 24 square feet, 4 -foot high single -faced identification sign shall be permitted along any other public street right-of-way upon which the property has frontage, providing such street frontage exceeds 330 feet. The setback of the particular zone shall apply. For Sale. Lease. or Hire Signs One unlighted sign not exceeding 12 square feet on area pertaining only to the sale, lease or hire of the particular building, property or premises upon which displayed. Temporary Identification and Advertising Signs One (1) on-site sign not exceeding 50 square feet in area. Such sign shall be permitted for a period of time not to exceed 6 months and may be renewed for 1 additional 6 month period. Such sign shall pertain only to the development on the property. 10.11 Commercial and Professional Office Signs 10.11.1 Commercial -Attached 1. Attached Signs. Attached signs as defined in this section, either lighted or unlighted, may be permitted or any building or structure in any commercial zone when used for any commercial use. 2. Allowable Sign Area. The maximum allowable area of any attached sign shall be based on a calculation of the linear dimension(s) of the building face(s) fronting on a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot, as follows: a. Single -occupancy buildings. Allowable sign area shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each linear foot of building face. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each separate building frontage on a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot. In no case shall any such sign(s) exceed 120 square feet in area. b. Multiple -occupancy buildings. In the case of a multiple -occupancy commercial site having a common wall or walls, the allowable attached sign area shall be one (1) square foot per foot of building face. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street frontage of each separate occupancy. In no case shall any such sign(s) exceed 120 square feet in area. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 139 10.11.2 Commercial -Detached Excepting as provided in Section 10.4, detached signs shall be permitted in the commercial zone, subject to the following limitations: 1. Allowable Number of Signs. Not more than one (1) detached identification sign shall be permitted for each lot frontage along a public street, except as permitted in subsection E of this section. 2. Allowable Height of Permitted Signs. a. Site of Five (5) Acres or Less. Detached signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height. b. Sites of More than Five (5) Acres. Detached signs shall not exceed 16 feet in height. c. Attachments to Permitted Signs. There shall be no attachment of other signs or panels to detached signs unless approved by the design review board. 3. Area of Permitted Signs. One hundred (100) square feet. Sign Incentive. Where a multiple -occupancy building utilizes only a monument sign as a detached sign containing no more than 60 square feet in area and not exceeding 8 feet in overall sign height, a second monument sign, not to exceed 60 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, may be permitted on the same street frontage, provided the monument signs are separated by a minimum of 100 feet. 5. Sign Setback. No detached sign, as permitted in this section, shall be located less than 15 feet from any property line separating a multi -occupancy commercial center from another property. Internal Directory. One (1) internal directory sign containing a list of businesses located in a multiple -use center, not exceeding 6 feet in height and a maximum of 48 square feet in area, shall be permitted adjacent each main entry drive of a commercial center provided that such sign is not designed to be readily visible from a public street. 10.11.3 Professional Office —Attached 1. Attached Signs. Attached signs as defined in this section, either lighted or unlighted, may be permitted on any building or structure in a professional office zone when used for any professional office use. 3. Allowable Sign Area. The maximum allowable area of any attached sign shall be based on a calculation of the linear dimension(s) of the building face(s) fronting on a public street, right-of-way, or parking lot, as follows: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 140 a. Single -occupancy buildings. Allowable sign area shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each linear foot of building face. A maximum of two (2) signs shall be permitted for each separate building frontage on a public street. b. Multiple -occupancy buildings. In the case of a multiple -occupancy professional office site having a common wall or walls, the allowable attached sign area shall be one (1) square foot per foot of building face. In no case shall any such sign(s) exceed 60 square feet in area. 10.11.4 Professional Office —Detached Excepting as provided in Section 10.4, detached signs shall be permitted in all single and multiple -occupancy uses in all professional office zones provided hereinafter. subject to the following limitations: 1. Allowable Number of Signs. Not more than one (1) detached identification sign shall be permitted for each lot frontage along a public street. 2. Allowable Height of Permitted Signs Detached signs shall not exceed 8 feet in height and shall be constructed to be architecturally compatible with the adjacent building. 3. Attachments to Permitted Signs There shall be no attachment of other signs or panels to detached signs unless approved by the design review. 4. Area of Permitted Signs. Thirty-six (36) square feet. 5. Sign Setback. No detached sign, as permitted in Section 10.11.2, shall be located less than 15 feet from any property line separating one parcel from another parcel. 6. Internal Directory. One (1) internal directory sign containing a list of businesses located in a multiple -use center, not exceeding 5 feet in height and a maximum of 20 square feet in area, shall be permitted adjacent each main entry drive of a commercial center provided that the sign is located a minimum of 50 feet from a public street and further that the sign is not designed to be readily visible from a public street. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 141 Contents Chapter 11.1 Definitions 11 DEFINITIONS ARSPA — Abbreviation for Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Architectural Focal Point — A highly visible unique architectural feature that the community can identify with. Community Park - A large park that serves the needs of the broader community and that is designed for providing active and structured recreation opportunities as well as accommodating passive recreational pursuits. Design Review — The process of City review and approval of site plans, floor plans, and elevation drawings identifying architectural details prior to the issuance of building permits based on Chapter 17.82 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance with amendments as outlined in the specific plan. Development Status Matrix — A table used to track the number of approved dwelling units, square footage of mixed-use development, and ADTs used and available for transfer at the Phased Development Plan and Design Review stages of implementation. District — A specifically delineated region of the specific plan consisting of two or more planning areas within which broad regulations and requirements are aimed at establishing a unified character. Edge Condition — The treatment of the interface between two different uses to reduce or minimize potential conflicts. Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) — The amount of commercial or office space which is equivalent to one dwelling unit based on the traffic demand created by one single-family housing unit. Focal Point Event Area — A social gathering place such as a plaza, mini -park, town green, or amphitheater. Full Cut Off - A fully shielded light source where the bulb and/or glowing lenses are not visible above 90 degrees or a horizontal plane. Gross (acres) — The entire land area within the boundaries of a subarea or lot. Net (acres) — The total area within the boundaries of subarea or lot exclusive of slopes, public streets or other public dedications or easements which prevent the surface use of the property for a building site or construction of structures. Neighborhood Park — A park somewhat larger than a mini -park intended to serve the recreation needs of people living or working within an approximate 1 mile area. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 142 Intensification Overlay — An area which may be developed at a lower intensity initially and then redeveloped with additional development at a later time consistent with land uses established in the specific plan based on changes in market conditions. Interface — The location at which two different uses converge. Land Use Category — An area of land within the specific plan identified for an intended use such as for residential, institutional, or mixed-use development. Land Use Plan — A conceptual plan created by analyzing and evaluating land use needs and circulation patterns and arranging land use categories, roads, and open space systems in a manner that forms a functional and livable community. Land Use Structure Diagram — A diagram that identifies access points, regional trail linkages, open space linkages, development type/neighborhood form, and transitional edges for each subarea within a Phased Development Plan. Loading Area — A portion of a site developed to accommodate loading spaces and related aisles, access drives, and buffers. The loading area is intended to serve the temporary parking of loading vehicles while loading or unloading. Mini -Park — A small park generally one acre or less in size mostly intended to serve the passive recreational needs of surrounding residents. Multi -Use Trail — A trail designed to accommodate a variety of recreational pursuits such as walking, running, bicycling, dog -walking, and sitting. Open Space — Land set aside for the use and enjoyment of residents and visitors of the ARSPA area. This land may include parks, plazas / hardscaped areas, and/or re-created natural areas. Open Space Connection — A linear re-created naturalized area intended to accommodate for the movement of wildlife through or around the project site in a manner which allows for safe passage under roadways and provides for connectivity to MSHCP areas located off- site. Parking area — A portion of a site devoted to the temporary parking of motor vehicles including the actual parking spaces, aisles, access drives, and related landscaping. Par Course - Obstacles or stations distributed along the length of a path or trail to promote physical fitness training. Exercise equipment may consist of natural features including climbable rocks, trees, and river embankments, or manufactured products such as stepping posts, chin-up and climbing bars. Phase — A geographic region within the ARSPA area for which a PDP will be prepared once development for the area becomes imminent. Phased Development Plan (PDP) — A plan to implement a specific phase of the specific plan. The document includes additional detail beyond what was provided in the specific plan. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 143 Planning Area — An area of land which is a division of a District and is depicted in the specific plan and statistical summary. Site Plan - A drawing of a property showing the property lines, any structures that currently exist on the land, proposed structure locations, ingress and egress, parking, landscape areas, signs, fences, walls, and preliminary grading information. Special Permit — A permit issued by the City of Lake Elsinore for the purpose of transferring development outside of the Specific Plan area. Stage — A segment of development occurring within a Phase. Subarea — A portion of a Planning Area, normally with only one specific land use. Town Green — An outdoor social gathering place approximately 1 acre in size which can accommodate community events, recreational sports, and other active or passive recreational pursuits. Traffic Calming Device (TCD) — A device or design that is intended to reduce automobile speed. Transfer of Development — The relocation of dwelling units and mixed-use square footage between districts, planning areas, and subareas within the specific plan using ADTs as the basis for transfers and the relocation of units and equivalent dwelling units outside of the specific plan area to redevelopment areas in other parts of the City. Under crossing — A tunnel underneath a busy roadway or freeway which permits the safe passage of pedestrians and/or wildlife. Use — The purpose for which land or a building is occupied, arranged, designed, or intended. Variance — A relaxation of the zoning requirements attached to a property due to a substantial unnecessary hardship that is unique to the property in question. Economic considerations shall not constitute the principal reason for the hardship. Any variance approved shall be the least deviation from the zoning requirements necessary to alleviate the hardship. Yield Plan — A plan which identifies the maximum development which can occur on a specific property given the constraints of existing zoning regulations including parking requirements, lot coverage, permitted density, height restrictions, and setbacks. Zone — A specifically delineated area to which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of land and buildings within that area. The ARSPA identifies the zones to implement each land use category. The precise placement of these zones is to be defined in a Phased Development Plan. Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 144 APPENDIX A Entitlement History Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 145 e t11'I'� rt Cily ot'Lake Elsinore (2008) Comity of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan SCALE NORTH MILE Figure A-1 Alberhill Villages Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 Specific Plan F PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0 114 mile 1l2 mile a i ;Y "City of Lake Elsinore (2008) ,, i _ ❑ County of Riverside x Cleveland National Forest r _] .1989 Annexation []Albedtill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 ' Albcdnll Specific Plan • Afberhif Sp..s ith Pldm.an v, I FOwI fuvirn1 enl,l I R AdA. n.Am� (S�Plcnihm' 10, 1991) SCALE NORTH M11 -r. 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Figure A-2 Alberhill Villages Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0 114 mile 1/2 mile TPA 11 r F]Cityof Lake Elsinore (2008) ❑County of Iliverside r � Cleveland National Forest i El1989 Annexation ❑Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan _ 89-2 Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment Number I Murdock Alberhill Ranch .,.� i Specific Plan Aniendmciu' •.M1{rnrh.. AAM a.. Wil Itifu- Plan Juna.hn,w FEIR Addenda.. (A,il 1992) 1 SCALE NORTH MILE 0 114 1/2 3/4 1 Figure A-3 Alberhill Villages Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan — — --- ----- 104 P80JECT DESIGN CONSUGTANT8 0 1/4mile 1/2 mile '11 A (City of Lake Elsinore `2008J County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 IAAlberhill Specific Plan mendment Number I Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specif ie Plan Arttendntent IAlberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 3" biigmeA �Amnr nednrm;o;Gy vri No. i SCALE A MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 i Figure A-4 Alberhill Villages Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3 SpecificPlan10417, PROJECT LESION CONSULTANTS 0 1/4 mile 1/2 mile TPA " t / (City of Lake Elsinore `2008J County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 IAAlberhill Specific Plan mendment Number I Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specif ie Plan Arttendntent IAlberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 3" biigmeA �Amnr nednrm;o;Gy vri No. i SCALE A MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 i Figure A-4 Alberhill Villages Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3 SpecificPlan10417, PROJECT LESION CONSULTANTS 0 1/4 mile 1/2 mile TPA City of lake Elsinore (2008) County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberbill Ranch Specific Plan Alberhill Ranab Sppecific Plan Amendment Nnmlber 3 Alberhill/Lake Elsinore Sons and Entertainment Center 1 A!b`rhnrn AC ntier 1 mgmxr,IJR {1 000) SCALE # MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Figure A-5 Alberhill Villages Alberhill /Lake Elsinore Sports and Entertainment Complex Specific Plan , ��� ' PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0 1/4 mule lit mile T11A :o H v City of lake Elsinore (2008) County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest 1989 Annexation Alberbill Ranch Specific Plan Alberhill Ranab Sppecific Plan Amendment Nnmlber 3 Alberhill/Lake Elsinore Sons and Entertainment Center 1 A!b`rhnrn AC ntier 1 mgmxr,IJR {1 000) SCALE # MILE 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Figure A-5 Alberhill Villages Alberhill /Lake Elsinore Sports and Entertainment Complex Specific Plan , ��� ' PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0 1/4 mule lit mile T11A ❑ City of Lake Elsinore County of Riverside Cleveland National Forest E12008 Pacific Clay Annexation SCALE NORTH MILE 0 1/4 1/2 314 1 l Figure A-6 Alberhill Villages Pacific Clay Annexation Specific Plan C, - PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 0 1{4mile 3,2mile 'PPA APPENDIX B Sample Traffic Calming Devices Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 146 Figure B-1 Alberhill Villages Roundabouts/Divided Roads Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Figure B-2 Alberhill Villages Traffic Circle, Extended Curbs Specific Plan '> PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Figure B-3 Alberhill Villages Mid Block and Knuckle Planted Islands Specific Plan PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Figure B-4 Alberhill Villages Neighborhood Focal Points Specific Plan L.J � A, PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA Figure B-5 Alberhill Villages Cul-de-sac Planted Islands Specific Plan TPA PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS APPENDIX C Sample Stormwater Management Techniques Alberhill Villages Specific Plan 147 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Figure C-1 Swales, Depressed Medians PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS If to. H'I, Miff Ueo MaxM,le 2 ceo Adfaconl Permeable L.1 W.t., -.1.1 Oevabpntenl pedm,vonfberm eaaceld TaI4 (weter's"i') Marc. herigbl2' k Open own , 1117 11 111pII se.,,.e If IIM I ll l; Ill I Ry.a.flbn En,.,g.n Valle Oal, B, T.f F., Marsh Porennia Ene on Marsh Woodlew wManei Wetlanc Enhancement Area (ApproMmatel, 120)Developmom Varlos .,h.,,t projnct SECTION I I p q EmeryBr,I n1,sN Rlp rian ...... W� N f,,.w L—M. I- M. g', . . . . . . . Welland Kfna�t Area XfY Vaon If.,hul PIL414 VIEW Figure C-2 Alberhill Villages Techniques for Cleansing Runoff - Large Areas Specific Plan n� r, PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TPA *MINI PARKS Y,AAC Open play area ' V17 Entry /transitionPassive play Paths Benches Vista point where appropriate Residences shall face park ("eyes on park") Park depressed below adjacent roads for detention / perullation (90% of park assumed for detention) Educational signage on water cycle when adjacent to wetlands "�* NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 2.4AC ! ' Y Multi -use $pods fields iTransition open play 1 Focal point,. entry,restrooms, maintenance. -}--- -- ---.-F align with street terminus.permeable * - Link to adjacent open space. and trail system where possible - Provide pedestrian fins to adjacent residential uses Maximum 2' height for any perimeter terming COMMUNITY PARKS 20 AC&10 AC Ent), plaza/ focal point, use permeable materials Transition area --- tot and youth play structures, picnic areas, reshooms. maintenance facilities Organized sports fields Open play fields a- - Parking lots --minimize numbers and size, locate on perimeter only, most parking to be on perimeter streets and shared with adjacent office and emmoyment center uses Educational signs explaining water cycle and its role in community infrastructure , shall be a part of park amenities Figure C-3 Alberhill Villages Techniques for Handling Detention in Parks and Schools Specific Plan ' PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 1PA —Overstory Trees: -�'To Street -Accent Trees, Canopy Trees, Etc. Swale -Variety of Tree Cover- Avoid Monoculture ,/ySystom--wet Pond: Adjacent\ GJj / -Detains Urban Runoff, Filters Pollutants Swale f and Toxins before entering Street Swale System System (See Plant List) J ---Continuous "Broken" or No Curb Condition Parking, Understory Plantings: StallsT -Erosion Control, Native Plants, / Drought Tolerant, Etc. i - -Native or Drought Tolerant Grasses, F�ow` Erosion Control, Etc. —Permeable Paving with high Infiltration rate (Example- Gravel Pave 2) Figure C-4 Alberhill Villages Parking Lot Bio -infiltration Specific Plan g l� t PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS !CPA Attachment 5: Final EIR (SCH No. 2012061046) Due to the Size of this attachment it has not been reproduced and is available at the City's webpage at the following link: http://www.lake-elsi nore.org/i ndex.aspx?page=246 EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 1 of 15 ATTACHMENT 6: Project Description Exhibit Section 1. Amendments to City of Lake Elsinore General Plan A. Alberhill District 1. The text of section LI Introduction at Page AH -1 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as ^tFi e hFeHgl:): Most of the Alberhill District, including Pacific Clay, is within the City. Specific plans have been approved for the Alberhill District and those plans govern land use designations for these areas. The Alberhill District is planned to transition from a concentrated mining area into a network of residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use communities. The main focus will be a coordinated and balanced set of communities with supporting uses that maintain a high quality of life. The goals and policies contained within the Alberhill District Plan reflect the general intentions of the City adopted specific plans for those areas. Should a discrepancy or conflict exist between the goals and policies of this General Plan and a specific plan, the adopted Alberhill Villages Specific Plan shall prevail. 2. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan will amend the Figure AH -1 City of Lake Elsinore Alberhill District Land Use Plan of the General Plan for the approximately 1,400 acres (Alberhill Villages) within the Alberhill District to Alberhill Villages land uses and overlays, in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages. Figure AH -I illustrated in Exhibit A-1 will be replaced with an amended map description to such portion of the land use map shown on Exhibit A-2. 3. The chart of sub -section 1.3.2 Planned Land Use at Page AH -6 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown ast"i's rncethrougi): Table AH -TI. Distribution of Land Uses - Alberhill District General Plan Land Use No. of Acres Percentage of Total Land Designation Area C,nmmerr.ial �fixed Use 4-7-2-5 4-06% .216.9 -.ri44% Low Density Residential -544-2 &44-% 353-7:2 44�.66p4pp %% EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 15 442--79 9�rQle OfieftspaGe 4316-.-7 �:920k Specific Plan 3,862-:9 3 263 438- 77% Non -S ecific Plan 988 23% Total 4,251 100% 4. The text of sub -section 1.5.1 Goal and Policies at Page AH -10 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown astrikes tl rarigh): 1.5.1 Goals and Polices Goal 3 Preserve and enhance the cultural and historical resources of the Alberhill District. Policies AH 3.1 Support the relocation and restoration of the Alberhill School as a 20,089square feet—community center promoting educational awareness of the District's cultural heritage including mining, homesteading, the railroad, and the Terra Cotta town. AH 3.2 Support educational awareness programs that inform residents and visitors of the District's cultural heritage. AH 3.3 Encourage the use of signs within recreational areas along Lake Street depicting the Alberhill District's historical and cultural significance. Implementation Program The City shall support programs for the preservation, educational awareness, enhancement or maintenance of key historic or cultural sites in the Alberhill District. Agency/Department Community Development Department 5. The chart of section 1.6 Transportation/Circulation at Page AH -12 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as...i'-��): A. Table AH -T2. Roadway Plan and Bikeway Plan - Alberhill District Roadway From To Roadway Classification Bikeway Classification Nichols Road fie -Street "C" Collier Avenue Class 11 Urban Arterial Niehels Read , t :. ,. t (S) - EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 15 Nichols Road Lincoln Street (S) Lake Street "C" Niftier Class Il Secondary Lincoln Street Nichols Road Lake View Secondary Multi -Purpose District Lincoln Street Nichols Road Temescal Canyon A4ajer Road Secondary Lake Street Read "A" Lake View Urban Street "A" District Arterial Lake Street Walker Canyon R^�"A" Augmented Class If Rd. Street "A" Urban (south of 1-15) Arterial Walker Canyon Lake Street East of Lake Collector Road Street Alberhill Ranch Nichols Road Lake Street Collector Road A lberlrnv�- *11.,R_a neh Lake Street T :«,.,StreetS)Seeendafy _ Temescal Northwest Sphere Lake Street Urban Class Il Canyon Road District Arterial Terra Cotta Road Nichols Road I Lakeshore Drive I Secondary 6. The text of sub -section 1.6.1 Transportation/Circulation at Page AH -12 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown ast-i'�h): 1.6.1 Goals and Polices Goal Support a multi -modal transportation system with connections to new development, Interstate 15, recreational and open space areas, and districts to the south that serve the needs of residents. Policies AH 4.1 The interchange at Lake Street and I-15 shall be improved to meet the future traffic demand and satisfy the minimum level of service required by the City. AH 4.2 Through the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project and CEQA processes identify and require improvements to Lake Street, Lincoln Street, Temescal Canyon Road and Nichols Road as the most significant roadways within the Alberhill District for transit, landscaping, pedestrian travel, and bikeways. AIJ 4.3 Through the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project and CEQA processes require the construction or expansion of roadways serving new developments located east and west of Lake Street. EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 15 AH 4.4 Lake Street shall be constructed in accordance with Urban Arterial and Augmented Urban Arterial standards. AH 4.5 Encourage the use of traffic -calming measures within commercial and institutional developments along Lake Street as when recommended by the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan tFaffii6 SttidieS. implementation Program The City shall assess development projects between residential areas and services. and impose conditions for safe connectivity Agency/Department Engineering and Community Development Departments 7. The text of sub -section 1.7.1 Goals and Policies at Page AH -13 and AH -14 of the Alberhill District Section 1.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as'-i'�r): 1.7.1 Goals and Polices Goal 5 Encourage a wide variety of open space and recreational opportunities that are integrated within adopted master planned communities and future developments. Policies AH 5.1 Encourage the creation of an extensive system of open space and preservation lands throughout the Alberhill District to ensure a healthy balance between development and the natural environment. All 5.2 Support joint -use of recreational facilities with the Lake Elsinore Union School District. AH 5.3 Pedestrian and hiking trails shall be considered between neighborhoods and surrounding open space and MSHCP preservation areas. Implementation Program As part of the project review, CEQA and MSHCP processes the City shall assess open space and recreational opportunities in order to achieve a healthy balance of land uses within the District. Additionally, the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan assesses open space and recreational opportunities in order to achieve a healthy balance of land uses within Alberhill Villages and surrounding land uses. Agency/Department Parks & Recreation and Community Development Departments 0 EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 15 B. Circulation The text of sub -section 2.4.2 Circulation Baseline at Page 2-22 of the Circulation Section 2.0 of the General Plan is hereby amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as s-i'.�t): 2.4.2 Circulation Baseline The roadway system forms the core of the City's circulation infrastructure and includes a hierarchy consisting of seven (7) classifications: augmented urban arterial, urban arterial, major, secondary, collector, divided collector, and special new roadway. Figure 2.2, Roadway Cross Sections, depicts the cross sections of the seven (7) roadway classifications. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan amends the urban arterial, major highway, and secondary highway classifications illustrated in Figure 2.2 to conform to the widths of the right of way and travel lanes of Alberhill Villages. Figure 2.3 is the Roadway Classifications map, which is also amended by the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. While the automobile is the primary form of transportation, the City encourages use of alternative modes of transportation within the City. For that reason, the transportation network for the City of Lake Elsinore includes airports, bike paths, bus routes, sidewalks, trails, and parking facilities. 2. Figure 2.2 City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Cross Sections will be amended. There are three Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Roadway Classifications that differ from the City's Roadway Classifications. They differ in widths of right of way and travel lanes. The corresponding Exhibit A-3 which illustrates Figure 2.2 is will be amended as shown on Exhibits A-4 thru A-7. 3. Figure 2.3 City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Classifications of the General Plan for the approximately 1,400 acres (Alberhill Villages) within the Alberhill District in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The existing City of Lake Elsinore Circulation plan will be amended with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Exhibit A-8 which illustrates Figure 2.3 will be amended; map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-9. C. Parks and Recreation The text of sub -section 2.7.2 Parks and Recreation Baselines at Page 2-44 of Chapter 2 of the General Plan would be amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as strikethrough : EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 15 2.7.2 Parks and Recreation Baselines There are sixteen (16) parks in the City of Lake Elsinore with sixteen (16) thirteen (4-3) additional parks slated for future development (Figure 2.8, Parks). The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan includes a Lakeside Park, Community Park Sports Park and a number of private pocket parks. Each park has a unique set of features, with a variety of passive and active recreation. These features include fields for baseball, softball, football, and soccer; play equipment; picnic areas; barbeque facilities; drinking fountains; tennis courts; dog parks; and grass for passive recreation. A section of McVicker Park is devoted to skateboarding and inline skating. There are 3,000 sports league participants who use the sports fields throughout the City, including nine local youth and adult sports leagues. Special events are sponsored by the City Parks Department, Lake Community Center, and Senior Activity Center and include the Lake Elsinore Children's Fair, Kid's Fishing Derby, July 4th Celebration, Music with a View Concerts, Safe Candy Night, Unity in the Community Parade, and Winterfest. The City of Lake Elsinore also offers a program called Volunteers in the Park (VIP), which is a partnership with the Community Services and Parks/Open Space divisions and volunteers from the community. Together, the participants clean up parks and open space areas on a quarterly basis. Further, the City of Lake Elsinore partners with the applicable school districts to allow joint use of facilities where possible, such as active recreational ball fields, playgrounds, or outdoor multi -use areas that can be shared. Figure 2.8 City of Lake Elsinore Parks of the General Plan for the approximately 1,400 acres (Alberhill Villages) within the Alberhill District will be amended in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Initiative. Exhibit A-10 which illustrates Figure 2.8 will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-1 1. D. Community Facilities and Protection Services 1. Figure 3.8 City of Lake Elsinore Schools and Districts Boundaries of the General Plan will be amended in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Exhibit A-12 which illustrates Figure 3.8 will be amended with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Exhibit A-12 will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-] 3. 6 Al3 � F .YIR J 7111 f 1 f CP 11I RF '.:PIANNING DISTRICTS L--JCITY BOUNDARY Lr -I SPHERE OF INFLUENCE X91-15 SHI 94 PIIOPE.R'IY SUBIECI' "FO DRVEL OPME NT ACIILEEMENT .a FUlum SCHOOLS +TSS EXIST NG SCHOOLS vein EXTIIACTI V E OV ERIAY LAND USE GENERAL COMMP.RCIAI. COMMERCIAL. MIXED USC F RESIDENTIAL MIXED U.SI'. I IILISIDI: RLSIDENNAL IOW DFNS'I'IY IIISIDINTIAL IC1W MEDIUM REllDINTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RISIDENTI Al I11GH DINSIIY RESIDENTIAL. IU(RCATIONAI OPEN SPACE 2 PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL SPECIFIC, PIAN 10111tC1'.1, 01101 IAkl.1111.11111, CIAN11 OF IIIVllllllJ1. [,G�i�j sinCiiZc EXHIBIT A-1 � nlx.0 ul.w� A(d MCI MIlr rllr.rr; Nk 4 I w '} ♦ '1E I fAt 1 /1.11 Ufl5"Ila( i�� j � m 1 ��� A{�♦ 1�t ^ ft �P4,. _ - ..a ✓ Va�� u ,S �L.� 1..1Aw J�V"�'� /��� .,ares x u�sr �e CITY Of LAKE ELSINORE ALBEIUfR.I. DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN B I.B, u.v Mn.ls EIGUREAI-1-1 N I REVISIONS ADOPT ED BY 'i'I IE CI"I"Y COUNCIL ON APRIL 23, 2013 J ! r. r, 1 \`' tl_ �an✓ufrfArnVirrrrxs ..?I NNING DUTRIUS� Sr i% � �� /—_— 0011 BOUNDARY ( lI�wul Uof INnm NCI /{ 4f ' a 1✓ �%; � lir f syr ' S111Y1 :M1 ti i r /i / pJ� .' I601ERSY SUBJECT TO IN VSIAPMLNT AGRKMFNT l FXISU l ' xlvlw ccNooLa MPXI MCINh OVPLLnv NA, IV J z IAND USI CI N I HAL COMM[liG1AL J ®Cb MM[IICIAI MIXLD US t ^ RL51D6NT{AL MIXLII IDSL !/ / J/ / r�/✓ uurNDe REsIDr NTIAI IUIV IllY9TY LksIDI'NTIAL I E' �---I ?i �� � ✓ LOW.?,AEDIUMItlS1DENUAL „� RC-9f+(➢hAR RI 8 \ M MFDIDM DRNSITY RLlNENTIAL �� I I �l E! IIK If LLNSPLT IiI MINN TIAI. � ' � 7 •. � S E IUCIItnuONAL 'UIIN }In(E !)d/Pll )DIS)It (J PURIIC INVDllDONAI a,-SELuuI: PLAN h �I F E �,tifd �� 1 \v v .COL kCM1 (I f'N'IAK((A)IINII'OI IUvllttlll l: L fa 1(li�.SLIVO{Z6{ ALBERHILL DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN AMENDED NR _' e'; nm r, EXHIBIT A-2 �F .l,x! 1Rf (ft ]II RII L\', t11 (I! CITY OP LAKL CLSINORL ALRFRHILI_ Ia1S'I'RICI [AND USe. PIAN CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN SCENARIO RECOMMENDED ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS „• „' T1 12'1 11'1 11.1 v 1XI IIT AUGMENTED URBAN ARTERIAL - STATE HIGHWAY IS UWE) 120 se' 6 I IT 6 I IT 141HE SW INNE URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY IB LANE) Y. 51Y 0' I Y 1 12' 111 12' 1 6 Xis' BIKE I I I EIKE W ., UNI MEOIFN MAJOR HIGHWAY (LUNE) } r �TI ,1 1I• 1 KEIB BIN I MEOIFN (LIANE) ]0 SB' I 0 3 12 BW ISE00 � PpINTEO DIVIDED COLLECTOR BIKE, NEE BHBNLBER (2 LUNE) a• COLLECTOR HIGHWAY �+ WItUNE) r B Ir12' t— 1r r r v 6W BIKEI IppINTEKE �6W COLLECTOR HIGHWAY (2 -UNE) 4 6' I 1Y wl 1 ' m 12 1 C OR NEWSPECIAL ROADWAY BxoNLo¢RIBIKE LfiNE (2UNE) (PROPOSED FOR LAKESHORE ORIUE IN THE COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHT DISTRICT) ` BIKE LANES ARE NOT MANDATORY UNLESS SHOWN ON THE BIKEWAY CIRCULATION ELEMENT PLAN PRECISE SIDEWALK LOCATION SUBJECT 1'0 CITY ENG IN EER APPROVAL NOTE: CHECK THE DISTRICT PLAN OF YOUR AREA FOR ANY REQUIRED SPECIAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION, ESPECIALLY THE LAKE EDGE AND COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHTS DISTRICT PLANS. STRIPPING OF COLLECTOR HIGHWAY AS DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER. Grry w LAI -E ( LSI HO RE EXHIBIT A-3 a r>I<Lnn�a r�'rleem,r CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 2.2 CITY GENERAL PLAN R/IY RIW it (4-LANE) SECONDARY AVSP ,x tk -r r V 6vWfd y p /� lwfiTM4 bnwr rl`wM l W�i,Msx-� I Slrk f pA �nrF O Po k'rnupn pA ,GIYmI\ t STREET A CONDITION 1 (LINCOLN STREET TO LAKE STREET) ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT A-4 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CITY GENERAL PLAN vs. AVSP € CITY GENERAL PLAN AVSP R/✓� Q R1w //fOLiN 011, (RMSEJ) �N 7 C i I 1� • I Y� � I � - _ h� YYl - Y 5 (4 -LANE) b Ka- 1 0 ••• .• "` - Ittl PVN ......_......._.__ MAJOR uwv Fig; 43.1 ast CndC A on Nmhola RoadIJ 5 •rIpEY K •• ° .._ .. _.. - lL-reY)WINK �r.� 4-3.2 6u9mlb R..d West Ead CvditPnnl NICHOLS ROAD (LINCOLN STREET to LAKE STREET) MAJOR - 4 LANE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT A-5 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CITY GENERAL PLAN vs. AVSP m.A,.ss.�rri:ae..•-2•tcssa..,_,.-•,N CITY GENERAL PLAN R/W{f'�/ R/W 6' 77' 14' 11'. _ 1>' 6' T/\- (4-LANE)17 SECONDARY AVSP 40 -60 Ip -9pp qYp r_.tlU 6p 6 � .... $iotavun 4u _ . .... .r.n •sioEwux i E LINCOLN STREET (NICHOLS ROAD to SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY) SECONDARY -41 -ANE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT A-6 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ��%(/ E,ypjlfgs CITY GENERAL PLAN vs. AVSP y CITY GENERAL PLAN RIWU 14' R 1W fl 12 14" 12, 11, 11, 04 (S-LANE) AUGMENTED URBAN ARTERIAL AVSP An I 1". 7717 OFF "I t... 1— k— IX, �j r ,lid .,& Z, 1 , l.".'MolhRow lwhlmm— LAKE STREET (1-15 to TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD) AUGMENTED URBAN ARTERIAL - 8 to 10 LAN ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT A-7 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CITY GENERAL PLAN vs. AVSP CITY OF LAKF ELSINORE nK— lnol r EXHIBIT A-8 �N oROADWAYCLASSH]CATIONS Flculir 2.3 Ji liv RU ONA\CId551[IL AIIONt �lYt nwSTIA l t '-0.0 Kd Nn( ui•s : �/x: �� CITY OF LAKF ELSINORE nK— lnol r EXHIBIT A-8 �N oROADWAYCLASSH]CATIONS Flculir 2.3 a R 8 a• . C. D CH'Y BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SI IWY-74 S FUTURE SCHOOLS a EXISTING SCHOOLS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED LAKE EL.SINORE UNIFIED - MENIFEL UNION &PERRIS UNION H MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED -..% PERRIS & PERRIS UNION HIGH 11-OMOLAND &FERRIS UNION HIGH POW -5 UNION HIGH ROMOLANG& PORE UNIONHIGH F NT(P UNION S PERRIS UNION HIGH d MURMETA VALI C UNIFIED CITY 01: LAKE ELSINORE LIKE CLSIIVQIZF_ exfiieir l4"'�2 'N n mu znomuia SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FIGURE 3.8 UNIONHICH HOMO! AND & PEHR15 (INION 111tH n n \, ¢� N�ENII.FGUNIONFPfF1t15 UNION HIGH .a.�f j "till CITY BOUNDARY I j S1111111C 011 INFLUENCF � � ��a _.. t i s /N/ 115 71SIIWY-74 A a � I'll IU IiF SCilOO1.S a � EXISTING SCHOOLS3 l .CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED p LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED g MENLFEE UNION &PERMS UNION HIGH i <<�la i MURRIE'IA VALLEY UNIFIFD - # FERRIS & FERRIS UNION I I I G I I MURRIEIA VAIAEVUNIFIED ROMOLAND &E'ER&LS UNION HIGFI SODRCIS CITYOF IAI:i I'.I.SINCAZI CODNIYOF UVFRSIDC 1 _, F CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE � I M<F LSIHCJIZE EXH�B�T A-13 �N u mo 2100.11.1_~ SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT 60U NDARIES� jj FIGURE 3.8 EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 15 Section 2. Amendments to Zoning Map 1. The Zoning Consistency Map exhibit included in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2012- 1308 for Area 1 will be amended, in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Consistency Maps for Area 1, Exhibit A-14 and A-16 will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-15 and A-17. 2. The text of Ordinance No. 2012-1308 "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, Amending the Official Zoning Map, Changing the Zoning of Various Parcels in the City to RMU—Residential Mixed -Use, CMU— Commercial Mixed -Use, or R-3 — High Density Residential" relating to the Alberhill Villages parcels will be amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as strikethrough): Assessor's Parcel Nos. 391-170-005 and -007, the south half of 391-200-007, the southwest corner and easterly half of 391-200-004, the northeast corner of 391-230-002, 391-230-003, the northeasterly portion of 391-230-004, the northern three -fourth of 390- 130-020, 390-130-021, and a small northerly portion of 390-160-001 from M-3 Mineral Resources to M-3 Mineral Resources rn,rt r !',..... sroial Mixed Use; The southern fourth of Assessor's Parcel No. 390-130-020, a small northerly portion of 390-160-001, and a north central portion of 390-170-001 from M-3 Mineral Resources to M-3 Mineral Resources .<N. A Residential rMixed -Use; The northeasterly portion of 391-230-009, a diagonal half portion of 391-230-002, the west half of 391-230-004, the easterly half of 391-230-005, the northern portions of 391- 240-001, a northern portion of 390-170-001, and the southeast corner of 390-160-001 from M-3 Mineral Resources to M-3 Mineral Resources R 3 1ligh Density Residential; And the southeasterly half of Assessor's Parcel No. 390-190-019, and the northeasterly corner of 389-020-063 from M-3 Mineral Resources to M-3 Mineral Resources GN4U GaFameFeial Mixed Use; 3. The Zoning Consistency Map for Ordinance No. 2015-1344 within the Alberhill District will be amended in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Consistency Map Exhibit A-18 will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-19. 4. The text of Ordinance No. 2015-1344 "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, Approving Zone Change No. 2015-01, Known as the Consistency Zoning Project — Phase VP' relating to the Alberhill Villages will be amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as st•�il�): E EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 15 Alberhill Villages: Portions of Assessor's Parcel No. 389-020-063 from M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing to M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing General Commereial, and RT R bli !TInstituti.,.. !, and portions of 390-130-020 and -021 from M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing to M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing " Reere en " aoifie Glay); portions of 390-160-001, -002 and - 012 and 391-200-003, -004, -010 and -012 from M3 Mineral Resources and Related i Manufacturing to M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing 14 publi%; portions of 390-170-001 and -002, and portions of 391-230-002 through -005, and -009; and portions of 391-240-001; and portions of 391-800-001 and - 011 from M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing to M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing RE EstateSingle ramie. Residential R2 medium Densily Pub! in., taut:, Hal nc Open Space and n Reereµ , ; and 390-190-011, and portions of -019 from M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing to M3 Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing R2 Medium Density Residential and n Reerea 5. The Zoning Map for the approximately 1,400 acres (Alberhill Villages) within the Alberhill District will be amended in order to have consistency with the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map Exhibit A-20 will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-21. EXISTING ZONING �1 OTY BOUNDARY rm—.— M3 PSP GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CI 1 Y ROU N DA KY 1 -IS CMV RM LJ I IDR 0 PROPOSED ZONING � C11Y 150UNDARY `�gQo✓ I-75 Ki ;1 �. CITY OF I AKE ELSINORE UWF(5Lsi1 s>E?,L EXHIBIT A-17 ° '' �MILt� ZONING CONSISTPNCY ...„..,, �N ARLAI N A Sf a t � P' aPG' Y am>4. n o- ' �sr EXISTING ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES RI -Single Family Residenpal �F-P way ®Hoodway �': Megrim Density Residential R Rural Mountaime., Reullyin al C2 Central Commercial 113 High Densltylolxld tial 5 -Open SPace General Commercial High Density Residential PH -I cSingle Famly Residential PH Mineral Resources ol ' RMU Residential Mixed Use SP- Specific Plan Commercial M'xed Use c Open Space RE-Reeidenti state PI- PubRUleltitutional CMU Cmamercial Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Recreafinnal PI Single Family Res tial F-Floodway an Mineral Pesou¢es/Relat anufadoring Illlsde Ri,51droutial `. Public Institutional ;: A Med'o n Densly Reside 05 Open Space Low D,mb,Redental tSpecific Plan jR3- Hall, DensityFail %lR per, raation low- Medium Residential (-. RMU Residential Mixed Ilse .. -Specific Plan IMCMtI- Commercial Mixed Use EXHIBIT A-18 ZONING CONSISTENCY ALBERHILL DISTRICT EXISTING ZONING At Single Fainly flesdenllal F-Hiudoi :9y R3- High Density Residential US Open Space -AMU- Residential Mixed Use GEP-SpedR<Plan GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ®Norm j', tisj Medium Density Residential General Commerzial High Density Residential IMComnerdal Mixed Use lopen Space PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES A} AMR- Rural Moumenous Residential Q General Cummerdal AD -Hillside Single Fainly Resdential M3 -Mineral Rewwces RE -Resel llal Estate PL Publicllestitalional CMU - Cpmmany Mixed Use i Residential Mixed Use Recreational Rt- Single Family Residential FFlooi M3-Mbe al Resources/RelatW Manufacturing Hillside Residential y: Public Institutional ; RL Medium Densly Residential oas Open Space „lA,'" "hu"s c-nvnotmrn. n -t'--' ln+a Density Residential ro b`SpOdRc Plan iA3- H,h Deadly Residential $R-Recretain I%J�fxrnncr eclvraaar d. Eosµ Media. Recal l ow410 w.rvin ui mwr : RMU- Residential Mixed Use Drv. [n n•sn .nucm i, U's, .+rvl ov. hi, CMU -Con nidal Mixed Use E/ til%tcprvl Oruunr of zu�l. N ZONING CONSISTENCY ALBERHILL DISTRICT AMENDED EXHIBIT A-19 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ZONING MAP . .......... 41 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ZONING MAP AMENDED TO THE ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN CIYYtAVER� EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 11 of 15 Section 3. Amendment to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan which was adopted on August 8, 1989 and incorporates the 6 acre area (referred to as the 9.09 acre area) and an I 1 acre (referred to as the 16.7 acre area) portions of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2, which are currently zoned as Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP), will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Exhibit A-22 will be amended as shown with an "x -out' description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-23. 2. The text of Executive Summary Section at Page 1 of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan will be amended as follows. Any text or graphic reference herein the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan to the 6 acre and 11 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) areas will be repealed from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as^'�): The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan combines residential, commercial and open space and recreational uses on approximately 1,836 4-,853 acres. The residential portion of the Specific Plan proposes 3,705 dwelling units distributed among five different density categories. The Neighborhood Commercial portion of the project encompasses approximately 32 acres in two different locations. These commercial sites will provide shopping opportunities for the residents of Alberhill Ranch. In addition, 205 222 acres of highway and office commercial uses will be located along the Interstate 15 freeway at Lake Street and Nichols Road. These commercial areas will serve the Alberhill Ranch project as well as residences in the Temescal and Elsinore Valley. 3. The text of Table 1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Statistical Summary of the Executive Section at Page 2 of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan will be amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as'-�'s�eflireugh): R -M Single -Family Residential 74 ac R-3 Multi -Family Residential `_ 30 ac C -SP Commercial Specific Plan 186 203 ac C-1 lNeighborhood Commercial 32 ac C -H Highway Commercial 19 ac JHS Junior High School 20 ac ES/P Elementary School/Park 30 ac EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 12 of 16 OS 531 ac Total 1 4-,8-5-3 ac 4. The text of Introduction at Page 4 of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan will be amended as follows (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown astri' ee�threugh): The Alberhill Ranch project is located in the western Riverside County adjacent to the northern boundary of the City of Lake Elsinore as shown in the Regional Map (Exhibit 1). The Specific Plan site consists of approximately 1_,836 4-,95-3 acres of land, portions of which are divided by Interstate 15. The site is bounded generally by the I-15 to the north, Terra Cotta Road/Nichols Road to the south, EI Toro Road to the east, and Robb Road/Lake Street to the west. 12 A Use Plan «moo LW W. MM+O �Hc° sro. a.TMr nw.uw ::. sa, sv*-n,.ry eovawx . .oar« jH M Ygo-frvNV Pm2wJ - 'EtD W +d+M'in-qe a A ND W/nc' RO En—T) rWY9.virm i] �rm•+r ccrnwaJ" r- a] rnr �.n aroe m. mu Alberhll 'Ranch �S 7:[..13�:�a:lxm1Y119�1:Ui Land Use Plan �Ecexo ova. aa, ae:»,M .Dour �o r� vv LI ('p�pry.AF'..IY fluff .r �q+a'cuu EFm y9GKK=i'yn �0 G Awa ce rou aewu nos a syw�m vw tiA roto k uMu Afi Alberhill Ranch EIR SCH No. 2012061046, SP No. 2010-02, GPA No. 2012-01, ZC No. 2012-02 February 16, 2016 Page 14 of 15 Section 4. Amendment to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan which was adopted on June 1992 and incorporates a 16.9 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) area, will be amended to comply with the land use plan for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Exhibit A-24 which illustrates the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Land Use Plan will be amended as shown with an "x -out" description and replaced with an amended map description to such portion as shown on Exhibit A-25. 2. The text of Executive Summary Section at Page 1 of the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan will be amended as follows. Any text or graphic reference herein the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan to 16.9 acre Commercial/Specific Plan (C/SP) area is hereby repealed from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (new text shown as underlined, and deleted text shown as stri' e�"�,--e*g;): The original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore in August 1989. That Specific Plan contained 1,853 acres generally bounded by the Interstate 15 Freeway on the north, Terra Cotta Road/Nichols Road on the south, EI Toro Road on the east and Robb Road/Lake Street on the west. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan consists of a 494.4 5I 1.4 acre portion of the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch site is divided into three general planning acres. The central portion of the project is located south of Nichols Road between Lake Street and Terra Cotta Road. The eastern portion of the project area is located on the north side of Nichols Road just southwest of Interstate 15. The third area is adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road. 14 Exhibit 2 Land Use Plan MURDOCK ALBERHILL RANCH EXHIBIT A-24 LAKE ELSINORE, CAMORNiA 3-13 P Sim Puvk - u.o RFuallltsrn II � � - II �/ RSF II © ���� ema 0.a11M mukl+near ouebmm m. npio—_- �—� —� , ess o• ets' va>o' - -------------------- Land Use Plan MURDOCK ALOEiRHILL RANCH EXHIBIT A-25 LAKE FLswORE, CALIFORNIA 3-13 RSF - �• RSF �oS �� rtzr wem rw ..vx 1 x. \ T � �zI on.=sr,a41 1Lnk Sip J �_-0i "•. ero••J ra^n...,„ s © ���� ema 0.a11M mukl+near ouebmm m. npio—_- �—� —� , ess o• ets' va>o' - -------------------- Land Use Plan MURDOCK ALOEiRHILL RANCH EXHIBIT A-25 LAKE FLswORE, CALIFORNIA 3-13 Attachment 7 SE•I'TLE;MENT AGREEMENT AND MEMOR INDUM! OF UNDERSTANDING The parties to this Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding ("Agreenerd") are the County of Riverside ("Couniy"), Pacific Clay Products, Inc. ("Pacific Clay"), Castle & Cooke Lake Elsinore Outlet Centers, Inc. ("C&C Lake Elsinore"), Castle & Cooke Corona, Inc. ("C&C Corona"), Gateway Business Park, LLC ("Gateway') and N'furdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership (`Murdock Alberhll"). The County, Paci5c Clay, C&C Lake Elsinore, C&C Corona, Gateway and Murdock Alberhill are sometimes referred to collectively as the "Parties". The Parties hereby enter into the following Agreement with respect to the following: RECITALS A. The County is currently undertaking a comprehensive land use, transportation, and habitat conservation planning effort, commonly referred to as the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP"). The County believes that one of the most important components of the RCIP is the Western Riverside County V'.lultiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), which forms the nucleus of an open -space plan for the westem part of the County. B. To date, the County has spent millions of dollars in preparing, approving, and defending the MSHCP. The reason for this is that the County believes, among other things, that: • because the County is one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the United States, the MSHCP is necessary to address local environmental, transportation and land use needs with the goal of anticipating and shaping the pattern of growth within the County to maintain and enhance the quality of life for its resident; • the MSHCP addresses the impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss, and species endangerment and creates a plan to reduce the potendal loss of the 146 species covered by the plan and their habitats due to the direct and indirect impacts of funlre development on both private and public lands with in the MSHCP Plan Area; • the MSHCP provides the County and participating cities with the ability to control local land use decisions and maintain economic development flexibility while providing a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and impiementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity, as well as enhancing the region's quality of life; the MSHCP will provide for the assembly of an approximately 500,000 acre criteria -based MSHCP Conservation Area, of which 153,000 acres will be \ICCF?i'�SharesSlCCLe3al\�ISHCPt$ce.lemrn� Agreement 02= =-0 DOC acquired lands from private property owners, that will support the habitat of up to 146 species covered by the plan and their habitats, while allowing flexibility in the assembly and location of the NfSHCP Conservation Area; and the MSHCP will facilitate the development of the necessary infrastructure, future development, and improve economic deveiopment in the County by providing an -efficient streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed by providing local jurisdictions, such as the County, with Incidental Take Authorization under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. To effectuate the 1viSHCP and receive Incidental] Take Authorization, assuming that the United States fish & W dahfe Service and the Department of Fish & Game approve the NISHCP, the County and the fourteen (14) incorporated cities with in the MSHCP Plan Area must adopt the MSHCP and execute its accompanying Implementing Agreement. C. Pacific Clay, C&C Lake Elsinore; C&C Corona, Gateway and Murdock Alberhill are coltectively referred to as "Owner'. The Owner disagrees with the County's assessment and vision of the NISHCP's benefits and impacts to private property owners, the County, and region as a whole. D. Because the Owner owns five separate properties totaling approximately 2,268 acres in the City of Lake Elsinore ("City"), the City of Corona and the County, as described in the following Recitals, which are within the NISHCP Criteria Asea and may be adversely impacted by the MSHCP, on July 17, 2003, the Owner along with the Riverside County Farm Bureau ("Farm Bureau") and :he Property Owners Association of Riverside County ("Property Owners Association") filed suit against the County and its Board of Supervisors in Riverside County Superior Cowl.. Case 'N'o. INC R396565 ("Action"), challenging the County and its Board of Supervisors' approval of the NISCHP, the Implementing Agreement, and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the IMSHCP on numerous grounds. E. Pacific Clay owns approximately 1,374 acres located west ofthe I-15 Freeway and north of Lake Street in an unincorporated portion of the County ("Pacific Clay Property"). The Pacific Clay Property currently consists of a brick fartory, retail uses and undeveloped land and has been actively mined since 1898. Pacific Clay has validly issued permits to allow mining, manufacturing and the selling of clay products and therefore the Pacific Clay Property is exempt from the MSHCP as lone as it is used for mining and related uses under its vested right. The Pacific Clay Property also is subject to a Pre -Annexation and Development Agreement between Pacific Clay and the Citv and is therefore exempt from the NISHCP, it the Pacific Clay Properh✓ is annexed into the City. Although the Pacific Clay Property is exempt from the NISHCP, the Pacific Clay Property falls within the NISHCP Elsinore Area Plan ("Elsinore Area Plan"). The Elsinore Area Plan places all of the Pacific Clay Property within the 'NISHCP Criteria Area (Estelle Mountain/Tndian Canyon and Alberhill Subunits). However, as documented by the Owner in the administrative record for the County's approval of the ;MSHCP, due to the extensive, active and t\CCFP I'S;,�resStCCLzgal �rors nCP�Se:L'zmem Agrvmm CL?7 Ja.JOC permitted mining operations, the Pacific Clay Property is highly disturbed and contains little, if any, biological value. F. Murdock Alberhill owns approximately 511 acres located entirely within the City with geographical boundaries of Lake Sireet,Temescal Canyon Roadl1-15 Freeway to the north, Nichols Road/Terra Cotta Road to the south, Lake Street to the west, and Nichols Road/1-15 Freeway to the east (" Aurdock Alberhill Property"). The Murdock Alberhill Property consists of three non -adjacent parcels: a 390 -acre parcel (adjacent to Lake Street); a 104 -acre parcel (near tee existing Outlet Mall); and a 17 -acre parcel (on the southwest comer of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road). The b'Iurdock Aibe,hill Property is covered by the City's Niurdock Alberhill Specific Plan; and the Murdock Alberhill Property has vested rights pursuant to validly issued permits to allow mining and manufacturing, a valid development agreement with the City and approved vesting tentative maps, and therefore the Murdock Alberhill Property is exempt from the NiSHCP. Although the Murdock Alberhill Property is exempt from the MSHCP, the Murdock Alberhill Property falls within the Elsinore Area Plan. The Elsinore Area Plan places all of the Murdock Alberhill Property within the MSHCP Criteria Area (Alberhill Subunit). However, as documented by the Owner in the administrative record for the County`s approval of MSHCP, the Murdock Albet-,hill Properiy is highly disturbed and fragmented with little, if any, biological value. G. C&C Lake Elsinore owns approximately 205 acres located in the City, which is east of the 1-15 Freeway and adjacent to Nichols Road ("C&C Lake Elsinore Property"). The C&C Lake Elsinore Property has a valid vested right with the City and therefore the C&C Lake Elsinore Property is exempt from the MSHCP. Although the C&C Lake Elsinore Property is exempt from the MSHCP, the C&C Lake Elsinore Properry falls within the MSHCP's Elsinore Area Plan. Currently, the Elsinore Area Plan places all of the C&C Lake Elsinore Property within the MSHCP Criteria Area (Alberhill Subunit), However, as documented by the Owner in the administrative record for the County's approval of the 2YISFICP, the C&C Lake Elsinore Property is highly disturbed and fragmented with little, if any, biological value. H. C&C Corona owns approximately 103 acres located in the City of Corona ("Corona") at the northwest corner of Cajalco Road and Temescal Canyon Road ("C&C Corona Property"). The C&C Corona Property has been graded in its entirety and construe -,ion of a major commercial development has been partially completed. The C&C Corona Property falls within the MSHCP's Temescal Canyon Area Plan ("Temescal Canyon Area Plan"), The Temescal Canyon Area Plan places all of the C&C Corona Property within the MSHCP Criteria Area (Temescal Wash West Subunit)_ However, as documented by the Owner in the administrative record for the County's approval of the MSHCP, the C&C Corona Property is highly disturbed wida little, if any, biological value. In addition, there was a stream drainage adjacent to the C&C Corona Property. Owner has obtained a Section 404 Permit -from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Section 401 Certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration 3 l\CCFP:r°hares'+CCLa;al\MSHCP+.Sc[[lemanr Aartemzc[ 92_-2_-0,,.DOC Agreement with California Department of Fish and Game (collectively, the "Drainage Permits") The Drainage Permits required mitigation of biological, habitat and resource impact,. Pursuant to the Drainage Permits, Owner replaced and restored the stream. C&C Corona also.provided wetlands restoration and upland habitat restorn on. C&C Corona is prohibited from disturbing an adjacent stream. 1. Gateway owns approximately 75 acres in Corona located adjacent to the C&C Corona Property (`Gateway Property"). The Gateway Property was formerly used as a landfill and for industrial purposes. The Gateway Property also has several pits filled with mine tailings. Gateway has plans to develop the Gateway Property with commercial, retail and other uses. The Gateway Propery falls within the _[SHCP's Temescal Canyon Asea Plan. The Temescal Canyon Area Plan places all of the Gateway Property within the MSHCP Criteria Area (Temescal Wash West Subunit). However, as documented by the Owner in the administrative record for the County's approval of the MSHCP, the Gateway Property is highly disturbed with little, if any, biological value. The Pacific Clay Property, the Murdock t\:ber:rill Property, C&C Lake Elsinore Property, C&C Corona Property and the Gateway Property are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Owners Properties." J. The Owner desires to use or develop Owners Properties to their highest and best uses, or present uses and development, and in the niture, may undertake additional uses and further development, all of which Owner believes may be impacted by the MSHCP. All of these aforementioned uses and developments, both present and future, are referred to collectively as the "Present and Funue uses and Development". K. Since Owner believes the MSHCP may uniquely and adversely impact the Owner's property rights, interests, and development plans, the Owner has been compelled to litigate to the fullest extent of its rights, to lobby local cities, including the City, not to approve the MSHCP or execute the Implementing Agreement, lobby Congress and the State Legislature through its significant contacts which it and its law firm have, and undertake other anti-MSHCP strategies, as necessary. Aside from the substantial property and development interests involved for the Owner, the Owner has extensive resources by which it can continue to contest the MSHCP in a number of ways and fronts. L. Because the Parties do not want to continue to spend substantial sums in litigation, and the Owner does not want to spend substantial sums on other anti-MSHCP activities or challenges, while, for example, waiting for the approval of a potential annexation of the Pacific Clay Property into the City or approval of development plans for the Pacific Clay Property by the County, the Parties, therefore, believe that a compromise can be reached which will preserve the important aspects of the MSHCP and still allow the Owner to realize a sufficient amount of its property rights, interests, and development plans; including the orderly economic develoDment of Owner's Properties, without further anti-N[SHCP activities and challenges. M. in exchange for the Counry executing this Agreement, the Owner will dismiss with prejudice the Action against the County and the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with and sub,iect t, the tern's set forth ire this _Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by all the \tcCFP Psharess' CCiAg e=m 0222-04, DOC Parties does not affect the Action with respect to the Petitioners and Plaintiffs Farm Bureau and Property Owners Association. N. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Agreement itself does not authorize the Owner to undertake any development of the Owner's Properties; or any Physical change to the Owner's Properties environment or its surrounding areas. O. The County acknowledges that this Agreement does not restrict the County's police powers. P. This Agreement has undergone extensive review by the County and has been found by the County Board of Supervisors to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of its citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by each entering into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby set forth their mutual representations, commitments, and understardin;s regarding the following: 1. Owner'- Pro Denies Excluded and Exempt from NISTICP. The Parties acknowledge and agree that: (a) Owner's Properties (including the Present and Future Uses and Development of Owner's Properties) are exempt and excluded from the MSHCP for all purposes because of (i) existing vested rights, (ii) they are fully entitled and/or constructed or (iii) they are exempted by this Agreement, it being agreed that if Owner's Properties are not exempt and excluded from the MSCHP pursuant to subparts (i) or (ii) above, this Agreement hereby exempts and excludes Owner's Properties from the MSHCP; (b) Owner will not be required to pay any MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees (as set forth in Section 8 of the MSHCP, Section I I of the Implementing Agreement,'Nexus Report dated July 1, 2003, the County's Fee Ordinance No. 8102, adopted July 15, 2003 and will not be subject to any other MSHCP regulatons which may be subsequently adopted by the County; and (c) the Present and Future Uses and Development of Owner's Properties shall be subject to the provisions ofappiicabte state and federal law with respect to habitat conservation and endangered or threatened species preservation on Owner's Properties. 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CE)A) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAL. The Owner understands that any projects proposed on Owner's Properties may be subject to review under CF.QA or NEPA. The Owner shall assume responsibilities for any mitigation measures required of it, pursuant to CEQA or NEPA. 3. LAFCO Processing. Pacific Clay shall promptly process using all reasonable efforts all necessary paperwork for annexation ("Armexarion Application"), pursuant to the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Local Govemment Reorganization Act, Government Code § 56000 et seq. ("Local Government Reorganization Act"), and pursuant to which the Pacific Clay Property would be annexed into the City, if the LAFCO Commissioners approve the Annexation Application. If the City fails to promptly approve a resolution initiating the Annexation Application, Pacific Clay shall process a landowner petition for annexation with LAYCO. The County also agrees to use its reasonable efforts to support, and facijitate the approval of the Annexation Application (including without limitation lobbying LAFCO Commissioners to 5 (�CCtP!'S horesStCCLcgal\htSHC?`Senicmcnt .i3:eemcil U"=' �2244.DOC support the Annexation Application). In this context. the County agrees to submit a letter in support of the Annexation Application to LAFCO and to approve a resolution supporting the Annexation Application. The letter shall be delivered to LAFCO within ter. (10) days from when the County receives the request from Owner and the resolution shall be approved within thirty (30) days after the request. A copy of the form of the County letter is attached as Exhibit "A-1" to this Agreement and a copy of the form of the County resolution is attached as Exhibit "A-2" to this Agreement. 4, General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement. The County shall not later than five (5) years from the October 3003 approval date of the County's General Plan Update, initiate and process (with respect to subparagraphs 4(a) th-roueh 4(c) and 4(1l) and process (with respect to subparagraphs 4(d) and 4(e)), pursuant to its General Plan Update Certainty System, the following entitlements regarding the Pacific Clay Property: a. an amendment to the current "Open Space -Mineral Resource" General Plan Update land use designation for the Pacific Clay Property to "Medium Density Residential" (2-5 dwelling units per acre); b. a Specific Plan Overlay that allows no less than a minimum of 6,000 dwelling units or as mutually agreed by the County and Pacific Clay and a minimum of 60 acres of commercial uses, various recreational and other uses and mineral -related uses; provided, however, the recreational and other uses and mineral -related uses shall in no event reduce such minimum number of dwelling units and minimum number of acres of commercial uses: c. a Policy Area on the Pacific Clay Property through policies in the General Plan Update's Elsinore Area Plan text that will accommodate the transition from mining to development, allowing mining as an interim use to be replaced by residential, commercial and recreational uses when development occurs; specifically allowing all present or expanded mineral -related uses of the Pacific Clay Property from potentially being considered legal non -conforming uses as a result of the "Medium Density Residential" land use designation; d. a Specific Plan, and any other related entitlements, for the Pacific Clay Property that is consistent with the "Medium Density Residential" General Plan Update designation, Specific Phan Overlay, Policy Area, and this Agreement; a Development Agreement between the County and the Owner, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code § 65864 et sea in substantially the form attached as LxLMbit `B" ("Development Agreement") to this Agreement, with the amount of fees set forth in Section =12.1 to be completed consistent with fee provisions in development agreements for mixed use projects being processed by the County at the time this Agreement is executed but in no event shall any 'ACC FPIAgrem=t 02 ^_�Ca.DOC VISHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee be included in the Development Agreement nor shall other fees be increased or added to ofiset the fact that the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee is not included in the Development Agreement, within ten (10) days after the Paciirc Clay Property is redesignated to "Medium Density Residential'. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the County and Pacific Clay acknowledge and agree that as of the date of this Settlement Agreement the form of the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit"B" to this Agreement has not been approved by the County Board of Supervisors. If, on or before %13.cch 16, :004, the Board of Supervisors has not approved the Development Agreement in substantially and materially the same form as that attached to this Agreement as E;chibit "B ", Owner shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to the County by not later than March 31, 2004 (or such later date as may be agreed to in writing by the County and Pacific Clay), in which event this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. If Owner has the right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to the foregoing but does not timely do so, Owner's termination right pursuant to the foregoing shall be of no further force or effect and the Development Agreement to be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit r`B" shall be the form approved by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on March 16, 2004 (or, if a form of Development Agreement was approved in an earlier meeting in Nfarch, 2004, on the earlier date). The County shall notify Owner in writing not later than two (2) business days after the County Board of Supervisors approves a form of Deveiopment Agreement but in no event later than March 13, 2004 what action has been taken by the Board with respect to the form of Development Agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors, if any, and, to the extent that a form of Development Agreement has been approved, provide in such written notice any changes made to the form approved by the Board of Super isors as compared to the form of Development Agreement attached to this Agreement as Exhibit `B" as of the date of this Agreement; and f. the appropriate CEQA documentation for the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Overlay, Policy Area, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and other related entitlements. Pacific Clay shall be responsible for all standard processing costs related to processing the foregoing entitlements, subject to paragraph 5 below. The provisions o; this paragraph shall be of no farther force or effect upon the annexation of the Pacific Clay Property into the City. 5. County Reimbursement Obligation. In the event that by November 1, 2003 (as the same may be extended by Pacific Clay by written notice to the County): (a) the Pacific Clay Property annexation into the City has not been approved by L_AFCO for any reason; and (b) the Pacific Clay Property entitlements described in paragraphs 4(a) through 4(f) of this Agreement have not been finally approved by the County, after having received from Pacific Clay necessary applications for the entitlements in sufficient time to allow processing prior to November 1, 2005 llCCFPl55hzres5lCCLeaaAh(SIiC?�Seutene�e Agre:mtm 0222-04DOC (as the same may be extended by Pacific Clay by written notice to the County), then The County shall, at Pacific Clay's request, pay to Pacific Clay; not later than thirty (30) days after written request by Pacific Clay to the C'ounpr therefor, 50% of Owner's total preparation and processing costs related to preparing and processing the entitlements for the Pacific Clay Property, but in no event shall the foregoing :cimbursemcm obligation of the County exceed $1,000,000. Such preparation and processing costs shall include, but shall nor be not limited to, processing and application fees, consultants fees and costs, including, without limitation, geotechnical engineers, civil engineers; land planners; CEQA document preparers, architects, biologists, lobbyists and financial analysts, and attorneys' costs and fees. In addition and notwithstanding any terms to the contrary in this Agreement, including paragraphs 11 and 15 of this :agreement, in the event that by November 1, 2003, The Pacific Clay Property annexation into the City has not been approved by LAFCO and the Pacific Clay Property entitlements described in paragraphs 4(a) through 4(f) of this Agreement have not been finally approved by the County, then Owner may, in its sole discretion, initiate and undertake anti-MSHCP activities, including but not limited, challenging administratively, litigating or otherwise opposing: (a) _MSHCP permit issuance, (b) any approvals of any MSHCP permiuees related to approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement: and (c) Riverside County Ordinance No. 310.2 or any similar tee ordinance adopted by the City or other permittees. 6. Planning Review. The Owner understands that any projects proposed are subject to review- by the appropriate planning agencies and their commissions, councils and boards. The term planning agencies is meant to be interpreted broadly to include the local Planning Department, Building Deparment, the Fire Department, the Flood Control District, the Design Review Board, and similar such agencies that comprise the normal development review process. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude normal review of the Owner's development plans by the appropriate planning agencies,, Council, Boards, or Commissions, nor the reasonable implementation of approved conditions. All Parties to the Agreement agree to promptly process any such permit application submitted by Owner. 7, Further C000eration. This A;reemenr is intended to be a binding statement of agreement by the Parties hereto. The Parties understand that a variety of actions and/or agreements may be, required to implement the intent hereof, and the Parties agree to promptly execute any additional documents that may be required in performance of this Agreement. 3. C&C Corona Property Reimbursement Agreement, The Parties acknowledge that the Owner and the County Economic Development Agency ("EDA") anticipate (a) entering into a Reimbursement Agreement regarding the C&C Corona Property in the form of attached Exhibit "C" to this Agreement ("C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement") and (b) that the EDA Board will authorize the execution of the Reimbursement Agreement at their March 9, 2004 meeting. The Parties acknowledge and agree .hat the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement mast be fully executed before this Agreement is effective. Accordingly, if the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement is not fu,ly executed by March 16, 2004, 'his Agreement shall have no further force or effect. 9. Authority w Sign. Each Party represents and warrants to each other Party- :hat its signatory to this Agreement has the authority to bind the Parry, and this :agreement does bind the Pang. s 1\C'-FP1 Sha,csSlCCLgaJV111SHC?1&ftlen em A3re::mm 01-'2-Oe.DCC M Other Remedies and Auomevs' fees. In addition to the remedies provided in paragraph 5 above or any other rights or remedies, anv Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any uncured default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 19 and 20 of this Agreement. In the event of any legal action involving or arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party, reasonable litigation expenses, attorneys' fees and costs incurred. 1 1. Dismissal of Action- Owner shall dismiss the Action, with prejudice, upon the last Cate to occur of: (a) the date one hundred eighty (180) days after the Parties have executed this .Agreement, provided no litigation challenging all or any portion of this Agzeement and/or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement has been filed during such period or if any litigation has been Fled, it has been dismissed, with prejudice, during such period; and (b), if litigation challenaing all or any portion of this Agreement and/or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement has been filed during such period and al; such litigation has not been dismissed, with prejudice, during such period, the date ten (10) days after the dismissal of all such litigation, with prejudice. The dismissal does riot affect petitioners and plaintiffs Faun Bureau and Property Owners Association. Effective upon the dismissal of the Action by Owner, with the exception of the rights and obligations set firth in this Agreement, County releases and discharges Owner and each of Owners directors, officers, shareholders, general partners, limited partners, employees; representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, subsidiaries, and parents from and against any and all rights, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, causes of action, and claims for attorneys' fees, costs or expenses, known or unknown. suspected or unsuspected, as of the date of this Agreement arising out of Owner's filing and prosecuting the Action and Owner's anti-MSHCP activities. Effective upon the dismissal of the Action by Owner, with the exception of the rights and obligations set for in this Agreement, Owner releases and discharges County and each of County's Supervisors, Planning Commissioners, administrators, employees, representatives, agents, attomeys and successors from and against any and all rights, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, causes ofacrion, and claims for atromeys' fees, costs or expenses, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, as of the date of this Agreement arising out of Cotmty's defense or the Action and adoption of the NISHCP. Solely in connection with the foregoing releases, without affecting any exclusions from the releases, the County and Owner expressly waive any and all rights under California Civil Code S 1542, which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which is known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." From and after the day of the execution of this Agreement by the Parties and provided that the County has not breached this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement, 'and no litigation challenving all or any portion of this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement 'has been filed which has not been dismissed, with prejudice, Owner agrees that it will use reasonable efforts to have Property Owners Association dismiss the Action in its entirety. From and after the day of the execution of this Agreement by the Parties and provided that the County has not breached this :Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement, and no litigation challenging ail or any portion of this Agreement or `:,CCFP!''SharcsS'•.CCL.S�It�ISFIC2`.Senla:nrnc AO:CCM M0?.2'---C?.DOC the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement has been tiled which has not been dismissed, with prejudice, Owner agrees not to fund, support or encourage: (a) any remaining Petitioners and Plaintiffs in the Action; inchiding Farm Bureau and Property Owners Association, or. (b) any other actions challenging (i) the MSHCP, (ii) IASHCP permit issuance or (iii) any action of the County or any cities with respect to the b1SHCP that is consistent with the provisions of this Agreement (provided that Owner further agrees to direct Owner's actions to Find, support and/or encourage anti-rYISHCP activities with respect to any action of the County or any cities that is inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement to only the entity or entities that take the inconsistent action). 13. Stay of ,Action. The Counry and the Owner shall concurrently herewith stipulate to stay the Action by executing a Joint Stipulation to Stay Action substantially in the form of attached Exhibit" U' to this Agreement ("Stipulation"). If (a) the Action has not yet been dismi.ased Pursuant to pnraaraph 11 above and (b)(i) the County or Owner terminates the Stipulation pursuant to paragraph 3 thereof, other than as a result of (1) ;his Agreement terminating pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Agreement, or (?) the other Party breaching its obligations under this Agreement, or (ii) the Farm Bureau or POA terminates the Stipulation purSuant to paragraph 5 thereof, the County and Owner agree to use good faith efforls to agree upon and execute a document that would have the effect of staying the Action solely as it relates to Owner and County, without prejudicing either of their rights in the Action. 13. Assignability. The Owner will have the right, from time to time, to assign or transfer all or any part of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Owner's Properties or pans thereof, including, without limitation., purchasers or long-term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels or any building located within the Owner's Properties; provided, however, that the assignee or transferee agrees to assume the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Owner will provide the Patties with thirty (30) days' written notice before assigning an interest in this Agreement. 14, Severabilitv. If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidi^Y or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, if the term or provision of this Agreement that is held to be invalid or unenforceable is in paragraphs 1; 3, 4, c or 16 of this Agreement, then in lieu of such invalid or unenforceable provision there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement a provision as similar in terms to such invalid or unenforceable provision as is possible to be legal, valid and enforceable to the mutual satisfaction of the affected Parties, provided that such term or provision does not have the effect of materially increasing a Party's obligations under this Agreement. ! 5. Agreement vol to Sue. From and after the day of the execut,on of this Agreement by the Parties and provided that the County has not breached this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement and no litigation challenging all or any porion Or this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement has been tiled which has not been dismissed, with prejudice, Owner agrees not to challenge administratively, litigate or othe^.vise oppose: 10 P,CF? DOC I a) NISHCP permit issuance; (b) any approvals of any MSHCP permittees related to approval of the 1\/1SHCP. r, and execution of the Implemenng Agreement; and (c) Riverside County Ordinance No. 8 10.2 or any similar fee ordinance adopted by the City or other permittees (provided in no event shall any such fees adopted thereby be applicable to Ow'ner's Properties). From and after the day of execution of this Agreement and provided that the Owner has not breached this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement; the Countyagrees not to file, or encourage or cooperate in any litigation challenging all or any portion of this Agreement or the C&C Corona Reimbursement Agreement and the County shall cooperate evith Owner with respect to any such litigation as provided in paragraphs 1'7_ 16. Moratorium. The County agrees not to impose any moratorium or growih control restriction on any of Owners Properties located within any unincorporated areas of the Count,;, Pursuant to California Government Code § 65855. 17. C000erntion Regarding Third Party Actions. The Parties will cooperate in defending any action instituted by any third party challenging the validity of any of the provisions of this Agreement or any action taken or decision made hereunder. Owner agrees to assume the lead role in defense of any such action or proceeding. The filing of any third parry action against the County, and/or the Owner with respect to this Agreement or any provision hereof, or any other agreements or entitlements issued in connection with this Agreement (except as otherwise provided in this Agreement), will not be a reason to delay or stop the Parties' satisfying their respective obligations of this Agreement; for the County to stop or delay the processing of any entitlement applications on any of Owner's Properties unless a third party obtains a court order preventing such activity. The County will not stipulate to the issuance of any such court order. 18. No Third Partv Beneficiaries. The Parties agree that this Agreement is not intended or construed to create any third party beneficiary rights in any person wbo is not a party to this Agreement. 19. Mediation. In the event of any dispute between the Parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the Parties agree that, before exercising any rights or remedies hereunder, the Parties shall first attempt to resolve such dispute through mediation conducted in accordance with the Courmerciat Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Parties shall agree upon a mediator who has in excess of 10 years of experience in resolving commercial, land use or real property disputes. The mediation proceedings shall take place in Riverside County, California or such other location as the Parties in dispute tray agree upon. The Parties covenant that they will parricipate in any mediation in good faith. All costs and expenses associated with the mediation (other than expenses of witnesses for either side which shall be paid by the parry producing such witnesses) shall be home equally by the parties. Any Party may seek equitable relief prior to the mediation to preserve the status quo pending the completion of the process. Except :or such an action to obtain-,quitable relies, no Parry may commence a legal action or proceeding until after the completion of the initial mediation or forty-five (45) days after the date of fling by a Person of a written request for mediation, whichever occurs first. The provisions of this paragraph may be enforced by legal proceeding and the prevailing patty in any such proceeding shall be entified to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, attorneys fees and costs incurred. uCC FP mem Ae eemam J'' -"s? -0, DOC 20. Jurisdiction: Venue. (a) Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement shall be broughr in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, and, by execution and delivery of this Agreement, each Party Hereby irrevocably accepts or itself, generally and conditionally, the jurisdiction of the aforesaid court. Each Party hereby further irrevocably waives any claim that any such courts lacks jurisdiction over such Party, and agrees not to plead or claim, in any legal proceeding with respect to this Agreement brought in the aforesaid court, that any such court lacksjurisdicron over such party. (b) Each Party hereby irrevocably waives any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the lavint* of venue of any of the aforesaid actions or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement brought in the court referred to in paragraph (a) above and hereby further irrevocably waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any such action or proceeding broa2ht in any such tour, has been brought in an inconvenient forum. 21. Counter wrist facsimile Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and signature pages and any counterpart may be appended to any other counterpart. All counterparts will constitute a single, unified instrument. Facsimile signatures will be deemed originals for purposes of this Agreement. (Signatures on following page.] I2 ttCCFP ItSharesSlCCLegal\NISHC7`.Se¢lemen t A.geemeri 02_2.04. DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of February 24, 2004. CAS'T'LE & COOKE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTERS, INC. By: PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. IN County CaunSel (� GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK, LLC By:��-� t��ilw (/ By: 10 MURDOCK ALBERHILL RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: Murdock Properties, Inc. General Partner By: By: CASTLE & COOKE CORONA, INC. B 13 C:\WINNT,Temp\&a1cment Agreement 02-22-04,DOC Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO.2007-jCJa— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS LEAP NO. 2005-12 FOR A 9.09 ACRE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Castle & Cooke, the applicant, has submitted an application for a Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) for a 9.09 acre property located at the southwest corner of the I-15 Freeway and Lake Street and known as a portion of Assessor Parcel Number 390-130-017; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests that the City Council consider and find that the "development footprint", including a conservation corridor of approximately 2.09 acres depicted in LEAP 2005-12, is consistent with the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on July 3, 2007, and recommend the City Council approve the LEAP 2005-12 as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt Facts and Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP for the 9.09 acre project; and WHEREAS, public notice of said project has been given, and the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on July 3, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed LEAP application development footprint of 7.0 acres (78% of the site) and conservation corridor of 2.09 acres (22% of the site). The City Council finds and determines that the project known as the 9.09 acre project described above is consistent with all of the required procedures, policies, guidelines and provisions of the MSHCP based on the following facts and findings: AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 3 OF -7 9 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - PAGE 2 of 5 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The proposed project is subject to a LEAP review to determine the area for conservation located on the project site. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project's development footprint must be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, consistent with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Sec. 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, Sec. 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Sec. 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, Sec. 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping requirements (MSHCP, Sec.6.3.1), Fuels Management Guidelines (AISHCP, Sec. 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Sec. 4). 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. The project site is within the MSHCP Lake Elsinore Area Plan and within the MSHCP Cell Group Criteria area "J" and Constrained Linkage #6, therefore a formal LEAP application, LEAP 2005-12, was submitted to the City on September 21, 2005. This application and documentation was reviewed by the City Planning Commission on July 3, 2007 and it was determined that no additional conservation is required for compliance with the MSHCP because the 2.09 acres of conservation riparian corridor through the project site totaling 9.09 acres, (22% of the project site) complies with the criteria cell criteria for Cell Group "J" and provides biologically adequate corridor design for Constrained Linkage #6 running through the project site. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. No vernal pools exist on the site and therefore vernal pool species will not occur on site due to a lack of vernal pool habitat. Impacts to riparian habitats are avoided by the projects development footprint. There are no impacts to the riparian wetlands averaging 6-8' in width found on site due to the project's development footprint setbacks from the riparian corridor that varies from 400' on the east to 75' on the west side of the project site. The project's biology AGENDA ITEM No. FACE `F OF -7 g CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007-_ PAGE 3 of 5 report found that less than I % of native riparian plant species reside on site and that the site is predominated by non-native invasive eucalyptus trees. Furthermore, the project site contains none of the MSHCP described six (6) protected avian species due to the lack of adequate on site habitat. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The project site is not located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA). Therefore, no focused surveys are required for the NEPSSA and presence absence surveys did not idents any of the subject species. Additionally, no NEPSSA species were observed from several biological surveys conducted on the project site. Based on its location outside any NEPSSA and the lack of any NEPSSA species being observed during biology surveys, the project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for plants and mammals and no CASSA plant species were observed during the biology surveys for the site. Burrowing owls were also surveyed and negative results indicated no presence or habitat for the burrowing owl. The project is consistent with the policies of MSHCP Section 6.3.2. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The project site is located across the 1-15 Freeway and across Lake Street near to land that has been set aside for MSHCP conservation. Therefore, the project is required to comply with the policies set forth in Section 6. 1.4 of the MSHCP. Through implementation of the set aside of the 2.09 acres, the project would minimize the management challenges that can arise from development being located near conserved habitat. The project will be consistent with the policies set forth in 6.1.4. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The vegetation of the project site has been mapped as part of the City's LEAP application. The mapping is consistent with the MSHCP mapping protocols. The AGENDA IT-tAf No. PAGE o5^ -79 T CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - PAGE 4 of 5 mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP andfound less than 1% of the MSHCP Criteria Cell and Cell Group and Constrained Linkage #6 identifted vegetation found on site. The project biologists determined that because the project site lacks adequate habitat, the six (6) MSHCP identified special avian species will not reside on the project site. The vegetation mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP requirements. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Upon submittal of a Design Review a condition will be added to insure consistency with the Fuels Management Guidelines. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. Any future project proposed to be located on the 9.09 acre site will have to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10.The proposed project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The City Council determines that the proposed project's 2.09 acre conservation area is consistent with Cell Group ':I", located predominately north of the project site and Constrained Linkage #6 that runs through the project site. The City Council finds that the width of the Constrained Linkage #6 Corridor is specifically cited in the MSHCP EIRIEIS text as not being set or characterized by the MSHCP Cell Group Criteria but rather, linkage corridor widths are determined by site specific biology and on-site conditions on a case by case basis. The City Council Hereby determines that the expert biology testimony presented by Dr. Jack Turner. Furthermore, the project site plan including the 2.09 acre conservation riparian corridor of 400' to 75' width with an average width of 125' will adequately provide the riparian conservation area necessary to move the six (6) MSHCP identified species through the riparian corridor when adequate riparian habitat is restored to the project conservation site. The City Council finds that no adequate MSHCP identified habitat exists on the project site today to attract the MSHCP identified 6 special avian species. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. AGENDA ITEM No, PAGE to OF 7 8_...._ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - PAGE 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEST: Michelle Soto, Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leibold, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore Robert E. Magee, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore PACE. Or 7b' CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN SP 2010-02 GENERAL 1. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan sets forth the zoning for the 1,400 acre project area. 2. All mitigation measures of the EIR shall become Conditions of Approval (CCA) for the Project. 3. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as "Indemnities") from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by Indemnitees concerning approval, implementation and construction of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan No. 2010-02, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this condition. 4. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. PLANNING DIVISION 5. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan shall be revised to incorporate any corrections and changes required by the Planning Commission and/or City Council and these conditions of approval. A Final Alberhill Villages Specific Plan document shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee within 30 days of approval by the City Council. No permit shall be issued until the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan document and any required revisions are administratively approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 6. The applicant shall fund the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting (MMRP) through every stage of development. The City shall appoint an environmental monitor and the Developer shall fund the implementation and assign a developer representative, with expertise in planning and environmental issues, who shall quarterly inspect the project site, prepare a quarterly report submitted to the City documents submitted by the applicant, permits issued, and any other Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 2 of 12 pertinent material, in order to monitor and report compliance to the City until the completion of the project. 7. Developer shall dedicate the approximately 46 acre Sports Park in Phase 2 of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan to the City and provide all improvements to the Sports Park prior to completion of Phase 2. 8. Development permits shall be granted when they are located 1,000 feet or more from State -certified reclaimed areas of mining. New residential permits shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of active mines or unreclaimed mine lands. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ ENGINEERING DIVISION 9. The City and the Developer shall work together to form a Committee to devise strategies and cooperate to create methods to fast track construction of Lake Street. The City and Developer will fast track the timely approvals for all required City, State, and Federal permits. The Committee shall have regular meetings, with an agenda, minutes, and action items from the meeting. 10. All road improvements within the Project boundaries shall be constructed to ultimate City standards and consistent with the General Plan, unless otherwise identified and approved, as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions or development proposals for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the City Engineer. The proposed "Enhanced" and "Modified" cross-sections are subject to the submittal and review of design drawings, at the time of the tentative maps are submitted. 11. The project proponent shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 824. 12. Site-specific traffic studies shall be required for all subsequent implementing projects in accordance with Table A, B, C, and D within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Conditions of Approval as approved by the Engineering Department. These subsequent traffic studies shall identify specific project impacts and needed roadway improvements to be constructed prior to each development phase. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 13.Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement Fire and Paramedic Services CFD. Prior to approval of a Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, or Conditional Use Permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Safety) or such other Community Facilities District for the Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services established at the time of such approval to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Alternatively, the applicant may Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 3 of 12 propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Public Safety services. Applicant shall make a seven thousand five hundred dollar ($7,500) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. Contact City of Lake Elsinore Administrative Services Department at ,lsimpson_@lake- elsinore.org. 14.Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services). Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or such other Community Facilities District for Maintenance Services established at the time of such approval to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a seven thousand five hundred dollar ($7,500) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. Contact City of Lake Elsinore Administrative Services Department at Jsim son@lake-elsinore. org. Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 4 of 12 Condition of Approval #12 Reference Tables Table A Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments Intersections 1. Horsethief Canyon Road (NS) at Temescal Canyon Road (EW) 2. Lake Street NS at 1-15 Freeway NB Rams EW 3. Lake Street (NS) at 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (EW) 4. Lake Street NS at Temescal Canyon Road EW 5. Lake Street NS at Nichols Road EW 6. Lake Street (NS) at Alberhill Ranch Road (EW) 7. Lake Street (NS) at Mountain Street (EW) 8. Lake StreetlGrand Avenue (NS) at Lakeshore Drive (EW) 9. Grand Avenue (NS) at Lincoln Street (EW) 10. Terra Cotta Road NS at Lakeshore Drive EW 11. Collier Avenue NS at Nichols Road EW 12. 1-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) at Nichols Road (EW) 13. 1-15 Northbound Rams NS at Nichols Road EW 14. Lincoln Street (NS) at "A" Street/"E" Street (EW) 15. Lincoln Street NS at "B" Street/"F" Street EW North 16. Lincoln Street NS at "F" Street EW 17. Lincoln Street (NS) at Nichols Road (EW) 18. "C" Street NS at "B" Street EW 19. "C" Street (NS) at Nichols Road (EW) 20. "D" Street NS at Nichols Road EW 21. Lake Street NS at "A" Street EW 22. Lake Street (NS) at "B" Street (EW) 23. Lake Street NS at "D" Street EW North 24. Lake Street (NS) at "D" Street (EW) (South 25. Alberhill Ranch Road (NS) at Nichol Road (EW 26. Terra Cotta Road NS at Nichols Road EW 27. Lincoln Street (NS) at Temescal Canyon Road (EW) 'Roadway Segments 1. Temescal Canyon Road between Horsethief Canyon Road and 1-15 Freeway E[W) 2. Lake Street between 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temescal Canyon Road (N/S) 3. Lake Street between Temescal Canyon Road and Nichols Road NIS 4. Lake Street between Nichols Road and Alberhill Ranch Road N/S 5. Lake Street between Alberhill Ranch Road and Mountain Street NIS 6. Lake Street between Mountain Street and Lakeshore Drive (N/S) Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 5 of 12 Table A Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments 7. Grand Avenue between Lakeshore Drive and Lincoln Street NIS 8. Lakeshore Drive between Lake Street/Grand Avenue and Terra Cotta Road E/W 9. Nichols Road between Lake Street and Alberhill Ranch Road (E/W) 10. Nichols Road between Alberhill Ranch Road and Terra Cotta Road E/W 11. Nichols Road between Terra Cotta Road and Collier Avenue E/W 12. Lake Street between "A" Street and "B" Street (NIS) 13. Lake Street between "D" Street north and Nichols Road N/S 14. Lake Street between Nichols Road and "D" Street (south) (NIS) 15. Lincoln Street between 1-15 Freeway and "A" Street/"E" Street NIS 16. Lincoln Street between "A" Street/"E" Street and "B" Streetl"F" Street north NIS 17. Lincoln Street between "B" Street/"F" Street (north) and "F" Street (south) NIS 18. Lincoln Street between "F" Street south and Nichols Road NIS 19. Lincoln Street between Nichols Road and Mountain Street (NIS) 20. "E" Street between "F" Street and Lincoln Street E/E 21. "F" Street (north) between "E" Street and Lincoln Street (E[W) 22. "F" Street south between "E" Street and Lincoln Street E/W 23. "A" Street between Lincoln Street and Lake Street E/W 24. "B" Street between Lincoln Street and "C" Street (E/W) 25. "B" Street between "C" Street and Lake Street E/W 26. "C" Street between "B" Street and Nichols Road NIS 27. Nichols Road between Lincoln Street and "C" Street E/W 28. Nichols Road between "C" Street and "D" Street E/W 29. Nichols Road between "D" Street and Lake Street (E/W) 30. "D" Street north between Lake Street and Nichols Road NIS 31. "D" Street (south) between Nichols Road and Lake Street N/S 32. Temescal Canyon Road between Lincoln Street and Lake Street E/W Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Alberhill Village Specific Plan, July 14, 2015 Table B Required Traffic Si nals Intersection Development Phase Lake Street at Temescal Canyon Road Phase 1 Lake Street at Nichols Road (modification with overlap phasing) Phase 1 Lake Street at Alberhill Ranch Road Phase 1 Lincoln Street at "A" Streets"E" Street Phase 1 "C" Street at "B" Street Phase 1 Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 6 of 12 Table B Re uiredTraffic'Signals Lake Street at "A" Street with overlap phasing) Phase 1 Lake Street at "B" Street Phase 1 Lake Street at "D" Street North Phase 1 Lake Street at "D" Street South Phase 1 Alberhill Ranch Road at Nichol Road modification Phase 1 Lincoln Street at Temescal Canyon Road Phase 1 Lake Street at Temescal Canyon Road Phase 1 "C" Street at Nichols Road Phase 2 "D" Street at Nichols Road Phase 2 Lincoln Street at "B" Street/"F" Street (North) Phase 3 Lincoln Street at "F" Street Phase 3 Lincoln Street at Nichols Road Phase 3 Grand Avenue at Lincoln Street Fair Share Terra Cotta Road at Lakeshore Drive Fair Share -15 Southbound Off -Ram /Collier Avenue at Nichols Road Fair Share I-15 Northbound Ramps at Nichols Road Fair Share Lake Street at Mountain Street Fair Share Lake Street/Grand Ave at Lakeshore Drive (modification with overlap phasing) Fair Share Horsethief Canyon Road at Temescal Canyon Road Fair Share Lake Street at 1-15 Northbound Rams Fair Share Lake Street at 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps Fair Share Terra Cotta Road at Nichols Road with overlap phasing) Fair Share Horsethief Can on Road at Temescal Canyon Road Fair Share Lake Street at 1-15 Northbound Rams Fair Share Lake Street at 1-15 Freeway SB Rams Fair Share Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Alberhill Village Specific Plan, July 14, 2015 Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 7 of 12 Table C Street Classification, Cross -Section, and Phasing Width Street Segment Classification StreeVROW Phase 1 Temescal Canyon Road from Project Augmented Urban Arterial (110'/134') boundary to Lake Street. Lake Street from 1-15 Northbound Ramps to Temescal Canyon Road (Fair Augmented Urban Arterial (1107134') Share). Lake Street from Temescal Canyon Urban Arterial (96'/120') Road to south Project boundary. Lincoln Street from Temescal Canyon Major Highway (80'/100') Road to "B" Street. Nichols Road from Lake Street to "D" Modified Major Highway (86'/120') Street. "A" Street from Lincoln Street to Lake Towne Center Couplet Street. Arterial split (44'/68' "B" Street from Lincoln Street to Lake Divided Collector Street (56'178') Street. "C" Street from "B" Street to local Divided Collector Street (56'/78') street. "D" Street from Lake Street (north end) Divided Collector Street (56'/78') to Lake Street (south end). Phase 2 "C" Street from local street to Nichols Collector Street (48'/68') Road. Nichols Road from "D" Street to "C" Modified Major Highway (86'/120') Street. Phase 3 Lincoln Street from "B" Street to Major Highway (80'/100') Nichols Street. Lincoln Street from Nichols Street to Secondary Highway (70'/90') south Project boundary. Nichols Road from "C" Street to Modified Major Highway (72'196') Lincoln Street. Phase 4 "E" Street from Lincoln Street to "F" Divided Collector Street (56'/78') Street. "F" Street from Lincoln Street (north) Divided Collector Street (56'/78') to Lincoln Street (south). Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 8 of 12 Table C Street Classification, Cross -Section, and Phasing Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometrics Intersection Geometrics' Fair Share Contribution Northbound — one left -turn lane, one freeflow Road (NS) at Temescal Temescal Canyon Road from Horsethief Canyon Road to the Project boundary. Urban Arterial (96'/120') Nichols Road from Lake Street to 1-15. Urban Arterial 96'/120' Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Alberhill Village Specific Plan, July 14, 2015 Table D Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometrics Intersection Geometrics' 1. Horsethief Canyon Northbound — one left -turn lane, one freeflow Road (NS) at Temescal right -turn lane (Acceleration lane must also be Canyon Road (EW) provided on the eastbound departure side of the intersection) Southbound — N/A Eastbound — three through lanes Westbound — two left -turn lanes, two through lanes 2. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — two left -turn lanes, one through 1-15 Northbound Ramps (EW) lane Southbound — two through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — N/A Westbound — two left -turn lanes, one through/right-turn lane 3. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — two through lanes, one right -turn 1-15 Southbound Ramps (EW) lane Southbound — two through lanes, one left -turn lane Eastbound — one through/left-turn lane, one right - turn lane Westbound — N/A 4. 4. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — two left -turn lanes, three through Temescal Canyon Road (EW) lanes Southbound — three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — two left -turn lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — N/A Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 9 of 12 Table D Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometrics Intersection Geometrics' 5. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — two left -turn lanes, three through Nichols Road (EW) lanes, one right -turn lane Southbound — two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — two left -turn lane, two through lane, one right -turn lane Westbound — two left -turn lane, two through lane, one right -turn lane 6. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — three through lanes, one right -turn Alberhill Ranch Road (EW) lane Southbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes Eastbound — N/A Westbound — one left -turn lane, one right -turn lane 7. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, three through Mountain Street (EW) lanes, one left -turn lane Southbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one left -turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane 8. Lake Street/Grand Northbound — two left -turn lanes, two through Avenue (NS) lanes, one right -turn lane at Lakeshore Drive (EW) Southbound — two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — one shared left-turn/through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane, two right -turn lanes 9. Grand Avenue (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, two through Lincoln Street (EW) lanes Southbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes one right -turn lane Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 10 of 12 Table D Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometries Intersection Geometries' 10.Terra Cotta Road (NS) Northbound — one left -turn lane, one shared at through/right-turn lane Lakeshore Drive (EW) Southbound — one left -turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one right -turn lane 11. Collier Avenue (NS) at Intersection removed as part of 1-15 interchange Nichols Road EW modification. 12.1-15 Southbound Northbound — two left -turn lanes, one freeflow Ramps/Collier Avenue right -turn lane (Acceleration lane must also be (NS) at Nichols Road provided on the eastbound departure side of the (EW) intersection) Southbound — two left -turn lanes, one through lane, one freeflow right -turn lane (Acceleration lane must also be provided on the eastbound departure side of the intersection) Eastbound — three through lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — two left -turn lanes, three through lanes 13.1-15 Northbound Northbound — two left -turn lanes, one right -turn Ramps (NS) at lane Nichols Road (EW) Southbound — NIA Eastbound — three through lanes Westbound — three through lanes 14. Lincoln Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, two through "A" Street/"E" Street (EW) lanes, one right -turn lane Southbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — two left -turn lanes, one through lane, one right -turn lane Westbound — two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one right -turn lane 15. Lincoln Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, two through "B" Street/"F" Street North lanes (EW) Southbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 11 of 12 Table D Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometrics Intersection Geometrics' 16. Lincoln Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, two through "F" Street South (EW) lanes Southbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane 17. Lincoln Street (NS) at Northbound — two through lanes, one right -turn Nichols Road (EW) lane Southbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Eastbound — N/A Westbound — one left -turn lane, one right -turn lane 18."C" Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane "B" Street (EW) Southbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane 19. "C" Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Nichols Road (EW) Southbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Westbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes 20. "D" Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Nichols Road (EW) Southbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes Westbound — one left -turn lane, two through lanes 21. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, three through "A" Street (EW) lanes Southbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — two left -turn lanes, one through lane, one right -turn lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane, one right -turn lane 22. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, three through "B" Street (EW) lanes Southbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Conditions of Approval SP 2010-02 Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Page 12 of 12 Table D Fully Mitigated Intersection Geometrics Intersection Geometrics 23. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, three through "D" Street North (EW) lanes, one right -turn lane Southbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane 24. Lake Street (NS) at Northbound — one left -turn lane, three through "D" Street South (EW) lanes Southbound — three through lanes, one right -turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one right -turn lane Westbound — NIA 25.Alberhill Ranch Road Northbound — one left -turn lane, one through lane (NS) at Southbound — two left -turn lanes, one through Nichols Road (EW) lane, one right -turn lane Eastbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — one left -turn lane, three through lanes, one right -turn lane 26. Terra Cotta Road (NS) Northbound — one left -turn lane, one right -turn at Nichols Road (EW) lane Southbound — N/A Eastbound — three through lanes, one right -turn lane Westbound — two left -turn lanes, three through lanes 27. Lincoln Street (NS) at Northbound — two left -turn lanes, one right -turn Temescal Canyon Road (EW) lane Southbound — NIA Eastbound — one right -turn lane, three through lanes Westbound — two left -turn lanes, three through lanes Attachment #10 Comment Letters As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final EIR must contain information summarizing the comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments received. Seventeen comment letters/emails were received by the City in response to the Draft EIR. The following is a list or emails received. Letter Agency/Conunenter Date of Issues Al ha Letter A Martha Bridges, John Burkett, Gerald Marie ': 12/31/2015 • Wastewater Treatment B Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law 12/31/2015 • Environmental Issues C Southern California Edison 12/31/2015 • Electrical D USPWS, Kenon Corey 12/31/2015 • Environmental Issue E County of Riverside Transportation Department 12/31/2015 + Traffic F Santa Margarita Group/Sierra Club 12/30/2015 �• Environmental Issues G �CDFW,Kim Freeborn_ 12/30/2015 Environmental Issues Pechanga Cultural Resources 12/29/2015 Cultural I PaumaBand of Lmseno Indians 12/29/2015 Cultural J Pantie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina_ 12/28/2015 Environmental Issues �) K Inland Empire' Watershed, Jacqueline Neumann_ 12/26/2015 • Water Quality L Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League 12/24/2015 Biolo ical �� M Regional Conservation Authority 12/22/2015 MSHCP _ N Pala Tribal Historic Preservation Office • No Environmental Issues 0 Linda and Martin Ridenour _12/21/2015 12/16/2015 Issues P South Coast Air Quality Management District 12/2/2015 _+_Environmental Air Quality Q con Band ofLuiseno Indians 11/10/2015 No Environmental Issues Letter A From: Martha Bridges, John Burkett, Gerald Marie Received: 12/31/2015 December 31, 2015 From: Martha Bridges 35465 WoshkaL,ane Wildomar, CA 92595 John Burkett 32721 Mesa Drive Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Gerard Ste. Marie P.O. Box 486 Wildomar, CA 92595 To: City of Lake Elsinore — Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green, 1100 Town & County Road, Suite 1025, Orange, CA 92868 E-mail: rstephenson(ai)hrgreen.com Re: Comments to DEIR for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Please consider the following comments to the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project. Please also make this Letter, and all documents referred to in the Letter, part of the Administrative Record for this Project. L The Draft EIR is Uncertain as to Provision for Wastewater Treatment In the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, Appendix "J" of the DEIR, under the heading "Sewer" on Page 26, it is stated as follows: "Wastewater treatment may occur at the proposed Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant, which may be located west of the project and north of the I-15 Freeway along Temescal Canyon Road. The collection system of appropriately sized pipes will accommodate sewer service for the area with the backbone sewer lines located in Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street. Pipes will be sized to convey ultimate sewer flows at build -out. EVMWD is analyzing an alternative to the Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant which includes a series of lift stations and sewer force mains in order to convey wastewater flows to EVMWD's Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant." The DEIR is uncertain as to provision for wastewater treatment. In the final EIR, please specify exactly how wastewater treatment will be provided for the Project. DATED: December 31, 2015 By: Martha Bridges, John Burkett & Gerard Ste. Marie Comments by Bridges, Burkett and Ste. Marie to the DEIR for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Letter B From: Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law Received: 12/31/2015 Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP, LEED Carl T. Sedlack, Esq. Retired Abigail A. Smith, Esq. Kimberly Foy, Esq. Kendall Holbrook, Esq. December 31. 2015 Johnson �,>Sedlaek 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 E-mail: lstephenson@hrgreen.coni Telephone: 714:402.4185 Fax 714.333.1886 VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL E -mai. ray@socalcega.conr abby@socalccga.com kin tJsocalcega.com kendall nsocalcega.com Telephone: (951) 506-9925 Facsimile: (951) 506-9725 Re: Alberhill Villages Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH 1#2012061046), Specific Plan (SP 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, and Zone Change No. 2012-02. Greetings: On behalf of concerned area residents and Endangered Habitats League, I hereby submit these comments on the Alberhill Villages Draft Program Environmental Impact ("PEIR") Report (SCH #2012061046), Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, and Zone Change No. 2012-02 (jointly, the "Project')]. The Specific Plan proposes the development of approximately 1,400 acres of currently mined land to approximately 8,244 dwelling units; 4,007,000 square feet of nonresidential uses including civic/institutional, commercial/retail, professional officehnedical and entertainment uses; development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including a potential elementary school, church, etc. The Specific Plan land uses would also require the construction of on- and off- site utilities and extensions for sewer, water, etc. The General Plan Amendment would to change the land use designations from Residential Mixed Use, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Low- Medium Please note that any citations herein are provided electronically, where available, in order to conserve paper. I ask that you please incorporate the documents cited electronically in your review of this letter as if they were attached. If for whatever reason an electronic link does not function properly, please contact Johnson & Sedlack and I will be happy to provide you with a hard copy of the document. December 31, 2015 Page 2 Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Recreational, Open Space, Public Institutional, General Commercial, and Commercial Mixed -Use to "Specific Plan" and amend the General Plan Circulation Element. Approval of the Change of "Lone would amend the zoning onsite from Residential Mixed Use, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Low- Medium Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Recreational, Open Space, Public Institutional, General Commercial, and Commercial Mixed -Use to "Specific Plan." The PEIR finds the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and traffic/circulation. All other impacts are determined to be less than significant. I. GENERAL AND OVERARCHING COMMENTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted to ensure the protection of the environment through informing the public and decision makers of the potential, significant environmental effects of a proposed action, and developing ways to mitigate or avoid those effects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 subd. (a), CEQA Guidelines § 15002 subds.(a)(1-4).) By providing documentation that adequately describes the environmental consequences of a project, CEQA aims to have decision makers make a rational decision based upon the true environmental consequences of the project. If they do not, the electorate can hold them accountable for their decisions through the disclosure of why the agency approved the project despite the significant effects involved. (Guidelines § 15002 subd. (a)(4). The EIR is the heart of this statutory scheme. (Guidelines § 15003 subd. (a).) "The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1 subd. (a).) Thus the EIR's overarching goal is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. In this way, the EIR "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. (?Califbrnia (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392.) To facilitate this informational role, "`the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.' [citations] An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." (Id. at 404- 405.) The EIR must then describe and evaluate ways to mitigate and avoid adverse environmental impacts. Where feasible mitigation exists which can substantially lessen the environmental impacts of a project, all feasible mitigation must be adopted. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) All mitigation measures must also be fully enforceable and certain to occur. (Guidelines § 15126.4 subds. (a) (1), (2).) In this way CEQA goes beyond its informational role to require that projects substantively lessen their negative effects on the environment. The mitigation and alternatives sections have thus been described as the "core" of an EIR. (Citizens (?f Goleta Valley v. Board of'Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) December 31, 2015 Page 3 Having reviewed the Draft PEIR for this Project, it is apparent the document fails to comply with CEQA's information disclosure, analysis, and mitigation mandates. What is more, as the Project is being evaluated with a Program FIR, this severely deficient document may be relied on in the development of later program activities without further detailed review, malting the lack of adequate information and evaluation at this stage a critical deficiency. (Guidelines § 15168) On the flip side, the EIR fails to take advantage of the environmental benefits that a Program FIR provides, e.g., the opportunity to evaluate the effects of interrelated actions/ a large project at a stage where the City has the flexibility to consider, address, and mitigate problems and cumulative impacts. (Guidelines § 15168 (b)) Instead, the PEIR defers analysis or mitigation of Project impacts to later implementing activities. Such deferral is improper where the effects can be presently addressed and relate to entire Project, not individual subsequent activities. (Guidelines §§ 15144-15146) The City is tasked to "find out and disclose all that is reasonably can"; it has not done so here. (Guidelines § 15144) First, the PEIR is habitually conclusory, failing to provide the underlying facts, modeling, methodology, and logical pathways that lead to the conclusions made throughout the document. The bare conclusions or opinions presented fail to comply with CEQA's information disclosure mandate. There is little to no evidentiary support in the PEIR for the conclusions made. A second overarching issue is the PEIR regularly relies on only somewhat relevant and often outdated data and studies. Generally, CEQA requires an evaluation of the effects of a "project," meaning the whole action being proposed, on "the environment," meaning the physical conditions that exist in an area during publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). (Guidelines §§ 15064, 15125, 15126, 15360, 15378) Use of irrelevant or outdated information does not represent a reasoned and good faith effort to inform the public and decision -makers of the Project's effects. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Part Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1367) Despite these admonitions, the PEIR for this Project repeatedly relies on outdated information prepared before publication of the NOP or, worse, information prepared for other projects. (e.g. the Water Supply Assessment, geological survey, Noise Analysis, etc.) The use of only partially relevant and old data and predictions renders the PEIR inaccurate; and also calls into question the subsequent reliance on this document for later implementing projects. Certainly the PEIR does not present an adequate, complete document and a "good faith effort at full disclosure" as required by CEQA. (Guidelines § 1515 1) A third major deficiency of the PEIR is its failure to consider the whole "project" and its various phases. Potential significant adverse impacts from construction are regularly omitted frorn review and analysis. Analysis of operational impacts often ceases at "Phase 1," e.g. wastewater. The evaluation of operational impacts, conversely, often omits consideration of the ongoing mining impacts plus some development, despite the fact that the Project includes ongoing mining and a mining overlay zone across the site. The potential impacts of the intensification overlay are not considered either. For example, no consideration is given to the potential biological impact of intensifying development adjacent to MSHCP Linkages; or potential traffic impacts of such intensification. The PER also regularly fails to disclose, analyze, and/or mitigate the impacts of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, limiting analysis to the effects of the Specific Plan. December 31, 2015 Page 4 The PEIR is also wholly devoid of a discussion of the changes to the Mining Reclamation Plan that must be made with the Project. Fourth, the indirect effects of the Project are consistently omitted and evaluation deferred. What effects of potential blasting onsite? Over -excavation of a large part of the site and removal of significant amounts of dirt and mine tailings, in some places upwards of 50 feet deep? Export and/or import of that much soil, in terms of truck traffic, air quality, safety, noise, etc? What about the indirect effects of construction and development on- and off-site of utilities to service the Project, including sewer and water facilities? What environmental impacts will arise from the needed modification of the Temescal Canyon Wash, required to address flooding and hydrology issues, to biology, noise, construction air quality, etc.? These effects must be addressed in an adequate PEIR. They are not addressed here. Fifth, the PEIR consistently fails to accurately or adequately evaluate cumulative impacts of the Project. The PEIR tends to generalize the cumulative impact evaluation rather than apply the significance thresholds to cumulative effects. Sixth, the PEIR fails to require all feasible mitigation of the Project and ensure mitigation is enforceable. CEQA requires where feasible mitigation exists which can substantially lessen the environmental impacts of a project, all feasible mitigation must be adopted. All mitigation measures required in the FIR must also be fully enforceable and certain to occur. In this way CEQA goes beyond its informational role to require that projects substantively lessen their negative effects on the environment. Here, the PEIR cites only minimal mitigation for the Project's significant impacts, and that mitigation proposed is extremely vague, uncertain to occur, and unenforceable. Additional mitigation should be required. The mitigation measures included in the PEIR should be modified to ensure they are implemented and enforceable. Lastly, the PEIR concludes mitigation reduces various Project impacts below a level of significance where mitigation is not conclusively shown to do so. For example, hydrological impacts are found to be reduced below a level of significance based on assumptions, not modeling showing the efficacy of proposed mitigation. Likewise, noise impacts are stated to be reduced below a level of significance where, again, the efficacy of mitigation to reduce noise below the numerical significance thresholds is not shown. Overall, and as detailed herein, the PEIR fails to adequately disclose, evaluate, and discuss mitigation for the potential significant effects of the Project. The PEIR should be revised significantly and recirculated after completion and incorporation of additional studies. II. DRAFT PROGRAM EIR A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is stated to be subject to further discretionary review via a three-tier approach where the Specific Plan is the first tier, and additional focused consideration occurs with December 31, 2015 Page 5 subsequent tier two Phased Development Plans and tier three Design Review. (PEIR p. 2.0-8) There is no condition, mitigation measure, zoning ordinance amendment or other proposal described in the PEIR that will be used to ensure this three-tier review process will actually occur. In addition, the PEIR states the process, even if implemented as proposed, would permit the processing of subdivision maps at any time with or without a PDP or DR. Reliance on this later plan review is improper and misleading where it may never actually occur. The Specific Plan states the Project may develop initially at a "lower suburban intensity." There are presently no limits in place requiring a certain amount of non-residential use for each amount of residential use developed to prevent an even greater jobs deficiency in the area. The Project should incorporate mitigation and/or a condition of approval requiring a certain percent of non-residential development when various residential markers are met. The Project is described as a six -phase development, with mining occurring as part of the Project but being phased out over time. The PEIR only treats the future mining at the site as part of the proposed Project in a few limited places (e.g. the in evaluating noise). The future concurrent mining on the site with phased development of non -mining uses should be evaluated as part of the Project. Construction impacts are inadequately considered as short-term effects in the PEIR where they are anticipated to occur over 20-30 years. B. AESTHETICS/ LIGHT & GLARE The timing of implementation of AES -I is unclear where it references this "Project," rather than implementing development projects. AES -4 and AES -7 should also clarify they refer to implementing projects. AES -6 requires disturbed areas be planted with native plant materials "that respond to the functional consideration of the region." This limitation is vague and subject to various interpretations and potential misinterpretation. AES -6 should be clarified through the incorporation of alternatives, performance standards, or examples. AES -7 is uncertain and unenforceable where it only prevents the removal of vegetation "to the extent feasible." This lack of mitigatory effect is accentuated by the fact the Project also anticipates the modification of Temescal Creels for hydrological/ flooding purposes. The "extent feasible" could be deemed no prohibition at all, in which case this measure will provide no mitigation whatsoever for aesthetic impacts. AES -8 provides no mitigation whatsoever for lighting impacts where it simply states that under the Municipal Code mechanisms addressing lighting "may be formulated," but fails to require their formulation or implementation with this Project. To provide mitigation, this measure should require the formulation of standards and require their implementation at established time periods. December 31, 2015 Page 6 AES -9 is likewise impermissibly vague and uncertain to occur. The measure only requires submission of photometric lighting plans, not compliance with such plans; and establishes no performance standards for such plans except relative to directional lighting. C. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Not all feasible mitigation is proposed to reduce air quality impacts. For example, diesel particulate filters on heavy equipment must only be used "where feasible'; and construction traffic limited to off-peak homy "to the extent practicable." These limiting phrases have the effect of undermining any requirements as the applicant can simply state they are not feasible and take no action. Where included, these phrases must be removed. AQ -3 does not require any alternatives to implement or performance standards to meet regarding the need to exceed Title 24 standards currently in effect (i.e. exceed by 20% or implement a certain type of amount of efficiency standards.) Solar PV and solar water hearing are not required of the Project. This fails to conform with the Climate Action Plan and fails to ensure all feasible mitigation for Air Quality and GHG impacts are implemented. A mitigation measure requiring solar water hearing and the installation of solar PV (or other renewable energy) to account for all or at least 50% of the Project's energy needs is feasible and should be required of the Project. AQ -4 is impermissibly vague where no definitions or performance standards are incorporated. "Low water requirements and fast growth" could mean any number of things to different people, and is unenforceable absent definition and clarification (e.g. maturity within 10 years). Likewise the need to "shade buildings"; what amount of shade cover is needed? AQ -5 is vague, unenforceable, and fails to require actual mitigation, rather than just mere study, of health risk impacts. The measure applies when development occurs "in close proximity to sensitive receptors." The distance constituting "close proximity," e.g. within 300 feet, should be plainly stated to ensure compliance. While this measure requires study, no actual mitigation is required should impacts be deemed potentially significant. Buffers/ setbacks, alterations to land use compatibility, installation of filtration systems at impacted receptor sites, and other alternative measures are feasible and should be required mitigation should health risk impacts be identified. In fact, no actual mitigation has been adopted to reduce the significant effects of the Project on sensitive receptors, yet impacts are stated to have been reduced below a level of significance by their mere study with implementing applications. All feasible mitigation has thus not been incorporated, and there is certainly no evidence impacts have been reduced below significant levels.. Buffers/ setbacks, alterations to land use compatibility, installation of filtration systems at impacted receptor sites, and other alternative measures are feasible and should be required where sensitive receptors may be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. December 31, 2015 Page 7 The PEIR finds the Project's potential GHG impacts will be reduced below a level of significance through compliance with the City's Climate Action Plan. This claim is not supported by the facts in the PEIR. First, the compliance alleged with the City's CAP is not shown where the Project picks and chooses those requirements it prefers to implement. Hence PV is not required, nor electric vehicle charging, nor trip reductions as required by the CAP, etc. In any event, compliance with the CAP does not establish that this Project will comply with the state's GHG reduction targets for 2020 or 2050. The GHG evaluation must be updated to adequately evaluate Project impacts and ensure the implementation of all feasible mitigation for the Project's substantial GIIG emissions. The PEIR wrongly skips over this issue. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES We hereby incorporate in full the comments submitted by Endangered Habitats League on December 24, 2015. PEIR's treatment of wildlife connections/ Linkages, including MSHCP Linkages 1 and 6, is particularly lacking in analysis and mitigation. The PEIR and Specific Plan seem to presume wildlife will use and be restricted to narrow passages established adjacent to busy roadways and lit pedestrian areas with no or only minimal buffers. The failure to ensure the adequate maintenance of these key Linkages is a significant, unevaluated, and unmitigated environmental effect of the Project that must be addressed at this programmatic level when real solutions to this issue exist. Furthermore, setbacks from open space connections are inadequate and not required of the proposed Town Center or University Village. (See, Specific Plan Table 4-1) This is insufficient to ensure the protection of these essential Linkage and habitat areas. Construction impacts to biological resources are inadequately considered. What effects will construction noise, lighting, blasting, truck trips, runoff (including that which is likely contaminated), etc. have on biological resources? The PEIR pays inadequate heed to the potential impacts to perennial ponds and vernal pools onsite. These ponds are to be removed with Project grading and may be the contain various species and sensitive communities. CDFW submitted extensive comments on the Project's NOP. The PEIR has failed to address the issues raised by CDFW. The PEIR should be revised to evaluate Project impacts pursuant to CDFW input including assessments of vernal pools, special status species, and up to date biological surveys of flora and fauna. hrstead, the biological assessments relied on in the PEIR of extremely limited scope and relevance. The September 24, 2014 assessment applies to the Temescal Creek Bridge Project on 56.7 -Acres, not this Project. The focused studies relied on therein nevertheless allude to significant effects occurring with this Project. The second biological analysis relied on by the PEIR is only an update to some other 2008 analysis (]lot included for review) and cites focused surveys occurring on only two days: March 24 and May 12, 2014. No methodology is provided for these surveys and it is not clear December 31, 2015 Page 8 they were prepared to independently to assess the impacts of the Project, but ratherjust to verify prior findings. This minimal update of environmental effects is not the up-to-date biological surveys sought by CDFW and essential to an adequate EIR. BIO -1 pennits passive and active relocation of active burrowing owl nests. Relocation of active nests must be avoided. Relocation of occupied burrows may be permitted outside of the breeding season if avoidance is impossible when no active nests exist, following CDFW protocol. The PEIR must consider not only the CDFW 1995 report but also CDFW's "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation," March 7, 2012, available at <https:Hnrm.dfg.ca.gov/Fi]eHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=83843.> BIO -2 is impermissibly vague and fails to detail hon impacts to California gnatcatcher will be minimized to reduce impacts below a level ofsignificance, as claimed. At BIO -4, mitigation for impacts to riparian/ riverine impacts should state a preference for avoidance to the greatest possible, not simply jump to replacement habitat on- or off-site. In addition, replacement habitat should be required at a 3:1 ratio. There is no evidence that the 1:1 mitigation through, potentially, the payment to a mitigation bank for the removal of invasives is adequate to reduce riparian/ riverine impacts below a level of significance. The PEIR also needs to clarify the impacts to waters of the U.S., wetlands, and riparian habitat are discrete impacts of the Project, and require mitigation for each discrete impact. BIO -9 is vague, uncertain and unenforceable. It is unclear when a temporary sound wall is "necessary." E. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project would not relocate and restore the Alberhill School, a goal stated in the General Plan, or provide signs depicting the Alberhill District's historical significance and educational awareness. (General Plan Policy AH 3.1-3.3) Instead, Mitigation measure CR -7 only requires the structure be evaluated by an archaeologist—nothing further. The Project thus would likely not only demolish this historical building but also fail to preserve the areas cultural significance non-compliant with the General Plan. This should be deemed a significant impact. Mitigation should include, at least, the sought-after signs and educational awareness program in addition to the reconstruction of the school. CR -8 permits monitoring of grading activities by a "qualified designee." There is no definition of what this means or who could be deemed a qualified designee. This term should be struck. F. GEOLOGY/SOILS No subsurface site investigation was undertaken in preparation of the PEIR. Instead, the Geologic Constraints Study was entirely reliant on the review of past research and reports plus surficial reconnaissance. (PEIR App. B p. 1, 23) The Study was also prepared in 2010 based on even earlier reports prepared for other projects. Given the issues identified in the Geologic December 31, 2015 Page 9 Constraints Study, an updated geotechnical study should be prepared to investigate the significant issues identified with the Project before it is considered for approval. The PEIR discloses the Project site was previously used for coal mining and is presently used for open pit mining. As a result, significant mine tailings and potentially contaminated materials exist onsite, in areas as deep as 50 feet or greater below existing grades. (PEIR App. B p. 9.) In fact, over 1,000 acres of the site is Brownfield land area that is likely contaminated with mining waste and/or other hazardous materials. (Initial Study p. 4) "A large portion of the property is characterized by undocumented- fill stockpiles and mine tailings of unknown depths, deep open -pit mining excavations and in -filled pits, surface ponds," etc. (PEIR App. B p. 2) Despite these facts, no soils testing of the site was performed for the PEIR, such as a Phase 1 assessment. The PEIR fails to disclose any information about the extent of the Brownfield area, likely contamination, or the extent of geotechnical work likely required to clean up the Brownfield area to a reusable state. This is an absolutely inexcusable oversight in terms of evaluation and disclosure of geological and hazard impacts. These soils will likely have to be excavated, tested, and potentially exported off - site. (PEIR App. B p. 15, 18-20) Other expansive soils and those at risk of landslide, among others, will also be subject to significant specialized grading. The PEIR fails to disclose the extent, timing, import/export, and other issues related to grading. The PEIR also fails to address the secondary impacts of these issues. A portion of the Project site is located with a Riverside County Fault Zone in proximity to an active fault identified in prior investigations for other projects. (PEIR App. B p. 13) Despite this existence of on-site faulting (in addition to being located in proximity to numerous other faults), no further inquiry into the location of this fault with subsurface investigations, recommendations for future development, or other testing was undertaken. Such analysis is essential to evaluating the potential effects of faulting at the site and to off-site users. G-8 requires fault setbacks but fails to specify how these setbacks should be. A minimum distance should be provided. The Geologic Constraints Study discloses the Project should expect to require excavation and/or blasting of bedrock hillsides in various areas of the property. (PEIR App. B. p. 14) There is no evaluation or disclosure of the effects of such action such as noise impacts, impacts to biological resources, construction traffic impacts, hazard effects, etc. G -I 0 states that measures may be needed to reduce impacts from a potential rise in groundwater, but there are no actual measures to implement these reductions. What actions may be recommended to be taken, or to what standard? No actual mitigation is required. G. HAZARDS/ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The majority of the Project site is a Brownfield area meaning its redevelopment may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or December 31, 2015 Page 10 contaminant. The Geologic Constraints Study PEIR Appendix B, acknowledges, "A large portion of the property is characterized by undocumented- fill stockpiles and mine tailings of unknown depths, deep open -pit mining excavations and in -filled pits, surface ponds, and mining support structures and improvements." (PEIR App. B p. 2) The PEIR fails to address the potential hazard impacts to the public or environment though the unearthing, removal, and potential accident conditions with contaminants at the Project site during construction to off-site receptors and/or, as development begins at the site, to on-site receptors now adjacent to this hazardous condition. As discussed above, no soil sampling occurred with PEIR preparation to determine the extent of soil contamination onsite. The potential for such contamination and the manner of its removal and disposal must be addressed in the PEIR. The PEIR also fails to address hazards from the potential underground mines at the Project site in the event of upset, explosion or ground failure. "Various abandoned structures and possible mine shafts are also located within the property." (PEIR App. B p. 2) The Geologic Constraints Study notes that the site possibly contains portion of subsurface mine horizontal adits and laterals, but none were found in the limited evaluation of the site, which included only research and surficial reconnaissance. (PEIR App. B. p. 1, 3, 7) The PEIR should abandon the potential hazards associated with mine shafts onsite. The PEIR also omits consideration of hazardous impacts associated with blasting should blasting be needed, as the geological study states may be necessary for Project development. Potential hazards also exist from the transport of explosives to/ from the site, especially if blasting work is needed for a later phase of development. H. HYDROLOGY/ WATER QUALITY The PEIR fails to adequately consider impacts to groundwater recharge where relatively shallow groundwater exists onsite and at least three wells were previously installed on the site. In addition, the PEIR fails to consider the indirect/ secondary impacts to groundwater recharge of mitigation likely needed to reduce the adverse effects of geology/ soils development, which may include subsurface and surface drainage devices which preclude such recharge. The impacts of mitigation measures must be considered. The Project proposes to modify Temescal Creek and to raise portions of the Project site out of the flood plains listed on the FEMA's FIRM maps. There is very little information provided regarding what modifications to the Creek are actually proposed, let alone evaluation of the secondary impacts of such modifications on downstream flooding, hydrology, and water quality; biological resources; traffic (including I-15), etc. The Project relies on the periodic removal of debris from sediment basins for drainage. It is unclear to whom this removal role is to be given. As the plan for drainage is reliant on the proper function of sediment basins, the PEIR and/or Project conditions should specify who is responsible for this action, how often removal is to occur, etc. December 31, 2015 Page ll I. NOISE The first Noise Analysis dated May 9, 2011 relied on in the PER was(]) not prepared for this Project; and (2) is out of date where it was prepared May 9, 2011 based on 2010 measurement. The Noise Analysis was prepared to address noise impacts to the Ashbury Community located on Poplar Circle of the nearby mining operations; it was not prepared to address the impacts of this Project based on its construction specifications; proposed grade; and operational uses. It is also out of date, detailing the existing environment as of 2010, not the period after issuance of the NOP or current 2015 conditions. It thus has very little relevance to the proposed Project's anticipated effects on the existing environment, and fails to evince a good faith effort to disclose all that can reasonably be forecast about the Project's effects. The second, Project -specific Noise Analysis, dated .lune 2, 2010, is even more out of date than the 2011 Analysis and is appallingly lacking in needed data, information, methodology, modeling, or any of the usual tenets of an adequate Noise Analysis. First, the `Baseline Noise Levels" were evaluated only by I-15 and Lake Street based on Dept. of Transportation 2008 traffic counts, so already 7 years old at the time of completion of this Draft PEIR. No on-site measurements were taken for this analysis. The 2010 Noise Analysis provides no modeling for construction noise, instead choosing to simply cite general noise levels of construction equipment and stating that the "loudest construction activities would require 280 feet of distance between the source and nearby receptor." First, the construction noise evaluation utterly fails to evaluate, disclose, or consider in any way the Project -specific impacts from extensive grading, over -excavation to potentially more than 50 feet below ground level, soils import and export by truck, and blasting; all needed to grade the site to a usable foundation. To simply rely on general equipment noise reference levels is insufficient where this Project is atypical. Second, the claim 280 feet of distance would reduce noise within allowable limits is completely unsupported by any modeling, data, or reasoning. This certainly fails to evince the path from data to conclusion, particularly where its clear the Noise Analysis does not take into consideration actions like blasting. Third, the analysis makes statements for planning areas 5b and 6b near the eastern perimeter without consideration of existing noise levels in this area. Noise at even the sought- after 75 dB may be a substantial increase over a relatively quiet noise environment. Fourth, the construction noise evaluation fails to consider increases in noise over existing levels. Such impacts are likely significant with the amount of specialized earthwork needed for the Project. Fifth, the evaluation fails to consider truck noise from soil import/ export, a is likely needed. And sixth, the evaluation fails to consider vibration impacts where blasting is likely. December 31, 2015 Page 12 The PEIR states based on this Noise Analysis that construction noise and vibration impacts will be less than significant, and, in any event, will be short- term during the construction phase and therefore would be infrequent. This conclusion is utterly unsupported. In fact, the Project construction is anticipated to occur over 20-30 years, so is in no way "short- term." The construction noise evaluation also fails to disclose impacts from extensive grading, over -excavation to potentially more than 50 feet below ground level, soils import and export by truck, and blasting; all needed to grade the site to a usable foundation. By failing to evaluate the noise impacts of construction, the PEIR does not comply with CEQA's information disclosure mandate. Moreover, all feasible mitigation has not been adopted for construction noise impacts, and the mitigation proposed is not shown to reduce impacts below a level ofsigniflcunce as claimed. The PEIR utterly fails to comply with CEQA on this point. With respect to operational noise, again the Noise Analysis completely fails to provide any modeling to demonstrate the likely noise impacts of the Project. All that is provided is a conclusory Table, Table 3, allegedly detailing anticipated traffic noise impacts. CEQA's informational role is again undermined. The Noise Analysis considers only existing, buildout, and buildout with Project conditions. The failure to consider impacts during the various Project phases omits a substantial period of time during which impacts may be significant. In addition, the analysis fails to consider ongoing mining effects as part of Project noise sources during operation. This omission must be rectified. The Analysis fails to adequately address the increase over ambient noise levels over the existing environment threshold question, instead combining the threshold with the requirement it impact sensitive receptors. This improperly narrows the scope of noise impacts, particularly where, as here, noise effects may adversely impact biological resources as well as human sensitive receptors. Where the Project would increase ambient noise + 3d13 CNEL, the impact should be deemed significant. Mitigation is not proposed or adopted for this effect. Operational noise impacts are not considered beyond vehicular noise despite the various proposed uses with the Project. The Noise Analysis avoids this consideration, claiming noise from "residential uses" is generated primarily from vehicular operations. The Project, however, proposes 4,007,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. What excuse for avoiding evaluation or at least disclosure of noise generation from these uses? None is given in the PEIR or Noise Analysis. The Noise Analysis recommends the placement of less noise -sensitive uses adjacent to I- 15 to act as a buffer to sensitive uses. The Project adopts no requirement for such development or preventing residential development in this area. Such limitation should be incorporated as a mitigation measure; or the potential effects to residential uses in this area evaluated. In addition, the effects of locating less noise sensitive uses adjacent to I-15 should also be evaluated with respect to biological effects, as this places these noisier mixed uses and December 31, 2015 Page 13 commercial uses closer to biological linkages and Temescal Creek. Consideration should also be given to the size of the buffer and linkages needed in this area given Project -related noise increases in the vicinity of I-15. The size of the linkage may need to be increased to mitigate for Project noise impacts. Overall, the evaluation of noise impacts in the PEIR is so lacking as to be essentially useless. The noise analyses do not actually consider the facts of this Project or the existing conditions of the environment, and make no attempt at forecasting the Project's impacts. No substantial evidence supports the conclusions made in the PEIR. The PEIR must be revised and recirculated to address, and then mitigate, for these effects. J. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The Updated Traffic Impact Analysis wrongly compares the traffic totals to the current General Plan and proposed Specific plan, rather than to the existing environment. The analysis thereby employs an improper baseline by which to compare and disclose the traffic impacts of the Project and contend the Project in fact reduces traffic. (e.g. "Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Analysis Alberhill Villages Specific Plan TIA, Lake Elsinore," October 14, 2015, p. 1-2) This is patently false where the Project is anticipated to generate some 150,415 daily two- way trips. (M.. at Table 213) The Updated TIA notes that each of the Project phases will require infrastructure based on Project buildout criteria, economic cost-effectiveness, and market conditions. (UpdatedTIA, p. 3) There is no assurance needed infrastructure will be put in place with each development phase, particularly if a fair share program lacks the adequate funding to ensure needed infrastructure. Mitigation must be adopted ensuring that development not occur without adequate and appropriate circulation modifications to address traffic impacts. In addition, the PEIR should disclose impacts will be significant and unmitigated should needed roadway enhancements and improvements not timely occur. Circulation impacts should be discussed relative with each Project phase, not simply buildout conditions. As currently evaluated, the PEIR omits consideration of potentially 30 years of circulation/traffic in the Project area. The TIA fails to address Project impacts to the mainline of I-15. The TIA and PEIR must be updated to address the effects to 1-15 and discuss potential mitigation of these impacts within Caltrans' jurisdiction. Construction traffic impacts are not adequately addressed, particularly given the scope of grading and earthwork, and its related import/ export of soils likely required for Project development. K. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Water Suppty December 31, 2015 Page 14 The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project is outdated where it was prepared in March 2012 prior to the issuance of the NOP. As a result, the data included therein fails to account for California's unprecedented drought, the Governor's recent Executive Orders (B-29- 15, B-36-15), cuts from the State Water Project, and other changes in water supplies in recent years. According to EVMWD's website, the district is currently in a Stage 4a Drought Alert to execute the Governor's Executive Order for mandatory reductions. ("EVMWD Board Approves Stage 4a Mandatory Water Restrictions, May 28, 2015, <htto://www.evinwd.eom/civica/i)ress/display.asp?layout=I &Entry=152>; and <http://www.evinwd.com/about/departments/public/drought.asp>) Cuts in water imports from Metropolitan may further have impacted or may impact future deliveries to EVMWD or groundwater injections relied on in the WSA. ("Water supplier OKs 15% cut to cities, water districts in Southland," April 14, 2015, <http://www.latiines.com/local/lanow/la-me-water- supplier-approves-cut-20150414-story.html>) The WSA and PEIR must be updated to account for this new information and ensure adequate supplies instead of just "paper water." Additionally, due to its age the WSA provides historical production and use fi-om 2003- 2010, predicting adequate supplies despite the fact that numbers were well below average from 2008-2010. (WSA p. 3-7, Table 3-4) Given the unprecedented statewide drought, these numbers might be significantly lower if the averages were these past 7 years, from 2008 to the present. The WSA and PEIR should be updated to disclose the existing environmental conditions and supply status. Also due to its age, the WSA now predicts there will be available water to supply the Project only to 2012, approximately 16 years (assuming the Project is approved in 2016) instead of 20 year projections. Given the Project is anticipated to be developed over the course of 20-30 years, there is no evidence of adequate water supply. The WSA projections of adequate supplies are reliant on the Project being developed in phases as set out in the PEIR, but not required of the Project. If the Project is developed out sooner or in a different order than assumed in the WSA, there is not evidence EVMWD will have adequate supplies to the Project. The WSA fails to discuss the Project's potential impacts in reducing groundwater recharge and its potential effects to EVMWD's existing wells. According to the PEIR and Specific Plan, the site is home to shallow groundwater and existing springs. The WSA and PEIR fail to address potential impacts to these from Project development and needed construction activities. The WSA and PEIR also fail to address the impacts to water supply should the reliance on natural spring water to supply the onsite lakes fall short and "alternative water supplies" from EVMWD need to be obtained. (See, Specific Plan p. 8.) Water Services The Project requires the development of significant Water Infrastructure to service the project site, include installation of Transmission lines and water lines, pump stations, a 5.7 MG reservoir, etc. (Preliminary Water Facilities Plan For Alberhill Villages- April 2015, p. 6-1) December 31, 2015 Page 15 Consequently, the PEIR should detail these needed developments and evaluate their effects on the existing environment as either part of the Project or an impact of the Project, which in turn may cause secondary effects. Instead, only an overview of the facilities is provided. No information is disclosed or consideration given to, for instance, the construction impacts of developing these facilities; or the aesthetic impacts of the 5.7 MG reservoir or pump stations. It is also unclear if these needed improvements will be funded by the applicants seeking to implement this Project or some other source. The Project is also reliant on the future Alberhill Ranch 1 1601/1676 Zone Pump Station to be fully operational when this Project is developed. There is, however, no requirement that the Project not be developed until this Pump Station is operational; or, alternatively, requiring the implementing projects for Alberhill Villages develop the Pump Station in the event it is not yet fully operational when the implementing project is approved. Mitigation or a condition to this effect is needed to ensue additional impacts to water supply and fire services, for example, do not occur. Regarding the 1801 Zone, the Preliminary Water Facilities Plan states the pipe may extend via District construction to serve the Project. if the District does not provide such development, the connection can be made by implementers of this Project. There is no requirement that such a connection be made to ensure adequate water services for this Project. As Water facilities must be built to supply the entire Project, piping for recycled water should be required to be installed at the same time to mitigate for Water Supply, GHG, and other impacts. Development of a water reclamation plant to supply the Project should also be evaluated as Project mitigation. The Preliminary Water Facilities Plan states that, "This report does not provide a detailed analysis of what facilities will be required to serve each phase of the project, but does discuss the facilities that are recommended to serve Phase 1 of the Alberhill Villages project." (Id. at p. 5-1) The PEIR fails in its analytical and informational role by failing to consider at the program level the need of each phase, and the timely implementation of water improvements. As there is no discussion of other phases and whether needed water improvements will be available when needed, there is certainly no evidence or guarantee of their timely development. Mitigation must be adopted preventing development of implementing Projects until adequate water infrastructure is in place. Sewer The Project requires the construction of sewer facilities to support the Project. The Preliminary Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Project and PEIR, however, fail to consider the development of these facilities as part of this project, instead citing the "relative consistency" with the 2008 Wastewater Master Plan. The fact is there are currently no wastewater treatment plant or sewer systems available to service the Alberhill Villages area, and these will need to be built to service the Project. Consequently, the PEIR should detail these needed developments and evaluate their December 31, 2015 Page 16 environmental impacts as part of the Project or an effect of the Project which in turn result in indirect or secondary environmental effects. Instead, only a short description of the needed facilities is provided. No information is provided about construction impacts to develop the needed trunk sewer system; onsite gravity sewer collection lines; and Alberhill W WTP or lift station to the existing Regional W WTP; or about the impacts on- and off site of this development. Furthermore, while Buildout and Phase 1 improvements are listed, there is no discussion of other phases and whether needed sewer improvements will be available when needed. There is certainly no evidence or guarantee of their timely development. Mitigation must be adopted preventing development of implementing Projects until adequate sewer and waste water treatment infrastructure is in place. III. THE SPECIFIC PLAN The Specific Plan's Design Review Procedure provides the Planning Director or Planning Commission, as appropriate, make findings the Project is compliant with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. As presumably no project -level review has occurred up until this point, such a finding, which applies to subsequent EIRs, is inappropriate. The Specific Plan provides for transfers of development between villages and planning areas based on Average Daily Trips. While this may ensure adequate roadway capacity, it may have other effects due to land use modifications. Other limitations should be added to ensure development transfer does not result in unforeseen impacts. The Specific Plan generally states that, `The City and the developer will use their best efforts to establish" financing districts. (Specific Plan p. 57) This approach fails to ensure needed maintenance and improvements occur, and timely occur, with the Project. Greater specificity and specific financing plans should be provided. The Specific Plan's General Plan Consistency Analysis methodology is flawed where it considers consistency with the Alberhill District to determine consistency with the entire General Plan. The whole of the General Plan should be considered in the same manner as this portion, not simply cited but with no explanation whatsoever concerning consistency. Many General Plan policies are not addressed, for example: 6.4.1.1 (a), 6.4.1.3(b), 6.4.2.1(c), 6.5.5.1(b), 6.5.6.1(c), 6.6.1.1 (b), 6.6.1.2 (b), etc. Consistency with the City's Climate Action plan is also not shown where the responses provided often show the.failure to comply with the City's strategies. For example, the failure to require plug-in electric parking or a trip reduction program relative to strategies T-4 and T-5. The Specific Plan provides for a swing -gate for the multi -use trail system when crossing a vehicle corridor. Alternatives such as a step over gate should be considered for wildlife and equestrian uses. December 31, 2015 Page 17 The Specific Plan states lighting should be installed that minimizes impacts to adjacent properties, but provides no sample lighting fixtures which are partially or fully shielded. Such fixtures should be included in the Plan. IV. For the reasons detailed herein, the evaluations and analyses in the PEIR must be updated, and the PEIR recirculated for additional public review and comment. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, 7 aymond J hnson, Esq., A1CP, LEED GA IOHNSO & SEDLACK December 31, 2015 Page 18 Attachments and Electronic Citations (1) U.S. Department of'Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (August 2006) Construction Noise Handbook, Chapters 3, 4, and 9 < http://www.fhwa.dot.Pov/enviromnent/noise/construction noise/handbook/index. efin > (2) Electronic Library of Construction Occupational Safety and Health (November/December 2002) Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, and the Potential fog° Remediation; A Review and Analysis. < http://www.elcosh.org/document/1434/d000054/Construction%2BNoise%253A% 2BExposure%252C%2BEffects%252C%2Band%2Bthe%2BPotential%2Bfor%2 BRemediation%253B%2BA%2BReview%2Band%2BAnalysis.html?show text= I> — (3) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (March 2009) The Noise Guidebook. <https://www.onecpd.iiifo/resource/313/hud-noise-guideboold> (4) Suter, Dr. Alice H., Administrative Conference of the United States. (November 1991) Noise and lis Effects. < http://www.nonoiseore/library/suter/cuter htm > December 31, 2015 Page 19 RAYMOND W. JOHNSON, Esq. AICP 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 (951) 506-9725 Fax (951) 775-1912 Cellular Johnson & Sedlaek, an Environmental Law firm representing plaintiff environmental groups in environmental law litigation, primarily CEQA. City Planning: Current Planning • Two years principal planner, Lenexa, Kansas (consulting) • Two and one half years principal planner, Lee's Summit, Missouri • One year North Desert Regional Team, San Bernardino County • Twenty-five years subdivision design: residential, commercial and industrial • Twenty-five years as applicants representative in various jurisdictions in: Missouri, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas and California • Twelve years as applicants representative in the telecommunications field General Plan • Developed a policy oriented Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lenexa, Kansas. • Updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lee's Summit, Missouri. • Created innovative zoning ordinance for Lenexa, Kansas. • Developed Draft Hillside Development Standards, San Bernardino County, CA. • Developed Draft Grading Standards, San Bernardino County. • Developed Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis, San Bernardino County Environmental Analysis December 31, 2015 Page 20 • Two years, Environmental Team, San Bernardino County o Review and supervision of preparation of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's o Preparation of Negative Declarations o Environmental review of proposed projects • Eighteen years as an environmental consultant reviewing environmental documentation for plaintiffs in CEQA and NEPA litigation Representation: • Represented various clients in litigation primarily in the fields of Environmental and Election law. Clients include: o Sierra Club o San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society o Sea 8v Sage Audubon Society o San Bernardino County Audubon Society o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Endangered Habitats League o Rural Canyons Conservation Fund o California Native Plant Society o California Oak Foundation o Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Marcos o Union for a River Greenbelt Environment o Citizens to Enforce CEQA o Friends of Riverside's Hills o De Luz 2000 o Save Walker Basin o Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District Education: • B. A. Economics and Political Science, Kansas State University 1970 • Masters of Community and Regional Planning, Kansas State University, 1974 • Additional graduate studies in Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City • J.D. University of La Verne. 1997 Member, Law Review, Deans List, Class Valedictorian, Member Law Review, Published, Journal of Juvenile Law Professional Associations: o Member, American Planning Association o Member, American Institute of Certified Planners o Member, Association of Environmental Professionals December 31, 2015 Page 21 Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law 26785 Camino Seco 12/97- Present Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 Principal in the environmental law firm of Johnson &, Sedlack. Primary areas of practice are environmental and election law. Have provided representation to the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, AT&T Wireless, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, California Native Plant Society and numerous local environmental groups. Primary practice is writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning -Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco 8/94- Present Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-9825 Served as applicant's representative for planning issues to the telecommunications industry. Secured government entitlements for cell sites. Provided applicant's representative services to private developers of residential projects. Provided design services for private residential development projects. Provided project management of all technical consultants on private developments including traffic, geotechnical, survey, engineering, environmental, hydrogeological, hydrologic, landscape architectural, golf course design and fire consultants. San Bernardino County Planning Department Environmental Team 6/91-8/94 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 Responsible for coordination of production of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's for numerous projects in the county. Prepared environmental documents for numerous projects within the county. Prepared environmental determinations and environmental review for projects within the county. San Bernardino County Planning Department General Plan Team 6/91-6/92 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 Created draft grading ordinance, hillside development standards, water efficient landscaping ordinance, multi -family development standards, revised planned December 31, 2015 Page 22 development section and fiscal impact analysis. Completed land use plans and general plan amendment for approximately 250 square miles. Prepared proposal for specific plan for the Oak Hills community. San Bernardino County Planning Department North Desert Regional Planning Team 15505 Civic 6/90-6/91 Victorville, CA (619) 243-8245 Worked on regional team. Reviewed general plan amendments, tentative tracts, parcel maps and conditional use permits. Prepared CEQA documents for projects. Broadmoor Associates/ Johnson Consulting 229 NW Blue Parkway Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 525-6640 2/86-6/90 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Designed and developed an executive office park and an industrial park in Lee's Summit, Mo. Designed two additional industrial parks and residential subdivisions. Prepared study to determine target industries for the industrial parks. Prepared applications for tax increment financing district and grants under Economic Development Action Grant program. Prepared input/output analysis of proposed race track Provided conceptual design of 800 acre mixed use development. Shepherd Realty Co. Lee's Summit, MO 6/84-2-86 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Performed investment analysis on properties. Provided planning consulting in subdivision design and rezoning. Contemporary Concepts Inc. Lee's Summit, MO 9/78-5/84 Owner Designed and developed residential subdivision in Lee's Summit, Mo. Supervised all construction trades involved in the development process and the building of homes. Environmental Design Association December 31, 2015 Page 23 Lee's Summit, Mo. Project Coordinator 6/77-9/78 Was responsible for site design and preliminary building design for retirement villages in Missouri, Texas and Florida. Was responsible for preparing feasibility studies of possible conversion projects. Was in charge of working with local governments on zoning issues and any problems that might arise with projects. Coordinated work of local architects on projects. Worked with marketing staff regarding design changes needed or contemplated. City of Lee's Summit, MO 220 SW Main Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Community Development Director 4/75-6/77 Supervised Community Development Dept. staff. Responsible for preparation of departmental budget and C.D.B.G. budget. Administered Community Development Block Grant program. Developed initial Downtown redevelopment plan with funding from block grant funds. Served as a member of the Lee's Summit Economic Development Committee and provided staff support to them. Prepared study of available industrial sites within the City of Lee's Summit. In charge of all planning and zoning matters for the city including comprehensive plan. Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 9200 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 (816) 333-4800 5/73-4/75 Economist/ Planner Responsible for conducting economic and planning studies for Public and private sector clients. Consulting City Planner for Lenexa, KS. Conducted environmental impact study on maintaining varying channel depth of the Columbia River including an input/output analysis. Environmental impact studies of dredging the Mississippi River. Worked on the Johnson County Industrial Airport industrial park master plan including a study on the demand for industrial land and the development of target industries based upon location analysis. Worked on various airport master plans. Developed policy oriented comprehensive plan for the City of Lenexa, KS. Developed innovative zoning ordinance heavily dependent upon performance standards for the City of Lenexa, KS. December 31, 2015 Page 24 Letter C From: Southern California Edison Received: 12/31/2015 SOUHU RN CALIFORNIA EDISO 1 An IiOLIO,C 1. '11YN.4 110VAI Quupnny December 31, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 rstephenson@hrgreen.com RE: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Dear Mr. Stephenson: Karen Cadavona Project Environmental Management 1218 South 51" Avenue, 225E Monrovia, CA 91016 Southern California Edison (SCE) appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) is a master planned, mixed-use community that would occupy approximately 1,400 acres and proposes construction of: (1) 8,244 dwelling units (2) 2,481,000 square feet of office space, and 1,526,000 square feet of commercial/retail space; and (3) development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, worship centers, and green belt paseos. The AVSP includes re-created and restored natural wildlife and open space connections in key locations in the Specific Plan area to provide continuity to the Cleveland National Forest off-site to the south and the MSHCP core areas off-site to the north. The AVSP would include improvements and realignments of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road. Encroachment of SCE's Right -of -Way and Access SCE is the electric service provider for the City of Lake Elsinore and maintains electrical transmission and distribution facilities, as well as substations and supporting appurtenances in the City. As illustrated in the attached map, SCE has an existing 115 kilovolt (kV) subtransmission line located along Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street, which is represented as a red line. We have applications pending with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the Alberhill System and Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Projects (represented as magenta and blue lines). When constructed, the proposed projects would result in two sets of 115 kV subtransmission poles along Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street. SCE is concerned that the proposed project's improvements and realignments of Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, and Temescal Canyon Wash may impact SCE's existing and proposed subtransmission lines. The implementation and construction of the University Town Center (Village 1) may require relocation of the existing 115 kV line. We are also concerned about potential encroachment and proposed land uses contiguous to SCE's rights-of-way (including and passive/active parks, or recreational uses, landscaping, bike lanes, parking facilities, etc.). SCE's transmission corridors may not be compatible with some types of recreational activities; therefore, the developer should contact SCE regarding any plans to utilize SCE's transmission corridors as active trails and parks. The DEIR Figures 2.0-9 and 2.0-10 illustrate the right-of-way cross sections for Lake Street and include single -circuit subtransmission lines. The City should consider modifying the DEIR Figures to illustrate the proposed utility corridor that includes Alberhill System and Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Projects (two double -circuit subtransmission lines). SCE can assist the City in updating these figures so that they depict the ultimate configuration of SCE's proposed projects. The proposed AVSP should not impose constraints on SCE's ability to access, maintain, and operate its current and future facilities. SCE's rights-of-way and fee -owned properties are purchased for the exclusive use of SCE to operate and maintain its present and future facilities. SCE will review any proposed use on a case-by-case basis, including bike lines and landscaping. Approvals or denials will be in writing based upon review of the maps provided by the developer and compatibility with SCE right-of-way constraints and rights. In addition to the above referenced 115 kV Subtransmission lines, SCE may have additional facilities within the proposed AVSP. Please forward five (5) sets of plans depicting all SCE's facilities and associated land rights to the following location: December 31, 2015 Alberhill Villages DEIR Page 2 of 3 Real Properties Department Southern California Edison Company 2131 Walnut Grove Avenue, G.0.3 — Second Floor Rosemead, CA 91770 General Order 95 SCE must comply with the CPUC's General Order (GO) 95, which establishes rules and regulations for the overhead line design, construction, and maintenance. GO 95 includes minimum clearance requirements from thoroughfares, roadways, ground, and railroads, as well as specific minimum clearances from tree branches and vegetation around overhead wires. General Order 131-D The modification and relocation of subtransmission lines or electrical facilities that are designed to operate at or above 50 kilovolts (kV) maybe subject to the CPUC's GO 131-D'. The Draft E I R should be revised to address significant environmental impacts from any proposed relocation or modification of SCE's 115 kV subtransmission lines as a result of implementation and construction of the AVSP. If not addressed in the DEIR, SCE may be required to pursue a separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC, which could delay approval of the SCE subtransmission line portion of the project for two years or longer. Coordination Between SCE and the City of Lake Elsinore and Developer SCE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the AVSP. SCE requests coordination with the City and developer regarding the ultimate alignment and right-of-way widths for Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, and Temescal Canyon Wash, as well as the timing of construction for these components of the AVSP. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at Karen.Cadavona(o2sce.com or (626) 462-8622. Regards,/ Karen Third Party Environmental Reviews Project Environmental Management Southern California Edison Company cc: Jennifer Wolf, SCE Jeremy Goldman, SCE Kimberly Douglas, SCE ' http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/589.PDF December 31, 2015 Alberhill Villages DEIR Page 3 of 3 Letter D From: USFWS, Kenon Corey Received: 12/31/2015 �p4�gNT OFT�i 0 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Palm Springs Posh and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 In Reply Refer To: FWS- WRIV-1260288-16CPA0092 Mr. Roy F. Stephens, PE DEC 3 1 2015 Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o H.R. Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, California 92868 Subject: Draft EIR for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Stephens: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) residential and commercial project (Project) which we downloaded from the City's website on December 10, 2015. The DEIR was prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a Section I0(a)(1)(B) permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species IIabitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP established a multiple species conservation program in western Riverside County to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is and MSHCP permittee and the AVSP area is within the MSHCP plan area, although as discussed below, not all of the AVSP area is subject to the MSHCP. We are providing comments and recommendations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comment to assist in the identification and mitigation of significant or potentially significant Project related impacts to biological resources and the project's consistency with or effects to the MSHCP. The AVSP is a master -planned residential and mixed -commercial use community located in the northwest portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. It is bordered by Lake Street and the Brighton Specific Plan to the cast, Interstate 15 and MSIICP Core Reserve 1 to the north, the Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) Cleveland National Forest and the IIorsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan to the west, and the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and residential development to the south. The Project site encompasses approximately 1,400 acres. Comments and Recommendations The Service has concerns about the sufficiency and completeness of the DEIR in describing and providing analysis for project -related impacts, particularly in regards to: 1) Conflict with an adopted regional Habitat Conservation Plan or adopted regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (i.e., the direct conflict with assembly of the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve system, specifically, Proposed Linkage I and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 and existing conservation east of Lake Street); 2) MSHCP implementation for the portions of the AVSP that are that are outside of the settlement area; 3) Interfering with movement of native wildlife species; 4) Sensitive vegetation communities such as Riversidean sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub; and 5) Identifying appropriate mitigation for purposes of CEQA (CEQA, Section 15125 (d)). The Service requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to ensure that project -related impacts the MSI ICP Conservation Area and biological resources and the habitats upon which they depend are adequately identified and analyzed, and that adequate and enforceable avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures are incorporated. 2 The majority (but not all) of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan project area was subject to a legal settlement between Pacific Clay Products, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County (defendant) which led the County to remove most of the current Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area from the MSHCP. The "excluded portion" of the AVSP is not covered by the MSI -ICP or subject to MSHCP implementation. AVSP MSHCP Implementation The DEIR states categorically in the DEIR that "The Project is not subject the City's MSHCP review" (p. 4.11-73) and that "This Project also has an [settlement] agreement with the City and County of Riverside that this Project is not subject to the MSHCP review or setting aside of habitat conservation." Based on the map of the 2004 settlement agreement (as maintained by the County of Riverside), a portion of the AVSP area was not included in the settlement and is therefore subject to the provisions of the MSHCP. This area includes APN 390-130-017 and some other portions of the 56.7 -acre parcel illustrated in Exhibit 3 of the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project (DEIR Appendix G — Part 1). Specifically, all of the land between Temescal Canyon Road and Interstate -15, as well as a narrow strip of land on the south side of Temescal Canyon ,Road, appear to be outside of the settlement area and therefore subject to the MSHCP. including the Joint Project Review (JPR) process through the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and other MSIICP policies and procedures such as, the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl and Criteria Area Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) Species (MSHCP section 6.3.2), and the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP section 6.1.4). The revised DEIR should address the properties that are subject to the MSHCP. Table 2.0-1 should be revised to reflect that a Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) is required for portions of the project outside the settlement area. We request that a discussion of MSHCP implementation and consistency for the portions of the AVSP subject to the MSHCP be included in the recirculated DEIR. Covered Roads Expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal are Covered Activities under the MSHCP and are subject to MSHCP requirements as covered circulation element roads. The MSHCP provides guidelines to avoid and minimize its effects on Core and Linkage biological functions and values (Section 7 of the MSCHP). The DEIR statement "for right-of-way within the MSHCP core areas outside of the development agreement for Pacific Clay and the MOU for Alberhill Ridge" (DEIR, Table 2.0-1) should be revised to "for right-of-way within the MSHCP criteria area" to reflect that these right-of-ways along their entire length require a LEAP for and Joint Project review for MSHCP implementation. AVSP MSHCP Conflicts Reserve Assembly As discussed above the DEIR does not accurately address Project compliance with the MSHCP. The substantial negative impacts to MSHCP reserve assembly resulting formt he propsed project are also not addressed. The Project as designed would interfere with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and eliminate the function of Proposed Constrained Linkage 6. The portion of the project west of Lincoln Street will sever the current wildlife corridors which the MSHCP proposes to conserve and enhance through assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (discussed below). These corridors are important for enabling the movement of mountain lions, bobcats, mule deer, and other mammals and reptiles between the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Existing Core Reserve B) and Existing Core Reserve C (via the Reserve's Extension 2). Wildlife Movement The Environmental Impacts analysis section (4.11.3.2) of the DEIR's biological resources chapter responds to a list of standard questions prescribed by the CEQA regulations for inclusion in each EIR, including the interference with the movement of wildlife or movement corridors and conflicts with the provisions of an adopted regional Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The DEIR states that there will be no impact to existing wildlife corridors and the movement of mammal, reptile, and other wildlife species using the project site and the surrounding area based on the Project's plan to construct four narrow open space corridors (DEIR Figure 4.11-5) for the Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) 4 benefit of the Project's future residents. As explained by the DEIR, these open space corridors will be multi-purpose trails supporting hiking, bicycling, jogging, dog -walking, and other forms of human recreation. These "wildlife corridors" will be only 35 to 80 feet wide (DEIR Figure 4.11-75), and will often be located adjacent to the community's roads (DEIR Figure 4.11-75), including Lincoln Street (Figure 4.11-74), one of the future community's major traffic arteries. The Service does not anticipate that mountain lions, their mule deer prey, bobcats, and other wildlife species sensitive to human presence will utilize such narrow wildlife corridors, even if all human uses were precluded, due to the proximity of the proposed development, and the sight, sounds, and scents of the attendant human activity. The discussion in the DEIR recognizes this limitation impact without identifying or disclosing the impact. The DEIR, under Impact 4,11 -4 - Threshold, states "regional wildlife corridor movement and corridor connections will be provided in the form of stepping -stone habitat [i.e., noncontiguous and disconnected habitat patches] for birds and several reptile and small- to medium-sized mammals that are more adapted to disturbed development". We concur with that statement and expect that only common wildlife species, tolerant of human of human presence will use the proposed "wildlife corridors" and do not expect that native sensitive and declining wildlife species, targeted by the MSHCP conservation strategy will use such narrow corridors embedded in human use. Severance of the regional wildlife corridor through construction of the AVSP project, as currently configured, would result in the loss of population connectivity and gene flow between MSHCP Core Reserves B and C for sensitive species such as mountain lion, their mule deer prey, bobcat and other MSHCP covered species. The Project proposes to mitigate its adverse impacts to wildlife corridors and the movement of native wildlife only by complying with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) that protect active bird nests from removal or failure due to human disturbance (Mitigation Measure BIO -6). The DEIR concludes that "Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -6 within the Project, there will be less than significant impacts to animal movement ... ". The Service strongly disagrees with the contention of the DEIR's authors that the temporary protection of bird nests during nearby construction activities will mitigate the project's impacts to wildlife corridors and the movement of mammals, reptiles, and sensitive native bird species in any way. Clearly, these impacts will be both major and permanent. We do not anticipate that the temporary protection of occupied bird nests on the project's construction sites will continue to allow mountain lions, bobcats, and other disturbance -sensitive native species to continue moving across the RVSP landscape between the MSHCP's Estelle Mormtain/Lake Matthews Reserve (MSIICP Core Reserve C) and the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Core Reserve B, in the Cleveland National Forest). The Project, as currently configured, will sever this wildlife corridor, and interfere with the assembly of MSI -ICP Proposed Linkage 1. These impacts will remain severe to both disturbance -sensitive native wildlife species, and the assembly of the MSIICP reserve system after implementation of the mitigation measures currently proposed in the DEIR. The effects to MSHCP reserve assembly would be permanent if the Project is implemented as Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) currently contemplated in the DEIR. MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 The DEIR package (including its supporting appendices) proposes development of the area surrounding Temescal Creek, Alberhill Creek, and Temescal Canyon Road as a commercial center within the proposed University Town Village Center portion of AV SP's proposed Village 1. To move this area out of the current 100 -year floodplain, the project proposes to lower the height of the 100 -year floodwater elevation by replacing the natural channel of Temescal Creek with a constructed trapezoidal channel widened to 150 feet. The existing creek channel and Temescal Canyon Road would be realigned to facilitate development within the current floodplain area. The stretch of Temescal Creek within the AVSP project site is MSHCP reserve feature Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 and identified as a wildlife corridor in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 was included in the Conservation Area corridor for the purpose of maintaining wildlife movement and to facilitate habitat connectivity along Temescal Creek. Construction of a commercial center (or other development) surrounding the creek channel will make it limit its use by sensitive and endangered birds and other wildlife. These impacts will remain severe and permanent if the creek area (Exhibit 3 in the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project, DEIR Appendix G -- part 1) is developed, even if one of the AVSP's proposed 35-80 foot open space corridors (Figure 4.11-6) were to surround the creek. These impacts will not be mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO -6 (the temporary protection of occupied bird nests on construction sites), and will remain significant after implementation of all of the DEIR's currently proposed mitigation measures. The Service requests that the DEIR be revised, and recirculated for public review, to address the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Discussion and analysis of all potential conflicts with the MSHCP resulting from the proposed Project should be provided. Sensitive Species and Communities Least Bell's Vireo The DEIR does not disclose that the State and Federally listed least Bell's (vireo), has recently been found breeding along the portion of Temescal Creek that lies within the AVSP project site, specifically, in the 56.7 -acre parcel described in DEIR Appendix G - Part 1, and as well as in the reach of the creek lying further west inside the AVSP site. The vireo surveys were conducted on the Project site in 2007 and 2010 for the AVSP portion of Southern California Edison's Alberhill System Project. Instead, the DEIR states that "no LBV were identified on-site" (DEIR p. 4.11- 48). Deepening and realigning the channel along with the development of the area surrounding the creek are expected to result in the loss of vireo nesting habitat and territories, as well as potential Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) 6 nesting and foraging habitat for several other species of riparian -obligate birds, including the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, the yellow warbler, and the yellow -breasted chat. The DEIR assumes that any impacts to riparian birds will be fully mitigated by mechanisms external to the DEIR and CEQA, such as Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act. To that end, the Service requests that the recirculated DEIR include the following items: Disclosure to the public of all sightings of least Bell's vireos, yellow warblers, yellow - breasted chats, and willow flycatchers within the AVSP site and within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project boundary, including the dates of each sighting. Maps showing the locations these sightings, including a map focused exclusively on the portion of Temescal Creek within the AVSP site. Quantification of the maximum potential habitat loss to each of these four bird species, as well an estimate of the maximum number of vireo breeding territories that might be lost (assuming full occupancy of all available vireo habitat) A detailed, quantitatively adequate, and site-specific mitigation proposal designed to fully compensate for the proposed loss of vireo habitat and vireo territories. Without the inclusion of a detailed habitat mitigation proposal in the recirculated DEIR, the assumption that the Project's impacts to the vireo will be mitigated to a level of "less than significant" impact through future external processes which have not yet taken place cannot be supported. We request that the recirculated DEIR include a detailed and site-specific mitigation proposal for impacts to occupied vireo habitat. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly The DEIR states that suitable habitat exists for this species on the project site (DEIR p. 4.11-40), but that no protocol surveys for this species are required by the Service because the project lies outside of the Service's map displaying the areas where we recommend that protocol surveys be conducted for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Quino). However, the DEIR is utilizing an outdated Service map: the 2005 Quino Checkerspot Survey Region Map. The recommended survey area was updated in in December 2014; the updated map is available on the Web at http://www fws govlcarlsbadITEsl)eciesIDocumentsIQuinoDocs/Quino%2OSur,vey%20Guideline s version%2015DEC2014.ndf. Quino checkerspot butterflies were found in 2006 on a land parcel adjacent to the AVSP project site (west of Bernard Road). Therefore, the DEIR's assessment of the species' likelihood to occur onsite should be upgraded from "low potential to occur" to "high potential to occur". We also recommend that presence absence surveys for Quino protocol surveys be conducted and that the survey results and an analysis of Project effects to suitable and occupied Quino habitat be provided in the recirculated DEIR. Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) Burrowing Owl The DEIR reported that burrowing owls have a low to moderate potential to occur throughout the disturbed portions of the AVSP project site, and recommended that focused breeding surveys be conducted pursuant to the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines prepared by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993). The Service agrees with the DEIR's conclusion concerning the species' potential to occur in disturbed portions of the project site. However, thel993 survey protocol prepared by the Consortium has been replaced by the more updated survey protocol contained in the CDFW's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (available online). We request that the recirculated DEIR change the wording of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 to read as follows: "A pre -construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities within those portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl habitat. If ground -disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre -construction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls during the 30 days preceding the revised ground -disturbance date. The pre -construction survey will be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If occupied burrowing owl tunnels are identified on-site during the pre -construction survey, construction may proceed if a 50 -foot avoidance buffer can be established around the affected owl tunnel entrances (no ground disturbance, equipment laydown or storage, or parking inside the buffer). The owls and worker compliance with the buffer shall be monitored daily by a qualified biologist until construction and all other ground - disturbance activities in the vicinity have ceased. If the Project cannot avoid an occupied burrow (resulting in the possibility of taking owls through entombing or crushing them in their burrows, or evicting them to be eaten by raptors or other predatory birds), relocation will be necessary to avoid unauthorized take of this declining species. The Project shall notify the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) within 3 business days of detecting the occupied burrow, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan for approval by the Wildlife Agencies." The September 2014 Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project (DF,IR Appendix G — Part 1) states that "No suitable burrowing owl habitat was found to occur" on the 56.7 -acre bridge and commercial center project site, but provides no details as to how this conclusion was reached. Without any explanation, the Service can only assume that the surveyor reached this conclusion because, apart from the seeming absence of owls at the time of the Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) survey (Spring 2014), the site was heavily wooded and burrowing owls do not live in densly treed areas. However, most of the trees on site have been removed and burrowing owls nest and forage in areas of low, open vegetation. The elimination of the trees has improved siter conditions for burrowing owl. The Service requests that Appendix G - Part 1 be amended to reflect that burrowing owls may colonize the 56.7 -acre Temescal Creek area prior to the commencement of grading and construction. The portions of this area that are not within the settlement area would be subject to the MSHCP burrowing owl survey procedures. Additionally, a 30 -day pre -construction survey for occupied burrows will be necessary in this area prior to beginning ground -disturbance operations. Coast Horned Lizard DEIR Section 4.11.3.2 discusses impacts to sensitive species of wildlife and plants. The DEIR lists only seven taxa in this section: burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, fairy shrimp (includes multiple species), rosy bosa, and Stephen's kangaroo rat. However, on page 4.11-36, the DEIR states that the coast horned lizard — which is a California (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (a class of special -status species) — "was observed within alluvial fan scrub and chaparral habitats within the Project site", and survey detections of horned lizards on the AVSP site are mapped in Figure 4.11-2A on page 4.11-7 and in the May 2014 letter Update to the Bioloeical Constraints Analysis for the 1,400 - acre AVSP Site. The coast horned lizard (CHL) has declined greatly in distribution and abundance since the early 20`1' century due to a combination of habitat loss due to development and extensive human collecting of individual CHLs to keep as pets. The Project will contribute to the species' decline by removing its habitat, and also by eliminating gene flow between populations in MSHCP Core Reserve B (Santa Ana Mountains) and Core Reserve C (the Estelle Mountain / Lake Matthews Reserve) through severing the wildlife corridor connecting these areas across the AVSP project site (the corridor which the MSHCP proposes to conserve through assembly of MSI -ICP Linkage 1). Should the soils not be compacted and the vegetation suitable in the Project's narrow multi- purpose open space corridors, individual coast horned lizards might enter these corridors from the two MSHCP reserves, but will likely be eliminated inside the corridors by a combination of predation from domestic cats, dogs, and human -associated crows and raccoons, collecting by residents recreating on the open space trails, and vehicle crushing when some lizards wander into nearby streets of the new AVSP development. We request that the City require the Project to mitigate the loss of coast homed lizard habitat and population due to onsite development of the AVSP by placing an equivalent number of habitat acres occupied by the CHL into permanent conservation. This could be accomplished either onsite or offsite. If the Project will not mitigate the loss of CHL habitat and population due to its development, then the recirculated DEIR should disclose that the Project will not mitigate its adverse impacts to the distribution and population size of this declining species, and these Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (PWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) impacts to the CHL will remain significant after all Project mitigation measures have been implemented. Coulter's Matilija Poppy The DEIR discloses that Coulter's Matilija poppy, a CNPS List 4.2 species, has been found on the AVSP project site, and Figure 4.11-2A on page 4.11-7 maps the occurrences of this species on the Project site. The Service is not requesting that any habitat be conserved for this species, but, given that it is a rare native plant species which is declining due to development, and is also considered aesthetically attractive and useful for landscaping, we request that the City condition the Project's permit to require the developer to notify all of the native plant nurseries in Southern California (Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties) by certified letter of the pending elimination of these plants by the Project, and offer the nurseries the opportunity to salvage the plants or seed (on a first-come, first-served basis) prior to commencement of vegetation clearing and other ground -disturbing activities. California Satintail Grass The DEIR states that California satintail grass (Imperata brevifolia) is designated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) as a List B noxious weed (p. 4.11-18). This is not accurate. The species was formerly listed as a noxious weed when the CDFA confused it with its weedy relative, Imperata cylindrica, a species from Asia and Africa which has become invasive in summer -wet regions of the southeastern United States. A professional botanist subsequently petitioned the CDFA to have the rare California species removed from the noxious weed list, and the CDFA agreed with him and did so. The California species is rare, in decline, and does not exhibit the aggressive weedy behavior of its Old World relative. The Service requests that the recirculated DEIR be amended accordingly. Coastal Sage Scrub and Alluvial Tan Scrub are USFWS Sensitive Natural Communities The DEIR states that the AVSP project site supports only "two special -status habitats: coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub." This conclusion was based on information contained in the CDFW's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Coastal sage scrub, _ (including its regional variant, Riversidean sage scrub) and alluvial fan scrub to are widely considered to be special -status vegetation communities. Coastal sage scrub is a rapidly disappearing habitat mostly confined to Southern California which is the primary or sole habitat for approximately 100 species of native plants and animals. Concern over its limited distribution and rapid decline due to widespread development inspired the state legislature's creation of California's Natural Communities Conservation Program, which, in concert with the federal listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher (an obligate coastal sage scrub species) as threatened, contributed to the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and other regional Habitat Conservation Plans in Southern California. The Project proposes to remove approximately 286 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (DEIR Table 4.11-1, p. 4.11-4) and 28.44 acres of alluvial fan scrub (DEIR p. 4.11-71). Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) 10 The loss of coastal/Riversidean sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub (even if "disturbed") due to development of the AVSP site should be considered a significant adverse environmental impact due to the very large number of declining native species which are restricted to or primarily dependent on this habitat. We request that unavoidable impacts to coastal/Riversidean sage scrub and alluvial fan scrub be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by placing the same type of habitat into permanent conservation. This mitigation could occur either onsite or offsite. Native Oak Tree Replacement / Mitigation DEIR Mitigation Measure BIO -8 proposes to mitigate the Project's removal of native oak trees (Quercus agrifolia, an ecological keystone species) by planting replacement trees in the 36 -inch box size at a 3:1 ratio. While we commend the Project for planning to replace native oak trees lost to development, we do not recommend that 36 -inch box specimens be used in the mitigation plantings. Wild coast live oak trees face a long and severe summer dry season, which they survive by tapping into the water table using deep roots. However, specimens cultivated in pots or boxes experience a rapid loss of vigor in the root system by the time that they must be grown in 5 -gallon pots or larger containers, and the plants are typically "root -bound" at this point, meaning that the roots are coiled around the inner perimeter of the container, tangled and meshed together, and typically growing sideways (sometimes even upward) rather than being oriented downward for deep growth. The result is that native oak trees in the 5 -gallon size and larger sizes typically fail to develop extensive deep roots after planting, and then they must be supported permanently by heavy irrigation, or perish from drought during the summer dry season, or remain permanently stunted and in poor health. The Service applauds the proponent for being willing to bare the expens of larger replacement saplings. However, to improve the success of Measure BI0-8, we recommend that the City adjust it to replace removed or otherwise impacted native oaks by planting 1 -gallon size replacement oaks at a 12:1 mitigation -to -impact ratio. Over several decades of future (albeit very slow) tree growth, this should result in the maintenance or a gain in the number of native oak trees onsite, (after allowing for some mortalities of planted trees due to droughts and herbivory by gophers and squirrels) with the added benefit that the purchase and planting of twelve 1 - gallon plants instead of three 36 -inch boxed trees (per each oak tree removed) will greatly reduce the developer's costs for implementing this Measure. Section 4.3 — Hydrology and Drainage The AVSP site map on page 4.3-18 (Figure 4.3-7) is illegible due to the font size used within the map, the amount of detail illustratrated, and the size of the Project site. We request that the recirculated DEIR contain this information in a legible format. Cumulative Effects Analysis for Biological Resource Impacts Severance of the regional wildlife corridor through construction of the AVSP project, as Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) 11 currently configured, would result in the loss of population connectivity and gene flow between MSHCP Core Reserves B and C for sensitive species such as the mountain lion, their mule deer prey, and the bobcat. This Project would contribute to isolating the Santa Ana Mountains population of mountain lions by severing the wildlife corridor, further contributing to the documented genetic decline (inbreeding depression) of this population. Thus, the Project would, in combination with ongoing development of other areas along the eastern and southern flanks of the Santa Ana Mountains and in Temescal Canyon, incrementally contribute to the pressure on the shrinking population of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains, threatening this population with extirpation over the long term. These impacts will remain severe after all of the Project's currently proposed mitigation measures are implemented. The Service requests that the Cumulative Effects section of the recirculated DEIR's biological resources disclose these impacts to the public. We also request that the recirculated DEIR disclose the locations, dates, and numbers of individuals sighted for all mountain lion observations on and within 1 mile of the AVSP project site and that a map of these sightings be included. Summary, and Agency Recommendations The AVSP project will adversely impact multiple sensitive species of native wildlife and/or their habitats. If the Project remains in its current configuration, the most severe and cumulative biological impacts will be the severance of the regional wildlife corridor between the Santa Ana Mountains (MSHCP Core Reserve B) and the MSHCP's Core Reserve C (the Estelle Mountain/Lake Matthews Reserve, including Proposed Extension 2) and biological impacts to the Temescal Creek wildlife corridor. Species sensitive to human presence and requiring large open landscapes will no longer be able to disperse or to maintain population connectivity between these two MSHCP reserves. The current configuration of the AVSP project is in direct conflict with the assembly of the MSHCP reserve system, since the Project would (1) prevent the MSHCP from assembling MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 to conserve and maintain the regional wildlife corridor previously mentioned, and (2) would functionally eliminate MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 in terns of its ability to support sensitive and endangered riparian bird species and to maintain the movement of sensitive species of terrestrial mammals, reptiles, and amphibians along Temescal Creek upstream and downstream of the AVSP site. These adverse impacts would remain major and severe after implementation of the mitigation measures currently proposed. The Service recommends that project eliminate its conflict with MSHCP reserve assembly features and include appropriate mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan sage scrub communities. We reiterate the need for MSHCP implementation for portions of AVSP Project including the Joint project review Process and compliance with the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Policy (MSHCP Section 6.1.2). We request that MSHCP implementation be completed prior to recirculation of the DEIR or adoption of a final EIR for the RVSP. Mr. Roy Stephens, PE (FWS-WRIV-12B0288-16CPA0092) As previously stated we request that our comments above be addressed and the DEIR recirculated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR and look forward to receiving the Project's MSHCP implementation documentation for the MSHCP-included portion of the AV SP site. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, or to schedule a discussion of mitigation options, please contact Jim Thiede of the Service at (760) 322-2070, extension 219. Sincerely, Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Charles Landry, Regional Conservation Authority Leslie MacNair, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 12 Letter E From: County of Riverside Transportation Department Received: 12/31/2015 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE gyANSPpq 7,(Tp N ,g ND LAND MANAGEMENTAGENCY \�?`.AHOMPN4O �AiION �gP Juan C. Perez, PE., T.E. Transportation Department Patricia Kano, P.E. Director of 'Transportation and Assislant Director of Transportation Lard AItritagenrew December 31, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 RI: Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Dear Mr. Stephenson, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan — SP 2010-02 (DEIR). The project proposes development of approximately 1,400 acres with up to 8,244 residential dwelling units; approximately 4 million square feet of non-residential uses including civichnstitutional, commercial/retail, professional officehnedical and entertainment uses; development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, worship centers, and green belt paceos. The Transportation Department (County) has reviewed the DEIR and has the following comments. The DEIR and project traffic study indicate the development at its ultimate buildout is estimated to generate 150,415 daily trips, 9,927 AM peak hourly trips, and 14,575 PM peak hourly trips. However, no information is provided to illustrate the project's trip distribution to the surrounding area and roadways. Under the County's traffic impact analysis preparation guidelines, where the proposed development would add 50 or more peak hourly trips to County intersections, the intersection shall be analyzed. The County believes it is reasonable to assume that the project would add 50 or more peak hourly trips to County intersections beyond the studied intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road. Without a trip distribution of project traffic, it is difficult to verify. This information is needed to determine if the studied area is adequate. 4081) Lemon street, 8°` Floor Riverside. CA 92501 (951)955-0710 P.Q. Box 1090 Riverside. CA 92502-1090 FAX (951) 955-3199 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. December 31, 2015 Page 2 The DEIR provides an analysis of the existing conditions as well as the City's General Plan Buildout with and without the project. The combination of these analyses may provide the project's cumulative impact under buildout conditions, however determining the project's impact on the existing road network is still unknown and therefore not mitigated. An analysis needs to be provided to identify both the project's direct impacts and necessary improvements to mitigate those impacts. As noted in the DEIR (page 4.7-5), the City's General Plan depicts Temescal Canyon Road between the city limits and Horsethief Canyon Road within the unincorporated County of Riverside as a Major Highway (4 lanes within a 100 foot right-of-way). The County's General Plan depicts this same segment as a Major Highway, but the County's designation uses slightly different specifications (4 lanes and a striped median turn lane within a 118 foot right—of- way). The discussion of General Plan Buildout without the Project beginning on page 4.7-35 and ending on page 4.7-40 also indicates that this segment of Temescal Canyon Road was being studied as a 4 -lane roadway. However, the discussion of General Plan Buildout with the Project seems to have studied this segment of Temescal Canyon Road as an Urban Anterial Highway which has 6 lanes within a 120 foot right-of-way. While the County's standard for a Major Highway would nearly meet the right-of-way requirement, the actual roadway design of the County's Major Highway standard would require significant modifications to accommodate 6 lanes. The DEIR's determination that the Temescal Canyon segment is not impacted by the proposed Project appears to rest on the assumption of improvements that exceed the requirements of the City and County's General Plan designations. Although the analysis indicates a 6 -lane facility is required to provide adequate capacity for the projected 44,000 daily trips, page 4.7-62 of the DEIR appears to recommend retaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility. The analysis indicates the LOS "E" capacity of a 4 -lane Major is 34.100 daily trips which would not provide adequate capacity. Furthermore, the DEIR attributes a portion of the 44,000 daily nips as being diverted trips from a congested I-15 freeway. The report considers this diversion of traffic to "very unlikely" in order to justifies the use of a 4 -lane facility. One could argue from real world examples that traffic from congested freeways does divert to parallel facilities. The gravity model component of the City's traffic model operates in this manner. Therefore the recommendation of maintaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility is inadequate mitigation. 4080 1,c111011 SIIUCI. 5°i F1001 Riwrsidc, CA 92501 (951) 955-6710 P.O. BM 1090 Riverside_ CA 929112-1090 - FAx (951) 955-3195 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. December 31, 2015 Page 3 The DEIR also seems to assert that this increase in design requirements somehow does not rise to the level of requiring a General Plan Amendment to the City and County General Plan. However, if this higher level of improvements is required to fully mitigate the project's impacts, formalizing these requirements in the City's and County's General Plan through a General Plan Amendment should be given consideration as a mitigation measure of the Project to ensure that the higher level of improvements is carried out in the future by all affected projects that may develop along this segment of road. Under the discussion of Traffic Capacity/Level of Service in the DEIR (page 4.7- 78) and its traffic study, impacts are identified from the Project at the intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road. The improvement identified to reduce the impact to less than significant is through the installation of a traffic signal and road widening. It is questionable whether the recommendation of adding a single right -turn lane on Horsethief Canyon Road is adequate to accommodate the projected 1,263 PM peak hourly trips. The County would also like to point out that the total project peak hourly traffic at the intersection is shown to decrease at General Plan Buildout with Project, an unlikely scenario. The DEIR indicates the City will require the developer to pay for the improvements in the'form of fair -share fees. The County requests that the mitigation fees be paid to the County at the time of building permit issuance in order to mitigate project impacts. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at (951) 955-2016 or at ruwillia(&rctlnI, Sincerely, Ei�Russell Williams Development Review Manager RW:RF:KT:rg cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Romo, Assistant Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon Street. 8°i 1 fool Rirarside, CA 9201 (951) 9-5-6740 P.U. 13os 1090 RM-iNide, CA 92502-1090 FAX (9-S 1) 955-3198 Letter F From: Santa Margarita Group/Sierra Club Received: 12/30/2015 Letter G From: CDFW, Kim Freeburn Received: 12/30/2015 State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN. Jr. Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 10, Ontario, CA 91764 (909)484-0459 www.wiidlife.ca.gov December 30, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Subject: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046 Dear Mr. Stephenson: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project (AVSP; Project), State Clearinghouse No. 2012061046. The Department is responding to the DEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Program. Within the Inland Deserts Region, the Department issued NCCP Approval and Take Authorization for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code on June 22, 2004. The MSHCP establishes a multiple -species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The Project is a mixed-use.development combining residential (8,244 dwelling units), commercial, office, institutional/educational, and open space and recreational uses on approximately 1,400 acres within the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The AVSP project is bordered by MSHCP Core 1 and Interstate 15 (1-15) to the north, Lake Street and the Alberhill Ridge - Brighton Specific Plan to the east, the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and Lake Elsinore residential communities to the south, and the Cleveland National Forest/ MSHCP Core Reserve B and Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan development to the west. Conserving Cafifori ia's 4Wighfe Since 1870 Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 2 of 23 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Department has concerns regarding the sufficiency and completeness of the DEIR. The Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Lake Elsinore (City; Lead Agency) in adequately identifying and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. The comments and recommendations are also offered to enable the Department to adequately review and comment on the proposed project with respect to impacts on biological resources and the project's consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In order for the Department to complete its review of the DEIR and provide substantive comments on project -related impacts to public trust fish, wildlife, native plants and habitat resources, the following sections of the DEIR need to be revised and recirculated per CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 (a): Project Description (CEQA Guidelines § 15124), Environmental Impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15126), Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4), Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6). The Department provides the following comments: Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Conflicts with Provisions of Approved General Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. The DEIR Impact 4.11-6 Threshold attempts to address part of this requirement, asking: "Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?" In its response, the DEIR finds that the AVSP will not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, and will have less than significant impact, merely claiming "Implementation of the Project and the Project's present agreement with the City and County of Riverside, this Project is no[t] further subjected to the MSHCP review or setting aside of habitat conservation pursuant to the MSHCP" (DEIR p. 4.11-76). Earlier in the DEIR, in response to the question "would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" (DEIR 4.4-2, p. 4.4-26) there is discussion of the Settlement Agreement established between the County of Riverside and Pacific Clay Products, Inc. which removed the project from the requirements of the MSHCP. The provided response in the DEIR is "With the existing County of Riverside settlement agreement in Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 3 of 23 place, the Project does not conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community preservation plan." However, this statement is inaccurate and insufficient to address conflicts with the MSHCP. The Settlement Agreement does not excuse the Project from CEQA requirements. The settlement agreement clearly states that "the Present and Future Uses and Development of Owner's Properties shall be subject to the provisions of applicable state and federal law with respect to habitat conservation and endangered or threatened species preservation on Owner's properties" (Settlement Agreement, p. 5). Further, the Settlement Agreement states that the property owner understands it is subject to CEQA review. Analysis of the project's effects on the MSHCP is a CEQA requirement, not an MSHCP requirement, and therefore the project is required to address Project impacts on the MSHCP. The DEIR provides insufficient analysis of potential conflicts between the Project and the MSHCP. The Settlement Agreement excluded the majority of the AVSP from the MSHCP. However, based on the Settle Agreement map maintained by the County of Riverside, which illustrates the properties subject to the Settlement Agreement, the Department notes that a portion of the AVSP is not included in the settlement. Specifically, the 9.09 - acre parcel south of 1-15, west of Lake Street, and north of Temescal Canyon Road (APN 390-130-017) and possibly a portion of the 56.7 -acre parcel addressed within the Biological Resource Assessment for the Temescal Creek Bridge Project (DEIR Appendix G — Part 1). As such, the portion of the AVSP not covered by the Settlement Agreement will be subject to the provisions of the MSHCP, including the Joint Project Review (JPR) process through the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and other MSHCP policies and procedures such as, the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl and Criteria Area Species (MSHCP section 6.3.2), and the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP section 6.1.4). The revised DEIR should address the properties that are subject to the MSHCP. Table 2.0-1 should be revised to reflect that a Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) is required for portions of the project outside the settlement area. Riverside County General Plan Amendment No. 960, Lake Elsinore Area Plan The Department is concerned that sections of the Riverside County General plan relevant to natural resources were not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should address all relevant components in the Riverside County General Plan including the Open Space, Habitat, and Natural Resource Preservation section of the General Plan Land Use Element and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Watershed Management Floodplain and Riparian Area Management, Wetlands, and Open Space, Parks and Recreation sections of the Multipurpose Open Space Element. For example, the Lake Elsinore Area Plan of the Riverside County General Plan Amendment 960 has several elements or Elsinore Area Plan Policies (ELAP) that were not addressed in the DEIR that are relevant to wildlife and their associated habitats: Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P, 4 of 23 1. Watercourses (p.5): Land use designations adjacent to the [Temescal] Wash reflect a desire to buffer it from development so that its scenic and natural resource values are retained. 2. ELAP 2.2: Encourage the maintenance of Temescal Wash in its natural state, with its ultimate use for recreational and open space purposes such as trails, habitat preservation, and groundwater recharge. 3. ELAP 16.1: Protect sensitive biological resources in the Elsinore Area Plan through adherence to policies found in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans, Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Wetlands, and Floodplain and Riparian Area Management sections of General Plan policies found in the General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element. 4. FLAP 16.2: Provide for connection between Santa Ana Mountains, Temescal Wash and foothills north of Lake Elsinore; existing connections are at Indian Truck Trail (buffer along Canyon Creek), Horsethief Canyon, and open upland areas southwest of Alberhill. 5. ELAP 16.4: Conserve clay soils supporting sensitive plants such as Munz's onion, many -stemmed dudleya, small -flowered morning glory and Palmer's grapplinghook. (There is a Munz's onion population of approximately 7,500 heads in Alberhill.) 6. ELAP 16.5: Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Wasson Creek, and the lower San Jacinto River, (including marsh habitats and maintaining water quality). 7. ELAP 16.8: Conserve sensitive plants, including Parry's spineflower, prostrate spineflower, Payson's jewelflower, smooth tarplant, slender -horned spineflower, Coulter's matijila poppy, Palomar monkeyflower, little mousetail, vernal barley, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Coulter's goldfields, heart -leaved pitcher sage, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 8. ELAP 16.9: Conserve Travers -Willow -Domino soil series. 9. ELAP 16.10: Conserve foraging habitat adjacency for raptors, sage scrubbed - grassland ecotone. The revised and recirculated DEIR should provide discussion and analysis for each of these policies. Covered Road Activities Expansion of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal are Covered Activities under the MSHCP and are subject to MSHCP requirements as a public facility. Guidelines for Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 5 of 23 Covered Activities will be incorporated into the Lake Street expansion and realignment to avoid and minimize its effects on Core and Linkage biological functions and values (Section 7 of the MSCHP). The DEIR statement "for right-of-way within the MSHCP core areas outside of the development agreement for Pacific Clay and the MOU for Alberhill Ridge" (DEIR, Table 2.0-1) should be revised to "for right-of-way within the MSHCP core areas" to reflect that these right-of-ways along their entire length require a LEAP for MSHCP consistency review. The DEIR fails to accurately address compliance with the MSHCP and the General Plan, and fails to adequately address the several substantial impacts the Project will have on the MSHCP, including the detrimental interference with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (discussed below). The Department requests the DEIR be revised, and recirculated for public review, to address the Project's consistency with the MSHCP and General Plan. Discussion and analysis of all potential conflicts with the MSHCP resulting from the proposed Project should be provided. Wildlife Corridors The AVSP as described in the DEIR has the potential to permanently impair two wildlife corridors described in the MSHCP (Propose Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6) and does not provide viable alternatives to replace the linkages that will provide safe live-in and movement habitat for wildlife. In addition, the Riverside County General Plan Amendment No. 960 specifies that the Elsinore Area Plan "provide for connection between Santa Ana Mountains, Temescal Wash and foothills north of Lake Elsinore; existing connections are at Indian Truck Trail (buffer along Canyon Creek), Horsethief Canyon, and open upland areas southwest of Alberhill." MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 Much of the project footprint covers a linkage in the MSHCP described as Proposed Linkage 1. Proposed Linkage 1 has several possible routes that provide connection between the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland Nation Forest (Existing Core B) to the southwest and Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountains (Existing Core 2) to the north and Alberhill (Proposed Core 1) to the east (MSHCP Section 3.2.3 p.3-96-97). The linkage is described as providing both live-in and movement habitat for Cooper's hawk, Bell's sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, mountain quail, coastal California gnatcatcher, Stephen's kangaroo rat, bobcat, and mountain lion. In addition, the linkage should accommodate the movement of other species present on the property such as mule deer. The AVSP identifies the inclusion of re-created and restored natural wildlife open space to facilitate wildlife movement. The DEIR states that, "The intent of these wildlife connections is to facilitate connections to allow for safe passage of wildlife around the community and towards the existing under passes that permit wildlife to safely cross under Lake Street and under the 1-15 Freeway into core MSHCP areas" (DEIR, p. 2.0- Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 6 of 23 21). There are several inconsistencies between the intent of the wildlife corridors and the proposed linkages: The linkages move animals through the community, not around if. The AVSP linkages that would address wildlife movement for MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 include (Figures 2.0-4 and 2.0-5): 1) "Temescal Connection" which starts in the hillside residential area in the Santa Ana Mountains and runs adjacent to Lincoln Street between Villages 1, 2, 3 and 4 and then along Temescal Canyon Road to terminate at the University Town Center in the Temescal Wash area; and 2) "Greenbelt Connection" which connects the Santa Ana mountains and runs along existing Horsethief Canyon development and then between proposed Village 2. a. The north -south component of the Temescal Connection is situated between Lincoln Street, a 4 -lane major roadway, and Villages 1, 2 and 3. The open space connection then continues west, adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road, a six to eight -lane major urban arterial road, and University Town Center (Village 1), which is described as the most intense and active area once final build out has occurred. Uses adjacent to the open space connection include mixed uses development such as commercial/retail, civic/institutional, professional office/medical, and entertainment (Village 1); 2,445 residential units, a park, and elementary school (Village 2); and custom hillside estates (Village 3). Three minor roadways are depicted crossing the Temescal Connection into Village 2 although the Department anticipates several additional roadway crossings over the open space connection will be required to serve Village 3. In addition to the adjacent uses, the Temescal Connection itself is meant to serve several functions, including sediment collection, utility easements, and recreational pursuits (DEIR p. 2.0-12). Figure 2.0-20 also depicts a large in -stream detention/debris basin and several proposed roadway crossings that will serve Villages 2 and 3. b. The east -west component of the Temescal Connection is proposed as bisecting Village 4. It is connected to the 36.8- acre Lakeside Park which is described as being at the heart of the development surrounded by playfields, picnic areas, active areas, as well as passive park uses such as an outdoor amphitheater will also serve as a wildlife corridor to allow connections to local wildlife. c. The Greenbelt Connection is proposed within the western portion of Village 2. The DEIR states that, "the Greenbelt open space connection... will carry a portion of the stormwater runoff and serve as wildlife and pedestrian connection" (2.0-12). Based on Figure 2.0-20, the Greenbelt Connection will be bounded on either side by the proposed development, including Village 2's proposed 2,445 residential units, park, Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 7 of 23 and elementary school, and will contain a minimum of two road crossings and an in -stream detention/debris basin at its southernmost end. The linkages will not provide safe passage for most wildlife. The proposed open space areas are adjacent to roads and co -mingled with multi-purpose recreational trails that run through residential and developed areas. Placement of a wildlife corridor in a multi -functioning corridor next to a busy road, residential areas, and recreational trails without adequate buffers, appropriate vegetation, and fencing is inappropriate and contrary to well-documented information on how to build successful wildlife movement corridors (Beier 1993, Bond 2003). Insufficient detail was provided on the placement of wildlife crossings and fencing. The when or where or what type of fencing would be provided to act as buffer between wildlife habitat and adjacent land use such as road and residential areas was lacking in the DEIR. The placement of the proposed wildlife corridor is likely to increase mortality of animals from roads, predation by domestic animals, and presents a potential risk to humans using the road and trails. The DEIR proposes to direct wildlife movement so that the wildlife safely cross under Lake Street. The AVSP Project identifies a wildlife corridor outside of the project footprint between the eastern side of Lake Street and the Alberhill Ridge Development in the footprint of the previously approved VTTM No. 35001. The wildlife corridor is described as being in a multi -functioning corridor adjacent to a six to eight lane road with meandering pedestrian and bicycle paths and open space that is 50 feet to 250 feet wide (Figures 2.0-8, 2,0- 9, 2.0-10 & 2.0-11). This proposed wildlife corridor is not an identified wildlife linkage in the MSHCP and would direct wildlife movement near development and high human -use areas and is therefore detrimental to the MSHCP. MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 Proposed Constrained Linkage 6 (Linkage 6) consists of a portion of Temescal Wash and connects Alberhill (Core 1) to Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain (Existing Core 2) under 1-15. The linkage is described as providing upland and riparian habitat for Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat and least Bell's vireo. In the DEIR, a portion of Linkage 6 is described as the Northern Connection which would be bounded on both the north and south by the proposed University Town Center (Village 1), described as the most intense and active area of the AVSP. The Northern Connection will be further bounded at the east and west by major urban arterial roadways. The eastern arterial roadway (Lake Street) will include eight lanes of traffic, a depressed median, two bike lanes, two depressed parkways, and a sidewalk for a total 120 -foot right-of-way. The Temescal Canyon Road crossing will include six traffic lanes, two bike lanes, and concave parkways on either side of the road. How wildlife will navigate this matrix is unclear. The DEIR provides conflicting information on the status Temescal Wash in this corridor, the wash is described as being left in its Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 8 of 23 natural condition or re -naturalized (Section 2.4.5) or graded to create a trapezoidal channel (Subsection 4.3.1.3). A graded trapezoidal channel would be detrimental to wildlife movement and would not support live-in habitat for wildlife dependent on riparian habitat such as least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Placement of development adjacent to the Temescal Wash would be detrimental to wildlife movement. The Department recommends a large buffer between riparian habitat and development to help maintain the natural functions of Temescal Wash. Development should be placed outside the existing floodplain to protect instream resources and functions. Wildlife Corridors Recommendations and Summary The Department is concerned the project will interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife species and that the planned wildlife connections will provide limited or no function and value to wildlife movement. Further, wildlife movement in this area will have reduced long-term viability due to the ongoing disturbances and fragmentation resulting from the development. Based on the limited information provided on the project's direct and indirect effects on wildlife movement, the Department is concerned that the project as proposed will cause permanent damage to Linkages 1 and 6 in the MSHCP. More detail and analysis on the proposed wildlife corridors and their direct and indirect impacts on wildlife movement are needed. The DEIR fails to demonstrate that standards for wildlife corridors, buffers, and mitigation ratios are adequate to reduce impacts to existing the MSHCP and regional wildlife corridors to a level less than significant. The Department recommends a detailed discussion of the wildlife corridors be provided in a revised and recirculated DEIR as it would not be appropriate, given the corridors are positioned throughout several Planning Areas within the AVSP, to defer this detailed analysis to subsequent, project -specific CEQA evaluations. Information provided should include: 1. A list of the wildlife species guiding the design of each of the proposed corridors, specific and biologically defensible measures for the wildlife corridor width and composition should be provided; 2. A list of intended species for each wildlife corridor; 3. A discussion of the long-term viability of the corridors; 4. A detailed analysis of the additional uses within the corridor, including, but not limited to, recreational use, sediment collection, drainage, and utility easements; 5. A detailed analysis of the effect of adjacent uses on the corridors, including roadways, parks, business, residential, and recreational facilities; 6. Site specific design elements, such as corridor depths and widths, lighting, vegetation composition, fencing, and wildlife under crossings/road crossings designs and locations; 7. Specific minimization measures proposed to reduce the effects of the adjacent urban and residential development such as the control of domestic species, light, noise, and humans; 8. Identification of fuel modification zones outside wildlife corridors; Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 9 of 23 9. Specific measures that provide separation of wildlife corridors from areas of ongoing disturbance and use, such as roadways and pedestrian trails, such as fencing, physical barriers, public education, etc.. Multiple -use of wildlife corridors for recreational purposes should be avoided; and 10.Analysis of the expected impacts by the development on wildlife movement through the proposed corridors. The Department recommends consultation with wildlife movement experts, especially for mountain lion, to develop viable corridors that will facilitate wildlife movement through the project site. For instance, consultation with experts could provide guidance on how to improve the habitat around an existing large wash coming from the Santa Ana Mountains to Temescal Wash to facilitate wildlife movement across the site. Consultation with riparian habitat experts would facilitate design of an appropriately - sized wildlife movement corridor along Temescal Wash that will support riparian habitat and associated wildlife such as southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. Larger species, such as mountain lion, need wider corridors to facilitate movement and provide habitat especially in a landscape that is dominated by human use (Beier 1993, Bentrup 2008), The Department recommends that wildlife corridors should be a minimum of 300 meters and preferably wider and not include fuel management, accessory uses and other uses not compatible with wildlife movement such as recreational use. Jurisdictional Waters Identification of Jurisdictional Waters The DEIR states that the AVSP area supports a total of six drainage features, three of which have been determined to be "non -jurisdictional drainages" (p. 4.11-5). The Department assumes these "non -jurisdictional drainages" were categorized as such because, "the drainage features (7, 8 & 9) may have been disconnected along the stream course and from the receiving tributary" (DEIR p. 4.11-49). FGC Section 1600 et seq. (as well as other sections of the FGC that relate to streams, such as FGC Section 5650 and fishing regulations) jurisdiction is not predicated on hydrologic connection to another waterbody. For the purposes of implementing sections 1601 and 1603 of the FGC, California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 720 requires submission to the Department of general plans sufficient to indicate the nature of a project for construction by or on behalf of any person, government agency, state or local, and any public utility, of any project which will divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river, stream or lake designated by the Department, or will use material from the streambeds designated by the Department, all rivers, streams, lakes, and streambeds in the State of California, including all rivers, streams and streambeds which may have intermittent flows of water, are hereby designated for such purpose. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 10 of 23 Impacts subiect to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and Riparian/Riverine Polic The DEIR does not adequately address impacts subject to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 or the Riparian/Riverine Policy of the MSHCP. The Department acknowledges that the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan DEIR is described as a program EIR, and the Department expects that additional environmental review and associated effects analysis will be required for each subsequent phase of development on the project site. However, if preparation of a subsequent environmental review that: 1) addresses specific impacts over the entire site, and 2) is circulated for public review, is not anticipated, the Department requests that the Lead Agency address the following issues, and any other project activities with the potential to impact Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and Riparian/Riverine resources, and recirculate this DEIR for additional public review and comment. The DEIR mentions several project activities that propose to significantly alter Temescal Canyon Wash and its tributaries, but these activities are discussed as mitigating factors to address erosion, flooding, and sediment/ debris flows rather than as significant project impacts. Subsection 4.3.1.3 states, "The Alberhill Villages project proposes to grade the existing Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) drainage course to create a more confined trapezoidal channel to convey the drainage runoff across the site" (p. 4.3-4). Subsection 4.3.3.2 states, "Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek) and the un -named stream will have side slope erosion protection to mitigate substantial erosion" (p. 4.3-30) and that, "Increases in site peak flows are not expected to have a significant impact on Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), except for the potential outfall location at the Temescal Canyon Wash (Creek), where energy dissipation will be required." (p. 4.3-31). Section 2.4.7, Public Facilities, states that, "The major off-site flows from Rice Canyon District and Horsethief Canyon Ranch District drainage areas will first pass through detention/debris basins in order to remove sediment and debris from the stormwater runoff' (p. 2.0-93). As stated above, the Department is concerned that these activities have not been sufficiently described in the DEIR and strongly encourages the Lead Agency to pursue subsequent CEQA action, including additional public review, to address these project activities. Please note the Department's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA Agreement) is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the DEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Because the Department will be acting as a Responsible Agency in issuing an LSA Agreement, it will need to rely on the analysis of the impacts to riparian and streambed habitat provided by the Lead Agency. However, if the DEIR and its subsequent CEQA documents do not adequately describe the impacts, the Department may need to prepare its own, separate CEQA analysis (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15052 and 15092). Therefore, to Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 11 of 23 avoid unnecessary project delays, the Department recommends that the Lead Agency provide (a) a thorough and detailed analysis of all anticipated impacts subject to Fish and Game Code section 1600 and the Riparian/Riverine Policy, where applicable, and (b) feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. Biological Resources The Department is concerned that the DEIR lacks a complete and accurate assessment of the existing species and habitats on-site, lacks a focused analysis of the impacts related to these species and habitats, and does not identify feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. The Department is also disconcerted that the Lead Agency has made finding related to special -status species and habitats without having complete biological data for the AVSP site. The Department offers the following comments to assist the Lead Agency in identifying and addressing impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Vegetation Association and Habitats The DEIR does not provide a consistent description of the existing vegetation associations and habitats onsite. For example, Section 4.11.1.1 lists vegetation associations including alluvial fan scrub, oak woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, and riparian woodland. However, Table 4.11-1, which lists the approximate acreages of existing vegetation communities over the 1,400 -acre AVSP site, does not contain any of these vegetation associations. Based on these inconsistencies, the DEIR appears to lack a complete biological description of the existing habitats on-site. The Department strongly urges the lead to evaluate the adequacy of the current Vegetation Associations and Habitats section of the DEIR and recommends this assessment be repeated, and the results recirculated for public review. The Department recommends assessments of natural communities be completed following the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, Department of Fish and Game, November 24, 2009. The Department also recommends a current classification system be adopted to ensure consistency throughout the DEIR. More information can be found at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp and https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_communities.asp. Sensitive Vegetation Associations and Special -Status Habitats The Department is unclear as to the methods used to identify sensitive vegetation associations and special -status habitats onsite and is concerned that the failure to maintain a consistent and current method of vegetation association classifications has led to an inadequate and incomplete assessment of the resources onsite. The DEIR further fails to identify the level of impacts proposed to occur within special -status habitats and does not identify feasible, enforceable, and adequate mitigation measures to address the impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 12 of 23 Two special-status habitats were identified as occurring within the AVSP area: southern coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub. As stated before, not all vegetation associations and habitats have been quantified, including the coast live oak riparian forest. The DEIR does acknowledge that impacts to southern coast live oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub would be considered significant under CEQA, but then disregards this statement, claiming "most of this area is already disturbed habitat and is not considered sensitive" (p. 4.11-69). The DEIR then suggests that, "Mitigation [for the loss of sensitive vegetation communities] should be assessed with the Specific Plan programs for open space, wildlife corridors and riparian restoration and enhancement" (p. 4.11-19). In addition to the two habitats mentioned above, the DEIR identifies alluvial fan sage scrub occurring onsite. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) is a state- designated S-1.1 "very threatened" community, although not described as such within the DEIR. Similar to the coast live oak riparian forest habitat, the DEIR fails to quantify this community within Table 4.11-1 (Existing Vegetation Communities) but does in one location state, "the AVSP area does support a small area (28.44 acres) of alluvial fan scrub" (p.4.11-71). The DEIR suggests there may be some level of habitat avoidance, stating, 'The areas that will be avoided will be the barren/streambed riparian and alluvial fan scrub areas and the willow/riparian scrub and the riparian and oak woodland communities" (p. 4.11-69) although no specific measure is proposed. The DEIR should be revised to clearly identify and quantify all sensitive vegetation associations and special-status habitats onsite, provide a detailed assessment of the impacts proposed within these habitats, provide specific measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect the special-status habitats from project-related direct and indirect impacts, and provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. Again, the Department recommends that impacts to sensitive vegetation associations and special-status habitats be re-evaluated following current, accepted survey protocol and classification systems, as suggested under the Vegetation Associations and Habitats section above. Special-Status Plants The Department is concerned that the DEIR does not contain a complete and accurate assessment of the special-status plants onsite. The 2008 Biological Assessment of Castle & Cook Pacific Clay Mine Site merely states that, "biologists traversed each of the target habitats on foot to provide adequate coverage for surveys" but does not provide any information on what, if any, standardized survey methods were used to determine presence/absence of special status plants onsite. Furthermore, the 2014 Update to the Biological Constraints Analysis for the 1,400-Acre Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Site, which was to meant to "identify and address... any sensitive species that may not have been addresses in the 2008 GLA Biological Constraints report" states that, "[species] presumed to be present... had not yet bloomed during the time of the surveys." This statement clearly identifies the inadequacy of the 2014 Update to the Biological Constraints Analysis to identify all potential species present onsite. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCM No. 2012061046 P. 13 of 23 Given the incomplete nature of the updated special -status plant surveys, the Department requests new surveys be completed, and the results recirculated in the revised DEIR. Surveys should be conducted in the field at the time of year when target plant species are both evident and identifiable (usually during flowering or fruiting). Multiple visits may be necessary (e.g. in early, mid, and late -season) to accurately survey the floristic diversity of the site and detect the presence of all special status plant species. The Department recommends updated surveys take into consideration drought and other adverse conditions. Annual and short-lived perennial plant species and plants with persistent long-lived seed banks are known not to germinate every year. In addition, the phenological development of some plants may be altered because of the drought. Because of these conditions, the failure to locate a plant during the floristic surveys of one field season does not constitute evidence that the plant is absent from the surveyed location. The timing and number of visits necessary to conduct a floristic survey should be determined by geographic location, the natural communities present and the weather patterns of the year, with the understanding that more than one field visit or field season may be necessary to accurately survey site and detect the presence of special status plant species. In addition to the recommendation for recirculation of updated, standardized surveys and associated results, the Department also request the Lead Agency revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the loss of the four special status plants observed within the AVSP area: Parry's spineflower, paniculate tarplant, graceful tarplant, and Coulter's matilija poppy. The DEIR incorrectly states that no sensitive plant species were observed during focused special status plant surveys conducted during the 2008 growing season and again in 2014 and based on this erroneous statement, the DEIR concluded that impacts to sensitive plants would be less than significant. The Department would like to point out that the Update to Biological Constraints Analysis for the 1,400 -Acre Alberhil/ Villages Specific Plan Site Located in Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, dated May 25, 2014, states, "The majority of previously documented sensitive plant species were verified during the updated surveys. Species that were not identified... are still presumed to be present but had not yet bloomed during the time of the surveys." Given this statement, the Department strongly urges the Lead Agency to revise the DEIR to: correct the statement claiming that no species were identified onsite, identify the level of impacts proposed to occur, provide a reasonable assessment of significance related to the loss of special status plants, propose some level of avoidance through the reduction of the project footprint, and provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. The Department is unclear as to why several locally occurring special status plants were considered to have low, or low to moderate, potential to occur onsite. Munz's onion, long-spined spineflower, and many -stemmed dudleya were considered to have low to moderate potential to occur onsite despite the fact that these species have been documented by California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as occurring within 0.5 - mile of the project site. San Diego ambrosia, Plummer's mariposa lily, and slender - horned spineflower were considered to have low potential to occur onsite even though Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 14 of 23 CNDDB and/or MSHCP species occurrence data documents each of these plant species within 0.5 -mile of the project site. As habitat exists onsite for each of the above- mentioned species, the Department requests a clearer explanation of what considerations led to the findings that these species had low, or low to moderate potential to occur onsite. A statement that most of the project is impacted or degraded is insufficient given that there is conflicting information on the status of resources on the project site. Special -Status Wildlife Species The Department is concerned the Lead Agency has prematurely determined that project -related impacts to special -status species will be less than significant without having adequately assessed the biological resources onsite. The DIER's assessment of special -status species appears to be based on nominal field reconnaissance surveys rather than species-specific/focused surveys. In the absence of species-specific surveys, and a clearly-defined project description, the Department cannot adequately identify, assess, and comment on the project -related impacts to special -status wildlife species and cannot, at this time, concur that the project will have a less than significant impact, even with implementation of the specified mitigation measures. The Department is also concerned that the DEIR does not disclose relevant species occurrence information from sources such as CNDDB and has downplayed the likelihood that special -status species will be impacted by project -related activities. For example, least Bell's vireo, a state and federal endangered species, was listed in the DEIR as having a low to moderate potential to occur onsite despite recorded observations of this species within and adjacent to the AVSP site, including areas that will be directly impacted by the project. According to CNDDB four territories, thought to contain breeding pairs, were detected in 2010 adjacent to Temescal Canyon Road between Bernard Street and Lake Street and two least Bell's vireo, also considered to be a breeding pair, were detected in Temescal Wash, near the intersection of Temescal Canyon Road and Hostettler Road, just west of the AVSP project site. Due to the availability of prey, perches, and suitable forage habitat identified in the DEIR (DEIR, p.4.11-5), the AVSP area has the potential to support a variety of raptor species including Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and white- tailed kite. However, the DEIR did not provide analysis of impacts from loss of raptor habitat. Impacts to foraging and nesting habitat should be quantified. The Department recommends that the AVSP outline mitigation for potential loss of foraging habitat and nest trees. Lands set aside for mitigation should be conditioned with Department approval to ensure their quality and proximity to the project. The Department recommends the lead agency revise and recirculate the DEIR following completion of more detailed, species-specific focused surveys. The revised DEIR should, at a minimum: Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 15 of 23 1. clearly identify all special -status wildlife species onsite; 2. describe and quantify the habitats supporting these special -status wildlife species; 3. provide a detailed assessment of the potential project -related impacts to these species and habitats; 4. provide specific measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect the special -status species and their associated habitats from project -related direct and indirect impacts; and 5. provide specific and enforceable compensatory mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. Species-specific/focused surveys should be conducted by qualified biologists no more than 12 months prior to circulation of the CEQA document and should include species - appropriate survey methods and timing to ensure all species with the potential to occur onsite are detected. To assist with review, an accompanying map detailing the location of special -status species and/or special -status species habitat should be provided with the revised CEQA document. Project Impact Analysis and Environmental Mitigation Measures The Department strongly urges the lead agency re-evaluate the sufficiency of the species information onsite and to take the steps necessary to fully and adequately identify the biological resources onsite and analyze the project -related impacts to those species before making their findings of significance. Given the above recommendation, the Department offers the following comments related to the project impact analysis and associated mitigation measures to assist the lead agency in better identifying significant impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation measures to reduce project -related impacts. The DEIR should state each threshold and include a factually based explanation as to why project impacts will result in no effect or effects that are less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or significant with feasible mitigation. This explanation should be derived from the project description, which informs project impacts, and environmental setting, which identifies sensitive biological resources that may be impacted. At this point in time the Department is concerned that the Biological Resources mitigation measures are insufficient to minimize and avoid sensitive biological resources, and/or to offset the loss of native flora and fauna. Impact 4.11-1 Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as candidate Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 16 of 23 Sensitive vegetation communities and habitats The DEIR fails to address impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats including alluvial fan scrub, coastal sage scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and southern willow scrub, merely stating that, "most of the sensitive vegetation will be avoided, and impacts to sensitive vegetation communities will occur" (p. 4.11-69). The Department finds this justification wholly insufficient and inappropriate. Sensitive plant species The DEIR denies the existence of special -status plant species onsite and finds, based on this incorrect statement, that impacts to sensitive plant species are less than significant. The Department considers this explanation careless and unsubstantiated. Sensitive wildlife species The Department is concerned that the DEIR has selectively considered a handful of sensitive wildlife species in their creation of mitigation measures, and in doing so, has failed to address many others that either occur onsite or have a high to moderate potential to occur onsite. The DEIR states that impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats, sensitive plant species, and sensitive wildlife species will be mitigated to a level less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO - 4, BIO -7, BIO -9, and BIO -10. The Department strongly disagrees that the project will have a less than significant impact (i.e., substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications) on special -status species and finds that the mitigation measures proposed would have little to no effect at reducing the significant impacts on these species and habitats. Mitigation Measure (MM) 13I0-1 Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is meant to address potential impacts to burrowing owl but fails to adequately identify potential losses and specific mitigation measures to offset those losses. Furthermore, MM BIO -1 is outdated and proposes activities not currently authorized by the Department outside of NCCPs (active relocation) as well as activities strongly discouraged by the Department. Please note, the Department strongly discourages the exclusion of owls using passive relocation unless there are suitable burrows available within 100 meters of the closed burrows (Trulio 1995, CDFG 2012) and the relocation area is protected through a long-term conservation mechanism (e.g., conservation easement). MM BIO -1 also references the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, an outdated guidance document that has since been updated. The Department recommends the Lead Agency revise MM BIO -1 to: 1) require focused breeding season surveys, pre -construction surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation measures be completed following the Department's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; 2) remove any reference to "active relocation"; 3) require that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department be notified if owls are found onsite and that any passive relocation and/or associated conservation strategy be implemented in cooperation with the Service and the Department, and in Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 17 of 23 accordance with the Department's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; and 4) provide a feasible mitigation plan to offset impacts to the potential loss of burrowing owl nesting and/or foraging habitat, should burrowing owl be found onsite. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of burrowing owl nesting and/or foraging habitat, should burrowing owl be found onsite, the Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to burrowing owl would be mitigated to less than significant levels through the implementation of MM BIO -1. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 MM BIO -2 proposes to reduce impacts to California gnatcatcher to a level less than significant through completion of "presence/absence surveys" and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures during the breeding season. The Department finds these measures deficient in addressing the loss of habitat and contends these measures will not reduce impacts to California gnatcatcher to a level below significant. The Department recommends MM BIO -2 be revised to: 1) require focused, breeding - season surveys be completed, and the results recirculated for public review, to determine the level of impacts anticipated to occur within suitable and/or occupied California gnatcatcher habitat, and 2) adequately address the potential loss of suitable and occupied habitat through avoidance and conservation of habitat first, and where avoidance is infeasible, through specific, enforceable, and achievable mitigation measures at an appropriate level. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of California gnatcatcher nesting and/or foraging habitat, the Department cannot, without further information concur that impacts to California gnatcatcher would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 MM BIO -3 is proposed to specifically address least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher through the completion of "presence/absence surveys" and the implementation of avoidance measures during the breeding season. MM BIO -3 refuses to address the potential direct impacts to suitable and potentially occupied least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat and instead defers additional measures to future consultation with the Service. This measure fails to addresses the potential impacts to least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher and will not reduce the impacts to a level less than significant. The Department recommends MM BIO -2 be revised to: 1) require focused, breeding -season surveys be completed, and the results recirculated for public review, to determine the level of impacts anticipated to occur within suitable and/or occupied least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, and 2) adequately address the potential loss of suitable and occupied habitat Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 18 of 23 through avoidance and conservation of habitat first, and where avoidance is infeasible, through specific, enforceable, and achievable mitigation measures. Because current, breeding season surveys have not been conducted, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts to the potential loss of least Bell's vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher nesting and/or foraging habitat, the Department cannot concur that impacts to least Bell's vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 MM BIO -4 offers to mitigate the loss of riparian and riverine habitat through on- or offsite replacement of streambed and associated habitat through purchase of mitigation credits or in -lieu fee payment for invasive species removal. Because the DEIR lacks any information regarding project -related impacts to streams and associated habitats, and no specific mitigation plan has been prepared to offset impacts the potential losses Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to streams and associated habitats would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of MM BIO -4. As stated throughout this letter, the Department recommends the DEIR be revised and recirculated to clearly identify project -related impacts to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and where applicable, Riparian/Riverine resources. Mitigation Measure BIO -7 MM BIO -7 proposes the completion of"additional surveys" to identify rosy boa, and if found, proposes to relocate any individuals to "suitable areas outside the development area" (p. 4.11-80). The measure provides no information on how, when or with what methods these "additional surveys" will be carried out and provides no scientific foundation supporting the capture and relocation of rosy boa as a feasible and successful mitigation measure to avoiding "take". Overall, the Department finds this proposal inappropriate and insufficient to mitigate the loss of rosy boa individuals as well as the loss of suitable and occupied habitat. Revised mitigation measures should be provided. Mitigation Measure BIO -9 MM BI0-9 proposes to erect a temporary sound wall, if necessary, adjacent to any Critical Habitat Areas to ensure wildlife are not subjected to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Department is unclear on several issues related to this measure and finds that the measure fails to provide any specific, enforceable protection to wildlife, as proposed. MM BIO -9 fails to identify several key elements, including: when erection of the sound wall will be necessary, who will determine where and when the sound wall is utilized, what wildlife the sound wall will be designed to protect, where the "Critical Habitat Areas" currently exist, who determines the location and qualifications necessary to be deemed a "Critical Habitat Areas", and the entity responsible for enforcing this measure. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 19 of 23 Mitigation Measure BIO -10 MM BIO -10 proposes to protect "Critical Habitat Areas" through design and operation measures that will reduce noise from proposed loading docks. As the DIER lacks any information regarding "Critical Habitat Areas" and project -related impacts to "Critical Habitat Areas", and no specific impact -reducing design and operation measure have been proposed, the Department is unable to determine whether the impacts would be mitigated, and cannot, without further information concur that impacts to "Critical Habitat Areas" would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of MM BIO -10. Impact 4.11-2 Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities The DEIR does not analyze this impact threshold and instead defers the identification of impacts and formulation of mitigation measures to future regulatory permits. Please note that CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(8) states formulation of feasible mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future date. Please also note the Department's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA Agreement) is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the DEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Wildlife Movement and Wildlife Corridor Connections The DIER states that the majority of the AVSP is either developed or disturbed and would not be expected to support regional movement of large mammals. The Department questions this statement and asks what, if any, wildlife movement studies, surveys, or research has been reviewed and/or completed within the AVSP site to support this explanation. The claim that the site would not support the movement of large mammals seems unfounded given that both mule deer and mountain lion were listed among the wildlife species observed on the site. Furthermore, the Department is concerned that the DEIR relies too heavily on the notion, and repeated emphasis, that the majority of the site is "highly disturbed due to mining activities, and dominated by sparse, ruderal plant species" (p. 4.11-5). The DEIR specifies, "A total of 433 acres of the approximately 1,400 acres has been previously disturbed by significant mining and 941 acres remains either undisturbed or disturbed with minor grading and clay storage" (4.11-3). The Department requests a consistent and accurate description of existing disturbed resources and condition of remaining resources on the project site. A detailed Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 20 of 23 map with acreages of the vegetation resources is necessary for evaluating the site conditions. The DEIR suggests that through the construction of the AVSP and its open space connections, "regional wildlife corridor movement and corridor connections will be provided in the form of stepping -stone habitat for birds and several reptile and small- to medium sized mammals" (p. 4.11-72). The wildlife linkages should support large mammals such as mountain lion and provide movement and live-in habitat. The Project has failed to demonstrate that stepping -stone habitat will provide adequate corridors for most species intended to move through this area. The DEIR also asserts that through implementation of MM BIO -6, there will be a less than significant impacts to animal movement. Overall, the Department finds the response to Impact 4.11-4 unfounded and without merit and strongly disagrees that the DEIR has sufficiently addressed potential impacts to wildlife movement. Mitigation Measure 8/O-6 MM BIO -6 proposes to address wildlife movement and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) through the completion of pre -construction nesting surveys and implementation of pre -established buffers. The project fails to demonstrate how pre - construction bird surveys will address wildlife movement. Further, the measures does not provide any form of mitigation for loss of nesting bird habitat. The Department finds the DEIR has failed to address the impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors and suggests the lead agency re-evaluate the potential impacts and revise and recirculate the DEIR to properly address the impacts. The historic movement of mountain lion and mule deer should be included in the analysis of project impacts to wildlife corridors and related project design features. The analysis should include a discussion of wildlife corridor dimensions and whether or not fuel management, lighting, and accessory uses are proposed with these areas. The Department strongly urges the DEIR to re-evaluate the Impact 4.11-4 Threshold, taking into consideration the MSHCP wildlife corridors. Impact 411-6 Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? As previously stated under the NCCP section of this comment letter, the DEIR completely disregards the question posed in the Impact 4.11-6 Threshold, claiming, "Implementation of the Project and the Project's present agreement with the City and County of Riverside, this Project is no[t] further subjected to the MSHCP review or setting aside of habitat conservation pursuant to the MSHCP" (DEIR p. 4.11-76). The Department disagrees and finds that the DEIR fails to accurately address compliance with the MSHCP and fails to adequately address the several, substantial impacts the Project will have on the MSHCP, including the detrimental interference with the assembly of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 6. Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 21 of 23 Alternatives The DEIR provided analyses of possible alternatives to the proposed Project. The alternative analysis lacked in-depth analysis or viable alternatives. For instance, the reduced footprint alternative included the addition of a golf course which made the project difficult to compare the preferred alternative which did not have a golf course. The Department believes this is counterproductive to the goal of trying to reduce impacts to sensitive resources, and complicates the comparison of the alternatives. In addition, a blanket statement of "this alternative would not be in accordance with the General Plan's job creation, housing density, land use or zoning" was provided for the alternatives with lower density of housing and higher environmental benefits without clear support for this statement. Please provide additional details and analysis on how the project was not in accordance with land use goals for facilitating wildlife movement and protection of sensitive resources. The other reason for rejecting possible alternatives was that that the cost was not economical but information was not provided to support this statement. Please provide detailed analysis to support this statement. The Department recommends development of a viable alternative with wider wildlife corridors, avoidance of habitat with sensitive resources, no golf course, and reduced development footprint. Summary The proposed project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife habitat and should be evaluated in such a manner to reduce its impacts to biological resources. The Department finds that the mitigation measures are insufficient to minimize and avoid sensitive biological resources, and/or to offset the loss of native flora and fauna. The proposed mitigation measures poorly address a handful of specific species and neglect the remaining species that either occur onsite, or have high -to -moderate potential to occur onsite, including, but not limited to: Bell's sage sparrow, California horned lark, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat, yellow warbler, coast patch -nosed snake, northern red -diamond rattlesnake, orange -throated whiptail, San Diego coast horned lizard, western spadefoot toad, coyote, mountain lion, mule deer, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat, and western mastiff bat. A Program EIR should provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives; ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; and allow the City to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts (CEQA §15168). However, the deficiencies in the information provided for sensitive natural resources and the poorly designed and located wildlife corridors create a situation where planning at a larger scale to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to sensitive resources is not feasible. The Department strongly suggests the Lead Agency, through Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 22 of 23 revision and recirculation of the DEIR, address the deficiencies outlined within this letter, including inadequate project description, deficient species information, poorly designed wildlife corridors, and lack of appropriate and enforceable mitigation measures. Please note that mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). Furthermore, in order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. The Department requests that all sensitive species occurrence data be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to add to the inventories for the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California. Biological Monitors and/or surveyors monitoring or surveying for all fully protected species, state and federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species, state species of special concerns, and/or other protected species shall be experienced with the species and hold in addition to a Scientific Collecting Permit, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for each species that qualifies as described above. Please refer to the following link for more information: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov_/Licensing/Sgientific-Collect Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092 and 21092.2, the Department also requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the project. Written notifications shall be directed to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 6, 3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite C-220, Ontario, CA 91764. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2012061046). Department personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. The Department requests a meeting with the City to discuss wildlife movement and linkages within the project site prior to revision of the DEIR at your earliest convenience. The Department requests that the DEIR be revised to address the Department's comments and concerns, and recirculated for public review. If you should have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in this letter, please contact Kimberly Freeburn at (909) 945-3484 or at Kim. Freeburn(a wiIdlife.ca.go Sincerely, i_ L sI� N��eKlatr o41 nal Manager i cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Draft Environmental Impact Report Alberhill Specific Plan Project SCH No. 2012061046 P. 23 of 23 Literature Cited California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available at http://www,dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport pdf Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. General Technical Report SRS -109. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Accessed online on December 23, 2015 at http://nac.uni.edu/buffers/docs/conservation buffers.pd Beier, P. and S. Lee. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440 Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7(1):94-108. Bond, M. 2003. Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design. Center for Biological Diversity Accessed online on December 28, 2015 at: http://www,biologicaldiversity.orq/publications/papers/wild-corridors.pdf.. Trulio, L.A. 1995. Passive relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites. Journal of Field Ornithology 66(1):99-106. Letter H From: Pechanga Cultural Resources Received: 12/29/2015 VIA E-MAIL and USPS Mr. Richard J. MacHott Environmental Planning Consultant City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Dept - Planning 130 South Main Street Corona, CA 92530 Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice of Availability for a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP2010-02) and Related General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 and Zone Change No. 2012-02 Dear Mr. MacHott: This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to the Notice of Availability for the above named Project. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project'). If you have not done so already, please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, and all documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. Please also incorporate these comments into the record of approval for this Project. The Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore and the Developer for providing mitigation to preserve and protect the sensitive Luiseno cultural resources and traditional landscapes found in this area and to require both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitoring during earthmoving activities. The State and Federal governments have mandated that cultural resources must be appropriately mitigated for within the confines of development projects. The "Tribe appreciates the active role the City takes to preserve the significant and rich cultural history of both the Tribe and the State of California found within its borders: The Tribe has reviewed the DPEIR and has consulted with the City under SB 18. Our comments, requests and edits are included below for reference and insertion in the Final EIR. Sacred Is The Duiv Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Chairperson: Germaine Arenas PECHANCIA CULTURAL RESOURCES vice chairperson: Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Mary Bear Mabee Committee Members: Post Office. Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92593 Evie Gerber Telephone (951) 308-9295 • Fax (951) 506-9491 Darlene Miranda Bridgam Barcello Maxwell Aurelia Marrufro Richard B. Scearce, Ill Director: Gary DuBois December 29, 2015 Coordinator Paul Macarro Cultural Analyst: Anna Hoover Environmental Planning Consultant City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Dept - Planning 130 South Main Street Corona, CA 92530 Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice of Availability for a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP2010-02) and Related General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01 and Zone Change No. 2012-02 Dear Mr. MacHott: This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to the Notice of Availability for the above named Project. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project'). If you have not done so already, please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, and all documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. Please also incorporate these comments into the record of approval for this Project. The Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore and the Developer for providing mitigation to preserve and protect the sensitive Luiseno cultural resources and traditional landscapes found in this area and to require both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitoring during earthmoving activities. The State and Federal governments have mandated that cultural resources must be appropriately mitigated for within the confines of development projects. The "Tribe appreciates the active role the City takes to preserve the significant and rich cultural history of both the Tribe and the State of California found within its borders: The Tribe has reviewed the DPEIR and has consulted with the City under SB 18. Our comments, requests and edits are included below for reference and insertion in the Final EIR. Sacred Is The Duiv Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 2 PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of Payomkawichum, and therefore the Tribe's, aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of known place names, toota yixelval (rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs), traditional landscapes and tribal cultural resources, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and an extensive artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. This culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area as well as the close proximity of the Project to Tribal reservation lands. The Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this Project as the Tribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the Project property and is the closest affiliated tribe to the Property. The Tribe has been named the Most Likely Descendent (Cal. Pub. Res. C. §5097.98) on projects in the nearby vicinity of the Alberhill Villages Project and has specific knowledge of cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed Project which we have shared with the City on previous occasions for this and other projects. The Tribe welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction, if so desired. REQUESTED TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT AND MITIGATION The Pechanga Band is not opposed to this Project; however, we are opposed to any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts this Project may have to tribal cultural resources. The Tribe's primary concerns stem from the Project's proposed impacts on Native American cultural resources. The Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Payomkawichum village sites, sacred sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. The Tribe is in receipt of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. The proposed Project is located in a highly sensitive region of Payomkawichum territory — a Traditional Cultural Property, and the Tribe believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface resources during ground -disturbing activities in areas that have been cut less than two (2) feet by the historic mining activities and any other modern disturbances is high. The Tribe has over thirty- five (35) years of experience in working with various types of construction projects throughout its territory. The combination of this knowledge and experience, along with the knowledge of the culturally -sensitive areas and oral tradition, is what the Tribe relies on to make fairly accurate predictions regarding the likelihood of subsurface resources in a particular location. Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Braid ofLuiseho Mission Indians Post Office Box 2163 • Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duuv Trusted Unto Our Cmc Arid With honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 3 As an initial matter, the Tribe requests the City insert a Section under both Sections 4.12.1.2 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources and 4.12.2.2 State Regulations regarding Assembly Bill 52. Although this Project is not subject to AB 52, all subsequent implementing projects under this DPEIR will be required to fulfill these CEQA mandates. The Pechanga Tribe will be consulting with the City on these future projects due to the sensitivity of the area. Under 4.12.1.2, the Tribe suggests including the definition of Tribal Cultural Resources found at Public Resources Code § 21074 to guide those processing future implementing projects as consideration of impacts to these resources will be required. Inclusion of this new category of resource is also appropriate under Section 4.12.2.2 due to its future applicability. In addition to the direct impacts of the Project proper, Lake Street will require improvements as a result of this Project. Because the sensitivity level for identification of human remains and other living areas increases near water sources and that there is a large waterway alongside Lake Street and the I15 freeway, the Tribe is concerned that Payomkawichum resources could be adversely impacted and/or destroyed with the proposed work. As we have shared with the City in multiple consultations, the Tribe, through its internal research, has discovered a correlation between water sources and burials, in addition to the increased likelihood of habitation areas near water and food resources. Therefore, it is imperative that there be a Pechanga monitor present during all earthmoving activities associated with the Lake Street improvements as buried resources could be impacted by these off-site impacts. The archaeological studies and cultural reports prepared for the DPEIR fail to address off-site impacts that must be constructed for the proposed development. Thus, the Tribe recommends that an archaeological study(s) be prepared to address these impacts, and that the Pechanga Tribe be involved in and consulted with through the entire process. The Tribe has specific information about this area regarding potential locations of human remains that must be taken into account to sensitively develop this area of Lake Elsinore and due to the confidential nature of the information, we cannot disclose it in a publically available document. As such, the only way to ensure this information is considered and appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures are prepared is to complete the necessary research, in consultation with the Tribe, as we have specific knowledge that is not available through published or publically accessible sources. 'Therefore, tribal consultation will be needed to fully evaluate the impacts to cultural resources and provide the City Council with the requisite information to snake an informed decision on this very large Project. At this time, the Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore for working closely with us to develop appropriate and adequate mitigation measures. These are identified in the DPEIR as CR -1 to 7 and have been copied below. Because the Project will impact a documented Historic District, the 'Tribe recommends one additional mitigation measure to address those specific impacts, identified as CR 8 below. We request that these measures/conditions of approval, with the edits indicated, be incorporated into the final DPEIR and any other final environmental Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band ofb seho-Llission Indians Post Office Box 2183 • TeunecOn, CA 92.592 Sacred /s The Duty Dusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 4 documents approved by the City as well as in all future implementing projects (underlines are additions; strikeouts are deletions). CR -1 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the Project, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. CR -2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the appropriate tribe' to notify that Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate witht#e C4ty of b ' Tanti int the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terns of compensation; and, treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CR -3 Prior to issuance to of any grading permit, the Project archaeologist shall file a pre - grading report with the City a+td Ccun#y (+1"V to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CR - 1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. CR -4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CR -5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the mitigation, if feasible. CR -6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the appropriate 'It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to their prior and extensive participation in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and their coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Pechanga Cultural Resources - Temecala Band of huiseflo Mission htdians Post Office Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Tmsted UWo Our Cate And With Honor We Rise 7b The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on Alberhill Villages SP December 29, 2015 Page 5 Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious belief's, customs and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be final. 4.12.5.2 Historical CR -7 Prior to the approval of any implementing development project or the issuance of any grading permit, that includes the Alberhill School site, the applicant shall provide to the City of Lake Elsinore an evaluation of the School House structure completed by a qualified architectural historian to determine its historical significance and integrity. The report shall require the review and approval by the Community Development Department — Planning Division. CR -8 Prior to ebtamini the first certificateof occu ane ,the Developer mast presort informational materials l-i.e. pam filets, flyers, booklets. etc.) to the Cgiill Development Director (CDD) to educate ptos}neetive home buyers oh the Historic Alberhill District. The materials shall include details of the yeast history and uses of the area including those other than mining interesting photographs and other information pertaining to the area The Developer must hire a qualified historian to professionally prepare the materials aitd must ccansuli with 'Che local historic societies. Consultation with the Pechanga Tribe must also occur prior to finalization of the materials to include available prchistoric information Historic infcrrnaiion _must also be included in trail si¢nage and at_ least one of the following other sources: CC&R's, HOA notices community flyers park signage and/or street names The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continuing to work together with the City of Lake Elsinore in protecting the invaluable Payomkawichum cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me at 951-770-8104 or at ahoover@pechanga-nsn.gov once you have had a chance to review these comments if you would like to discuss the mitigation measure language and continue our SB 18 consultation. Thank you. Sincerely, _z Anna Hoover Cultural Analyst Cc Pechanga Office of the General Counsel Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Baud ofLuiseno Mission Indians Post Office Boz 2183 • Temecula, C1 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor 64'e Rise To The Need Letter I From: Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Received: 12/29/2015 Kevin Kohan From: Stephenson, Roy <vstephenson@ higreen com > Sent: W edneslay, D ecem ber 3 0, 2 015 1118 AM To: Emest Pema (emes[pema@ ym aficom ); charhs Rangel (c=gehssocs4:EO sbcgbbalnet) (©angehssochtes@ dbo3bba1net);Ha2dy Stmzhr, Kevin Kohan Subject: EW :AbethJRV:LTages Specify Phn,Lake Elsinom From: Cultural [mailto;Cu]tural a9pi urria-nsn_gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:49 AM To: Stephenson, Roy Cc: Dixon, Patti; Jeremy Zagarella Subject: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, Lake Elsinore Mr. Stephenson, The Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians has received your December 11 notice for the 10 day review extension for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. After reviewing the information provided our concern is the protection and preservation of Luiseno Cultural resources on the project property. To support the Cultural Report our recommendation is to have all ground disturbance monitored by an archaeologist and Native monitor. A Monitoring Plan should be developed and agreed upon by a majority of the Luiseno Bands. Please contact us if there ara any additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Chris Devers Vice Chairman Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Letter J From: Paulie Tehrani & Sharon Gallina Received: 12/28/2015 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL December 28, 2015 Mr. Roy P. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 E-mail: rstephenson@hrgreeil_com RE: DEIR for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson: We are homeowners in Alberhill Ranch and appreciate the opportunity to comment and give our opinions on this project and its environmental documentation. Mining Concerns: We are concerned with the mining; Pacific Aggregates/ Pacific Clay/Castle & Cooke will be mining until all natural resources are depleted. The DEIR completely ignores exact end dates of mining, we believe there should be dates when the mining will end. When the mining operation was grandfathered into Lake Elsinore the mining agreement with the County of Riverside and Pacific Clay Products was mining ends in 2057. DEIR extends the time to when all the natural resources are depleted this issue needs to be addressed. In example Pacific Clay's Nichols Mine 2009 Reclamation Plan stated the mining would be completed in 4 to 5 years and then they would build a commercial center with restaurants, etc. Instead they sold the land do another mining operation, who will be mining for another 25 years plus. We want to remind the City when Pacific Clay Products was grandfathered into Lake Elsinore they were grandfathered on a Surface Mining Permit issued by Riverside County. Pacific Clay had given up their vested mining rights to put a seven -million - dollar kiln on the mining property. We have the documentation, which we received from the County of Riverside and have given copies to the City of Lake Elsinore, and State of California which backs up this fact and truth Pacific Clay Products should not have been given vested rights by the City of Lake Elsinore, Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 1 of 4 Brownfields are another issue which seemed to be ignored in the DEIR, we need to see more detailed information on the cleanup of the mining brownfield. The City of Lake Elsinore, OMR and the EPA need to be responsible for overseeing the proper cleanup and handling of brownfields as well as the proper handling of reclamation. We believe there should be someone from the EPA overseeing the whole process. Especially having lived here for 10 years and have seen many violations committed by the developer's operations. Leaching is another environmental concern when it contributes to groundwater contamination. As water from rain, flooding, or other sources seeps into the ground, it can dissolve chemicals and carry them into the underground water supply. Of particular concern are hazardous waste dumps and landfills, and, in agriculture, excess fertilizer, improperly stored animal manure, and biocides (e.g. pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides). Historical Sites: We believe the Alberhill School house located on this land should be preserved, it's over 100 years old and of great importance in our areas history. We have contacted the National Registry of Historic Places (federal and state) regarding the Alberhill School. Butterfield Stage Coach Route (off Lake Street). Ditto as with the Alberhill School, this site must be preserved. The Temescal Bridge should also be considered a landmark historical site. Also Alberhill was the original place for the extraction of coal in the Western United States and there should be some type of monumental in celebration and historical representation of Alberhill and Terra Cotta. Native American Sites: We believe the DEIR does not take into much consideration of our native American ancestors and that the first man was buried in Alberhill/Terra Cotta. These needs to be addressed in great detail. The BIA has been contacted and we are waiting for a response. Biological Impacts: As active members of the Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and Waterkeepers we are concerned and echo Dan Silver's concerns he addressed in his December 24, 2015 letter to you as well as the concerns voiced by the Waterkeepers and Gene and Linda Riddenour. We have lived in Alberhill Ranch for many years and have seen the developer issued fines and notices with many agencies State and Federal because of this we believe someone from Fish and Wildlife, Audubon Society, EHL, Sierra Club, Waterkeepers, etc. etc. should all be involved with overseeing all work on this project. Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 2 of 4 We have also seen many of the endangered species mentioned in Dan's letter diminish each year and some we haven't seen in a couple of years. (We do have documentation.) ROADS/TRAFFIC ISSUES/EDISON POLES: Traffic has been a big problem in Alberhill Ranch the DEIR doesn't address is issue properly. The roads need to be completed before any building begins, especially Temescal Canyon Road, Lake Street and Nichols Road, these need to all be completed at the same time with no extensions given. The developer has a habit of getting extensions and not completing projects ie Lake Street and the Edison poles, etc. We were told the Edison poles would be underground and we expect this to be corrected in the DEIR and changed to underground utilities. Mining Traffic and construction traffic should be conducted on one road designated the "haul road". We believe the designated haul road should be Lake Street. We don't believe Nichols Road should be the assigned haul road. Nichols Road is the main road for residential traffic and a dangerous road because of how fast the mining trucks travel. The mining trucks seem to frequently ignore the speed limit, hours of use as well as the stop sign at Alberhill Ranch and Nichols Road. COMMERCIAL AREAS: We want to see firm dates when the commercial will be started and completed. I'ts been over 10 years and Alberhill Ranch isn't even half way completed. If they work at that pace it will be 1,000 years before Alberhill Villages will be completed. Firm hours of construction traffic with a city contact for us to call at any given time when they are out of compliance. This also includes the mining and building part of the project. No mining or construction activity when the winds are over 25 miles per hours including wind gust. ACCOUSTICAL/LIGHTING PROBLEMS: We want to be included in monitoring the acoustical issues during construction and mining operations. There have been many times when they are over the noise levels and we are unable to reach the City in time to catch them breaking Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 3 of 4 the noise codes. We live here and want things done right and want to be part of this process and keeping records. An ex -city employee monitored the noise with his ears and didn't do anything to stop the noise from what we heard. Watch You Tube for Alberhill Mining. WE don't want large lights facing Alberhill Ranch Area A that was a problem which we don't want to revisit. Dust has always been a problem and with the mining and construction we will have serious issues to our health as well as our neighbors, seniors and children. This needs to be mitigated and reviewed at the present time the DEIR is lacking in the health and safety of current residents in Alberhill Ranch and surrounding areas. Thank you for your time and attention to our opinion and concerns. We believe the developer does not want to build. We also believe the City needs to address the illegal vested rights which were given to Pacific Clay/Aggregates a few years ago. City Manager Yates said he would look at this after the budget and he didn't, it's time this is addressed. We are growing impatient on this outstanding issue hope the City will do the right thing and reverse the illegally given vested rights. They do not have vested rights and if the City removes these illegal vested rights then the mining will have to stop in the year 2057 as per the agreement the mining operator made with the County of Riverside. The DEIR does address their not building the Villages but continuing to mine which once again leads us to believe they are primarily a mining operation and not a developer. In our opinion we were sold a bunch of lies when we purchased our homes and the state of California wasn't even aware our homes were built here because the mining reclamation was not done here legally or properly. Warm regards, Paulie Tehram and Sharon Gallina Ash Street Lake Elsinore, CA 9253 Cc: Grant Taylor be Alberhill Ranch DEIR Comments December 28, 2015 Page Page 4 of 4 Letter K From: Inland Empire Watershed, Jacqueline Neumann Received: 12/26/2015 Inland lmpire Waterizeeper December 26, 2015 Delivered via email and USPS. Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Email: rstephenson cU,hrgreen.cotn RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, a program of Orange County Coostkeeper, is a local environmental organization with the mission to protect and enhance the water quality of the Upper Santa Ana R ver Watershed through programs of advocacy, education, research, restoration, and enforcement. As concerned Riverside County residents and strong supporters of environmental quality and public health, we respectfully submit the following comments on behalf of our collective membership to express our reservations regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact .Report and Appendices ("DI31R") issued for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan ("Project"). As will be discussed in detail below, the project as described in the DEIR fails to provide adequate protections for water quality and biological resources. The DEIR is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as it fails to provide adequate analysis of water quality impacts, cumulative impacts, feasible alternatives, and appropriate habitat restoration. We urge the City of Lake Elsinore to require the DEIR be modified in accordance with our comments submitted below. I. INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW An EIR must disclose all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project. (Pub. Res. Code, 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126(a); 13erkeley I ap.lets Over The Bay Conunillee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the Cily of Oakland, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354.) CEQA requires that an EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." (.Santiago Connly Itlafer Dul. v. Cornqy of Oravtge (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831). The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (74ilags Counly Parra Brnrean v. Cily of Hanford, (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731). CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental '- 6876 Indiana Avenue, Suite D Riverside, CA 92506 Phone (951) 530-8823 Fax (951) 530-8824 h ��r Website wwwJewaterkeepe'.org December 26, 2015 Delivered via email and USPS. Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Email: rstephenson cU,hrgreen.cotn RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, a program of Orange County Coostkeeper, is a local environmental organization with the mission to protect and enhance the water quality of the Upper Santa Ana R ver Watershed through programs of advocacy, education, research, restoration, and enforcement. As concerned Riverside County residents and strong supporters of environmental quality and public health, we respectfully submit the following comments on behalf of our collective membership to express our reservations regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact .Report and Appendices ("DI31R") issued for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan ("Project"). As will be discussed in detail below, the project as described in the DEIR fails to provide adequate protections for water quality and biological resources. The DEIR is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as it fails to provide adequate analysis of water quality impacts, cumulative impacts, feasible alternatives, and appropriate habitat restoration. We urge the City of Lake Elsinore to require the DEIR be modified in accordance with our comments submitted below. I. INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW An EIR must disclose all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project. (Pub. Res. Code, 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126(a); 13erkeley I ap.lets Over The Bay Conunillee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the Cily of Oakland, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354.) CEQA requires that an EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." (.Santiago Connly Itlafer Dul. v. Cornqy of Oravtge (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831). The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (74ilags Counly Parra Brnrean v. Cily of Hanford, (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731). CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental rntano rcnpire waterxeeper unrrc �-,omment I,euer December 26, 2015 Page 2 of 7 damage when "feasible" by requiring mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, g 15002(a)(2)-(3); Berkeley Keep Jells Over the Bay Committee, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1354). The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (CEQA Guidelines, � 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub. Res. Code, � 21081; CEQA Guidelines, 5 15092(b)(2)(A)-(13).) In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (ld, at 5 151 K,I(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved. CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code, 21002, 21081(a)), and describe those mitigation measures in the CEQA document. (Pub. Res. Code, 6 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, Q 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Rings County, supra, 221 Cal. App. 3d at p. 727.) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15364.) Required to demonstrate economic infeasibility is "evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability, are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Czti.7pis of Goleta Valley v. Board of S pervasors of Santa Barbara County (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167, 1181.) This requires not just cost data, but also data showing insufficient income and profitability. (See Burger v. Coun.ir of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 322, 327); San .Prancisrans L j)bolding the Dov�nlorvn Plan v. 01')' and County of Sava FreiWirco (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 694.) "Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15126.4(a)(2).) II. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE PROJECT'S IMPACT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. a. The Temescal Canyon Creek Must Be Restored To Its Natural State And Be Preserved As A Natural Resource For Future Generations. The DEIR explains that its development project will improve the drainage system and the waterways than from its current mining conditions. However, the DEIR fails to consider the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. As indicated in the DE1R's Geotechnical Investigation, there were three natural watercourses, including the Rice Canyon Wash, located on the Project site before the mining operations, .lt is Inland Iimpire Waterkeeper's position that because the mining site is being developed after it ceases operation, the Project site must restore the three natural waterways along with Temescal Canyon Creek in the project area. rntanu nmpue w aterxeeper 1Jri1n i,ommem L errer December 26, 2015 Page 3 of 7 The Project is currently being "mined for clay to produce brick, and also for sand and gravel for use in concrete and building materials. As a result, much of the landform is disturbed as compared to its natural state, and several depressions (former training pits) remain that support season and perennial pools. Much of the site vegetation has been removed during the mining process." (DEIR, 4.10-10). According to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, "General performance shall be applicable to all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and shall require the operation as a minimum to ... (2) restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses of which there is reasonable likelihood, so long as such use or uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public health or safety or pose any actual or probably threat of water diminution of pollution, and the permit applicants' declared proposed land use following reclamation is not deemed to be impractical or unreasonable, inconsistent with applicable land use policies and plans, involves unreasonable delay in implementation, or is violated of Federal, State, or local law." 30 U.S.C. � 1265. As the DEIR makes clear, the Project site has been immensely disturbed from the mining activities and this condition is used as the baseline for the DEIR This is an error as the baseline for the DFIR should be the natural restored condition required after the cessation of wining at the site. Although the statute lists specific exceptions to the required reclamation efforts, the DEIR does not explain the presence of such exceptions to justify its absence of such efforts prior to the Project commencement. Because the mining site must be restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting before any mining occurred, or, alternatively, higher or Gelter rases, the DEIR must add plans to restore the three natural waterways. "The Alberhill Villages project proposes to grade the existing Temescal Creek drainage course to create a more confined trapezoidal earthen channel to convey the drainage runoff across the site" (DEIR, Appx. Us, 21). "Streams can be rendered essentially sterile by channelization. In regard to fish, for example, the effect depends on the type of construction used. Concrete -lined trapezoid -shaped channels are apparently totally destructive of fish life. Concrete -lined V-shaped channels are only slightly better: they allow continuous flow at a sufficient depth for fish passage, but high temperatures in these channels resulting from lack of shade can prevent fish passage. Excavation of a channel also destroys sources of food and places of shelter for fish," John P. Brown, Strerarn Channelitialion: T he Econoruier of the Controversy, Natural Resources journal 577, 563 (1974). "When landowners channelize for their own benefit, almost all the effects external to the market are negative. If that is the case, then landowners, if left to their own devices, would tend to provide too much channel modification because they have left the negalhv eff?rtr on the einhvilmenl out of their calculations. The appropriate role of government in such a case would be to represent the interests which have been hurt and reduce the amount of channelization from what would have been produced privately." Irl. at 564 (emphasis added). "Typically, channelization entails removal of almost all vegetation from the immediate channel arca . The vegetation that is destroyed is the cover and the habitat for the wildlife. When vegetation is destroyed, the wildlife either leaves or dies. It is possible that the new crops that replace the destroyed vegetation may provide food and cover for wildlife, but this wildlife often consists of different species." Irl. at 564. coram nmpue wmemeeper limn uoniment Let= December 26, 2015 Page 4 of 7 For the benefit of the current and future residents in the County, the fish and wildlife that call the Temescal Canyon Creek their home, and the environment, the Project should restore the Temesal Canyon Creek back into its natural state, and preserve it as such. Such a natural improvement will undoubtedly present City of Lake Elsinore as having a higher standard of living if natural waterways are restored, as this contributes to the quality of life. "It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man" (CEQA 21000(b)). Furthermore, "[s]ince Lake I Usinore's incorporation as a city, its chief concerns have been the lake itself and protecting the water rights of the community" which demonstrates the City's long-standing connection with its natural landscape CITY of LAKE ELSINORF,., available atwww.lake- elsinore.org/index.aspx/.page=967. The DEIR states that the open spaces will include natural features including the Temescal Canyon Creels. However, after further investigation, it is explained that the Wash will ultimately turn into a channel. The DEJR states: "Open spaces would include natural terrain features such as: 1) the Temescal Canyon Wash ... These areas would be left in their natural condition or re -naturalized to the extent feasible. In those areas where remedial grading disturbs native vegetation, the area could be revegetated with either indigenous plan material or other appropriate native materials." (DEIR, 2.0-21). Unless a plan is in place, there will not be a natural feature left "Stormwater and dry weather runoff can be managed to achieve environmental and societal benefits such as ... an increase in park and recreation lands, and urban green space." California Water Code § 10561(g). Thus, a natural creek will immensely improve the "Open Space Connections, Parks and Recreational Facilities" offered in the Project because it will include actual "natural" resources, rather than only amenity -oriented recreational facilities. There would be accessible open space that includes a natural waterway rather than simply concrete channels hidden throughout the community. Inland Empire Waterkeeper is strongly opposed to the Alberhill Village's plan to channelize Temescal Canyon Creek, rather than restoring and preserving the creek to its natural state. "[P]ublic agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (CEQA § 21001). Because the DEIR fails to address the option of restoring the Creek to its natural state, and also fails to explain the infeasibility of this option, the DEIR is inadequate. As indicated in the DEIR, the Temescal Canyon Creek has flowing water in it, whether it is from water treatment facility upstream and rain events. (DEUR, 4.1-21). As explained by one researcher, if a person can imagine a spectrum where on the left end is a completely tamed, paved and covered storm sewer and on the right end is a completely wild river then, "in principle, one can think of channelization as a movement of a river's place in the spectrum to the left. It is either impossible or very expensive to move the river to the right, that is, to make it more wild, because the natural forces which tend to obliterate the impact of man work very slowly." Bronco, at 564. The current Project will likely permanently change the Creek from what it is now. The Project should restore the Temescal Canyon Creek, and the DFJR should not be approved until there are plans to do so. b. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Cumulative Impacts To Hydrology And Water Quality. "Currently the City of Lake F,Isinore is preparing initial plans and studies to reconstruct the existing two-lane Temescal Canyon Road Bridge over Temescal Creek. The City plans to construct a portion imam nmptre warerxeeper onirc t,ommenr Letter December 26, 2015 Page 5 of 7 (phase 1) of the ultimate Temescal Creek Channel as they construct the new bridge located 1,200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. This new bridge is located at its ultimate location in conjunction with the future development of Alberhill Villages." (DEIR, Appx. C2a, 21.) The DEIR must explain the specific effects the Project will have on Temescal Canyon Creek rather than assuming the City's bridge plans will alone influence the future of the Temescal Canyon Creek. This massive development with undoubtedly affect Temescal Canyon Creek and have irreversible impacts to the water quality and the natural state of the waterway, and the DEIR must address such effects in detail before the public can adequately respond. Also problematic is the DEIR's failure to provide an analysis on how the Project, in combination with all relevant past, present, and potential future projects (such as the City's plan to construct a bridge), could cause cumulative impacts to the Temescal Canyon Creek. "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355(a).) As the DEIR explained, the "new bridge" will be in placed in a beneficial location for this Project. The DF_.IR must explain the significant cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, � 15130(a);Triendr ofEel Raer i. Sonoma Coligy Ewe) (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859). As can be deciphered from the language used in the DEIR, the Temescal Canyon Creek will cease to exist after this Project and the construction of the bridge is complete. The "Temescal Creek Channel" will take its place, resulting ma one-way transformation from a natural creek of Southern California to a flood control channel and drainage system removing used water away from one city, and into the next, until it finally lands in the Pacific Ocean. In adopting CEQA, the Legislature declared that "it is the policy of the state to ... (c) prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self -perpetrating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities ...." and to "(e): create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations." (CEQA § 21001). The DEIR trust be revised to incorporate the known cumulative impacts of the City's proposed bridge and the Project. C. The DEIR Fails To Incorporate Low Impact Design. Inland Empire Waterkeeper recommends the implementation of Low Impact Design to allow for the capture and infiltration or re -use of all dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff from a two- year 24-hour event storm. "The capture and use of stormwater and dry weather runoff is not only one of the most cost-effective sources of new water supplies, it is a supply that can often be provided using significantly less energy than other sources of new water supplies." California Water Code � 10561(j). The DEIR failed to incorporate this feasible alternative method. As indicated by the DIUR: "Urban runoff will be treated for pollutants and HCOC volume via WQMP Basins prior to entering the storm drain system." (WQMP, Appx. C, Part 3). I-Iowever, Brom the map and description associated with the plan, there appear to be three major intanu nmpse w aterxeeper Lnue u ommem r ever December 26, 2015 Page 6 of 7 debris/detention basins that are primarily designed to slow down stormwater from upstream passing through the Project along with a number of dry detention basins throughout the project. Inland Empire Waterkeeper recommends the Project add infiltration/advanced treatment basins or devices at the bottom of the hill to capture and treat the dry weather runoff and stormwater from the Project before it enters Temescal Canyon Creek. A more efficient advanced treatment is needed than a dry detention basins which are ineffective in reducing nutrients, dissolved metals and oil and grease from runoff, Inland Empire Waterkeeper recommends infiltration, capturing stormwater in cisterns or surface basins for re -use or advanced treatment before discharging runoff to Temescal Creek. As addressed in the California Water Code § 10561(b): "improved management of stormwater and dry weather runoff, including capture, treatment, and reuse by using the natural functions of soils and plants, can improve water quality, reduce localized flooding, and increase water supplies for beneficial uses and the environment." Support for the implementation of this process comes from the fact that "[historical patterns of precipitation are predicted to change and an increasing amount of California's wager is predicted to fall not as snow in the mountains, but as rain in other areas of the state. This will likely have a profound and transforming effect on Califonia's hydrologic cycle and much of that water will no longer be captured by California's reservoirs, many of which are located to capture snow melt." Irl. at 6 10561(d). Thus, "[wjhen properly designed and managed, the capture and use of stormwater and dry weather runoff can contribute significantly to local water supplies through onsite storage and use, or letting it infiltrate into the ground to recharge gnoundwatcr, either onside or at regional facilities, thereby increasing available supplies of drinking water." Id.. at � 10561(e). Additionally, the California Water Code requires: "New developments and redevelopments ... be designed to be consistent with low -impact development principles to improve the retention, use and infiltration of stormwater and dry weather runoff onsite or at regional facilities." California Water Code � 10561(o. Because of the current need to save water, and the efficiency and State support of Low Impact Design methods, Inland Empire Waterkeeper requests the approval of the DEIR be postponed until this method is adopted into the Project plans. e. The Study Period Of The Recycled Water System Should Be Established And Completed Prior To The Approval Of The DEIR. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District covers this area and the DEIR states that the 13VMWD "plans to expand its recycled water system to provide recycled water for irrigation users and to maintain water levels in Lake Elsinore during normal and dry years", but that the study period to evaluate such uses has not been established. This tape of study would be largely influential to the capacity of water that can and will actually be available to service the Project site. Such a study would be beneficial to notify the public as to EVMWD's future capacity to maintain water levels in Lake Elsinore in addition to serving a new 1400 -acre development. f. The Project's Plan To Create Two New Lakes Needs To Be Further Evaluated Or Eliminated. "To large recreational lake facilities totaling approximately 39.6 acres will be the main attraction of the AVSD. The 13.6 -acre west lake and the 26 -acre east lake at the heart of the project will provide tntano nrnpire waterxeeper unix kmmnient ueuer December 26, 2015 Page 7 of 7 light water activities to both local residents and visitors. Trail and pathways will surround the lake and provide opportunities for biking, jogging, and scenic walks." The two new recreational lakes either need to be filled and maintained with stormwater, onsite perched groundwater, or be eliminated. Unsustainable lakes filled with imported water are not consistent with a modern Southern California Development; such lakes could have a more beneficial use. The geology report states that groundwater exists at shallow depths on the site near Tetnescal Creek and that perched groundwater exists in certain areas on the Project site. If the lakes will be operated as capture stormwater capture BMPs, then this could be beneficial to the new development to supplement the water in the area. California is experiencing drought conditions, where the "present year is critically dry and has been immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years; and [t]he drought conditions will likely continue for the foreseeable future and additional action by both the State Water Resources Control Board and local water suppliers will likely be necessary to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water and to further promote conservation." State Water Resources Control board Resolution No, 2015-0032, Article 22.5 Drought Emergency Water Conservation, Section 836, Findings of Drought Emergency. Artificial Lakes designed for aesthetic purposes and `light water activities" are incompatible with the new reality of California's water supplies. The creation of a new lake in the desert region of the City of Lake Elsinore would bean irresponsible use of either the groundwater or imported water. It would be more environmentally sound to keep the water underground to avoid rapid evaporation problems. III. CONCLUSION In conclusion, after a thorough review of the D,EIR, Inland Empire Waterkeeper is concerned that the Project fails to adequately return the natural drainages in the project area and Temescal Canyon Creels to their natural states, fails to specify the cumulative impacts of the Bridge and Project, fails to implement Low Impact Design or to adequately analyze all feasible alternative methods and mitigation measures in relation to these issues. Inland Empire Waterkeeper also recommends eliminating the construction of the two new lakes. Finally, drafting the study plan for the recycled of water would assist the public in properly commenting on the Project. Inland Empire Waterkeeper thanks the City of Lake I ,lsinore for its consideration of our comments on the Alberhill Villages development. If you have any questions regarding our comments please feel free to call me at (714) 850-1965 or email me at jacqueline@coastkeeper.org. Regards, Jacqueline Neumann Inland Empire Waterkeeper Letter L From: Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League Received: 12/24/2015 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED 'IO ECOSYsTEM PROIECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE December 24, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 E-mail: rstephenson hrgreen.com RE: DEIR for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson: Endangered Habitats League (EHL) appreciates the opportunity to comment ou this project and its environmental documentation. Biological impacts Regarding the California gnatcatcher, a 500 -ft radius of no direct impact does not achieve avoidance of impacts. Indirect impacts from development, such as Argentine ants from irrigated plantings, extend hundreds of feet. The DEIR conveniently ignores such edge effects. Also, isolation of habitat and the creation of islands via habitat fragmentation must also be analyzed as an impact to gnatcatcher. The 1:1 ratio proposed for unavoidable impacts to the gnatcatcher is grossly insufficient, and would result in a reduction by half of the original habitat. On or offsite mitigation should be at a minimum ratio of 3:1. Regarding coastal sage scrub, "disturbed" coastal sage scrub is still sensitive under CEQA. Such classification is standard practice in EIRs. Disturbed coastal sage scrub retains substantial habitat value and is in a state of recovery. These areas require avoidance or mitigation. Regarding sensitive plants, the document contradicts itself It first says, "Four special -statue plant species, Parry's spineflower, paniculate tarplant, graceful tarplant and Coulter's matilija poppy, were observed within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area! It then says, "However, focused special status plant surveys were conducted during the 2008 growing season and again in 2014. Based on these surveys, no sensitive plant species were observed on the Project site. Therefore, impacts are Tess than significant. " The applicant cannot cherry pick the data to reduce impacts. Sensitive plants were found and these species require avoidance or mitigation. 8,124 SANTA MONKA BLVD Surra. A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ www.1111 mGUl.o BO 4 P11ONr 213.804.2750 Identification of, and mitigation for, impacts to riparian and wetland habitats are inappropriately deferred to state and federal permitting in BIO -4 and BIO -5. For example, the DEIR states that 28.44 acres of alluvial fan scrub, 4.19 acres of riparian scrub and 12.05 acres of riparian woodland will not be avoided completely. (We also note the DEIR's false and self-serving categorization of these impacts as "small."). Measures BIO -4 only mentions "replacement" on or off-site rather than the primary steps in mitigation, which are avoidance and minimization. The DEIR utterly fails to address impacts to regional wildlife movement corridors on site. Such corridors are identified in the MSHCP as MSCHP Linkages 1 and 6. Whether or not the site is subject to the MSHCP is irrelevant to the biological values of the corridors. Indeed, the DEIR inaccurately discounts the importance of the site, and would preserve wildlife movement only via "steppingstones" for birds and urban -adapted animals. Highway undercrossings vital for regional connectivity would terminate in channels closely lined with development, absent adequate buffers and setbacks. A graphic in the DEIR depicts such narrow channels and minimal buffers, when the standard of practice for a significant riparian corridor would be a minimum of 200 -ft setback from each bank. No evidence is presented to justify findings of insignificant impacts after mitigation. Large mammals and other species may use these corridors. For example, Linkage 1 is designated by the MSHCP for use by Cooper's hawk, coastal California gnatcatcher, bobcat, and mountain lion. The DEIR should choose this or another representative species list, analyze the on-site requirements to maintain biological function, disclose impacts, and avoid impacts through robust setbacks, revegetation, fencing, lighting, and other measures. Linkage 6 along Temescal Wash leads directly into MSCHP preserve land and is important for large and medium sized mammals. The MHSCP calls out the need for preserving high quality riparian habitat for Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, yellow -breasted chat and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the wash. The project proposes impacts to Temecula Wash that would destroy much of its present biological and connectivity functions. The existing wash would be graded and realigned, and converted into a trapezoidal earthen channel, altering the current hydrologic regime to lower flood heights. Such wholesale alteration would facilitate a commercial center and road widening. This grading is proposed in order to circumvent prohibitions against development in the 100 -year floodplain. A species list should be identified for Temescal Wash, the on-site requirements for biological function analyzed, potential impacts disclosed, and avoided through robust setbacks, revegetation, fencing, lighting, etc. Through an alternatives analysis, grading and channelization of the wash should be entirely avoided, and development set back outside of the 100 -year floodplain. Once again, the biological functions of this corridor, both for live-in and migrating species, must be addressed. The City must exploit the flexibility inherent within this very large, 1400 -acre site in order to feasibly protect critical biological resources such as connectivity. The DEIR is inadequate in failing to provide alternatives that respect the floodplain, its inherent hazards, and its value as wildlife corridor. In addition, the DEIR should analyze impacts to the surrounding MSHCP Criteria Cells and reserve lands. The DEIR may wish that "the AVSP Project will not conflict with the County or City of Lake Elsinore policies, a Habitat Conservation Plan, and will have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required." However, on the ground, the development will physically compromise wildlife movement and cause edge effects on MSHCP reserves. These effects must be identified and analyzed in the EIR. Western Riverside County MSHCP The following assertion is false as it pertains to the MSHCP: Impact 4.11-6 Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions ofan adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The General Plan establishes City policies that encourage development while remaining sensitive to biological resources concerns. The Project is not subject to the City's MSHCP review, but is required to be reviewed by the required agencies and policies of the General Plan. While the majority of the AVSP site was indeed subject to a legal settlement in 2004 between Riverside County and Pacific Clay Products that removed property from the MSHCP program, this exclusion does not apply to the entire site. Specifically, the portion of Village 1 bounded by I-15, Temescal Wash, and Lake Street is not excluded from the MSCHP. This is clear from the description of the settlement area in the recitals section of the 2004 settlement agreement (enclosed). The EIR must disclose and compare the boundaries of the AVSP as proposed with the property descriptions in the settlement agreement. Previously, a project for the non -excluded parcel had gone through RCA Joint Project ,Review and was deemed inconsistent with the MSHCP. It is unclear how this presumably innocent error was incorporated into the DEIR, but it must be remedied. In light of the City of Lake Elsinore's acknowledged obligations under the MSCHP, the non -excluded area must either be removed from the project or go through MSHCP consistency review per the City's standard MSHCP process. Project modification, on-site set aside, and/or off-site mitigation may be needed for MSHCP compliance. Until that time, impacts under CEQA for the project as a whole cannot be considered adequately analyzed or mitigated. Thank you for considering our views. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director Enclosure County of Riverside -Pacific Clay Products Settlement Agreement cc: County Counsel, County of Riverside Regional Conservation Authority US Fish and Wildlife Service US Army Corps of Engineers California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Interested parties Letter M From: Regional Conservation Authority Received: 12/22/2015 onservation 1 A;uu 1 December 22, 2015 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green. 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 RE: ALBERHILL VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 2010-02) DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Mr. Stephenson: The Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (E R) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. The RCA is submitting these comments on the Project EIR pertaining to the implementation and consistency of the project with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The City of Lake Elsinore is a Permittee under the MSHCP and pursuant to the Implementing Agreement is responsible for ensuring all project approvals are consistent with the MSHCP goals and policies. Based on multiple references and figures in the IIR, the parcel immediately north of Ternescal Canyon Road and west of Lake Street (APN 390-130-017) is included in the Alberhill Villages for development in the University Town Center planning area. Please note that the parcel in question was not excluded from the MSHCP as part of the Castle and Cook settlement agreement and is therefore still subject to MSHCP requirements. Further, a LEAPS was submitted in 2005 which resulted in Joint Project Review (JPR 05-08-15-02) findings that the proposed conservation on site was inconsistent with reserve assembly function and goals. The Meet and Confer and Ad Hoe Committee dispute resolution processes also concluded that development of the parcel as proposed was inconsistent with the MSHCP. Approval of development on this parcel as part of Alberhill Village would also be inconsistent with the MSHCP and the City's obligations under the Implementing Agreement. We also note that the Table 2.0-1 indicates LEAPS are required for any right of way outside Pacific Clay settlement and MOU for Alberhill Ridge. Construction of any MSHCP Covered Road such as Lake Street, Nichols Road or Temescal Canyon Road, are subject to MSHCP requirements as public facilities regardless of the location of the right of way. Siuerely� f diar es V. Landry Executive Director; ! li cc: Grant Taylor, City of Lake Elsinore Letter N From: Pala Tribal Historic Preservation Office Received: 12/21/2015 PALA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 December 21, 2015 Roy F. Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Dear Mrs, Stephenson The Pala Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Robert Smith, Tribal Chairman. We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we have no objection to the continuation of project activities as currently planned and we defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. We appreciate involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on future efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-891-3515 or by e-mail at sgau hen(g palatribe.com. Sincerely, Shasta C. Gaughen, PhD Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pala Band of Mission Indians ATTENTION: THE PALA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATION. PLEASE ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO SHASTA C. GAUGHEN AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ALSO SEND NOTICES TO PALA TRIBAL CHAIRMAN ROBERT SMITH. Cnsuhmion IMC] 7 , 760-891-3510 Office � 760-742-3189 Fax PALA THPO Dear Mrs, Stephenson The Pala Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Robert Smith, Tribal Chairman. We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we have no objection to the continuation of project activities as currently planned and we defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. We appreciate involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on future efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-891-3515 or by e-mail at sgau hen(g palatribe.com. Sincerely, Shasta C. Gaughen, PhD Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pala Band of Mission Indians ATTENTION: THE PALA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATION. PLEASE ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO SHASTA C. GAUGHEN AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ALSO SEND NOTICES TO PALA TRIBAL CHAIRMAN ROBERT SMITH. Cnsuhmion IMC] 7 Letter O From: Linda and Martin Ridenour Received: 12/16/2015 December 16, 2015 From: Linda and Martin Ridenour 33628 Brand St. Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530-5741 To: City of Lake Elsinore City Hall: 130 South Main St. Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530 Re: CEQA Documents Alberhill Villages 42012061046 Attention: Mr. Racy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I am herewith requesting documents, writings, e-mails, comments made by any elected or appointed member of the Lake Elsinore city council and Planning Commission, Facebook page, etc., that pertains or refers the CEQA documents for the Alberhill Specific Plan. I would like to use my First Amendment rights to express myself through protected speech. Enclosed are my comments to this project and I look forward to a speedy reply. Please make this letter and all documents referred to in the letter a part of the Administrative Record for this project. Environment: The homes in Alberhill District, Terra Cotta, have not been completed. There was to be improvements on Lake Street, as well as other mitigated measures. These should be completed before this new project is approved. Castle and Cook does not have a good record on mitigation. For example, they dug up native oaks and box them and put them on the side of the road. When I called they said there were no orders to plant them and consequently the oaks died. We need to preserve the oak woodland habitat. Glenn Lakes Associates did not list Costal live Oak as a state protected tree. In 2004, Congress named the Oak as the official tree of the United States. Oak trees and the enviromrnent around them need to be conserved and protected. Here in Lake Elsinore where Castle and Cook have worked before, I am certain that they not only killed our official tree of the United States but also destroyed the environment around it. The habitat of the Coast horned lizard and other native species and plants such as Munz's onion, a rare vegetation that needs to be protected, has been destroyed. This year, the arroyo toad was not seen due to lack of suitable habitat. They usually inhabit the oak woodlands but since the woodlands were destroyed by the construction, their habitat is gone. Also, there has not been a discussion of the "Blue Stream." This focused survey on the lands was not specific enough; therefore, a new survey needs to be conducted to discuss the habitat quality. All of this land destruction should not go unpunished. The property owners should be fried for destruction of special -status plants. In this case, Castle and Cook would be responsible for the endangerment of the habitat and animal that resided there. However, instead of accepting fault, the company has avoided responsibility, even going as far as claiming they did nothing wrong. Castle and Cook repeatedly state that "Due to the high level of disturbance at the site, minimal habitat occurs on site for special -status animals that were not observed during surveys," claiming there were no special - status animals or plants in the area. Transportation: I find it inconceivable that 32 key roadway segments are at "unacceptable levels of service." Lake Street, near the location of the new project by Castle and Cook, is already seeing maximum levels of traffic. A trip from Grand Avenue through Lake Street to get to the I-15, a route taken by thousands of Lakeland Village residents daily, is always significantly impacted, making a ran to the doctors office or grocery stores a longer commute than necessary. Before any construction is done to add houses along this route, the roadway infrastructure must be improved to lessen the effects of an increase in population. I would like to see the data for the Traffic General Forecast. If the last data was collected before 2010 when there were less homes and traffic was lighter, then new data must be collected to update todays current traffic information. This would farce the city to realize that an additional home village cannot be constructed until the roads are improved. I would like to see the project impacts and how they would be mitigated. Historical Impact: Around 1883, coal was extracted from Alberhill, a mining town. This is a historical site that is over 150 years old. It must be protected. The Alberbill School was started in 1912 and was in use until 1964. This building must be protected. It is a cultural and historical resource. Before any homes are built, this important structure, with all of its cultural heritage, should have a specific place in the CEQA plan. The impact to historic and cultural resources is significant. The Ltuseno people have an Aboriginal Territory here, which means the territory must be preserved. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases: I do not have a copy of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, but I must ask if the data is current! I heard on the news that we will be wearing masks outside our home soon. With 8,000 plus homes and 4 vehicles per household, we will not be able to breathe clean air with additional homes being built in the area. This will adversely affect my health and the health of thousands of residents. The news report expressed concern over the greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to know how many cars, trucks, and vehicles were used per home. "The project either directly or indirectly will generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment." Governor Brown issued an executive order requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions targets by 40% below 1990 levels. How will this be addressed with the construction of more homes in Lake Elsinore? The Alberhill project needs to address the methane levels that will be caused by the introduction of new homes in the area. According to the Press -Enterprise on November 28, 2015, "the report, which concludes there would be significant unavoidable effects of Traffic and air quality." MSHCP Area: Natural wildlife and open space connection to the Cleveland National Forest must be maintained. This Project is in the MSHCP. Where are the IVlulti-purpose trails? I am the vice-president of the Butterfield Trails yet I cannot find the location of the multi-purpose trails. Please send me all information related to this issue. There must be a buffer along the Temescal Creek, home to many native trees. In order to protect these trees and prevent their removal, a buffer is essential. The vegetation which contained eucalyptus woodland was disturbed, causing the loss of the Least Bell's Vireo, a native bird. A more detailed study is needed to state for certain that there are no more of these birds there. Mr. Hardy Strozier needs to send me data on the specific location, times, etc that he has visited this area. The Least Bell's Vireo is a Federal and State endangered bird. More studies are required before CEQA approves this project, which would potentially ham an endangered species. I am concerned that Mr. Strozier did not focus on this special -status bird, rendering an incorrect conclusion of data. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District stated that they will provide water for the project. How is it possible that we are in a state of drought, yet offering to provide water for such an enormous project?. Please provide the data to show that MWD can provide this water and they also provide data to show they approve this project. The property must be restored to its natural state after years of miring. This project could cause the loss of many protected species_ Habitat destruction can not continue. The City of Lake Elsinore must Establish permanent safe heaven for the species listed in this report. Letter P From: South Coast Air Quality Management District Received: 12/02/2015 SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: December 2, 2015 rstephenson(a�,hr�-xreen.com Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE, Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore C/O FIR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) for the Proposed Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (RVSP) (SP 2010-02) (SCH No. 2012061046) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document. The Lead Agency proposes construction of a master planned, mixed-use community with single- and multi -family homes along with a core commercial center and an entry highway commercial center near the Interstate 15 (1-15) Freeway. The proposed project will occupy a total of approximately 1,400 acres and involve Six Development Villages, with each village containing its own planning areas. The AVSP development will include approximately 8,244 dwelling units and 4,007,000 square feet of civic/institutional, commercial/retail, professional office/medical and schools to serve a total enrollment of approximately 8,050 students. The schools would include a 6,000 student university; two private schools serving a total of approximately 1,200 students; and a public elementary school built for 850 students. The AVSP will also include worship centers, various parks, lakes, trails, green belt areas; streets, public facilities and infrastructure. The SCAQMD staff has concerns with some of the assmnptions in the air quality analysis. Specifically, the analysis should be based on peals daily emission estimates instead of averaging. Further, overlapping construction and operational emission estimates should be included in the Final PEIR and shown throughout the 20-30 year project period. These estimates should then be compared to the SCAQMD operational significance thresholds. Next, the potential localized and health risk impacts to sensitive to sensitive receptors were deferred and not estimated in the Draft PEIR Because future residents would be exposed to potential localized construction and operational impacts during project development, as well as adverse health affect impacts from both the on- going mining operations and vehicles operating on the 1-15 freeway, future potential Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2, 2015 localized and health risk impacts should be analyzed according to CEQA Guidelines §15168. Further, the SCAQMD staff reiterates the CARB Land Use Policy to not site sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a large volume freeway. In addition, the Lead Agency should include how compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust for Large Operations Notification will occur in the Final PEIR. Finally, the SCAQMD staff recommends that all feasible mitigation pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines be incorporated into the project description and related air quality analyses in order to reduce significant project impacts. Further details are included in the attachment. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final PEIR. The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other air quality questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3302, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Sincerely, p,Q ag " " Jillian Wong, Ph.D, Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment JW:HH:GM RVC151105-02 Control Number Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE 3 December 2, 2015 Land Use Engineer Air Quality Analysis Peak Daily Emission Estimates 1. In Table 4.8-7, Construction Activity Emissions, construction emissions were estimated for each phase but averaged over each phase's five year period, which lowers the peak daily emission estimates for each criteria pollutant during construction. Because the SCAQMD significance thresholds are based on maximum daily emissions, averaging project emissions likely underestimates project impacts compared with each emission's peak daily significance threshold. Therefore, the air quality analysis should be revised in the Final PEIR using the worst-case peak daily construction emission scenario including any overlapping construction phases. These estimates should then be compared with the SCAQMD operational thresholds of significance (see comment 42) due to the length of construction phases to determine if project impacts are significant. If significant, mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project description and air quality analysis to reduce significant impacts. Cumulative Overlapping Phase Construction and Operations Estimates In addition, the lead Agency estimated construction and operational impacts[ separately for each developmental phase covering the thirty-year total development period in the Draft PEIR. These separate estimates were then compared with their respective SCAQMD recommended construction and operational thresholds of significance. As the Lead Agency discussed on page 4.8-30, the length of construction combined with the overlapping operational phases cause the estimated construction emissions to be more like long-term operational impacts for regional purposes. Although the Lead Agency discussed this potential overlapping of construction and operational emissions for regional purposes and further determined that combined construction and operational ROG, NOx, CO, and PM 10 emission impacts were significant and unavoidable, these determinations were not substantiated with actual emission estimates in the Draft PEIR. The Draft PEIR makes a qualitative evaluation of these combined emissions but does not include actual combined estimates throughout the thirty-year project. The Final PEIR should therefore be revised to include combined construction and operation emission estimates as each development phase overlaps, e.g., Ph -2 construction emissions with Phase 1 operational emissions; Ph -3 construction emissions with Phases 1 & 2 operational emissions; ...etc., up through Year 2046 ' Draft PEIR, Table 4.8-7 Construction Activity Emissions and Table 4.8-8 — Project Related Operational Emissions, AQ & GHG Analysis. 2 [bid, AQ & GHG Analysis, Page 4.8-30. The conclusion that ..."regional air quality impacts are identified as significant fiom the completion ofPhase I forward, inclusiar of 30 years of construction activity emissions will farther `exacerbate' the degree of excess emissions." Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2, 2015 project buildout. These overlapping construction and operational emissions should then be compared with the SCAQMD operational thresholds of significance. Deferring Localized Significance Thresholds & Cancer Risks 3. In the Draft PEIR, building construction and operational activities fi-om the proposed project will occur within proximity of sensitive receptors throughout the project areas dining the six phases of development3. The Lead Agency did not analyze localized impacts stating that project specific level (siting) information was not available and that localized analyses would be conducted sometime in the future prior to implementing project approval. Further, sensitive receptors would be exposed to toxic air contaminants from the on-going mining operations and from diesel fueled vehicles operating on the 1-15 Freeway. Again, the Lead Agency deferred its analysis of potential cancer risks due to a lack of project specific information concerning the siting of sensitive receptors to the nearby freeway. Based on CEQA Guidelines §15168, further analysis through CEQA should be conducted prior to subsequent project approvals. Analyses for potential localized significance threshold impacts and health risks should be included in a subsequent CEQA document when project specific information is available to ensure that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by activities that are occurring in close proximity, e.g., by construction and operation activities, toxic air contaminants from the mining operations occurring within the project areas, or from vehicles operating nearby on the 1-15 Freeway. CARB Land Use Guidance for Sensitive Receptors Located Near Freeways 4. The Lead Agency mentions the 500 foot buffer recommended by the California Air Resources Board's (CARS) Land Use and Air Quality Handbook (CARR Handbook) that offers guidance for siting sensitive receptors near sources of air toxics. Although this recommended guidance is discussed, the Draft PEIR shows that potential sensitive receptor land uses including age -restricted housing, student housing, live/work lofts and residential condominiums would tentatively be sited within the recommended 500 -foot buffer 4. The Lead Agency notes in the Draft PEIR that the proposed residences will be sited near the 1-15 Freeway that has an average daily traffic volume of 120,000 vehicles including approximately 12,600 of these vehicles that will be diesel trucks. As a result, future residents will be exposed to a significant source of toxic emissions. 'The SCAQMD staff therefore reiterates (see also comment #3) that prior to subsequent project approvals, a Health Risk Assessment should prepared to determine cancer risks to future sensitive receptors from potential toxic air contaminant emissions from the freeway as well as any applicable mining activities in close proximity. Numerous past health studies have demonstrated the potential adverse health effects of living Draft PEIR, Section 4.8 AQ & GHG Analysis, Pages 4.8-31 and 4.8-32. °lbid, Prgiect Description, Page 2.0-12. Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2, 2015 near a freeway or highly travelled roads. Since the time of that study, additional research has continued to build the case that the near roadway environment also contains elevated levels of many pollutants that adversely affect human health, including some pollutants that are unregulated (e.g., ultrafine particles) and whose potential health effects are still emerging. While the health science behind recommendations against placing new homes close to freeways is clear, SCAQMD staff recognizes the many factors lead agencies must consider when siting new housing. Further, many mitigation measures have been proposed for other projects to reduce exposure, including building filtration systems, sounds walls, vegetation barriers, etc. However, because potential adverse health risks might be involved, it is critical that any proposed mitigation must be carefully evaluated prior to determining if those health risks would be brought below recognized significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rule 403 Large Operation Notification 5. On page 4.8-20 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, the Lead Agency describes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust based on soil disturbance activities that would include approximately 11,969,000 cubic yards of fill. Should project soil disturbance activities meet the requirements of Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust for Large Operations, the Lead Agency should submit to the SCAQMD Form 403N (Large Operation Notification Form) and revise the FPE1R to include this approval requirement in Table 2.0-1 (Permit Approvals). Questions concerning compliance with Rule 403 Large Operation should be directed to SCAQMD Engineering & Compliance staff at (909) 396-2372. Construction Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts 6. Based on a review of the Draft PEIR, the Lead Agency determined that the proposed project will result in substantially significant air quality impacts during construction. Specifically, the air quality analysis demonstrated that the proposed project will exceed the SCAQMD's regional construction significance thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM 10 and PM2.5 (see also comments #1-2). Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following additional measures be incorporated into the proposed project and Final PEIR to reduce significant project impacts in addition to the measures included in the Draft PEIR starting on page 4.8-36. Recommended Additions: • Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Metro and City of Los Angelcs)s 5 For example see the Metro Green Construction Policy at: httu://www. metro. net/ ru ojects steadies/sustainability/ides/Green Construction Polic pdf Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE Land Use Engineer December 2, 2015 have enacted, require all on-site construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. • A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Encourage construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: http://www. ag m d.gov/home/program s/business/bus mess- detail?title=vehicle-en ine-up r� ades For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website: http://www.agmd gov/home/regulations/cega/air-quality-analvsis- handbooldmitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies . Operation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Other) 7. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following on-site area source mitigation measures below to reduce the project's regional air quality impacts from ROG, CO, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during operation. These mitigation measure should be incorporated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4. Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, PE 7 December 2, 2015 Land Use Engineer • Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility, as applicable. • Use light colored paving and roofing materials. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. Transportation • Make a commitment to install electric car charging stations (not just wiring infrastructure) for both non-residential and residential uses at the project site. • Create local `light vehicle" networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems. Energy • Make a commitment that the project site will include a solar photovoltaic or an alternate system with means of generating renewable electricity. Other • Provide outlets for electric and propane barbecues in residential areas. Letter Q From: Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Received: 11/10/2015 RING®N BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS Culture Committee 1 W. Tribal Road , Valley Center, California 92082 (760) 297-2621 or -(760) 297-2622 & Fax:(760) 749-8901 November 10, 2015 Roy Stephenson City of Lake Elsinore c/o HR Green 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 25 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Stephenson: This letter is written on behalf of Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. We have received your notification regarding the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and we thank you for the SB 18/AB52 continued consultation notification. The location you have identified is within the Territory of the Luiseffo people. Embedded in the Luisefio Territory are Rincon's history, culture and identity. The project is within the Territory of the Luiseno people but, is not within Rineon's Historic Boundaries. We do not have any additional information regarding this project but, we defer to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians or Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who are closer to your project area. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Silcerely, Jim\ Pherson Manager Rincon Cultural Resources Department Bo Mazzetti Stephanie Spencer Steve Stallings Laurie E. Gonzalez Alfonso Kolb Tribal Chairman Vice Chairwoman Council Member Council Member Council Member LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9841 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 (949) 585-6300 FAx: (949) 585-6305 May 9, 2016 Stephen M. Miles, Esq. 2301 Dupont Drive Suite 530 Irvine, CA 92612 Re: Request for Estoppel Certificate Dear Steve: I am writing in response to your April 11, 2016 email requesting the City of Lake Elsinore execute an Estoppel Certificate in connection with the 2003 Preannexation and Development Agreement by and Between the City of Lake Elsinore and Pacific Clay Products, Inc. (the "2003 Agreement"). The City will not execute the proposed Estoppel Certificate because the 2003 Agreement has expired. The 2003 Agreement provided for an initial 5 -year term that would be automatically extended by up to four 5 -year terms only if certain performance criteria were satisfied in accordance with its Schedule of Performance. The Second OMOU recognized permitted delays and adjusted the term and the schedule for completion of specific actions. Section I of the Second OMOU provides as follows: 11 1. Term of Development Agreement. The Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that the initial term of the Development Agreement is five (5) years from the Annexation Date and that unless extended pursuant to Section 5.3 ["Extension of Term"], the Development Agreement will expire on March 28, 2013; provided however, that the term of the Development Agreement shall automatically expire and the Development Agreement shall be null and void if, on or before the date that is twelve months following the City's adoption of a GPU, but in any event not later than December 31. 2012, Owner has not obtained final City approval of the AVSP which constitutes the Planning and Zoning Entitlements for purposes of the Development Agreement." [Emphasis added.] The Second OMOU Schedule of Performance requires the Owner "obtain final approval of Planning and Zoning Entitlements" and clarifies that "[a]pproval of the AVSP and its associated environmental analysis by the City Council shall fulfill Owner's obligation to obtain final approval of Planning and Zoning Entitlements...." Stephen M. Miles, Esq. May 9, 2016 Page 2 During the negotiations of the Second OMOU, the date for performance of this task was December 31, 2012, consistent with Section 1 quoted above. Recognizing that the City Council often cancels its second meeting in December, we added the following proviso: "... provided, however, in the event City elects in its sole and absolute discretion to postpone the public hearing for the AVSP and associated environmental analysis for City Council approval until after 12/31/12, Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied this obligation so long as Owner's submittal of such Planning and Zoning Entitlements has been deemed complete by the City Director of Community Development." Ultimately, the final executed version of the Second OMOU's Schedule of Performance specified the date for final "approval of the AVSP and its associated environmental analysis" as March 28, 2013. The provisional language was retained and the completion date modified to March 28, 2013, consistent with the Schedule of Performance, but inconsistent with the Second OMOU's Section 1. The AVSP and Final Environmental Impact Report were not approved by December 31, 2012, nor were they approved by March 28, 2013. They are not approved to this day. Nor were a complete AVSP and DEIR submitted and deemed complete by the City's Community Developer Director by March 28, 2013. Consequently, the 2003 Agreement automatically expired in accordance with its terms. If there was any doubt remaining as to the status of the 2003 Agreement based on some alleged action by the City in its "sole and absolute discretion" and the anticipated City Council consideration of the AVSP and FEIR at an April 2016 public hearing, that doubt was eliminated by Tom Tomlinson's March 1, 2016 letter requesting "that the AVSP Project be held in abeyance until further notice from Castle & Cooke." Moreover, Castle and Cooke's sponsorship and support of the recent specific plan initiative shows even Castle & Cooke has concluded the 2003 Agreement has expired. Indeed, the determination to seek voter approval of the so-called "Amended Development Agreement" appears to be a repudiation of the 2003 Agreement—that is, to the extent there was anything left to repudiate. If the 2003 Agreement was, in fact, still in effect and unexpired, then it is simply inconceivable that Pacific Clay Products would not have intervened and asserted that the proposed "Amended Development Agreement" constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract by going so far as to even eliminate Pacific Clay Products as the named contractual party. Of course, Pacific Clay Products made no such assertion to either the City or the court. Finally, Recital D of your proposed Estoppel Certificate suggests that the 2003 Agreement was or should be extended by the mere request to extend the time for performance. Stephen M. Miles, Esq. May 9, 2016 Page 3 Your request for a Third OMOU underscores the clear fact that, absent a revision to the performance schedule, the 2003 Agreement expired. Your request for a Third OMOU was never consummated for the simple reason that the City did not agree. Sincerely, LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C. By: B bara Leibold cc: Mayor Tisdale and City Council (via e-mail only) Grant Yates, City Manager (via e-mail only) r MILES �...�"1� 19 Y GROUP w vvw.�a it nlawg;r up-rom 2.311 Dmpont. (Mvp Suite 530 - Irvine, €..A 92612 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phono: 71.4.393.3389 • Fax: HS,8: 0,5734 i f S E E N V R 0 N M E N T N T? T l E ,ki P 1 T smiles@mileslawgroup.com June 10, 2016 VIA PERSONAL DELIVER YAND ELECTRONIC[btisdaleWa ake-elsinore.ojgl MAIL The Honorable Brian Tisdale, Mayor, City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Re: June 14, 2016, Public Hearing re Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mayor Tisdale, Castle & Cooke, the Applicant of Alberhill Villages, was to say the least surprised by the scheduling of this public hearing. On March 1, 2016, Castle & Cooke delivered a correspondence to the City of Lake Elsinore stating its request to hold the AVSP processing in abeyance in light of two categories of outstanding and unresolved issues. The City has in fact publicly acknowledged this request. In full knowledge of the Applicant's position on these outstanding issues, the City scheduled the June 14"' hearing, released a media statement, and only after sending notice to the media, notified the Applicant. At no time since the letter of abeyance was submitted has the City requested to meet or hear from the Applicant. More troubling, this hearing was purposely scheduled at a time when it was known that the Applicant's principal representative will be out of the country. Further the City Council and its appointed City Attorney are well aware of the Applicant's intent to bring the AVSP project directly to the voters for approval. In fact, the City has mounted an aggressive effort to derail the initiative process. First with the refusal to issue Title & Summary, then suing the proponent of the initiative — a Lake Elsinore resident and now with the scheduling of a hearing on a project the Applicant has specifically requested that no Council action take place. The scheduling of this hearing is an affront to the development process, the initiative process, and to the voters of this City who have repeatedly expressed the desire to have a say in the future of Lake Elsinore. Mayor Tisdale June 10, 2016 Page 2 REQUEST FOR ABEYANCE: AREAS OF DISSENT The March I, 2016 Castle & Cooke letter identified two significant issues of disagreement. The first category pertained to unauthorized and onerous development exactions that City Staff recommended and that the Planning Commission deferred to the City Council along with its recommended approval of the AVSP and EIR. Most notably, City Staff managed to insert in to the proceedings: • The "turn key" buildout of a regional sporting field facility as an add-on to Castle & Cooke's extraordinary dedication of 40+ acres of land for a regional sports facility. • Mandatory participation in a public services CFD despite the full knowledge of a net financial benefit for public services City-wide. • The inclusion of a 1,000 foot setback requirement • A negative fiscal statement requirement Finally, City Staff exacerbated the difficulty in financing public infrastructure improvements by demanding that Lake Street improvements be front loaded — at a time when the improvements aren't needed and the costs of which can't be covered by land development. These conditions for which there is no nexus to the project would have the effect of making the project unbuildable, and are therefore unacceptable to the project applicant. The next category of non -resolution pertains to the Pacific Clay Development Agreement. During the seven -years of review of the AVSP and delays by numerous City regimes, never once was the Pacific Clay Development Agreement officially declared inapplicable or otherwise expired or terminated by the City Council. The AVSP and its associated EIR contain several references to the applicable Development Agreement as the vesting instrument limits the City's land use authority over the Alberhill Villages property. Nevertheless, during the preparation of the Planning Commission Staff Report for the AVSP, the City Attorney called for the deletion of all references to the Pacific Clay Development Agreement. In consideration of these formidable issues, Castle & Cooke decided to place its Specific Plan in abeyance with the hope that the City would cooperate and collaborate with the applicant in good faith. Since March 1, 2016, the City Attorney issued a correspondence finding that the Pacific Clay Development Agreement is expired. Given Castle & Cooke's profound disagreement with the City Attorney's position, Castle & Cooke requested a confirmation of the City's official position on the Pacific Clay Development Agreement on May 27, 2016, and has not yet heard back from the City Attorney about the official position of the City or the City agreeing to set the matter for public hearing. Meanwhile, the City continues to perpetuate a false story that the AVSP was on the brink of approval, notwithstanding the numerous contentious issues that remain unresolved. Mayor Tisdale June 10, 2016 Page 3 Without agreement on the extraordinary conditions and resolution of the Development Agreement, it is appropriate and fair that the City Council honor the letter of abeyance submitted to the City on March 1, 2016 and take no further action on this project. Without such agreement, the City is not authorized to approve the AVSP. Lastly, the City will not be indemnified by the Applicant for the City's unauthorized and improper actions. AVSP INITIATIVE As noted above, the City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and staff, are well aware that the Applicant has filed and intends to circulate a petition to qualify an AVSP initiative for the ballot. Despite the City's actions to dissuade the Proponent and Applicant from moving forward, both remain fully committed to seeking voter support for Alberhill Villages. Prior to the June 14`x' Council hearing, a revised initiative was filed with this City. This revised initiative addresses the issues brought forth by the City Attorney in Court filings and public statements. While we stand firm in our belief that the previous version of the AVSP initiative was legal and appropriate, it is our desire to move forward expeditiously with the initiative process. We are confident in the voters of Lake Elsinore to fairly and appropriately judge the project on its merits and determine its rightful place in the future of this great city. In sum, with the copious unresolved issues remaining with the City's processing of the AVSP application, the City's lack of indemnification for any action taken on the AVSP, and the filing of a revised initiative, we must strongly urge the City Council to honor the March 1, 2016, letter and take no further action on the AVSP application. We further demand that the City withdraw the .lune 14, 2016, Agenda Item and take no action on the AVSP, or, alternatively, that the matter be continued to the second City Council meeting in July. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can assist in any capacity. Very truly yours, MILES • LAW GROUP, P.C. a �l Iu;-Aal By: Stephen M. Miles Mayor Tisdale June 10, 2016 Page 4 Via Electronic A1ail cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Grant Yates, City Manager Ms. Barbara Leibold, City Attorney Mr. Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Mr. M.J. "Tom" Tomlinson, Vice President, Castle & Cooke Mr. Ken Crawford, President, KWC Engineers sin i les@m i l esl awgrou p. coin June 10, 2016 �:LFli tr YJ ji041'S'Otp VIA PERSONAL DELIVER YAND ELECTRONIC /btisdale@lake-elsinore.org] MAIL The Honorable Brian Tisdale, Mayor, City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Re: June 14, 2016, Public Hearing re Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mayor Tisdale, Castle & Cooke, the Applicant of Alberhill Villages, was to say the least surprised by the scheduling of this public hearing. On March 1, 2016, Castle & Cooke delivered a correspondence to the City of Lake Elsinore stating its request to hold the AVSP processing in abeyance in light of two categories of outstanding and unresolved issues. The City has in fact publicly acknowledged this request. In full knowledge of the Applicant's position on these outstanding issues, the City scheduled the June 10' hearing, released a media statement, and only after sending notice to the media, notified the Applicant. At no time since the letter of abeyance was submitted has the City requested to meet or hear from the Applicant. More troubling, this hearing was purposely scheduled at a time when it was known that the Applicant's principal representative will be out of the country. Further the City Council and its appointed City Attorney are well aware of the Applicant's intent to bring the AVSP project directly to the voters for approval. In fact, the City has mounted an aggressive effort to derail the initiative process. First with the refusal to issue Title & Summary, then suing the proponent of the initiative — a Lake Elsinore resident and now with the scheduling of a hearing on a project the Applicant has specifically requested that no Council action take place. The scheduling of this hearing is an affront to the development process, the initiative process, and to the voters of this City who have repeatedly expressed the desire to have a say in the future of Lake Elsinore. Mayor Tisdale June 10, 2016 Page 2 REQUEST FOR ABEYANCE: AREAS OF DISSENT The March 1, 2016 Castle & Cooke letter identified two significant issues of disagreement. The first category pertained to unauthorized and onerous development exactions that City Staff recommended and that the Planning Commission deferred to the City Council along with its recommended approval of the AVSP and EIR. Most notably, City Staff managed to insert in to the proceedings: • The "turn key" buildout of a regional sporting field facility as an add-on to Castle & Cooke's extraordinary dedication of 40+ acres of land for a regional sports facility. • Mandatory participation in a public services CFD despite the full knowledge of a net financial benefit for public services City-wide. • The inclusion of a 1,000 foot setback requirement • A negative fiscal statement requirement Finally, City Staff exacerbated the difficulty in financing public infrastructure improvements by demanding that Lake Street improvements be front loaded — at a time when the improvements aren't needed and the costs of which can't be covered by land development. These conditions for which there is no nexus to the project would have the effect of making the project unbuildable, and are therefore unacceptable to the project applicant. The next category of non -resolution pertains to the Pacific Clay Development Agreement. During the seven -years of review of the AVSP and delays by numerous City regimes, never once was the Pacific Clay Development Agreement officially declared inapplicable or otherwise expired or terminated by the City Council. The AVSP and its associated EIR contain several references to the applicable Development Agreement as the vesting instrument limits the City's land use authority over the Alberhill Villages property. Nevertheless, during the preparation of the Planning Commission Staff Report for the AVSP, the City Attorney called for the deletion of all references to the Pacific Clay Development Agreement. In consideration of these formidable issues, Castle & Cooke decided to place its Specific Plan in abeyance with the hope that the City would cooperate and collaborate with the applicant in good faith. Since March 1, 2016, the City Attorney issued a correspondence finding that the Pacific Clay Development Agreement is expired. Given Castle & Cooke's profound disagreement with the City Attorney's position, Castle & Cooke requested a confirmation of the City's official position on the Pacific Clay Development Agreement on May 27, 2016, and has not yet heard back from the City Attorney about the official position of the City or the City agreeing to set the matter for public hearing. Meanwhile, the City continues to perpetuate a false story that the AVSP was on the brink of approval, notwithstanding the numerous contentious issues that remain unresolved. Mayor Tisdale June 10, 2016 Page 3 Without agreement on the extraordinary conditions and resolution of the Development Agreement, it is appropriate and fair that the City Council honor the letter of abeyance submitted to the City on March 1, 2016 and take no further action on this project. Without such agreement, the City is not authorized to approve the AVSP. Lastly, the City will not be indemnified by the Applicant for the City's unauthorized and improper actions. AVSP INITIATIVE As noted above, the City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and staff, are well aware that the Applicant has fled and intends to circulate a petition to qualify an AVSP initiative for the ballot. Despite the City's actions to dissuade the Proponent and Applicant from moving forward, both remain fully committed to seeking voter support for Alberhill Villages. Prior to the June 14`s Council hearing, a revised initiative was filed with this City. This revised initiative addresses the issues brought forth by the City Attorney in Court filings and public statements. While we stand firm in our belief that the previous version of the AVSP initiative was legal and appropriate, it is our desire to move forward expeditiously with the initiative process. We are confident in the voters of Lake Elsinore to fairly and appropriately judge the project on its merits and determine its rightful place in the future of this great city. In sum, with the copious unresolved issues remaining with the City's processing of the AVSP application, the City's lack of indemnification for any action taken on the AVSP, and the filing of a revised initiative, we must strongly urge the City Council to honor the March 1, 2016, letter and take no further action on the AVSP application. We further demand that the City withdraw the June 14, 2016, Agenda Item and take no action on the AVSP, or, alternatively, that the matter be continued to the second City Council meeting in July. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can assist in any capacity. Very truly yours, MILES • LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Stephen M. Miles Mayor Tisdale .Tune 10, 2016 Page 4 Via Electronic Mail cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Grant Yates, City Manager Ms. Barbara Leibold, City Attorney Mr. Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Mr. M.J. "Tom" Tomlinson, Vice President, Castle & Cooke Mr. Ken Crawford, President, KWC Engineers VIA Personal Delivery 15 The Honorable Brian Tisdale Mayor of the City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Re: June 14,2016 Public Hearing re Alberhill Villages Specific Plan As citizens of the United States of America and as Residents of Riverside County, we are gravely concerned about the city's inadequate Response To Comments. Whoever wrote the response was tired by the time they got to our comment. 0-I I would like to thank you for sending its this report. 0-2 See page 163. Mow can mitigation measures NOT be addressed ? This DEIR form makes conclusion not supported by the data.Much of the data is out of date and should be re -done. This report does not address the Environmental issues presented in the DEIR as required by law. The EIR is required to inform the public of the environmental consequences caused by the project. The mitigation suggested does not meet the requirements of the Environmental Law. This requires modification to the DEIR. We object to the statement "It would be speculative.. on Future Traffic levels". Traffic does not meet the requirements. The transportation data confirms this. According to the EIR rules this study must be done before this project is approved by the City Counsel. Remember when the freeway was closed and the detour was on Lake Street ? It took hours to get home. 0-3 This project should not trove forward. The comments only acknowledge our comments. 0-4 Remember your job is to inform the public. Your answer says "Response to comment B-36, J-4 ...' 0-5 A copy of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook was not on line and not included in the paper copy, therefore NO Action can occur because the public was not informed. You did not complete your obligation to provide us with all the information. 0-6 Who can read this? Refer to Response: D -12,G-10, B-26, D-3, D -5,D-6,1134 and D-8. 0-7 More Response: B-68, B-69, and U-2. Linda and Martin Ridenour 33628 Brand St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Susan M. Domen, MMC-G^�LiS F Grant Yates Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:34 PM To: Susan M. Domen, MMC Subject: Fwd: Request to Continue Alberhill Villages Item Sent from my iPhone From: Karie Reuther <kariereuther(@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:45 PM To: Brian Tisdale; Natasha Johnson; Daryl Hickman; Steve Manes; Robert Magee Subject: Request to Continue Alberhill Villages Item Subject: Request to Continue Alberhill Villages Item Mayor Tisdale and members of the Lake Elsinore City Council, am writing you today on behalf of the entire Live Lake Elsinore coalition and its over 1, 500 Alberhill Villages supporters. On behalf of the Coalition, I am asking that you take N O ACTION on the project in front of you today. What is before you represents a significant deviation from the plan that was originally proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission. T hese changes will have devastating impacts on the viability of the project rendering it unbuildable. The project team and supporters were confused by the scheduling of this hearing becau se the project had been formally put on hold with the City back in March. Furthermore, i n the lead up to this hearing the City has made no attempt to consult with the project team regarding the sig nificant changes that are now before you. As the City is now aware, a new voter initiative for Alberhill Villages was filed on Friday, June 10th. This new initiative addresses the issues brought forth by the City Attorney in court filings and public statements. It would create a responsible and feasible development that both residents and the City can stand behind. We believe it would be bad public policy and poor precedent to allow this vote to go forty and when there are such significant changes from what was proposed; from what was c onsidered by the Planning Commission; and from what can feasibly be built. The Alberhill Villages project team will be sending over a detailed document this afterno on highlighting the differences in this plan from the original plan as it was proposed. We hope that you will choose to table the item before you tonight. Sincerely, Karie Reuther ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICAI"LD TO ECOSYSTEM PROI"ECrION AND SUSTAINABLr LAND USE June 14, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Ilon Brian Tisdale City of Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 South Main St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: Item 1, June 14, 2016: Alberhill Ranch; Alberbill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, Zone Change No. 2012-02 and Related Environmental Impact Report — NOT OPPOSED Dear Mayor Tisdale and Members of the City Council: Endangered Habitats League (EHL) has had the opportunity to review revised mitigation measures for the California guatcateher and quino checkerspot butterfly. As a result of these changes, EHL does not oppose this project or moving it forward. We once again appreciate and acknowledge the many environmental improvements contained in the modified project. We look forward to working with you in the future. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director 8,124 SANTA MONICA 6EVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ www.P.H1 LAGUE.oRG ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 FeLo- Yyi k L- Q -L VVn ( 17VP C C ry-i - -5 (e — CITY or LASE LSINOKE 1�12LAM FXTREN41: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor And Members of the City Council FROM: Grant Yates City Manager DATE: June 14, 2016 REGARDING: Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, Zone Change No. 2012-02 and Related Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2012061046) Letter from Endangered Habitats League dated June 14 2016 The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) reviewed the responses that staff prepared for each of the comment letters received regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) and the related changes to the AVSP document; and submitted a letter dated June 14, 2016 (Attachment 1). In its letter the EHL expressed concern regarding the Biological Resources mitigation measures regarding the California gnatcatcher and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. In response to the concerns raised in the EHL letter, staff has proposed the attached (Attachment 2) revised wording for Mitigation Measures Bio -2 (California gnatcatcher) and Bio -11 (Quino checkerspot butterfly). Mr. Dan Silver, Executive Director of the EHL, reviewed the revised mitigation measures and has determined that they address his concerns and are acceptable. GY:RJM Attachments: 1. Letter from Endangered Habitats League dated 6-14-16 2. Revised Mitigation Measures Bio -2 and Bio -3 I ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO LCOSYSI-EM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE i June 14, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Hon Brian Tisdale City of Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore City Hall 130 South Main St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RP: Item 1, June 14, 2016: Alberhill Ranch; Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), General Plan Amendment No. 2012-01, Zone Change No. 2012-02 and Related Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Tisdale and Members of the City Council: Endangered Habitats League (EHL) wishes to acknowledge the important environmental improvements contained in the modified project now before you. For your reference, EHL is Southern California only regional conservation group. We support the following elements of the revised project: 1. Removing the area from the Specific Plan that is still subject to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 2. Providing a natural channel with intact hydrology of approximately 500 feet for Temescal Wash. This will provide a great community amenity in addition to wildlife benefits. 3. Maintaining a wildlife movement corridor of 500 feet along the western project boundary 4. Creating wildlife under crossings or culverts at road crossings 5. Specifying species surveys to be done in the future 6. Ensuring that certain roads are coordinated for MSHCP for consistency We have remaining concerns: • Regarding the 16.7 acres removed from this project, we urge that during future City actions, it also be subject to the 500 -foot buffer and natural hydrology standards for Temescal Wash. We acknowledge that this step cannot be accomplished at this time. 8424 SANTA MONICA UwD Sum: A 592 Los ANaeEts CA 90069-4267 ♦ WWWAIILEAOUF.Omc ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 • For the federally threatened California gnatcatcher, we recommend revising the mitigation measure to include protocol surveys, to address indirect impacts like noise, and to provide greater specificity for triggering of federal and state permitting. • For the federally endangered quino cheekspot butterfly, we recommend revising the mitigation measure to include protocol surveys, to address temporary impacts, and to provide more specificity in terms of avoidance and triggers for federal permitting. The Alberhill site has important biological functions which are generally respected in the current iteration of the plan. We appreciate the responsiveness of the City to public comment. If the last two improvements can be made, EHL would not oppose moving forward with the modified prgjeet. Thank you for considering our views. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director Environmental Impact Report for Alberhill Villages Specific Plan Revised Mitigation Measures 13I0-2: No new clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground -disturbance activities shall occur on each implementing development Project site until the following requirements have been met for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptita califorrnica californica): a. If suitable habitat is present, Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted in accordance with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-protocol within the footprint where new clearing grubbing, grading or other ground -disturbance activities is proposed. Said surveys shall also include all land within 500 feet of the ground -disturbance footprint. If surveys document absence of California gnatcatcher (CAGN), no additional avoidance or minimization measures are required. Surveys in which the species is not detected are considered valid for one year. New surveys shall be conducted on any previously surveyed areas where clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground -disturbance activities have not commenced within one year and whenever new areas that contain suitable habitat are proposed for ground -disturbance activities. b. If surveys document the presence of CAGN, impacts to CAGN would be mitigated below the level of significance when occupied coastal sage scrub is fenced and direct impacts are avoided and construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat occurs only between September 1 and February 15 to avoid indirect impacts to nesting CAGN. If avoidance is not feasible, a temporary noise barrier shall be used during construction, at the appropriate location(s), in coordination with CDFW and the USFWS. The noise barrier shall attenuate noise levels to 60 dBA or less at the edge of breeding habitat. Additional or alternative measures to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to CAGN, as identified by the USFWS and CDFW, shall be implemented. C. If all avoidance measures cannot be implemented such that "take' of CAGN is avoided, a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated by the Project applicant with the USFWS and Take Authorization from USFWS through Final Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and from CDFW through issuance of a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit or compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 will be obtained. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse Project effects to CAGN, as identified by the USFWS and the CDFW shall be implemented. Potential impacts will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance: 1) avoidance; 2) minimization of impacts; 3) acquisition and set aside of similar CAGN habitat either on-site or off-site at a 1 to 1 ratio or such other ratio as negotiated between the applicant, the USFWS and the CDFW. BIO -11 Prior to grading each phase of the development, a qualified biologist will conduct a USFWS protocol -level habitat assessment for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) in accordance with the latest USFWS protocol. If it is determined that suitable habitat exists on site, then focused USFWS-protocol QCB surveys will be conducted within identified suitable habitat as follows: If surveys document absence of QCB no additional avoidance or minimization measures are required Surveys in which the species is not detected are considered - valid for one year. New surveys shall be conducted on any previously surveyed areas where clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground -disturbance activities are not commenced within one year and whenever new areas are proposed for ground - disturbance activities. If QCB occupies suitable habitat within the development footprint, the direct permanent impacts to the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly will require consultation under Section 7 or 10 of the Endangered Species Act, and will be mitigated according to negotiations with the USFWS. If all avoidance measures cannot be implemented such that "take" of QCB is avoided, an Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated by the Project applicant with the USFWS and Take Authorization from USFWS through Final Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement will be obtained. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse Project effects to QCB, as identified by the USFWS shall be implemented. Potential impacts will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more measures, including, but not limited to, habitat preservation, enhancement, reintroduction, and/or creation. c. If temporary impacts to the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat are unavoidable, mitigation will occur through on-site revegetation of the habitat in which the species occurs (i.e., coastal sage scrub) by including the seeds of known host and nectar plant species in the revegetation seed mixture at a 1:1 ratio or such other ratio as negotiated between the applicant and the USFWS. 62 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE �tS� TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Juan C. Perez Agency Director Patricia Romo Steven A. Weiss Mike Lara Al Brady Director of Transportation Planning Director Building and Safety Official Code Enforcement Official Transportation Department Planning Department Building and Safety Department Code Enforcement Department June 14, 2016 Mr. Grant Taylor Community Development Director City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: Response to Comments for the Alberbill Villages Specific Plan Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you for providing responses to the comment letters dated December 31, 2015 and February 16, 2016, submitted by the County of Riverside Transportation Department (County) on the Alberhill Village Specific Plan (AVSD), The County has reviewed the responses and acknowledges the inclusion of mitigation measure (TC -0.5): Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP), a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the RVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence, including without limitation, Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the RVSP on the regional road network are mitigated, a Phased Road improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMF fee credits. County staff recognizes that this new measure is intended to ensure that the cumulative impacts of RVSP on Temescal Canyon Road and on the Nichols Road/I-15 Interchange will be evaluated in a traffic impact analysis and mitigation will be established prior to the approval of the first Phased Development Plan. In both comment letters provided by the County, an emphasis has been placed on the critical importance of Temescal Canyon Road to the region. The County reiterates our availability and desire to actively participate in the preparation of the Phased Road Improvement Plan as it relates to transportation related improvements. We appreciate your willingness to participate in a collective effort with the County and our Regional Transportation Agency partners to improve Temescal Canyon Road and the Nichols Road/I-15 Interchange. Sincerely, Juan C. Perez Director of Transportation and Land Management RUW:KKT cc: Supervisor Jeffries, Is' District Patricia Romo, Director of Transportation Mojahed Salama, Deputy Director of Transportation Page 2 of 2 Comment Letter E County of Riverside Transportation Department COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTA TION AND A \� LAND/MIAN4GEMENTAGENCY Jual, C Perez, P.E., KF.. Transportation Department Patricia Romo.P.E. Director of Transportation and A.sshfant Direclor of I ranspo»adon Land Diana;emeni December 31, 2015 Mr. Roy P. Stephenson, P.E. Land Use Engineer City of Lake Elsinore c/o I IR Green 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 1025 Orange, CA 92868 RE: Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (SP 2010-02) Dear Mr. Stephenson, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan —SP 2010-02 (DEIR). The project proposes development of approximately 1,400 acres with up to 8,244 residential dwelling units; approximately 4 million square feet of non-residential uses including civic/institutional, commercial/retall, professional office/medical and entertainment uses; development of a university campus or similar educational institution to serve up to 6,000 students; and supporting uses including schools, parks, worship centers, and green belt paseos..The Transportation Department (County) has reviewed the DEIR and has the following comments. The DEIR and project traffic study indicate the development at its ultimate buildout is estimated to generate 150.415 daily trips, 9,927 AM peak hourly trips, and 14,575 PM peak hourly trips, However, no infamtation is provided to illustrate the project's trip distribution to the surrounding area and roadways. Under the County's traffic impact analysis preparation guidelines, where the proposed development would add 50 or more peak Hourly trips to County intersections, the intersection shall be analyzed. The County believes it is reasonable to assume that the project would add 50 or more peak hourly trips to County intersections beyond the studied intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road. Without a trip distribution of project traffic, it is difficult to verify. This information is needed to determine if the studied area is adequate. R)FO l umm� Sirec(, ai° Plow Riverside. G\ 92501 - (951)915-040 P.o. nos 0190 - Rilmidc. C'A 92502-1090 - rAX(951)955-319# E-1 82 Mr. Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. December 31, 2015 Page 2 The DEIR provides an analysis of the existing conditions as well as the City's General Plan Buildout with and without the project. The combination of these analyses may provide the project's cumulative impact under buildout conditions, however determining the project's impact on the existing road network is still unknown and therefore not mitigated. An analysis needs to be provided to identify both the project's direct impacts and necessary improvements to mitigate those impacts. As noted in the DEIR (page 4.7-5), the City's General Plan depicts Temescal Carryon Road between the city limits and Horsethief Canyon Road within the unincorporated County of Riverside as a Major Highway (4 lanes within a 100 foot right-of-way). Tire County's General Plan depicts this same segment as a Major Highway, but the County's designation uses slightly different specifications (4 lanes and a striped median turn lane within a 118 foot right—of- way). The discussion of General Plan Buildout without the Project beginning on page 4.7-35 and ending on page 4.7-40 also indicates that this segment of Temescal Canyon Road was being studied as a 4 -lane roadway. However, the discussion of General flan Buildout with the Project seems to have studied this segment of Temescal Canyon Road as an Urban Arterial Highway which has 6 lanes within a 120 foot right-of-way. While the County's standard for a Major Highway would nearly meet the right -of way requirement, the actual roadway design of the County's Major Highway standard would require significant modifications to accommodate 6 lanes. The DEIR's determination that the Temescal Canyon segment is not impacted by the proposed Project appears to rest on the assumption of improvements that exceed the requirements of the City and County's General Plan designations. Although the analysis indicates a 6 -lane facility is required to provide adequate capacity for the projected 44,000 daily trips, page 4.7-62 of the DEIR appears to recommend retaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility. The analysis indicates the LOS "E" capacity of a 4 -lane Major is 34,100 daily trips which would not provide adequate capacity. Furthermore, the DEIR attributes a portion of the 44,000 daily trips as being diverted trips from a congested 1-15 fieeway. The report considers this diversion of traffic to "very unlikely" in order to justifies the use of 4 -lane facility. One could argue from real world examples that traffic from congested freeways does divert to parallel facilities. The gravity model component of the City's traffic model operates in this manner. Therefore the recommendation of maintaining Temescal Canyon Road as a 4 -lane facility is inadequate mitigation. 40801 anon Sirecl, 8'^ Floor Riversides, CA 92501 (951) 955-6740 P.O. Dox 1090 Riversidc, CA 92502-1090 PAX(951)955-3198 E-2 E-3 83 Mn Roy F. Stephenson, P.E. December 31, 2015 Page 3 The DEIR also seems to assert that this increase in design requirements somehow does not rise to the level of requiring a General Plan Amendment to the City and County General Plan. However, if this higher level of improvements is required to fully mitigate the project's impacts, formalizing these requirements in the City's and County's General Plan through a General Plan Amendment should be given consideration as a mitigation measure of the Project to ensure that the higher level of improvements is carried out in the future by all affected projects that may develop along this segment of road. Under the discussion of Traffic Capacity/Levet of Set -vice in the DEIR (page 4.7- 78) and its traffic study, impacts are identified from the Project at the intersection E-3 of Horsethief Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road. The improvement Cont identified to reduce the impact to less than significant is through the installation of a traffic signal and road widening. It is questionable whether the recommendation of adding a single right -turn lane on H.orsethief Canyon Road is adequate to accommodate the projected 1,263 PM peak hourly trips.. The County would also like to point out that the total project peak hourly traffic at the intersection is shown to decrease at General Plan Buildout with Project, an unlikely scenario. The DEIR indicates the City will require the developer to pay for the improvements in the form of fair -share fees. The County requests that the mitigation fees be paid to the County at the time of building permit issuance in order to mitigate project impacts. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at (951) 955-2016 or at ruwillia{"r,i)rctlma.ore. Sincerely, a°6Russetl Williams Development Review Manager RW:RFXT:rg cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Romo, Assistant Director of Transportation 4050 Lrmon sired- 5"' Floor � Rivabide. CA 91501. 1(951) 955-6740 RO. BOX 1090 Riverside. C:1 92502-1090 - FAX (951) 955-3198 84 Response to Comment Letter E County of Riverside Transportation Department The County of Riverside Transportation Department provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental hnpact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 201 206 1 046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated December 31, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those continents. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to County of Rivet -side Transportation Department Comment E-1 The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan's Land Use Plan, which was adopted on December 13, 2011. included land use designations on the AVSD project site that reflect the land uses proposed by the AVSD, in anticipation of the submittal of the AVSP project. Therefore, the TIA completed as part of the General Plan Update Recirculated Program EIR (GP EIR), which was certified by the Lake Elsinore City Council on December 13, 2011 included traffic generated by the AVSP in its analysis of area -wide traffic impacts. The primary purpose of the AVSP TIA was to provide a consistency analysis with the General Plan and therefore utilized a study area consistent with the previous GP EIR's TIA. The AVSD TIA analyzed significantly more study locations than the General Plan Update EIR TIA. The existing roadway network serving the AVSP site consists of Lake Street, Nichols Road, and Temescal Canyon Road and the additional roadway network in the area is essentially part of the Project. For this reason, an Existing plus Project analysis is not required. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment E-2 There is a projected 30 -year development period for the AVSP, construction of implementing development projects will occur at individual project locations and at unknown times doing the 30 -year period. It would be speculative to identify the timing of future traffic levels at each phase of the future development of the AVSP. As noted on Pages 2.0-6 through 2.0-8 of the DEIR, the AVSP proposed development will be regulated by Phased Development Plans and Design Review applications which will set forth precise design proposals for all or a portion of a particular area within the AVSP. As Phased Development Plans, Design Review, or Subdivision Map applications are proposed, more timely and accurate traffic impact analysis and determination of required improvements can be determined. In order to assure the completion of appropriate and timely road improvements to serve the AVSP project area, new Project -wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: 85 All road improvements within the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan (AVSP) shall be constructed to ultimate City standards and consistent with the General Plan, unless otherwise identified and approved, as a requirement of the implementing development projects (including but not limited to subdivisions, design review applications and conditional use permits) subject to approval by the City Engineer. The AVSP "Enhanced" and "Modified" cross-sections are subject to the submittal and review of design drawings, at the time implementing development projects are submitted. e Site-specific 'Traffic Impact Analyses (traffic studies) shall be required for each Phased Development Plan (PDP) and for all subsequent implementing development projects in accordance with the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide requirements in effect at the time of Traffic Impact Analysis preparation. e Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP), a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence, including without limitation, Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail, Lake Street, and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the regional road network are mitigated, a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in conjunction with the first Phased Development Plan and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program, regional road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in exchange for TUMF fee credits. A new Mitigation Measure'TC-0.5 will be added as follows: TC -0.5 Prior to approval of the first Phased Development Plan (PDP) a TIA evaluating cumulative impacts of the AVSP on regional transportation facilities within the City's sphere of influence fluece including without limitation Temescal Canyon Road to Indian Truck Trail Lake Street and Nichols Road shall be completed in consultation with the County of Riverside and WRCOG. To ensure that impacts of the AVSP on the rel ional road network are mitigated a Phased Road Improvement Plan shall be prepared in coniunctioa with the first Phased Development Platt and, to the maximum extent allowable in accordance with the TUMF program re nonal road improvements shall be constructed by the developer in excha ge for TUMF fee credits. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment E3 The City's Circulation Element and the "Proposed Land Use Program Recommended Roadway System" (Exhibit M) in the General Plan Update TIA shows Temescal Canyon Road as a six -lane Urban Arterial facility between Horsethief Canyon Road and Lake Street, which is why it was analyzed as a six -lane facility in the Roadway Segment analysis. 86 The proposed mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure TC -2) to add a single right -turn lane on Horsethief Canyon Road at Temescal Canyon Road consists of a free right -turn lane, which has significantly greater capacity than a typical single right -turn lane without a free movement. The total peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Horsethief Canyon Road at Temescal Canyon Road actually slightly increase at General Plan Buildout with Project. Please refer to Response to Comment E-2. The AVSP is required to comply with all regulatory requirements for payment of "fair share" fees for road improvements. These fees are payable at the times established by the regulations that establish such fees. Compliance with regulatory requirements do not need to be set forth as mitigation fees. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure TC -2 provides: "The project shall participate in the phased construction of the on -and off-site intersection improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and the participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation fees (TUMP) program. Where require, improvements are not covered by these programs; mitigation shall be implemented through fair -share contribution or as otherwise determined by the Citv Engineer." In order to reflect the requirement for payment of"fair share" road improvement fees, new Project - wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: e The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Pee (TUMP) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 824. The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay all applicable development impact fees and mitigation fees as required by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and other City -adopted fees. 87 Comment Letter X County of Riverside Transportation Department COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE �l TRANSPORTATION ANI) / S) LAIND A9AN,,1(,tsn2LNTAGt,�'Ci' �a9.. �w Transportation Department Avor4, Ron,n, P.L. Ph"'I roJ'r, aspnr/rcamr.I..I -iUislnnr t)Ir¢aMr of Troar"rta.na lwnu! Afnurzgemmu February 16, 2016 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission 183 N. Main Street lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: Public Hearing Item IDu 16-068, Aiberhifl Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), on the February 16, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Commissioners: As part of your considerations to take action on the Alberhili Villages Specific Plan (SP No. 2010-02), the County of Riverside Transportation Department (County) provides the following comments in addition to those provided in the County's December 31, 2015 letter. The proposed project is located south of the 1-15 freeway, west of Lake Street, and borders the unincorporated County. As illustrated in the SP No. 2010-02 and its Draft Environmental Impact Report Temescal Canyon Road provides a connection to areas north and west of the project. It would be reasonable to assume that the project's proposed university and retail uses would attract trips from these areas. Although the 1-15 freeway is available, trips from these areas would also utilize Temescal Canyon Road. Additionally, Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an alternate to the freeway which makes it a critical road during emergency closures on the freeway. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has plans to further improve the 1-15 Freeway, however the timing of these improvements are unknown and would occur at some point in the distant future. X-1 With the project estimated to generate over 150,000 daily trips, an emphasis should be placed to have the project improve Temescal Canyon Road The. County requests that the City require the project to develop a phasing plan to improve the Temescal Canyon Road corridor prior to approval of the Specific Plan. This X-2 phasing plan, with input from the City and County, will provide a clear plan of action to ensure improvements are constructed in a timely manner as the project develops The City and County utilize the same Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines to determine the study area and intersection to be analyzed in a traffic study. One of the, key criteria used to determine if X-3 an Intersection should be studied is when a proposed project adds 50 or more peak hourly trips to it. Although the project's traffic study analyzed the intersection of Hmsethief Canyon Road at Temescal IUge L.noi, Autc1, ki6I-bmn' RivaniAr, CA 42501 (9m)9-1.567,40 PO Aos 1090 Rircnidq CA 7.'502-1090-1 NX(951'9E X1198 236 Canyon .Road, it is: reasonable to assume that the project would add more than50peak hourly trips to intersections on Temescal Canyon Road to the north and west. According to Caltrans'.publication of traffic X-3 counts, in 2014 the annual daily average traffic on the 1-15 freeway between Lake Street and Indian Truck Cont. Trail Road was 122,000. Given only six lanes exists on the freeway, a portion of the project's estimated 150,000 daily trips will likely use alternative mutes to travel north, namely Temescal Canyon Road, The County views Temescal Canyon Road as a critical roadway for the area as it serves an emergency access mute and provides relief as congestion develops on the freeway. We hope the City will see the benefit in requiring the project to develop a phasing plan to improve the Temescal Canyon Road corridor. X-4 Sincerely, Russell Williams Development Review Manager RUW:KKT cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Rome, Assistant Director of Transportation '1080 Lemon Sleem, x" 19oui Rirc.sill t:'A 92101 - e)51: 955-6740 RO_ Ra> 1090 Rill id, (A 92102-1090 I'AF tV51)9i5-AON 237 Response to Comment Letter X County of Riverside Transportation Department The County of Riverside Transportation Department ("Caltrans") provided comments regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061046) for the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and related applications in its letter dated January 13, 2016. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the DEIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-1 The commenter describes how Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an alternative to the I-15 freeway, which makes it a "critical road during emergency closures on the freeway." The commenter also notes that the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTC) has plans to improve the I-15 freeway, but that the timing of these improvements are unknown "and would occur at some point in the distant future." These comments are acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the DEIR are required. Resnonse to Countv of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-2 It is acknowledged that at AVSP build -out, the project is expected to generate over 150,000 daily trips. However. there is a projected 30 -year development period for the AVSP, and construction of implementing development projects will occur at individual project locations and at unknown times during the 30 -year period. It would be speculative to identify the timing of future traffic levels at each phase of the future development of the AVSP and when future off-site improvements to Temescal Canyon Road may be required. Additionally, the need to improve those portions of Temescal Canyon Road may result from currently unknown development projects located within unincorporated Riverside County and in the City of Corona. As described above in the Response to Comment X-1, Temescal Canyon Road is the only parallel facility that operates as an alternative to the I-15 freeway, which makes it a "critical road during emergency closures on the freeway." As such, Temescal Canyon Road serves a regional role and should be improved as a regional facility. Only a short stretch of Temescal Canyon Road is within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore and the majority of Temescal Canyon Road is within unincorporated Riverside County. The City has no legal jurisdiction beyond its incorporated borders. Please refer to the above Response to Comment I3-65 and the above Response to Continent E-2 238 The AVSP is required to comply with all regulatory requirements for payment of "fair share" fees for road improvements. These fees are payable at the times established by the regulations that establish such fees. Compliance with regulatory requirements do not need to be set forth as mitigation fees. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure TC -2 provides: "The project shall participate in the phased construction of the on -and off-site intersection improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and the participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program. "Where require, improvements are not covered by these programs; mitigation shall be implemented through fair -share contribution or as otherwise determined by the Citv Engineer." hi order to reflect the requirement for payment of"fair share" road improvement fees, new Project - wide Development Standards have been added to the AVSP which require: • The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 824. • The project proponent/developer(s) shall pay all applicable development impact fees and mitigation fees as required by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and other City -adopted fees. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-4 It is acknowledged that both the City and County currently utilize the same Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines. See the above Response to Comment E-1. As described above in the above Response to Comment X-1, it is acknowledged that Temescal Canyon Road will serve as an alternative to the 1-15 freeway for travel north. Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Comment X-4 See the above Response to Comment X-2. 239 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 w .lake-elsinore.org i f�h;t �,wIIiCN:,E Text File File Number: ID# 16-259 Agenda Date: 6/14/2016 Version: 1 Status: Approval Final In Control: City Council File Type: Report Agenda Number: 16) City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 611012016 CITY OF LASE `� � LSIRO �E -- �., DREAM EXTREME REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Grant Yates, City Manager Prepared By: Susan M. Domen, City Clerk Date: June 14, 2016 Subject: Appointments to the Planning Commission Recommendation Consider subcommittee recommendations and appoint three members to serve on the Planning Commission for a term of four years, commencing on July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2020. Background Chapter 2.24 of Title 2 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) governs the establishment and membership of the City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission consists of five members who shall legally reside within the City limits of the City of Lake Elsinore or be the owner of a business that is established and currently licensed inside the City limits (LEMC 2.24.020). Members of the Planning Commission are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of a majority of the members of the City Council (LEMC 2.24.030). Planning Commissioners are appointed for a term of four years (LEMC 2.24.040). City Council Policy 200-5A sets forth the process in which applications will be accepted and reviewed. Discussion The term of office for three seats on the Planning Commission expires on June 30, 2016; one seat currently vacant, Commissioner Ray and Commissioner Gray. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 200-5A, the City Clerk's Department published and posted the Notice of Accepting Applications for Consideration of Appointment during the month of April. A total of seven applications were received by the filing deadline; Mike Alwardt, John Gray (incumbent), Fred West, Michael Carroll, Myles Ross (Public Safety Advisory Commissioner), Darrill Andries and Dawn Bowen (withdrew application due to work conflicts). The Council sub -committee, consisting of Mayor Pro Tem Magee and Council Member Hickman, conducted interviews with the six remaining candidates on May 25th and 26th Page 1 of 2 The Council sub -committee has nominated the following applicants for consideration by the City Council: Michael Carroll John Gray Myles Ross Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with this item other than staff time. Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Page 2 of 2 CITY OF. LADE LSI I, �? DREAM EXTREME Please sign and return completed form to: City Clerk's Office 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA. 92530 For Official Use Only Date Due: Interview Date: Appointed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Tenn: COMMISSION APPLICATION Date Received: Interview Time: Date Appointed: Commission Applying For: Planning ❑ Publikc Safety Advisory UI ' The City of Lake Elsinore Planning/PSA Commissions consist of five members each who shall not be officials or empioyess otthe'Citk a $11 H',' legally reside within Lake Elsinore City limits or be the owner of a business that is established and currently licensed inside Lake Elsinore City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointed to four year terns by the City Council. Instructions: Please answer each question as completely as possible. This application will be maintained for a period of one year. After one year, it is necessary to file a new application for another year of eligibility. Please be advised that this application is subject to the Public Records Act. (Please type orprint using black orblue ink) Your commitment to our City and your willingness to serve your fellow citizens is greatly appreciated. Name: Ms. Mrs. rFirstA:p (Please circle that which app es) Mt: Last: _Mzr�' _ R ALwR Q.r Residence Street Address: City: state• Zip Code: � /1Ke_ _a$ r_ .�ot2( to 2 {p Mailing Address: City: State, zi Co " CAI-. Fl SXNo2E� �izSv e e Cell Phone: rk Phone: I E ai "Length of Residency in Lake Elsinore:-/A2S Length of Residency in California: �g J���S. _ I Are you a citizen of the United States: WYes ❑ No If no, country of citizenship: Are you a registered voter: KYes ❑ No If yes, county where you are registered: �1vETCS Employer: Business Phone: n ��A�-SUN 2 C rpac- Employer Straet Address: OccupaElon Tit a: 4 a OE CfirlSo przTvl% �� T-1 TSL state: Zip Code; L-A<r: i rH� +mss Cit qts 7o BU,,SIMEuS (NPQ ATiON.��(f pppirgsble� r Business Name: Business Phona: Business Street Address: City of Lake Elsinore Buslness License Number. ___ Expirations—ate: Date Buslness Established and Type of Business: ON FM�u�l4>..�..,i+'*i�<y ^$l:�f� 1.. i ,`1 di_uu L.a��M`Y.'?v�l?�,,''�i*,"."'3„si-$—VM `MW .,t�Y,n14,a+, .."ate,, Please List Schools) Attended School's City and State Units Completed NT tJN L- N c oo� C. C, C� ,NA G4 ,TQ 5EOHIPC C, -a > LK MATFi�WS IA 9Z.i10 Position Held: (� (, Employmont Dates: P f Et ce i& � n ing ydh a trs %/wsChQa� s � r t RAW',," '�Si� .,t�Y,n14,a+, .."ate,, Name Address . Employer: Ala- NiCL L Z A,Ld 0 �/4NfoRv. LK MATFi�WS IA 9Z.i10 Position Held: (� (, Employmont Dates: From To DutiesPerfdrmed; JoE ZN—rhfA(?X SSS S��su E�7 2 rGS yvok ?s5 Kv��s3''}��'yK��'�•jy"8tkA6il s4sr� 3z��Y. `% l- /3 �i17Z � F�'":,� �q ��q�p�t�vyx'�G�IF,i�Y,iCti Mzl,�,, 1TYa"+ri,11���"StP'}��{y}'1�G1P7t�'j�i� 4(Ay .tib:Lt°L_Ei-��QfEiEi.T3_ 5�ri3EiC� rrAs flrCi T7lZP 7lF Employer. E C, A -)n Ara C.7 N ddress: -7& t7wi 055 A K T'AIu- M q?S-2!Z-- Position Hel _(oNIPLFrF@.Kvrtcc�� Ar (L.c,c.�_HIA�� (C�7X��9.T£_� �NoSF mployment Dates: From �, ZU� Toy Z�y J a �u- Duties Performed: Tkhr+n 'C5 �✓( of (3uSt`'�ss -Tf,ilL- Ru5IST6M5 PcrkD 6VP�c SFS Jo(jSSiLS__ REFER[ N {l tom! idents hak aro guajd ed to r ommetd7 3 �60AC"a-AM .,t�Y,n14,a+, .."ate,, Name Address Phone ZRI(a9w SwGf'f u[l. LK E( ssivO CA 52sTv �/ l2� JoE ZN—rhfA(?X SSS S��su E�7 2 rGS yvok ?s5 Kv��s3''}��'yK��'�•jy"8tkA6il s4sr� 3z��Y. `% l- /3 �i17Z � F�'":,� �q ��q�p�t�vyx'�G�IF,i�Y,iCti Mzl,�,, 1TYa"+ri,11���"StP'}��{y}'1�G1P7t�'j�i� 4(Ay .tib:Lt°L_Ei-��QfEiEi.T3_ 5�ri3EiC� rrAs flrCi T7lZP 7lF �2irr�DS (�>��o,eE c��t.�tPS..T rICcP tF� Co�cHGS i.�-Z7N %��c� �'cnS• Jctzrt-s 3t7M1a1Zfll�Lt(YAlll 4?NS 9R YO RA PEQIy Eq((4a cditF@�on, falnit9Qlo mFta4rlhes lasa Yara.;r.; `.tF '"�i" Y` f ieAb" .,..,o-. I h,��.:F`, o 1A ➢!. L: it#.. ,�`�.�ATLS tt� 1'�J+�;C�,.{�.15S1.�S.JC.T..SoL`! t_L9S._.S'lz_v_.��v_r•�G' kt.unwL,��jJ UF.�o^' rl.'�vS.Lla�" ��2ncE5,s A'n� r?N NCS,= "i SPA C 7 FsEn Tv wo K �rN REF�Lc��QATle✓ �..____ _(oNIPLFrF@.Kvrtcc�� Ar (L.c,c.�_HIA�� (C�7X��9.T£_� �NoSF _�� �r?rr.�r.E�� w��r�-r rt-ir_� _..��1, r.�F_rrt�� �r•,.3?` c�r�_ Ft�=r• _� a c v "t1 a6 - o oa s Iflpg r�eu > ! ar t I w, ,r. �3 MIN aSk�ct9l,tlis#t'of' :1'No"riatie��a t5"N., ak�r, l!: 11101 ll!'Ill6po, LT., MM: 3r''FtFit{� �, \�.x f1 ..h v'I ,';ti1yF _e. E p ! C .: d3 { nY u Cpt t%lii O i Ae rANANA gjttN {! li a10 'c �s R M F-YT1 Y� ANN wr��rT'�7�0l,3.E6 Mi�t(f-IDM+~ WF(�eti: 'r�,f♦ <QA2yZon(_vMMiKSay^f Yx:={-_L rV.L"?L11 .f 1��.• ..t^ to%(y r f"t'✓ r gomi' A KI Agro, mue- iT,Y y1:.Jf KI Agro , V,)B.C,* rt��r l' wud -x4 ✓•��TiQi�{. . JUL4rcp RALK L 0 3 w Pira I A rvt r— AW rKF 151 Lit .. 16, L Myo rzN L�-v.Lnac, Mr-JZ6 nF TIA6 Pv5crtv,~ PtAr�WTIAJ(l 6F vuic C,�2 �r' Cr1( LtdC52�v�zE i1LOFf 2. ria ttAs �o7ti v yr _Lt4L, : f6Vr LAVC Lot cn l3r669G �3Fcor G A N CDN r E9Y,'J(7 Mr- D�2T oF.r1fF �l�� rii5S1PA/ Please note: Appointees will be required to take an Oath of Office and complete and file Statements of Economic Interests if appointed to a position specified in the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Also, appointees are not considered to be City employees for purposes of benefits, such as workers compensation, health insurance, etc. Again, thank you. Your assistance Is appreciated. Applicant's Declaration and Signature I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information on this form is true and correct. Sign tUre Date CITY a _AI(E F3LsiNQRI:: ME Please sign and return completed form to: City Clerk's Office 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 For Official Use Only Date Due _ _._ Date Received Interview Datc Interview Tune', ,,,_ Appointed: n Yes n No Date Appointed: Tenn: ��..,....__.._.....__._�.._____.__..._...... APR 2 9 2016 Commission Applying For: Planning . o Public'" fry;= It;t l The City of Lake Elsinore Planning/PSA Commissions consistoffivem meme berseach who shall notbeofficials oremployees of the City and shall legally reside within Lake Elsinore City limits or bathe owner of a business thatsestablished and currently licensed inside Lake Elsinore City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointedto four yearterms bythe City Council. Instructions: Please answer each question as completely as possible. This application will be maintained for a period of one year. After one year, it is necessary to file a new application for another year of eligibility. Please be advised that this application is subject to the Public Records Act. (Please type or print using black or blue ink) Your commitment to our City and your willingness to serve your fellow citizens is greatly appreciated. .._.__.—. .— —7— _._._.._ r----ame: Ms. Mrs. Mr. I First �afrili I Last: Andries -._ 'lease circle that which Residence Street Adores City: State: I Zip Code: 92532 Lake Elsinore CA Mailing Address- State: —r ZipCode: Home Phone: Cellphone: Work Phone: Email: Length of Residency in Lake Elsinore:B years Length of Residency in California:28 years Are you a citizen of the United States: Yes [I No If no, country of citizenship: Are you a registered voter: as n No If yes, county where you are registered: versiae --- Employer: Business Phone: Norcraft Companies Empioy9rSi�eetAddress: —m �� - OccupationTitle:Territory 950 Blue Gentian Road Suite #200 manager City: State. Zip Code Eagan MN 55121 8US)N SS iN R1NAjd �N flfr % k ^ ' P7lcak(e) -, Business Names. Business Phone: Business Street Address: City of Lake Elsinore Business License Number: Expiration Date: to Business Established and Type of Business: Gi 3CA 1% F, N i ,?lz }. ,l a. * r T l ` 3 s v 'j7 -77 3 �,Ri vy, .��3 P". Please List School(s) Attended School's City and State Units Completed SDSU San Diego, CA Bachelor Arts u�nr�Atzl xY u ) b� p & Al n nand r glo !4 ) „_ Employer: Norcraft Companies Position Held: Territory Manager Duties performed: Sales, marketing, promotion, problem resolution Employer: KraftMaid Cabinetry Position Held: Regional US Trainer Duties performed: Training (computers, Design, Sales) Address: Eagan, MN Employment dates: 2007 - present Address: Middlefield, OH Employment dates: 1998- 2007 (tlreside Jttatqu�1 fo+nma� R. , Name Address Phone Sean Jorgenson — Peter Acoch — Katina Olafson — — ���w�i• iv`��{��2���W����s„\TFr. ..2��3MeYSc�'v ',F.'fx. ,�.v v1,. ,i { .+.t v5 ';s, k...Y.: None—it's time to give back and participate in my community u�nr�Atzl xY u ) b� p & Al n nand r glo !4 ) „_ I have a Bachelor of Arts Design degree. I have studied architecture and urban planning for years. I am a member of the National Kitchen & Bath Association and teach its national course on sustainability as it relates to the built environment. Versed in LEED certification and many other green building initiatives. Being born and raised in Chicago Illinois, where urban planning and public facilities are world class, inspired me into the design and remodeling field. I have worked with architects and can easily interpret site plans and architectural docs. Excellent wayfinding and cartography skills. I am - constantly improving the existing built environment in my mind's eye and have a good eye for design, always being mindful of the low cost possibilities. I work very well in groups and compromise in a fair manner, I'm not stubborn but certainly principled in beliefs. Lastly, my brother produced the PBS TV - special "10 Towns that Changed America" (a reach, I know, but every little bit helps) Ciuv ��. i Rr MEX?,Ux � N 'f'JIN yF y� a . ra.�EFt xh Ps a- t :t7aN0 PR Y I K4Y11117A Ot� 5 WOK —,A �?1Sk'Y1a�l:,Y�F.ili�C>riEa 1 wish to serve my community to its benefit and set an example for my 8 year old son in civic engagement. The planning commission is a natural fit for me. I have lived in Elsinore for 8 years and I appreciate what it is and would like to maintain and improve it for the benefit of all citizens. I recognize the built environment has a major influence on our personal and professional lives. Looking toward the future I see the values and aspirations of those who live here being served by ambitious projects. A state of the art library and a dynamic community center that promotes public gathering are just two examples that come to my mind. I would be proud to serve with the planning commission that told a national powerhouse (Walgreens) their new store has to integrate aesthetically into the ballpark district. Put people before cars, give public space primacy, get the State to support innovative sustainable projects that can put us in the "green" conversation. Lake Elsinore has many unique aspects, let's build upon that and make it an even more desirable community and destination. Please note: Appointees will be required to take an Oath of Office and complete and file Statements of Economic Interests 6appointed to a position specified inthe City's Conflict of Interest Code. Also, appointees are not considered to be City employees for purposes of inefils, such as workers compensation, health insurance, etc. Again, thank you. Your assistance is appreciated. Declaration and Signature laws of the State of California that all the information on this form Is true and correct. 'DatW --Ib t [?O:51aa 91, SZ ddH CITY OF _. 02 LADE Eq LSII [OIZE .i��e�>. DFLA ,. Please sign and return completed form to:. City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 951-674-3124 ext. 262 For Official Use Only Date Due: Date Received: Interview Date: Interview Time: Appointed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date Appointed: Term: COMMISSION APPLICATION x'4 ,� 1t> Commission Applying For: 1f Planning ❑ Public Safety Advisory . The City of Lake Elsinore Planning/PSAC Commission's consist of five members who shall not be officials or employees of the City and shall legally reside within Lake Elsinore City limits or be the owner of a business that is established and currently licensed inside Lake Elsinore City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointed to four year terms by the City Council. Instructions: To complete this form, either print and fill out by hand, or enter the information using your computer (must have Acrobat '.. Reader). You may attach a separate sheet for additional information if you like. 'i. (Last Name \\ A P{ MI.�— Business Address ^(Expiration First Name p� ame Address Business Phone City,state,Zip� Home Phone WorkPhone Other Phone Length of Residency in Lake Elsinore Length of Residency in California ViS.Y " "' 1' a; x � a.. i U' �fi1 *� l:' "1 '� i±•i. t' j"rt t ' F 4,a $, p R�►'� ISi � �}��iIl"?� c ,tiSLst;� ,;`� 'r'-����� s,;,��?x't'�A�r,.t?:, �rrt,a,. Business Name Business Address ^(Expiration City of Lake Elsinore Business License Number Date Business Phone pate Businoss Established r^ r Please List School(s) Attended _ -- ..... .._..... ....... _ Units Completed School's City& State I High School Diploma ❑ Associates G.E.D. Certificate Bachelors jillkyt 7r' �'.4dte '1 Masters PHD Page 2of2 4�,o�iKE�PERI(:'iM1?yC�''��z•y1pt���rJi�lEkttcirrr�irtorl��t`YW���t�at�,"�'�`��' +w�+ard..c;ux ,uat? Vis,;.. nes, „�..�xais„.�..„ Employer �� Anx yu'SC.g�r,„� Ad�dresss,,, I .�/J3,i Positron Held PosrkionHeld Employment Dates: Fro T Employer Address W Phone Positron Held Employment Dates: From To "iqg g" <. ° v�' ..P5 �+ „, Name Address Phone Lu COO, t..A✓✓Pl' Lle,v` G',(rEc ^^ --r— vv}.. \ I � { w / � , �"y, \ � ��usS.vY��m4",tiY�4F1,i. \ T . v$r ; •f .�i.� ��ra� 'S a �,Lhlrt�}�vJ r k Z�h lCo Applicant s Signa ure Date Please mail or hand -deliver this application to 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Faxes will not be accepted. Should you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 951-674-3124 ext. 262. Comm App Rev04/24/09 RECEIVED CITY O F ,.ire.. r211 1 ,AKE LSITA ,r7 ' C DREAM F.,1CTREME O` Y CLERK'S OFFIC Return completer) application to: City of Lake Elsinore City Clerk's Department 130 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 674-3124, Ext. 269 For Official Use Only Date Due: �_. Date Received: Interview Date: Time: Appointed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date Appointed: Commission Applied For: 9 Planning ❑ Public Safety Advisory COMMISSION APPLICATION The City of Lake Elsinore Planning/PSAC Commission's consist of five members who shall not be officials or employees of the City and shall legally reside within the City limits of the City or be the owner of a business that is established and currently licensed inside the City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointed to four year terms, by the City Council. Instructions: Please answer each question completely. This application will be maintained for a period of one year. After one year, it is necessary to file a new application for another year of eligibility. Please be advised that the City Clerk's Department uses Voter Registration information for verification of residency. Note: This application is subject to the Public Records Act and may be released to the public. Applicant Information City Resident( X ) Business Owner Last Name GRAY MI C First Name JOON Home Address City, State, zip L A kE ELS 14 &PE GA 9253 2 Best Phone Number to reach you Email Length of Residency in Lake Elsinore Length in California 19 eNz 5 40 YEAIZ5 Business Information - Please complete the foilowinr� if apptioable, Bu inass Name & Type Business Address City of Lake Elsinore Business License Number Expiration Date Business Phone Date Business Established Education/information Please List School Attended Units Completed City & State Ut4It(EfZSr T'iof Ctr�e-00nfArl _ � GfGJ r�nliFTl O►( B.S. Name _ City & State Degrees or Certificates Attained B.S. ^NiAtiIAGEMaNT Do you have Economic Interests such as Income, Investments, Real or Personal Property or Outstanding Loans which ml ht resent a potential conflict of interest? If yes, please explain. _- --- SEMI -QETI RED Work Ex erience (Beginning with current or last position) Employer —( Address From To JoELW_Ea 6AAY PE516rJ _ Jlj Shro crtwYm+ e -o. znJi r.tP e -A, 2ao7 9R.Ert P5E Position Heald and Duties Performed: -5 PA 4 P-05o2^r fi CITY OF LADE LSII`iOTLE � TM .W DREAM EXTREME � Please slgn and return completed form to: City Clerk's Office 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA. 92530 For Official Use Only Date Due: _ Date Received: Interview Date: Interview Time: Appointed: ❑Yes ❑ No Date Appointed:,,_,_ Term: COMMISSION APPLICATION, Commission Applying For: � Planning ❑ Public Safety Advisory The City of Lake Elsinore Planning/PSA Commissions consist of five members each who shall not be officials or employees of the City and shall legally reside within Lake Elsinore City limits or be the owner of a business that is established and currently licensed inside Lake Elsinore City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointed to four year terms by the City Council. Instructlons: Please answer each question as completely as possible. This application will be maintained for a period of one year. After one - ... year, it is necessary to file a new application for another year of eligibility. Please be advised that this application is subject to the Public Records Ad. (Please We or print using black or blue ink) Your commitment to our City and your willingness to serve your fellow citizens is greatly appreciated. Vance: Ms. Mrs. First: (Please circle that which al,es) -- - ��- MI: Last: C k A—) J Residence Street Address: City. Zip Cado: .7Q Melling Address: -- � -. . City: Stake: Zlp Code: Home phone: ( Entai: Length of Res7detrcy.7n Laka Etsi rra: - tmgth of Res dencyI tcallfortme, Are you a citizen of the United States: Yes R No It no, country of citizens) p: Are you a registered voter: XYes ❑ No If yes, county where you are registered://J�����,,����� _T17VCY:b'IGQ-_ .�.-_.._.. Employer: �Buslness Phone: Employer Street Addres upatlon Title: / 117V Jaz ZIp City; state: Code: Lok,e G" I, I gBUSlMESSYNFORMATf0N Business Name: r( Business Phone: ,() Business Street Address: dit of Lake Elsiriore Buslness License Number: - Expiration Date: Date Business Established and Type of Business: PUcla?13NJ ��� a =.w e'� ;�t z1� '��✓I 'p �l� x ";�:�, w±; e � =a:;.,� y ��„��.?EE�YkTU§��# ;' 6ki�.n t. ?�'4�:: Please List School(s) Attended School's City and State Units Completed ”` �xti^rvk,—.`-- Pploy r: / �°.cs 1L1rS ..\Sa c c Adtl 7k _ r Position Ma7d: 1. Employment atos:n rom p 70 j�dSWOoG sA_��oLwit-1 x..� a'-.. pq _ �xWD +.nl,�'YIiE13@.i7it)!1}{' 4L'jii)'(gSIQtl.S1U(i(� S,�g�iv,� ti "t+ „ 7dii;k7n"`tkRf �aiSnru t�?' " „ �-l.•:. ,r"ts) ..� hs:��.x e£F;. n �e�A:%r'�Jz�^, �„ a =.w e'� ;�t z1� '��✓I 'p �l� x ";�:�, w±; e � =a:;.,� y ��„��.?EE�YkTU§��# ;' 6ki�.n t. ?�'4�:: Employer,Addre s: , �1, NWd To Position S mplo n ant Dates: From .Duties Perlormed:An,. ”` �xti^rvk,—.`-- Pploy r: / �°.cs 1L1rS ..\Sa c c Adtl 7k _ r Position Ma7d: 1. Employment atos:n rom p 70 DutiesPallormo 8 LVtge3, y. Rtyw i , sl"b ^v+: 5a,x4,. _ .'a .K,;..! �2,tL 'e`. tr.�`2`,4!, c�!-_g.' s.iaS.. _.r '� .°�.".°ir> c��+`r' y.•',•'���< Name 1pp J( � Address Phone e a )z..._F..R MM" eP*... '. d. x..� a'-.. �j L�rr,,, .,��,,,, %j�,�, I Ss V_ " 4ji s11..S3�_ �V1. J'l � .�"LrJ Ct.`L <»"k_... 1"o1CL"�_}f 0ralycjj/1tGlt{Y 'L✓�il'`L Q.����i ✓/� s VL<� �41 Yi p(V C c�Z�{r 51�MJ�RI7L337Rti<tl�t�PlcA�Jt� &S�U�i A M7 i1 i}uc�@an�Ueih8�1p>o9 "f3 a t 9 r x ate{ p ! f4£i'ry meta. +x � CA' �.� .�:t7 stkatrve Please note: Appointees will be required to take an Oath of Office and complete and file Statements of Economic Interests if appointed to a position specified in the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Also, appointees are not considered to be City employees for purposes of benefits, such as workers compensation, health insurance, etc. Again, thank you. Your assistance is appreciated. Applicant's Declaration and Signature I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information on this form is true and correct. Signature Date `�rN� �f•�s� ti}tl rz>i � .,rtf}.V � att4*n��z? rs'7{ayrrxs<.,.���5id'';_,,, . [3` Td;"'�'S'Ad, £� �� E,,�� i�;, .�i��"»...`:z,v ette� it �k>� .; ,�t ,'`. is R �°Y FF .iia, 'fff'A 31 a'Sr $x' Rk{ RC3f)Idt Y,7F Ctt d� %fit StiiS A i'•AgN4NF. ( VJF111 s r- a - ? $'Tt�E PJ, 2r.'t S s A w. t• WRR ( 9�Cii ENTl.,Y951N A fOt�l, �'ut i�fz%F?PM EA,t 4+M` H�t���{ 1!${?:=� �t.. �`,ai. ,hrnt. a.a ., 3Y.-A''?,'is. .3 .fir .c ���FZ�?�=.`�r 5,st,.a,�e s`. .xi`r:?f'`T�#�t3i �:, ;•' 'T, ,F/..�� �! -Y-_ �• N..� �.S" G8 Le:'k. � :.r ViCX J_.�.��". �r"ti�.,t'1.0 �._.._iS.ii25c4�� .. L.p -rsy✓t„ �a c+. {� raKt, �-1 iy v'rx C>'c1 t^t.ML��'i�`i- .`�._�..L:.� n..� Please note: Appointees will be required to take an Oath of Office and complete and file Statements of Economic Interests if appointed to a position specified in the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Also, appointees are not considered to be City employees for purposes of benefits, such as workers compensation, health insurance, etc. Again, thank you. Your assistance is appreciated. Applicant's Declaration and Signature I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information on this form is true and correct. Signature Date CITY OF 1- LAKIE 5 ts"Jm -E IDREAM EXTREME CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Return completed application to: City of Lake Elsinore City Clerk's Department 130 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 674-3124, Ext. 269 For Official Use Only Date Due: Date Received: 4 'jtom Interview Date: Time: Appointed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date Appointed: Commisslon Applied For: y5l Planning ❑ Public Safety Advisory COMMISSION APPLICATION The City of Lake Elsinore PlanningrPSAC Commissions consist of five members who shall not be officials or employees of the City and shall legally reside within the City limits of the City or be the owner of a business that is established and currently Ikensed inside the City limits (LEMC Section 2.24.020). Members are appointed to four year terms, by the City Council. Instructions: Please answer each question completely. This application will be maintained for a period of one year After one year, it is necessary to file a new application for another year of eligibility. Please be advised that the City Clerk's Department uses Voter Registration information for verification of residency. No e: This application is subject to the Public Records Act and may be released to the public - _M licant InformationCltyResident_t}V'_ Business Owner Last Names T MID _ First Name�� Home Address ��yy City State; Zip („Ake- F-loiIopg- 1. �i l 612�3U G —. Best Phone Number to reach vou Email Length of Residency in Lake Elsinore Length in California Business Information - Please complete the following If applicable. Business Name tt, Type Business Address - City of Lake Elsinore BusinessLicel7se Number — -Expiration Date Business Phone Y Date Business Established Ed ucationlinformation _-� _--�__.__...__.._____-_.. Please List School Attended --- tlnits Conapieind-��_ �_ NameEe CZICri('Ct�iS� City&State Name -- City & Statto Drees or Certificates Attained --- Do you have Economic Interests such as Income, Investments, Real or Personal Property or Outstanding Loans which mijt ht present a otentlai conflict ofinterestF tf yes. , ptease explain___ Work Experiencepeegnmtngvmthcurrewor last - saiti—) v Employer Address From 70 PosRion Heald and Dudes Performed: Position Held and Dirties Performed: f ce References coat rsstdsnts wno zee uaitfied u":ommmea" our cti a#tttttlsa Name Address Picone n,.rnf ri, n Le rqn n 3 Please Desoribe Community §eN Participation,(lf any) (You may attasb a Separatestraot for additionalinromiation _ �z- E�r Lcz11e_7a sir >r :. (,trdi? AY iY_t tf ._Ir_��r1:tLr?c!ztt= Are you an officer or member of a potleyy-making boardof a non-profit organization whiefi receives funding from the City of take Elsinore? K yes please list all organizations. / Have you ever been convicted of violating any Federal, State, County or Ajlunictpal law, regukrtion or Ordinance, exc__ minor hatfic violations? If yes ass ex tap In. fyj� Y Reasons For interest in Serving on Commission (Younwanact, asaparateateeetturaddttionst tnrorraauon) Please note: Appointees will be required to take an Oath of Office and file a completed Statement of Economic Interests if appointed to a position specified in the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Appointees are not considered to be City employees for purposes of benefits, such as workers compensation and health insurance. Applicant's Declaration and Signature I certify under penalty of perjury laws of the State of California that all Information on this form Is true and coned. ApMaj�t7S Signature Date Planning Commission Application For City of Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Fred D. West — 92530. Phone: year & 5 months and have lived in CA 55 years (54 years Education: M have lived in Lake Elsinore for one Orange County). AA in Surveying, 1968 from Fullerton Jr College, Fullerton, CA. BA in Geography in 1970 from California State University, Fullerton CA. M div in Practical Theology in 1974 from Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, CA. Relevant 1�erlence • Served on the Planning Commissioner in Placentia, CA from 1982 to 1986 (Chairman my last Year). • Worked for the City of Placentia as Director of Social Services from 1974 to 1976. m Worked as a Real Estate agent for Cambio Realty & Investments Inc. and Westline Investments, Inc. both in Fullerton, CA from 1980 to 1988. m Worked as CFO and later as President of the Newcastle Company, Inc. that developed a 92 unit Residential Care facility in Placentia named Bradford Square. This project required a Conditional Use Permit which required me to remove myself from the hearing. This project started in 1984 and was completed in 1987. fast Jobs Include: Foxx Building Maintenance, Orange County Flood Control, Alpha Center, Director of Social Services for the City of Placentia, Associate Pastor for Calvary Church, Personal Growth Resources, Cambio Realty & Investments, Westline Investments, Newcastle Co., Managing Partner for Bradford Square Residential Care facility (a 5 million dollar 92 unit project), Academy Builders, Yellow Jacket, Credit Repair, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Orange County Register, Knox Attorney Services, Kinko's, Mapping Center, Walmart, and Parkhill School District, Cook Brothers Insulation, Inc., Northland House of Prayer & 1159 Ministries. Reasons For Interest in Serving, on Commission • I have served in this capacity in the past in another city and enjoyed the process. o I am a team player who seeks to work together for the common good of the City. My feet have walked the entire city and my eyes have seen where we stand today and where we need to go in the future.