Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0002_11_PA 2021-11 - Exhibit H - Response to Comments Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 1 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-01 This chapter of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) contains responses to the comments that the City of Lake Elsinore (Lead Agency) received on the Public Review IS/ MND for the Lakeside Residential Project during the public review period, which began Friday, November 19, 2021 and ended on Monday, December 20, 2021. This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document, together with the Public Review IS/MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program comprise the Final MND. The following public comments were submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore during the public review period that began November 19, 2021and ended on Monday, December 20, 2021: 1. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (2 pages) 2. Riverside Transit Agency, Received December 1, 2021 (1 page) 3. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Received December 9, 2021 (1 page) 4. Pechanga Tribe, Received December 16, 2021 (1 page) 5. California Highway Patrol, Received December 22, 2021 (1page) The public comments and responses to comments are included in the public record and are available to the Lead Agency decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) Consideration and Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, none of the comments provide substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Further, none of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND for further public review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND. Additionally, none of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received, the City of Lake Elsinore has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 2 of 14 Letter 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (1 of 2 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 3 of 14 Letter 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (2 of 2 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 4 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Comment 1.1: This comment states that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District limits comments/recommendations for such cases to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities and other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system. The comment states that the project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, Line A Water Quality Basin. The comment also states that the District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request from the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. In addition, this comment states that an encroachment permit is required to be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. Response to Comment 1.1: As described on page 15 of the IS/MND, the project includes development of a 1.33-acre vegetated water quality basin to be adjacent to the preserved natural open space area. Additionally, the proposed project would install an onsite drainage system that could convey runoff to the water quality basin. From the water quality basin, runoff would flow to the South Riverside Channel that is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control, and then to Lake Elsinore. Consistent with this comment, the drainage facilities would be constructed to District standards, and an encroachment permit would be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District right of way or facilities. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Comment 1.2: This comment states that the project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. Response to Comment 1.2: As described on page 84 of the IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer pursuant to the NPDES for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). Including this requirement as a PPP, ensures that it would be implemented through verification by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and would be implemented prior to grading. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Comment 1.3: This comment states that if the project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. Response to Comment 1.3: As described on page 86 of the IS/MND, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, shows that the project site not within a floodplain. Thus, no floodplain related studies are necessary for the proposed project. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 5 of 14 Comment 1.4: This comment states that if a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is e xempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Response to Comment 1.4: As described on page 49 of the IS/MND, the project would result in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of Corps and Regional Board Waters of the United States and 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of CDFW non-riparian streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined channel. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require that prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas identified with jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. Thus, the IS/MND is consistent with the recommendation of this comment. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 6 of 14 Letter 2: Riverside County Transit Agency, Received December 1, 2021 (1 of 1 page) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 7 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2: Riverside County Transit Agency Comment 2.1: This comment states that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) currently has an active bus stop (1319) located on Grand Avenue before Riverside Drive. The comment states that the project will provide sidewalk adjacent to the curb. The comment requests verification that Grand Avenue would be widened to include an additional lane, and requests provision of an ADA compliant bus stop. Response to Comment 2.1: As described on page 15 of the IS/MND, the project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage to meet the future roadway buildout of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. This includes provision of two 12-foot-wide north bound lanes and a 6-foot- wide bike lane would be provided at the existing bus stop location on Grand Avenue. The project would also a bus stop at this location with a bus turn out adjacent to bike lane per RTA guidelines. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. Comment 2.2: This comment asks if there will be a traffic signal and/or pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Jamieson Street. Response to Comment 2.2: As described in Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND, signal would not be provided at Jamieson Street as no impacts at the intersection would occur and it is not anticipated to meet signal warrants. A marked pedestrian crossing is not currently proposed due to the median modifications that would occur at this intersection to prohibit left-turn egress from the project site and from Jamieson Street. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 8 of 14 Letter 3: Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Received December 9, 2021 (1 of 1 page) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 9 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 3: Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Comment 3.1: This comment states that the project site is within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people and is also within Rincon’s specific area of Historic interest. The comment states that the IS/MND document has been reviewed and that the Tribe agrees with the proposed mitigation measures, which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. The comment also states that the Rincon Band supports all efforts to completely avoid cultural resources and requests that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans and receive a copy of the final monitoring report. Response to Comment 3.1: This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND. This comment provides information that is consistent with the Cultural Resources Study (Draft IS/MND Appendix C) for the project that describes that the site is located within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory, and the comment provides agreeance with the mitigation measures. Consistent with the comment, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 provides for preservation in place as a means of avoiding any resources that are uncovered during project construction. The City will apprise the Tribe of any changes in project plans, and a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided as part of the Final MND that will be forwarded to the tribe for review, prior to City approval. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 10 of 14 Letter 4: Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, Received December 16, 2021 (1 of 1 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 11 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 4: Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Comment 4.1: This comment asserts concern that the MND has been issued for public review in violation of AB 52. The comment states that the Pechanga Tribe requested consultation on July 30, 2021, and had its initial (and only) consultation on September 16, 2021. The comment states that the Tribe notified the City both in our request for consultation and during our consultation that the project lies within a Traditional Cultural Property, which is a Tribal Cultural Resource under AB 52 and CEQA. The comment asserts that the MND lacks any discussion of the TCRs, and simply adopts mitigation measures, none of which were ever discussed with the Tribe. The comment further asserts that the MND fails to even acknowledge the presence of tribal cultural resources and lacks any discussion of the impacts thereto and states that this is a violation of the law. Further, the comment states that the mitigation measures were never discussed with the Tribe and have not been agreed upon, as demanded by the statute. (See PRC Sections 21080.3.2 and 21082.3). In short, this MND is fatally flawed and fails to comport with even the basic requirements of AB 52 and CEQA. Response to Comment 4.1: The IS/MND has not been issued for public review in violation of state law. AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration. As detailed by the comment, the Tribe and City had an initial consultation on September 16, 2021. The public review of the IS/MND began Friday, November 19, 2021, which is after the commencement of City Tribal consultation. Thus, the City’s tribal consultation process is not in violation of AB 52. In addition, the City has attempted to proceed with consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related materials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response. The MND includes discussion of the potential of the site to include tribal cultural resources, on both pages, 53 and 111 the MND describes that the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and that the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and therefore, may contain tribal cultural resources. Also, page 111 of the IS/MND describes that the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission was positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project. Further, the Cultural Resources Study (Draft IS/MND Appendix C) for the project describes that the site is located within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory. Thus, the MND includes discussion of potential tribal cultural resources and acknowledges the potential presence of resources. To ensure that potential impacts to unknown resources are limited to a less than significant level, the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 were included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. Further, as described in the IS/MND on page 110, AB 52 consultation with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians is ongoing through the IS/MND public review period. Comments related to revisions to the mitigation measures have not yet been received by the tribe through either AB 52 consultation or comments to the public review IS/MND. Overall, the IS/MND evaluation related to tribal cultural resources is compliant with AB 52 and CEQA. Comment 4.2: This comment states that the Tribe informed the City of the Project’s vicinity to the Machado Adobe, a historic resource and that because the project lies within a Traditional Cultural Property, this project would need to be presented to its Tribal Council. The comment states that the Pechanga has had no other notification from the City regarding this project since September 16, 2021, that the City failed to document the tribal information and assess the project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources, and that AB 52 requires these steps be completed before an environmental document may be issued. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 12 of 14 Response to Comment 4.2: The IS/MND provides a discussion regarding the Machado Adobe (Site P-33- 007230) (on page 53) that has been removed through a City approved demolition permit. As detailed on page 53, the Machado Adobe was destroyed in a fire, and prior to its demolition the structure was determined to have no integrity or research value and was determined to not be a significant historical resource. As described in Response to Comment 4.1, the City has attempted to proceed with consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related ma terials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response . Further, AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration, which was done for the proposed project. Thus, the environmental process is in compliance with the requirements of AB 52. Comment 4.3: This comment asserts that and there is no assessment of impacts to the Tribal Cultural Place and that the IS/MND contains deferred mitigation. The comment states that impacts to the tribal cultural resources have not been assessed, and thus, no mitigation measures can be adopted because the City does not even know what is being mitigated. This is another violation of CEQA. Response to Comment 4.3: As described in Response to Comment 4.1, the IS/MND describes that the project site is located within tribal territory and has the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Specifically, pages, 53 and 111 the IS/MND describes that the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and that the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission was positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project site. Therefore, the IS/MND describes that the site has the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Thus, the IS/MND identifies the potential impact to be mitigated and in response, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Comment 4.4: This comment states that the Tribe is engaged in government-to-government consultation with the City as lead agency, and requests that the City pull back the MND from public review. The comment asserts that the document was issued for public review in violation of CEQA and that the City must complete consultation with the Tribe before this document can withstand public review. Response to Comment 4.4: As described in previous responses, the City has attempted to continue and complete the AB 52 tribal consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related materials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response. AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration, which was done for the proposed project. Thus, the environmental process is in compliance with the requirements of AB 52. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 13 of 14 Letter 5: California Highway Patrol, Received December 22, 2021 (1 of 1 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 14 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 5: California Highway Patrol Comment 5.1: This comment states that after reviewing the Lakeside Residential project, and based upon the study which shows a 2% traffic growth yearly in the area, with this project not included, as well as the improvements being made to the roadway, no impact to the Temecula area’s local operations and/or public safety was identified. Response to Comment 5.1: This comment provides concurrence with the findings of the IS/MND. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. Thus, no further response is needed or warranted.