Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item No. 14 - 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of the General Plan Chapter 3.0
City Council Agenda Report City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: TMP 22-359 Agenda Date: 8/23/2022 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1 File Type: Council Public Hearing In Control: City Council / Successor Agency Agenda Number: 14) Planning Application No. 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01: City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) including updates related to the Safety Element and the addition of new Environmental Justice goals, policies and programs. 1.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-01) (SCH NO. 2021080295) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-18 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01); 2.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01; and 3.Authorize the Community Development Director or designee to make non -legislative changes as directed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in such form as approved by the City Attorney, after the HCD ’s review of the Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element or to correct typographical errors. Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 8/19/2022 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jason Simpson, City Manager Prepared by: Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager Date: August 23, 2022 Subject: Planning Application No. 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021- 01: City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) including updates related to the Safety Element and the addition of new Environmental Justice goals, policies, and programs Applicant: City of Lake Elsinore Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-01) (SCH NO. 2021080295) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-18 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01; and 3. Authorize the Community Development Director or designee to make non-legislative changes as directed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in such form as approved by the City Attorney, after the HCD reviews the Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element or to correct clerical errors. Project Location The Project encompasses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence. The City’s planning area (including its sphere of influence) encompasses approximately 72 square miles. Background California Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580-65589) requires all cities and counties to update the Housing Element every eight years to remain relevant and reflect the community’s changing housing needs. The Housing Element is one of eight State mandated PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 7 components of the General Plan. California is now in its sixth cycle, covering a period between 2021 and 2029, and this update will address housing needs within this planning period. Additionally, due to the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65302(g)(3) and 65302 (h)(1), proposed revisions to Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan have been prepared to update the Safety Element components to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones, and to add new environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives. Planning Commission Action On August 16, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the 6th Cycle Housing Element and the proposed amendments to Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan, accepted public oral and written testimony, and unanimously (4-0) vote recommended City Council approval. Housing Element The City Council adopted the 5th cycle (2014-2021) Housing Element on August 27, 2013. Working together and under staff direction, the City’s consultant (MIG) prepared the 6th Cycle Housing Element draft for the 2021-2029 planning period. Commencing in May 2021, the City proactively engaged the community through various avenues, including digital/social media outreach, a community survey, a community workshop, several announcements at City Council and Chamber of Commerce meetings, and direct email to stakeholder groups. The City sent notifications of the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element through social media pages, the City website, and emails to 95 individuals who requested such notification when completing a housing survey online to the stakeholder list (11 homeowners associations) of the Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Public Review Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. At its October 5, 2021, and November 2, 2021 meetings, the Planning Commission considered a draft of the sixth cycle Housing Element. The matter was continued off-calendar for staff and its consultant to continue working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to finalize the draft Housing Element. HCD reviews every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits written findings back to each local government. The Housing Element process is concluded when HCD finds that the City of Lake Elsinore’s adopted Housing Element complies with the State’s Housing Element law. HCD’s review process has been of the original draft Housing Element and revised drafts that were prepared in response to HCD’s October 22, 2021, January 21, 2022, and June 14, 2022, comment letters. Those HCD reviews do not constitute the official determination that the City’s Housing Element complies with the State’s Housing Element law. Upon City Council adoption, the Housing Element will be officially forwarded to HCD for official evaluation. In its official review, HCD could make findings requiring amendments requiring to bring a revised document back for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 7 General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) The City Council adopted the Lake Elsinore General Plan on December 13, 2011. Although there have been several amendments to the General Plan’s Land Use Element contained in Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) since December 2011, there have been no amendments to the balance of the General Plan. The City’s Safety Element is integrated into Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the City’s General Plan. According to California Government Code Section 65302(g)(3), upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, the Safety Element is required to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land located within areas classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by CAL FIRE. With the Housing Element and the Safety Element update, the City is revising two General Plan elements, therefore triggering the requirement outlined in Government Code Section 65302 (h)(2) that the City adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements. In compliance with this Government Code requirement, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 includes a new Environmental Justice Element that is being added to the end of Chapter 3.0. Discussion 2021-2029 Housing Element The Housing Element is an integral component of the City’s General Plan as it addresses current and future housing needs for persons in all economic segment groups within the City. The Housing Element is a tool for decision-makers and the public to understand and meet Lake Elsinore's housing needs. While the law does not require local governments to construct housing to meet identified needs, it does require that the community address housing needs in its discretionary planning actions, such as creating opportunities for housing in the land use plan and facilitating development through policies. To meet this goal, the Housing Element identifies existing vacant areas already designated for residential development by the General Plan Land Use Element and by adopting Specific Plans to provide for the City’s projected housing needs. For the 2021-2029 planning period, the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and programs address housing issues in Lake Elsinore and meet State law housing requirements. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure the development, revitalization, and preservation of a balanced housing inventory to meet the needs of present and future residents. In particular, the City looks to ensure that all residents have decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing regardless of income. The goals, policies, and programs provide the framework for the City’s overall housing program and aim to: • Conserve and improve the condition of the existing housing stock, • Assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households, • Identify adequate sites to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 7 • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, and • Promote equal opportunities for all persons. The draft Housing Element was initially submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review/approval on August 23, 2021. In response to HCD comments, several revised drafts have been submitted to HCD for additional review and comment. The version of the draft Housing Element (Exhibits C and D) being considered by the City Council is the Revised (3rd Revision) Draft dated July 29, 2022, and its appendices. The Housing Element has five main components. Four parts of the element establish existing or baseline conditions and include information such as: Population and housing characteristics (Chapter 2, Community Profile and Housing Needs Assessment), Regulatory constraints to housing development (Chapter 3, Housing Constraints Analysis), Land resources available to meet the City’s identified housing need (Chapter 4, Housing Resources and Sites Inventory), and An evaluation of how well the City implemented the last Housing Element (Chapter 5, Review of 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments). These components build toward the Housing Plan (Chapter 6, Housing Plan), which includes the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementation programs. Projected Housing Need - Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Every jurisdiction in the State must plan for its fair share of the region’s projected housing needs. The RHNA is the number of projected housing units the State has determined are needed to accommodate household growth of all income levels on a regional basis. Southern California is a region with 1.34 million housing units through 2029. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determines the RHNA distribution for all individual jurisdictions within its planning area. RHNA unit counts are distributed by income categories and include allocations within Extremely/Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate income categories. The RHNA identified for the City of Lake Elsinore is 6,681 units. This is the total number of housing units the City must plan to accommodate by 2029. State law requires the City to provide enough suitable sites with appropriate general plan densities and zoning to accommodate the housing needs for all income levels and also requires the City to address housing for special needs groups, including persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, Older Adults (65+ years), large households (5+ members), farmworkers, female-headed households, and people experiencing homelessness. While preparing for the updated Housing Element, staff reviewed all parcels within the City. Chapter 4 of the proposed Housing Element identifies available sites in Lake Elsinore for future housing development and evaluates how these land resources can work toward satisfying future housing needs. The identified sites need to provide sufficient opportunities to meet state- mandated housing goals for the City. The City has surplus capacities in all income level categories to accommodate its RHNA units; therefore, no requirements for zoning or General Plan amendment are triggered. PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 7 For the 2021-2029 period, the City of Lake Elsinore's RHNA allocation is 6,681 housing units, with the following income breakdown: Income Category (AMI = Area Median Income*) RHNA Allocation (Number of Units) Percent of Total Allocation Very Low Income (≤50% of AMI) 1,878 28.1% Low income (>50% to ≤80% of AMI) 1,099 16.4% Moderate income (>80% to ≤120% of AMI) 1,134 17.0% Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI) 2,570 38.5% Total 6,681 100% “Area Median Income (AMI)” means the median household income based on the household size of a geographic area of the State, as annually updated by HCD. *On May 13, 2022, HCD identified Riverside County’s AMI (Area Median Income) for a family of four to be $87,400 New/Revised Housing Element Goals and Programs A summary of the revisions proposed for the Housing Element’s Goals and Programs is included in the attached August 16, 2022, Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit J). Safety Element Update The amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 regarding the Safety Element Update aim to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and minimize injury, loss of life, and property damage resulting from wildland fires. In addition to the Section 65302(g)(3) required revisions, other portions of Chapter 3.0 are being updated to reflect current information and to incorporate policies contained in the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that the Lake Elsinore City Council adopted on September 11, 2018. The proposed Safety Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Government Code Section 65302.5 required that the draft amendment to the Safety Element be submitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection on August 19, 2021. The State Board reviewed the draft amendment on September 21, 2021, and recommended only a correction of the term “fuel-resistant building techniques” in Policy 4.2 (pages 3-21) to “fire-resistant building techniques.” This correction was made. The proposed revisions related to the Safety Element are shown in Exhibit F, Proposed GP Chapter 3.0 Update - with Redlined Changes. (Please note that the page format and numbering in the redlined document are off due to the redlining.) The attached August 16, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit J) includes a summary of those revisions. PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 7 New Environmental Justice Element The objective of the new Environmental Justice Element provisions being added to General Plan Chapter 3.0 is to provide for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins for the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies within Lake Elsinore. Government Code Section 65302 (h)(1) requires that both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities incorporate environmental justice policies into their general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently. According to mapping prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 modeling, several census tracts that are entirely or partially within the City limits are identified as disadvantaged communities. Therefore, concurrent with the above-described Housing Element and Safety Element update, the City is proposing environmental justice goals, policies, and implementation programs as part of Chapter 3.0 of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Environmental Justice Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. A summary of the proposed environmental justice goals, policies, and implementation programs is included in the attached August 16, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit J). Comments Received The City received several comments and written correspondence regarding the proposed Housing Element and the proposed amendment of General Plan Chapter 3.0. The City’s response to these comments is described in the following table. The written correspondence is attached. Commenter Summary of Comment Response Marsha Santos (Email dated August 16, 2021)) Would like to know why there isn’t any affordable housing for Senior Citizens. Housing Element Program 14 (Special Needs Housing) recognizes the need to provide housing opportunities that meet the special housing needs of special needs residents, including the elderly, by prioritizing development projects that include a component for special needs groups in addition to other lower-income households. Mitchell M. Tsai (Letters dated September 15, 2021, and November 23, Represents Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce. These letters do not request specific textual changes to the Housing Element. Therefore, staff is recommending no PA 2021-18 AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 7 2021) Housing Element changes. State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Oral comment made during September 21, 2021 Resource Protection Committee meeting.) Recommended a correction of the term “fuel resistant building techniques” in Policy 4.2 (page 3-21) to “fire-resistant building techniques.” This correction was made. Environmental Determination Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021-01) was prepared for Planning Application 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 to assess potential environmental impacts. No mitigation measures were identified, and items on the environmental checklist were determined to be either “No Impact” or “Less than Significant Impact.” The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2021080295) was made available for public review and comment for a 30-day review period from August 18, 2021, to September 17, 2021. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was published per the provisions of CEQA and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. No comments regarding the IS/MD had been received. Fiscal Impact The cost for preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element has been paid from the City’s Housing fund. Preparation of the amendments to Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan has been paid from the General Fund’s Planning Division budget. Implementation of the Housing Element programs will take place during the period between Housing Element adoption and 2029. The General Plan is a long-term planning document, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice policies and programs will also be implemented over several years. It is expected that the implementation of these policies and programs will not require additional funding beyond those the General Fund’s departmental budgets. Exhibits A – CEQA Resolution B – GPA Resolution C - Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 Period D - Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Appendices E – Proposed General Plan Chapter 3.0 F – Proposed GP Chapter 3.0 Update- with Redlined Changes G – Housing Element – Comments Received H – State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection/Cal Fire Review of Safety Element I – Initial Study/Negative Declaration J – August 16, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-01) (SCH NO. 2021080295) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-18 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01) Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared a Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 period; and Whereas, Government Code Section 65302(g)(3), requires the City to review and update the Safety Element as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and Whereas, Government Code Section 65302 (h)(1) requires the City to incorporate environmental justice policies into its General Plan; and Whereas, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (“Project”) incorporates the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 period and appropriate amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 addressing the Safety Element and the Environmental Justice Element as required by State law; 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, 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, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the Project will have not have potentially significant environmental impacts; and Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 01), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Project; and Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on August 16, 2021, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the ND; and Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the ND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on August 18, 2021, and ending on September 17, 2021; and Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for adopting NDs; and CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 3 Whereas, on October 5 2021, November 2, 2021 and August 16, 2022 at duly noticed Public Hearings the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item and on August 16, 2022 the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council adopt the ND for the Project; and Whereas, on August 23, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the ND. The Council hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. Section 3: The Council hereby finds that the ND for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the ND and finds that the ND represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4: The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the ND are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the ND as proposed. Section 5: The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the ND: 1. The Project avoids the effects to the environment to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project are at less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 6: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Council hereby adopts ND (ER 2021-01) for Planning Application No. 2021-18 (General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01). CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 3 Section 7: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 23rd day of August, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of August 23, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01 Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared a Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 period; and Whereas, Government Code Section 65302(g)(3), requires the City to review and update the Safety Element as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and Whereas, Government Code Section 65302 (h)(1) requires the City to incorporate environmental justice policies into its General Plan; and Whereas, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (“Project”) incorporates the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the period 2021-2029 period and appropriate amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 addressing the Safety Element and the Environmental Justice Element as required by State law; 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 (4) times during any calendar year; and Whereas, GPA No. 2021-01 is part of the City’s First (1st) Cycle amendments to the Lake Elsinore General Plan for the 2022 calendar year; and Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.020 (General Plan Amendments), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to general plan amendments; and Whereas, on October 5 2021, November 2, 2021, and August 16, 2022 at duly noticed Public Hearings, the Commission considered the evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item and adopted a resolution recommending Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01; and Whereas, on August 23, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Council has reviewed and analyzed proposed GPA No. 2021-01 pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code Sec 65000 et. seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP) and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and finds that the proposed GPA No. 2021-01 is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP and the LEMC. CC Reso. No. 2022-___ Page 2 of 3 Section 2: That in accordance with California Planning and Zoning Law, and the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings for the approval of GPA No. 2021-01: 1. The proposed GPA, 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 wit hin the City. a. The proposed GPA has been analyzed relative to its potential to have detrimental effects; to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of affected residents will be protected. b. An objective of the proposed GPA regarding the Safety Element is to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and to minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. c. An objective of the proposed GPA regarding environmental justice is to provide for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies within Lake Elsinore. d. The proposed GPA will not modify the General Plan Land Use designations and will not be injurious to the property or improvements in the City and its Sphere of Influence. 2. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level, or in the case where impacts remain, a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted to justify the merits of project implementation. a. The effects of the proposed GPA have been analyzed in the Negative Declaration (SCH 2021080295) prepared for the Project. No mitigation measures were identified and items on the environmental checklist were determined to be either “No Impact” or “Less than Significant Impact”. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01, plus any additional non-legislative edits made by the Community Development Director or designee as directed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in such form as approved by the City Attorney, after the HCD’s review of the Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element or to correct clerical errors. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 23rd day of August, 2022. CC Reso. No. 2022-___ Page 3 of 3 Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of August 23, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT H - 1 section 6.0 h ousing element 2021 to 2029 lake elsinore general plan City o f Lake Elsinore Revised (3rd Revision) Draft July 29, 2022 City of Lake Elsinore, California 2021 to 2029 Housing Element Prepared by MIG and the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview 1.1 2021-2029 Housing Element Purpose & Organization 1.2 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements 1.4 Public Participation 1.4 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 1.12 2. COMMUNITY PROFILE AND HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2.1 Population and Employment Trends 2.1 Household Characteristics 2.5 Income 2.6 Housing Overpayment 2.7 Housing Stock Characteristics 2.7 Special Housing Needs 2.11 At-Risk Housing Analysis 2.18 Projected Housing Need (RHNA) 2.19 3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS 3.1 Non-governmental Constraints 3.1 Governmental Constraints 3.6 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 3.33 4. HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES INVENTORY 4.1 Housing in Lake Elsinore 4.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 4.2 Progress towards the RHNA 4.3 Residential Sites Inventory 4.4 Financial and Administrative Resources 4.27 5. REVIEW OF 2014-2021 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5.1 6. HOUSING PLAN 6.1 Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 6.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives 6.33 APPENDICES Under Separate Cover Tables and Figures Page Table 1.1: Public Outreach Activities 1.5 Table 2.1: Population Growth and Projected Growth 2.2 Table 2.2: Age 2.3 Table 2.3: Race and Ethnicity 2.3 Table 2.4: Employment by Industry 2.4 Table 2.5: Major Employers, 2018 2.5 Table 2.6: Household Characteristics by Tenure 2.5 Figure 2.1: Median Household Income by Tenure, 2019 2.6 Table 2.7: Housing Stock Characteristics 2.8 Table 2.8: Housing Characteristics by Tenure 2.9 Figure 2.2: Overcrowding 2010-2019 2.9 Table 2.9: Home Sales Prices 2.10 Table 2.10: Rents in Lake Elsinore and Riverside County 2.11 Table 2.11: Special Needs Groups 2.11 Table 2.12: Disability 2.12 Table 2.13: Elderly Residents/Households 2.13 Table 2.14: Large Households 2.14 Table 2.15: Female Headed Households 2.15 Table 2.16: Affordable Housing Developments 2.19 Table 2.17: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029 2.20 Table 3.1: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications in Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA 3.4 Table 3.2: Disposition of Government-Assisted Home Purchase Loan Applications for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA 3.5 Table 3.3: Residential Land Use Designations 3.8 Table 3.4: Residential Development Standards 3.9 Table 3.5: Permitted Uses in Residential Zones 3.10 Table 3.6: Parking Requirements 3.18 Table 3.7: Development and Planning Fees 3.23 Table 3.8: Building Permit Fees 3.24 Table 3.9: Impact Fees 3.25 Table 3.10: Development Review Timeframes 3.27 Table 3.11: Fair Housing Inquiries (2016-2021) 3.35 Table 3.12: 2020 Riverside County Point in Time Count of Unsheltered Adults 3.56 Figure 3.1: Racial Demographics 3.40 Figure 3.2: Population with a Disability 3.41 Figure 3.3: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households 3.42 Figure 3.4: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households 3.43 Figure 3.5: Median Household Income 3.44 Figure 3.6: Population with Incomes Below Poverty Level 3.45 Figure 3.7: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 3.53 Figure 3.8: TCAC Opportunity Areas 3.54 Table 3.12: 2020 Riverside County Point in Time Count of Unsheltered Adults 3.56 Figure 3.9: Overpayment by Homeowners 3.58 Figure 3.10: Overpayment by Renters 3.59 Tables and Figures Page Figure 3.11: Overcrowded Households 3.60 Figure 3.12: CalEnviroScreen 3.0 and Disadvantaged Communities 3.61 Figure 3.13: Renter-Occupied Housing Units 3.65 Figure 3.14: Median Rents 3.66 Figure 3.15: Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Areas 3.71 Table 4.1: RHNA Allocation 2021-2029 4.3 Table 4.2: Approved Projects Affordability Distribution 4.4 Table 4.3: Affordable Housing Developments 4.8 Table 4.4: Specific Plan Affordability Assumptions 4.9 Table 4.5: Affordable Housing Costs by Household Size and Tenure - 2020 4.10 Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans 4.12 Table 4.7: Vacant Land Inventory 4.25 Table 4.8: Sites Inventory Summary 4.29 Figure 4.1: Sites Inventory Map 4.31 Figure 4.2: Sites Inventory Map – HDR and RMU Sites 4.32 Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 5.2 Table 5.2: Summary of 2014-2021 Quantified Objectives and Progress 5.11 Table 6.1: Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives 6.33 This page left intentionally blank. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 1. INTRODUCTION Overview The City of Lake Elsinore is working diligently to remove constraints to housing development and proactively encouraging and facilitating development of both market-rate and affordable housing. The City has a strong commitment to implementing a vision that embraces new opportunities, supports housing development, and provides diverse housing options. Realizing that new challenges to providing housing opportunities have emerged, in 2020 the City initiated a General Plan update to examine and address constraints to residential development opportunities. In addition, a strategic approach to the City’s future economic and physical development was undertaken with “Dream Extreme 2040”, a comprehensive long-term vision plan adopted in July 2020. The Dream Extreme 2040 Plan provides the framework to guide decision making over the next twenty (20) years by identifying key Anchors, Aspirations, and Strategies. The City will prioritize attracting residential development through strategies such as acquiring and redeveloping tax-delinquent properties and encouraging the consolidation of parcels, and by focusing on parcel assembly to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. This Housing Element provides the City of Lake Elsinore with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all community residents. The Housing Element is a mandatory General Plan element. It identifies ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. State law requires that all cities adopt a Housing Element and describes in detail the necessary contents of the Housing Element. California planning law provides more detailed requirements for the Housing Element than for any other General Plan element. This Housing 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.2 Element responds to those requirements and responds specifically to conditions and policy directives unique to Lake Elsinore. The California Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s main housing goal. Recognizing the important part that local planning programs play in pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive General Plans. Rules regarding Housing Elements are found in the California Government Code Sections 65580-65589. Unlike the other mandatory general plan elements, the housing element is required to be updated regularly. It is also subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review and approval by a State agency — HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development). The revision process must include community input. Section 65581 of the California Government Code reflects the legislative intent for mandating that each city and county prepare a Housing Element: 1. To ensure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal. 2. To ensure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goals. 3. To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. 4. To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments to address regional housing needs. 2021-2029 Housing Element Purpose & Organization The Housing Element covers the planning period of October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029 and identifies strategies and programs to: 1) encourage the development of a variety of housing opportunities; 2) provide housing opportunities for persons of lower and moderate incomes; 3) preserve the quality of the existing housing stock in Lake Elsinore; 4) minimize governmental constraints; and 5) promote equal housing opportunities for all residents. Toward these ends, the Housing Element consists of: • An introduction of the scope and purpose of the Housing Element, including a description of the public input process. • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends including: o An analysis of population and employment trends. o An analysis of household characteristics including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.3 o An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of older adults; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. o An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. • A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing, and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis must also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the City from meeting its share of the regional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph. The analysis must also address nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, and local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. All housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must include an assessment of fair housing practices, an analysis of the relationship between available sites and areas of high or low resources, and concrete actions in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing. • An evaluation of land, administrative, and financial resources available to address the housing goals. The evaluation includes an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. • A review of past accomplishments under the previous Housing Element including effectiveness of the Element, progress in program implementation, continued appropriateness of the housing programs, and how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. • A Housing Plan to address the identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs. To make adequate provision for the housing needs of people all income levels, the City must, at a minimum, identify programs that do all the following: o Identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards and services to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing needs for each income level. o Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. o Address and, where possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for people at all income levels, as well as housing for people with disabilities. o Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable-housing stock. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.4 o Preserve assisted housing developments at-risk of conversion to market-rate. o Promote equal housing opportunities for all people, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. The Housing Element is also closely related to the City’s Zoning regulations and assesses multiple ordinances and Zoning Regulations sections that pertain to housing for compliance with State law. As new ordinances are considered, the City will review the Housing Element to ensure compliance with housing policies. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements State law requires that the General Plan and all individual elements collectively form an "integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies." The goals, policies, and programs of this Housing Element are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs contained in other elements of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. When any element of the General Plan is amended, the City will review the Housing Element and if necessary, prepare an amendment to ensure continued consistency among elements. Several new laws require additional General Plan update requirements upon revision of the Housing Element. The City is concurrently undertaking a focused General Plan update to address safety and environmental justice policies. As such, information on flood hazard, flood management, fire hazards, evacuation routes, wildfire hazard and risk reduction, and climate adaptation will be up to date. Consistent with State law, the City will initiate a review of the entire General Plan, especially land-use provisions after any subsequent amendment to the Housing Element or other General Plan elements to ensure internal consistency is maintained. Public Participation The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the Lake Elsinore community; therefore, public participation plays a role in the development of this Element. Section 65583(c)(6)(B) of the Government Code states: “The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” This process not only includes residents of the community, but also coordinates participation among local agencies and housing groups, community organizations, and housing sponsors. From May 2021 to adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City of Lake Elsinore proactively engaged the community through a variety of avenues including digital/social media outreach, a community survey, a community workshop, and direct email to stakeholder groups. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the City’s outreach activities followed by a detailed summary of the community survey and workshop. Outreach activities were intended to reach a broad audience, promoting language access and consulting with relevant organizations. The Housing Plan (Chapter 6) reflects the values and preferences of the Lake Elsinore community. Through a series of public outreach efforts summarized below, the City obtained input from residents of the community, local agencies and housing groups, and community organizations. Several themes emerged that the City has addressed in this Housing Element. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.5 When asked to indicate the importance of potential housing-related actions or programs in the City’s Housing Element survey, the following priorities emerged: • Establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers; • Programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default; and • Encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods. Comments from the community workshop and public review of the Draft Housing Element include: • Addressing the impact on services and infrastructure from future residential development (schools, roads, infrastructure); • Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to address housing need including overcrowding; • The need for senior housing, affordable housing; and • More strategies to encourage development in Downtown. The comments have been folded into the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) through programs that facilitate development of new housing, including housing for lower-income residents and residents with special needs, and programs to help existing residents with housing rehabilitation and rental assistance and future residents by supporting regional homeownership programs. Table 1.1: Public Outreach Activities Date Outreach Effort/Event May 12, 2021 City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element project and community survey was introduced at the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Hump Day Morning Mixer. May 11, 2021 A dedicated webpage for the Housing Element updated entitled “Let’s Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore” was added to the City’s website at www.lake-elsinore.org/housing. The webpage includes an overview of the Housing Element, the 2021-2029 Housing Element update process, State-mandated goals for the Housing Element, public participation opportunities, and a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). The website included a Spanish translation option. Additionally, advertisements for the City’s Community Survey and workshop were included as was a summary and recording of the June 17, 2021 Community Workshop. A comprehensive summary of survey results was also made available on the website. Six (6) webpage visitors signed up for E-Notifications to receive future information regarding the Housing Element update. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.6 Table 1.1: Public Outreach Activities Date Outreach Effort/Event May 12, 2021 – June 20, 2021 The City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Survey ran from May 12 through the end of the day June 20, 2021 and solicited public input regarding housing issues facing Lake Elsinore and its residents. In total, 340 participants submitted surveys – 227 responded to all 21 questions, and 113 responded to one or more questions but not all 21. The survey was available in English and Spanish. May 12, 2021 – Ongoing The City published weekly Social Media posts on the City Facebook & Instagram pages in both English and Spanish. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 35,784 views. Social media posts summary: • June 17: 3,255 Reached • June 15: 3,645 Reached • June 10: 4,695 Reached • June 4: 3,934 Reached • May 27: 4,657 Reached • May 19: 6,934 Reached • May 12: 8,664 Reached May 12, 2021 – Ongoing In addition to dedicated posts, the City also published Social Media Story Posts on Facebook & Instagram in English and Spanish. While dedicated social media posts can remain on asocial media platform indefinitely, story posts are collection of images and short videos that disappears after 24 hours. The City’s 44 posts are estimated to have reached 71,752 accounts and included interactions with 349 users (through responses or comments). The City uses story posts to ask questions related to housing needs. A summary of these responses is included in the following section of this Chapter. May 25, 2021 At a meeting of the Lake Elsinore City Council, Councilmember Steve Manos encouraged community members to participate in the Housing Element Update process by attending the Housing Element workshop and by taking the Housing Element survey. May 25, 2021 – June 6, 2021 The City displayed advertisements for the Housing Element Workshop on a digital billboard located at the Outlets at Lake Elsinore commercial center located along I-15. May 25, 2021 – June 20, 2021 The City displayed advertisements for the Housing Element Workshop on digital billboards located near the Lake Elsinore Storm Baseball Stadium and the Lake Elsinore Casino both of which are located along I-15. June 8, 2021 An event was posted on the City’s Facebook page advertising the Housing Element Workshop and included comments about the upcoming event by Lake Elsinore City Councilmember Steve Manos. At the meeting of the Lake Elsinore City Council, the public was reminded to participate in in the Housing Element Update process by attending the Housing Element workshop and by taking the Housing Element survey. June 9, 2021 A presentation about the City’s update of the Housing Element was presented at the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Hump Day Morning Mixer. June 10, 2021 Invitations to the Housing Element workshop “Let’s Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore” were distributed via email to stakeholders, including housing developers, Homeowner Associations, community groups including those working with special needs residents and the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce. The Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce also distributed flyers twice to its members. June 10, 2021 The City included the upcoming workshop “Let’s Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore” in a weekly email update to City Employees, Public Safety Advisory Commission (PSAC), and members of the Lake Elsinore City Council and Planning Commission. June 17, 2021 "The City conducted the “Let's Talk Housing" Community Workshop. The workshop was offered in English and Spanish. Advanced registration was required and allowed participants to 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.7 Table 1.1: Public Outreach Activities Date Outreach Effort/Event indicate of they needed Spanish language assistance at the workshop. No advanced registrations for Spanish Speaking option were received. July 1, 2021 Following the workshop, the City posted the presentation, video recording, and meeting comment summary on the City’s website. August 16, 2021 The City sent out notifications of the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element through social media pages, the City website, and emails to the stakeholder list and Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Public Review Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City . August 24, 2021 At a meeting of the Lake Elsinore City Council, Councilmember Steve Manos discussed the ongoing Housing Element update in a segment during City Council comments entitled “Let’s Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore” and encouraged community members to participate in the Housing Element Update process by providing feedback on the draft Housing Element. The segment included information concerning the deadline to submit comments and that the draft Housing Element was available at www.lake-elsinore.org/housing. September 14, 2021 At a meeting of the Lake Elsinore City Council, Councilmember Steve Manos discussed the ongoing Housing Element update in a segment during City Council comments entitled “Let’s Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore” and encouraged community members to participate in the Housing Element Update process by providing feedback on the draft Housing Element. The segment included information concerning the deadline to submit comments and that the draft Housing Element was available at www.lake-elsinore.org/housing. October 5, 2021 The City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the draft Housing Element and received written and public testimony regarding the draft Housing Element. November 15, 2021 The City sent out notifications of the release of the Revised Draft Housing Element (2021- 2029) which incorporate comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through social media pages, the City website, and emails to the stakeholder list and Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Revised Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. The City published several Social Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 3,762 views. April 5, 2022 The City sent out notifications of the release of the Second Revised Draft Housing Element (2021-2029) which incorporate additional comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through social media pages, the City website, and emails to 53 stakeholders and 93 contacts from the City’s Housing Element survey. The City published several Social Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 3,380 views on each of the pages (Facebook and Instagram). The City made the document available for seven days prior to resubmittal to HCD. August 5, 2022 The City posted on its website and sent out notifications of the release of the Third Revised Draft Housing Element (2021-2029) which incorporate additional comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Notice was provided through social media pages, the City website, and emails to 53 stakeholders and 93 contacts from the City’s Housing Element survey. The City published several Social Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. The City made the document available for seven days prior to adoption hearings. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.8 Housing Element Survey In May 2021, the City made available a Housing Element survey to gather input from the Lake Elsinore community including residents, key local stakeholders, and housing advocates. The survey was available May 12, 2021 through the end of the day June 20, 2021 in both English and Spanish. In total, 340 participants submitted surveys – 227 responded to all 21 questions, and 113 responded to one or more questions but not all 21. The survey was available in English and Spanish. The City advertised survey availability via their social media pages, City website, and at meetings of the Lake Elsinore City Council and the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce. Social media data shows that over 35,784 members of the City’s social media pages viewed the City’s bilingual advertisements for the survey. Key Survey Findings Among survey respondents, most (63.4 percent) are homeowners and over three-quarters of respondents live in a detached single-family home. When asked about their satisfaction with their housing situations, 64.3 percent indicated they are satisfied with their current housing situation and 43.2 percent rated the physical condition of the dwelling they live in as excellent. Respondents say they chose to live in Lake Elsinore because of the cost of housing (63.9 percent), close distance to family and friends (26.4 percent), and the quality of housing (22.5 percent). For those who do not currently own a home the primary issue to finding a home is the ability to find a home in their target price range (33.9 percent). Over half of respondents noted that focusing new housing near downtown, creating walkable neighborhoods was a particularly important action for Lake Elsinore. Additional key findings include: Housing Cost: Over 44 percent of respondents indicated that the cost of housing in Lake Elsinore prevents children from being able to stay/own homes when they grow up. Close to 34 percent of respondents wishing to own a home in Lake Elsinore indicated that they cannot find a home in their target price range and 18 percent indicated that they do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment. When identifying the types of housing needed in Lake Elsinore, the 4th most frequent response was “affordable or workforce housing”. When asked to indicate the importance of potential housing -related actions or programs, establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers and programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default were in the top three housing actions identified as especially important. Housing needs: Respondents were asked to rank their top choices in order of importance, of the types of housing needed in Lake Elsinore. The most frequent responses are detached, single-family homes, condominiums/townhomes, and larger lot, rural estate homes. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.9 Housing maintenance: While over 43.2 percent of respondents indicate that the physical condition of their home was excellent , more than a third (34.8 percent) indicated that their home shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) and 13.2 percent indicated that their home needs one or more major upgrades (i.e., new plumbing, new electrical, new foundation, etc.). When asked to indicate the importance of potential housing -related actions or programs, encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods was the top housing action identified as especially important. Future housing-related actions: Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of potential housing - related actions or programs. Encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods, establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers, and programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default were the top three housing actions identified as especially important. Future Housing: Respondents ranked their top choices in order of importance, with 1 being the most important. The top response was that new housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Lake Elsinore. When the responses are weighted (4 points for a 1 response, 3 points for a 2 response, and so on…) the top answers were locations where new housing will have the least impact on traffic and that new housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the City. A detailed summary of the survey results is included in Appendix A of this Housing Element. Housing Element Workshop On June 17, 2021, the City conducted a workshop prior to submitting the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to discuss the Draft Housing Element. Because some Covid-19 pandemic public gathering limitations were still in place, the meeting was made available through teleconferencing. To ensure that the housing concerns of low- and moderate-income and special needs residents were addressed, the City notified agencies and organizations that serve these communities in Lake Elsinore and surrounding areas. Stakeholder organizations servings families, youth, seniors, persons experiencing homelessness, veterans, and persons with disabilities are included in the stakeholder list. The list of agencies and organizations invited to the study 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.10 session (and notified of the availability of the draft Housing Element for comment) are listed in Appendix A. In addition to this list, 934 commercial business license holders were also sent workshop invitations. Following the workshop, a summary of workshop comments was posted on the City’s website along with the workshop video recording and presentations. Key Workshop Findings Twenty-three community members attended the workshop in addition to various City staff members. Several themes emerged from the comments and questions received: • Participants shared a concern about the impact on services and infrastructure from future residential development (e.g., schools, roads, and infrastructure). • Participants expressed interest in Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development as a housing opportunity that can help address housing needs such as overcrowding. • Participants expressed the need for more senior housing. • Participants expressed a desire for additional strategies to encourage development in Downtown. • One participant asked the City to require or encourage the use of local skilled labor for new housing development activity. Workshop Comment Summary: Public Review of Housing Element Further opportunities for public participation were provided when the Draft Housing Element was made available on the City’s website for review and comment. Local stakeholders such as housing developers, service providers, neighboring jurisdictions, and housing advocates were invited to review and comment on the 2021-2029 Housing Element Public Review Draft. The City sent out notifications of the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element through social media pages, the City website, and emails to the stakeholder list and Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Public Review Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. The initial review period was from August 16 to September 13, 2021 with additional opportunities for public participation to be provided at Planning Commission and City Council adoption hearings expected to occur in late 2021 and early 2022. Comments received during the public hearings will be incorporated into the adopted Housing Element. Comments on the initial Draft Housing Element included: 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.11 • The lack of affordable housing and affordable housing options for residents on fixed incomes. During the HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) review process which spanned from August 23 to October 22, 2021, the public was encouraged to continue to provide feedback on the Element. In addition to information on the City website, at several meetings of the Lake Elsinore City Council, Councilmembers discussed the ongoing Housing Element update and encouraged community members to participate in the Housing Element Update process by providing feedback on the Draft Housing Element. On November 24, 2021, a revised draft of the Housing Element was resubmitted to HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) with revisions which addressed HCD’s findings letter from October 22, 2021. The findings letter identified findings related to the need for additional analysis in various parts of the Element. The findings letter from October 22, 2021 and a table summarizing HCD findings and the City’s responses/revisions to each comment is included in Appendix A. For ten days prior to submittal, the Element revisions were made available to the public for comment and input. The stakeholder list was emailed a notice of the availability of the proposed revisions. During the second HCD review period which ran from November 15, 2021 to November 24, 2022, the community was able to review and comment on the Element. The review period continued during the 2nd review period for HCD (60 days from mid- November 2021 to mid-January 2021). As of November 24, 2021, no comments were received. On April 4, 2022, a second revised draft of the Housing Element was made available to the public for comment and input. The revisions addressed HCD’s findings letter from October 22, 2021. The City sent out notifications of the release of the Second Revised Draft Housing Element (2021-2029) through social media pages, the City dedicated Housing Element website, and email notifications to 53 stakeholders and 93 contacts from the City’s Housing Element survey. The City published several Social 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.12 Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 3,380 views on each of the pages (Facebook and Instagram). The City made the document available for seven days prior to resubmittal to HCD. The following comments were received via the City’s social media pages: • “The simple idea of more housing sounds insane. The roads are packed everyday. Let's bring more manufacturing companies or other business to increase local employment.” • “I don’t understand how California doesn't have enough electricity and water but they continue to still build homes.” • “Stop building houses! Our roads cannot handle the increase in traffic! Let infrastructure catch up!” • “I agree we need some sort of commitment to widening lake/grand to 3 lanes each direction. The same with all of 74 with a spur from Nichols to 74 further East. The state is making incredible revenue off the toll system and it’s time they take action on widening the 15 and putting a connecting spur from 91xps to 241xps to end the constant collisions in gypsum cyn. Additionally it might be worth exploring a tunnel from 15 to 241 under the Cleveland National Forest.” • “How about giving incentive to people who want to build their own home and not to the big developers who only in return create Mello Roos and Home Associates cost.” • “What does it matter? When you let commercial warehousing corps buy land around housing?” • “Vons. Walmart. Cocos. Sizzler.?” • “Maybe another highway or expansion of the existing highways.” • “Our community has grown exponentially. Definitely a University for our hard working students” • “Yes, more schools and a community college and a university for our students.” • “Along with the housing , have you taken into consideration ADDITIONAL school’s?????” • “nope! That would take planning which Elsinore can’t seem to do.” • “the "city" does not *directly* make decisions on new schools. May I suggest that you go to: https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us/ There is a schedule for school board meetings there.” Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) State law requires that the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element includes a diligent effort to include public participation from all economic segments of the community. A diligent effort means going beyond simply giving the public an opportunity to provide input and should be proactively and broadly conducted through a variety of methods to assure access and participation. As part of the Housing Element update, the City of Lake Elsinore engaged the community through a variety of avenues including digital/social media outreach, a community survey, community workshops, and direct email to stakeholder groups. To ensure all residents regardless of language spoken were included, meeting advertisements, flyers, and surveys were available in Spanish. During the preparation of the housing element the City exercised a diligent effort to include public participation from all economic segments of the community. Through direct contact via email and through electronic means such as a dedicated webpage and social media sites, the City proactively and broadly conducted through a variety of methods to assure access and participation. Outreach for the workshop 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.13 was conducted in English and Spanish using flyers, social media posts, direct mail to a stakeholder list and to an email list. Notification of the workshop were sent to residents, local businesses, stakeholders, and the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce members. Information was posted on the General Plan/Housing Element website. Social media posts related to the Housing Element outreach program reached over 35,000 persons. To expand interest from the community, the City posted “stories” which are collection of images and short videos that disappears after 24 hours. The City’s 44 posts are estimated to have reached 71,752 accounts and included interactions with 349 users (through responses or comments). The City used story posts to ask questions related to housing needs. The City also displayed advertisements for the Housing Element Workshop on digital billboards located near the Lake Elsinore Storm Baseball Stadium and the Lake Elsinore Casino both of which have very high visibility due to their location along I-15. The City’s “Let's Talk Housing" Community Workshop was offered in English and Spanish. Advanced registration was required and allowed participants to indicate of they needed Spanish language assistance at the workshop. To ensure that the housing concerns of low- and moderate-income and special needs residents were addressed, the City notified agencies and organizations that serve these communities in Lake Elsinore and surrounding areas. Stakeholder organizations servings families, youth, seniors, persons experiencing homelessness, veterans, and persons with disabilities are included in the stakeholder list. The list of agencies and organizations invited to the study session (and notified of the availability of the draft Housing Element for comment) are listed in Appendix A. In addition to this list, 934 commercial business license holders were also sent workshop invitations. Making the outreach process and material accessible to Spanish speakers was a priority. Outreach for the workshops and the survey was conducted in English and Spanish. To affirmatively further fair housing, State guidance indicates: Outreach plans should consider geographic barriers to participation and should plan to hold in-person meetings in various locations to ensure residents from across the jurisdiction can participate. • The Draft Housing Element was drafted during 2020 and 2021 and Covid-19 pandemic public gathering limitations were still in place. As a result, the outreach meetings were conducted through teleconferencing. Meetings should be held outside of work hours, including on evenings and weekends, to facilitate participation. • Both public workshops were conducted in the evening. The survey was available from May 12 to June 20, 2021 which allowed for access during a variety of days and times. Drafts of the housing element should be made available to the public for review and comment with ample time before submission to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 1.14 • The City sent out notifications of the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element through social media pages, the City website, and emails to the stakeholder list and Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Public Review Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. The initial review period was from August 16 to September 13, 2021. • The City sent out notifications of the release of the Revised Draft Housing Element (2021-2029) which incorporate comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through social media pages, the City website, and emails to the stakeholder list and Chamber of Commerce. For ten days prior to submittal of the revised element to HCD, Housing Element revisions were made available to the public for comment and input. • The notification included a link to the Revised Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. The City published several Social Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 3,762 views. The community was notified of the opportunity to comment on the Draft through posts on the City’s dedicated Housing Element webpage and via social media. • On April 4, 2022, a second revised draft of the Housing Element was made available to the public for comment and input. The City sent out notifications of the release of the Second Revised Draft Housing Element (2021-2029) which incorporate additional comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through social media pages, the City website, and emails to 53 stakeholders and 93 contacts from the City’s Housing Element survey. The City published several Social Media posts on the City Facebook and Instagram pages. Posts were published over eight days and garnered a total of 3,380 views on each of the pages (Facebook and Instagram). The City made the document available for seven days prior to resubmittal to HCD. In-person and electronic options for participation should also be made available. • The Draft Housing Element was drafted during 2020 and 2021 and Covid-19 pandemic public gathering limitations were still in place. As a result, the outreach meetings were conducted through teleconferencing. Electronic options were provided to the community to provide input on the Draft Housing Element and participation in the survey. The City will continue to employ a wide variety of media and methods to notify the public of important housing decisions and opportunities to provide input. Program 25 in the Housing Plan includes an action item to ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. The City will promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process by recruiting residents or distributing information on participation opportunities to residents in areas of concentrated poverty to serve on boards, committees, task forces and other local government decision-making bodies. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 2. COMMUNITY PROFILE AND HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT To best understand the types of housing that will be needed to meet future demand, Housing Element law (California Government Code Section 65583(a)(1) and 65583(a)(2)) requires that this Housing Element assess population demographics and economic characteristics. Characteristics such as age, ethnicity, and employment influence the type and cost of housing needed or in high demand. Tracking changes in the demographics can also help City leaders better respond to or anticipate changing housing demand. The identified demographic patterns and trends will serve as the basis for crafting the City’s housing policies and programs. This chapter uses data from various sources and with differing methodologies and timeframes. Totals may vary between data sources but the intent of including the data is to show overall proportions, trends, and change over time. In preparing the Community Profile and Housing Needs Assessment, various sources of information are consulted. The 2010 Census and 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) provides the basis for population and household characteristics. Several sources are used to provide reliable updates to the 2010 Census, including the following: • State of California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates (2011 to 2020); • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (2012-2016); • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Demographics and Growth Forecast 2020; and • CoreLogic California Home Sales Activity by City, August 2020. Population and Employment Trends Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section summarizes changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition of Lake Elsinore. PAGE – 2.2 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Current Population and Population Growth Between 2010 and 2020, as reported by the U.S. Census, the population of Lake Elsinore grew approximately 24 percent, from 51,821 to 64,037 residents. Compared with the County of Riverside as a whole, the 24 percent increase is three times that of the County. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts predict a steady increase in population through 2045. As shown in Table 2.1, from 2020 to 2045, SCAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 74 percent, while countywide population is expected to increase by 36 percent. The SCAG population projections for 2045 are lower than the build out estimate for the 2011 General Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore 2011 General Plan estimated that if land uses were built out fully according to the land use plan, the population within the incorporated areas only was projected to be 209,756 by 2030. Table 2.1: Population Growth and Projected Growth 2010 2020 2045 % Change 2010-2020 % Change 2020-2045 Lake Elsinore 51,821 64,037 111,600 24% 74% Riverside County 2,203,332 2,383,286 3,252,000 8% 36% Source: US Census Bureau 2010; CA Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2019 and 2020; SCAG Demographics and Growth Forecast, 2020. In addition to population projections, several other demographic characteristics and trends define housing needs. Among these characteristics are age composition, racial and ethnic composition, and employment. Age Population age distribution serves as an important indicator of housing needs because housing needs and preferences change as individuals or households grow older. Young families tend to focus more on cost and the ability to become first-time homebuyers. Table 2.2 shows the age distribution of Lake Elsinore residents. In 2019, the 20-44 age group constituted the largest age group at approximately 37 percent, followed by the 0-19 age group at 35 percent. Compared with 2010, the older age categories (45+ years) increased while the 0-to-44-year age groups decreased slightly, and the median age increased. These changes show that the City’s population is getting older, a trend seen nationwide. The City’s population, however, is younger compared with the population in Riverside County. The median age in the City is 30.6 years while the median age in the County is 35.6. Overall, the large proportion of working adults and school-age children and the small senior population means that demand will likely continue to grow for larger units for families. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.3 Table 2.2: Age Age 2010 Lake Elsinore 2019 Lake Elsinore Riverside County 0-19 years 18,152 (37%) 22,858 (35%) 28% 20-44 years 18,808 (39%) 24,249 (37%) 34% 45-64 years 9,459 (19%) 13,496 (21%) 24% 65+ years 2,225 (5%) 4,764 (7%) 14% Median Age 28.3 30.6 35.6 Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates Race and Ethnicity Table 2.3 shows the racial/ethnic distribution of population in Lake Elsinore. White non-Hispanic and Hispanic residents make up most of the population. Since 2010, the City has become more ethnically diverse with an increase in the proportion of Hispanic and Black residents. Compared with the County of Riverside, the City has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents and a lower percentage of white, non- Hispanic residents. In Lake Elsinore, more than half (53 percent) of residents identify as Hispanic, while 49 percent of the County population does the same. Table 2.3: Race and Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity 2010 Lake Elsinore 2019 Lake Elsinore Riverside County White (non-Hispanic) 19,604 (38%) 20,568 (31%) 35% Hispanic 25,073 (48%) 34,716 (53%) 49% Black 2,488 (5%) 3,921 (6%) 6% American Indian and Alaska Native 190 (0.4%) 168 (0.3%) 0.4% Asian/Pacific Islander 3,039 (6%) 4,040 (6%) 7% Other 1,427(3%) 2,404 (4%) 3% Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates Employment Residents who work within Lake Elsinore are primarily employed in educational services, health care and social assistance, retail trade, and construction. This is consistent with the major employers in the City of Lake Elsinore. Major employers include the Lake Elsinore Unified School District with 2,497 employees, M & M Framing with 500 employees, Stater Bros. with 329 employees, and Lake Elsinore Hotel and Casino with 275 employees. Half of the top ten employers in Lake Elsinore are in the retail sector. Since 2010, there has been a drop in the proportion of residents employed in manufacturing and finance and insurance and real estate. During that same time there was an increase in the proportion of residents employed in educational services, and health care and social assistance and in construction. Employment characteristics are important as they have a direct relationship with income. In 2019 the median earnings for civilian employed Lake Elsinore residents (age 16 years and over) over in the labor PAGE – 2.4 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN force was $34,933. Table 2.4 shows that jobs in industries that employ more than half of Lake Elsinore residents (educational services/health care/social assistance, manufacturing, professional services, and construction) pay higher than the median earnings while than those in the retail and arts industries, which employ a quarter of residents, paid incomes lower than the City’s median earnings. Median earnings are per person differ from median household income which is discussed in the next section. According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates from the U.S Census Bureau, there was an estimated 30,998 residents of Lake Elsinore with jobs. This number increased 30 percent from 2010, when 23,896 residents reported having jobs. The increase in the number of residents with jobs in the City from 2010 to 2019 (30 percent) is close to the population increase in the City from 2010 to 2020, which was 24 percent. Table 2.4: Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 2019 Employment Median Earnings Educational services, and health care and social assistance 3,665 (17%) 5,748 (20%) $38,320 Retail trade 2,861 (14%) 3,920 (14%) $26,839 Manufacturing 2,649 (13%) 2,544 (9%) $50,893 Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 2,331 (11%) 3,096 (11%) $37,787 Construction 2,228 (11%) 3,534 (13%) $43,239 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 2,116 (10%) 3,084 (11%) $18,374 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 1,291 (6%) 1,316 (5%) $47,308 Other services, except public administration 1,141 (5%) 1,373(5%) $23,924 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,106 (5%) 1,450(5%) $46,250 Public Administration 718 (3%) 1,037 (4%) $60,903 Wholesale Trade 577 (3%) 525 (2%) $37,656 Information 395 (2%) 550 (2%) $52,396 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 193 (1%) 86 (0.3%) $16,786 Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.5 Table 2.5: Major Employers, 2018 Employer Number of Employees Percent of Employment Lake Elsinore Unified School District 2,497 8.55% M&M Framing 500 1.71% Stater Bros. (3 locations) 329 1.135 Lake Elsinore Hotel and Casino 275 0.94% Costco 265 0.91% Walmart Store 234 0.80% Riverside County – Dept. of Social Services 164 0.56% Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 154 0.53% Target 140 0.48% Home Depot 130 0.45% Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2019 Household Characteristics Household characteristics are summarized in Table 2.6. The number of households in Lake Elsinore has increased by 2,168 households (or 15 percent) since 2010. Owner-occupied households constituted 65 percent of all households in 2020, while households that are renter-occupied constituted 35 percent of all households. This is a similar distribution to 2010, when 66 percent of households were owner-occupied, and 34 percent of households were renter-occupied. Table 2.6: Household Characteristics by Tenure Household Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Number of Households 11,971 (68%) 5,693 (32%) 17,664 Median Household Income $87,393 $39,921 $71,476 Household Income Categories - - - Extremely Low Income (<= 30% AMI) 510 (5.1%) 1,115 (18.3%) 1,625 (10.1%) Very Low Income (>30% to <= 50% AMI) 525 (5.3%) 835 (13.7%) 1,360 (8.5%) Low Income (>50% to <= 80% AMI) 1,490 (15.0%) 1,425 (23.4%) 2,915 (18.2%) Moderate Income (>80 to <=100% AMI) 1,065 (10.7%) 720 (11.8%) 1,785 (11.1%) Above Moderate Income (>100% + AMI) 6,350 (63.9%) 2,005 (32.9%) 8,355 (52.1%) Total number of projected Extremely Low- Income Households (RHNA) N/A N/A 939 Overpayment All Households Overpaying for Housing 3,475 (34.9%) 3,315 (54.3%) 6,790 (42.3%) Lower Income Households Overpaying for Housing 1,660 (65.7%) 2,685 (79.6%) 4,345 (73.6%) Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, CHAS 2012-2016, Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029 PAGE – 2.6 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Income According to the 2019 ACS 5-year estimates from the U.S Census Bureau, the median household income for Lake Elsinore was $71,476, or close to seven percent higher than the County of Riverside median household income of $67,005. Median household income differs by tenure, or whether someone rents or owns the home they live in. While renter-occupied median household income in 2019 was $39,921, the owner-occupied median household income was more than twice that at $87,393. Figure 2.1: Median Household (HH) Income by Tenure, 2019 Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates Census data report that 16.4 percent of residents live in poverty, as defined by federal guidelines. This proportion is higher than the County of Riverside as a whole, where 14.7 percent of residents live in poverty. The proportion of persons or households living in poverty is much higher for Black or Hispanic residents, of which 25.1 percent and 20.0 percent live in poverty, respectively. Additionally, 21.3 percent of residents with a disability and 29.9 percent of female-headed households live in poverty. For housing planning and funding purposes, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the County: • Extremely Low-Income Households earn <= 30% of AMI. • Very Low-Income Households earn >30% to <= 50% of AMI. • Low-Income Households earn >50% to <= 80% of AMI. • Moderate-Income Households earn >80 to <= 120% of AMI (federal data uses <= 100%). • Above Moderate-Income Households earn >120% of AMI (federal data uses >100%). $87,393 $39,921 $71,476 $81,679 $44,850 $67,005 $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Owner HH Renter HH All HH Lake Elsinore Riverside County 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.7 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provide special Census tabulations (developed for HUD) and report household income adjusted for family size and tenure. As shown in Table 2.3, in Lake Elsinore above moderate-income households represent the largest share of all households, and low-income households are the second largest category. According to the 2016 CHAS, 10.1 percent total households in the City were classified as extremely low income (<= 30% AMI), 8.5 percent were classified as very low income (>30% to <= 50% AMI), and 18.2 percent were classified as low income (>50% to <= 80% AMI). Of all households, 63.2 percent had incomes above 80 percent of the median household income. Income differs by tenure. Table 2.3 shows that more renter households are in the lower income categories (<= 80% AMI) compared with owner households. Housing Overpayment State and federal programs define whether a household experiences a housing cost burden as any household spending more than 30 percent of its gross annual income on housing. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care or education. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. In Lake Elsinore, 42.3 percent of all households are overpaying for housing (HUD CHAS data, 2012-2016). This is significantly higher for lower-income households, of which 73.6 percent are overpaying for housing. Tenure is tied to overpayment. For owner-occupied households, 34.9 percent are overpaying for housing, while 54.3 percent of renter-occupied households are overpaying for housing. Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Stock Lake Elsinore was developed as a community of single-family dwelling units and has primarily remained as such. Between 2010 and 2020, new development has mostly been single-family, with 2,559 single- family units built compared to 128 multi-family units built. As part of the Mission Trail and The Cottages at Mission Trail developments, 224 multi-family units were completed in 2021. Single-family structures now make up 81 percent of the City’s housing stock, with multi-family comprising 15 percent and mobile homes and other housing filling out the remaining 4 percent. TENURE IS TIED TO OVERPAYMENT. FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS, 34.9 % ARE OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING, WHILE 54.3% OF RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS ARE OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING. PAGE – 2.8 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN In 2020, there were 18,946 housing units in Lake Elsinore. Since 2010, the housing stock has increased by 2,693 units. Most of the housing stock comprises single-family homes (77 percent), with only 15 percent being multi-family. Multi-family housing is defined as a building that houses more than one family at a time. Apartments, condos, townhouses, duplexes, and quadruplexes are all examples of multifamily housing options. The building can be owned by one person who rents out the units, or each unit can be owned individually. Single-family homes also represent most of the housing stock increase from 2010, with 95 percent of new units being single-family. Table 2.7: Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Characteristic All Households Single-Family Detached Units 14,585 (77%) Single-Family Attached Units 812 (4%) Multi-Family Units 2,816 (15%) Mobile home, other units 733 (4%) Total units 18,946 (100%) Average Household Size 3.58 persons per household Units Needing Replacement/Rehabilitation <10 units Source: 2020 CA DOF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, US Census Bureau 2018 5-year, CoreLogic May 2020 Tenure refers to whether someone rents or owns the home they live in. In Lake Elsinore, most homes are owner-occupied (68 percent) and only 32 percent are renter-occupied. While the tenure distribution in Lake Elsinore has remained relatively consistent since 2010, there was slight increase in the proportion of owner occupied-households (66 percent in 2010) compared to renter-occupied households (34 percent in 2010). Census data also indicate that one percent of owner units and 4.5 percent of rental units are vacant. Four percent is considered to be a healthy vacancy rate – one that permits sufficient choice among a variety of housing units – although a healthy rate can be as low as two percent for ownership units and as high as five to six percent for rental units. A limited vacancy rate is an indication that demand for housing is outpacing supply and usually results in higher housing costs, reducing housing opportunities for lower- income households. 2019 Census data reported that the City of Lake Elsinore had a vacancy rate of six percent, a decrease from the 2010 vacancy rate of nine percent. The low vacancy rates in Lake Elsinore are indicative of the tight housing market that is affecting the region and the nation at large. As the supply of available housing decreases the price and competition for those units increases. The tightening housing market and increase in housing costs is occurring statewide. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.9 Table 2.8: Housing Characteristics by Tenure Housing Characteristic All Households - Owner Households Renter Households All Households Total Housing units 11,971 (68%) 5,693 (32%) 17,664* Vacancy Rate 1.0% 4.5% 6.1% Overcrowded Units 637 (3.8%) 883 (5.3%) 1,520 (9.0%) Note: 2020 CA DOF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates did not include a breakdown of data by tenure. Total housing units is from the US Census Bureau 2018 5-year data. *Housing units by tenure reflect only occupied units Source: 2020 CA DOF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates Overcrowding In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. According to both California and federal standards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). In Lake Elsinore, nine percent of occupied housing units are overcrowded. Overcrowding is more prevalent in rental units where 18 percent are considered overcrowded compared to owner occupied housing where only five percent are considered overcrowded. The rise in housing costs and the limited supply of housing has causes an increase in overcrowded units since 2010 when six percent of units were considered overcrowded. Since 2010, overcrowding in rental units has increased from 13 percent to 18 percent signaling a lack of adequately sized or priced units. Figure 2.2: Overcrowding 2010-2019 Source: US Census Bureau 2010 and 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates 13% 3% 6% 18% 5% 9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Renter HHs Owner HHs All HHs 2010 2019 PAGE – 2.10 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Housing Condition The age and condition of housing stock can be an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Commonly, housing over 30 years of age needs some form of major rehabilitation, such as a new roof, foundation work, plumbing, electrical or other structural or major components. While most of the City’s housing stock is fairly new (13 percent of housing units built in the last 10 years and more than half, or 51 percent, of housing unit built in the last 20 years), a third, or 33 percent, is over 30 years old. This points to a need for housing programs to address the ongoing maintenance of aging properties. Based upon observations and experiences of the Community Development Department, the City estimates that in 2020, fewer than 10 housing units were in severe need of replacement or substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions. City staff refers property owners needing assistance addressing any code enforcement issues or violations to the Lake Elsinore Dream Center, a volunteer-driven organization helping the Lake Elsinore community. In addition, qualified Lake Elsinore homeowners are eligible for two home repair programs through the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA). EDA offers two home repair programs: Home Repair Loan Program (HRLP) and Senior Home Repair Grant (SHRG). The Home Repair Loan Program offers qualified Lake Elsinore homeowners up to $10,000 for home repair services in the form of a deferred loan. The Senior Home Repair Grant program offers up to $6,000 grants to cover the cost of repairs with no loan or payback requirement. Housing Cost High housing costs can price lower-income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. In 2020, the median home price in Lake Elsinore, based information provided by CoreLogic, was $409,750. This was 10.9% higher than the median price in 2019. The median home price in Riverside County as a whole in 2020 was $250 higher than in Lake Elsinore. Home prices in Lake Elsinore differ by geography; in the 92530 ZIP code, the median home price was $381,000, while the median home price was $430,000 in the 92532 ZIP code. Table 2.9: Home Sales Prices Jurisdiction 2019 2020 % Change Lake Elsinore $382,500 $425,250 11.2% Corona $509,000 $530,000 4.1% Murrieta $435,000 $480,000 10.3% Riverside (city) $428,000 $529,000 23.6% Temecula $494,000 $530,000 7.3% Riverside County $390,000 $441,000 13.1% Source: CoreLogic California Home Sales Activity by City, August 2020 According to the U.S. Census 2019 five-year estimates, 32 percent of Lake Elsinore households live in rental housing. Census data show that the average rent in Lake Elsinore is $1,476 per month. Table 2.10 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.11 compares median rents in Lake Elsinore and HUD-determined fair market rents for Riverside County. Fair Market Rent is the rent amount, including utilities (except telephone), to rent privately owned, existing, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. The Fair Market Rent rate established by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be used as a basis for paying federal housing assistance programs like the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Table 2.10 shows that rents in the City generally align with the HUD-determined fair market rents. This indicates that the City is generally considered reasonably affordable. Table 2.10: Rents in Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Year Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Four-Bedroom 2019 Median Rent Lake Elsinore $885 $1,001 $1,238 $1,704 $2,119 FY 2020 FMR Riverside County $875 $1,030 $1,289 $1,789 $2,216 Source: US Census Bureau 2010 and 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, FY2020 Fair Market Rents. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Special Housing Needs Housing Element law requires local governments to include an analysis of housing needs for residents in specific special needs groups and to address resources available to address these needs. Table 2.11 summarizes the number of special needs households. Table 2.11: Special Needs Groups Special Needs Category Count Percent Persons with Disabilities 5,937 persons 9% of residents Persons with Developmental Disabilities 735 persons 1% of residents Older Adults (65+ years) 4,764 persons 2,150 households 7% of residents 12% of households Large Households (5+ members) 4,464 households 25% of households Farmworkers 86 persons 0.3 % of labor force Female Headed Households 3,622 households 21% of households People Experiencing Homelessness 50 persons N/A Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, Riverside County Health Informatics, CA Department of Developmental Services Persons with Disabilities, Including Developmental Disabilities Disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in most cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, most of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and PAGE – 2.12 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units. Table 2.12: Disability Age Category # with a Disability % of Age Group with a Disability 0 to 5 years 46 1% 5 to 17 years 573 4% 18 to 34 years 918 6% 35 to 64 years 2,426 10% 65 to 74 years 804 29% 75+ years 1,170 58% Total 5,937 9% Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates In Lake Elsinore, 5,937 residents (nine percent) are living with a disability, of which 735 or one percent of residents are living with a developmental disability. The 35 to 64 years age group constitutes the group with the largest number of disabilities, with 2,426 but that number constitutes only 10 percent of the age group. As age increases, so does the percentage of residents that have a disability; for residents who are 75 years and over, more than half (58 percent) have a disability and for residents between the age of 65 and 74, 29 percent have a disability. The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) provides community-based services to persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers. The Inland Regional Center serves residents in Lake Elsinore. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local service providers to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. In Lake Elsinore, 735 persons are reported as consumers of the services provided at the local Regional Center. The largest age group of consumers are those ages 0- 17, who represent 54.8 percent of the total consumers, followed by those ages 18 and older, at 45.2 percent of the total consumers. Factors such as affordability and design significantly limit the supply of housing available to households of persons with disabilities. The most obvious housing need for persons with disabilities is housing that is adapted to their needs. Location of housing is also an important factor for many persons with disabilities, as they often rely upon public transportation to travel to necessary services and shops. “Barrier free” housing, accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and group living opportunities are important in serving this group. The City works with applicants who need special accommodations in their homes to ensure that application of building code requirements does not create a constraint. Cities and counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. The City actively provides reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of City zoning and building regulations. In June 2019 the City adopted an amendment to the LEMC (Title 17.415.150 Reasonable Accommodation) formalizing a reasonable accommodation process. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.13 Older Adults (65+ years) Many senior-headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Many people aged 65 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, may be retired and living on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many older adults often makes it difficult for them to find affordable housing. Specific housing needs of the senior population include affordable housing, supportive housing (such as intermediate care facilities), group homes, and other housing that includes a planned service component. In Lake Elsinore, there are 4,764 residents age 65 years and older, representing 7 percent of the City’s population. The City has 2,150 senior households (12 percent of all households) , of which 25 percent are renters and 75 percent homeowners. Fewer senior-headed households live in poverty than households in the City as a whole. For residents 65 years and older, 9 percent live in poverty, which is lower than the 15 percent poverty rate for the City as a whole. A larger proportion of senior households own their home (75 percent) compared to all households in the City who own their home (68 percent). Table 2.13: Older Residents/Households Number Percent Residents Age 65 and over 4,764 7% Age 65 and over with a Disability 1,975 41% Age 65 and over Living in Poverty 4,764 9% Households Senior Households* 2,150 12% Owners 1,616 75% Renters 534 25% * Note: Households where Householder (the person in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented ) is 65 years or older Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates The City provides a range of recreation, education, and assistance programs for seniors (55 years of age or older) through the Lake Elsinore Senior Activity Center. Services include paralegal services, blood pressure clinics, health screenings, C.A.R.E., LIHEAP, FREE notary services, health, and education programs and housing information distribution. The Center also has a Nutrition Program sponsored by Riverside County for residents 60 years and older which provides daily meals for qualifying seniors. Home-delivered FEWER SENIOR-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS LIVE IN POVERTY THAN HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY AS A WHOLE. FOR RESIDENTS 65 YEARS AND OLDER, 9.8 PERCENT LIVE IN POVERTY, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE 16.4 PERCENT POVERTY RATE FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE. PAGE – 2.14 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN meals for housebound seniors are also available. The Riverside County Office on Aging also provides support to family caregivers who are caring for or helping an older relative and can assist in coordinating services to help family members maintain their caregiving roles. The National Family Caregiver Support Program identifies gaps in services and provides Riverside County Office on Aging with a foundation to develop programs, in collaboration with other agencies, to help family caregivers cope with the many demands of caring for relatives. In Lake Elsinore, there is one senior housing development, Parkside Apartments, which provides 37 units of affordable housing. Additional affordable housing would benefit this population since they often have fixed incomes that may not allow for the financial flexibility necessary to acquire suitable housing. In addition to overpayment problems faced by seniors with fixed incomes, many seniors are faced with various disabilities. Smaller, more affordable housing units allow for a greater accommodation of their lifestyles. Program 14 in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) includes an action item to give priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups including older adults, disabled, developmentally disabled, large families, the homeless, farmworkers, and extremely low-income households. Seniors can also receive assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. According to the State of California Community Care Licensing Division, there are ten senior assisted living facilities in Lake Elsinore with a total of 60 beds. Large Households (5+ members) Large households, defined by HCD as households containing five or more persons, have special housing needs due to the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. As unit size increases, so too does housing cost which generally translates to a higher percentage of household income necessary to support the cost of housing. This may lead to overcrowding as large households turn to find smaller, more affordable housing units which may not be large enough to adequately accommodate all household members. Securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of a household is more challenging for renters because multi-family rental units are typically physically smaller than single-family units. Most apartment complexes do not have 4- or 5-bedroom units and as bedroom count increases, the affordability of a housing unit usually decreases. Table 2.14: Large Households Number Percent Large Households 4,464 25% Owners 2990 67% Renters 1,474 33% % Large Families Living in Poverty* 761 19% * Note: Poverty data available only for large families not households. Most large households (89%) in Lake Elsinore are families. Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.15 As shown in Table 2.14, a quarter of all Lake Elsinore households (4,464 households) are considered large households. Most large households own their home. There are 2,990 owner-occupied, large households (67 percent of all large households), and 1,474 renter-occupied, large households (33 percent of all large households). In 2019, 19 percent of large families lived in poverty, a much larger proportion than all families in the City (of which 12 percent lived in poverty). Lower and moderate-income large households can benefit from many of the same programs that benefit other special needs households. In Lake Elsinore there are four affordable housing developments that can accommodate large families including the 113-unit Pottery Court development, the 126-unit Villa Siena Apartments, the 81-unit Mission Trail Apartments, and the 143-unit Cottages at Mission Trail development. Program 14 in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) includes an action item to give priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups including older adults, disabled, developmentally disabled, large families, the homeless, farmworkers, and extremely low-income households. Large households can also receive assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. Farmworkers Due to the high cost of housing and low wages, a significant number of migrant farm workers have difficulty finding affordable, safe, and sanitary housing. In Lake Elsinore, only 86 residents, or 0.3% of the workforce (16 years or older) work in agriculture. Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Lake Elsinore. Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the City, the housing needs of migrant and/or farm workers can be met through general affordable housing programs. The Housing Plan (Chapter 6) includes a various programs aimed at increasing the amount off affordable housing in Lake Elsinore (Programs 6, 7, and 8). Female-Headed Households Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by female-headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. Table 2.15: Female Headed Households Number Percent Female-Headed Households 3,622 21% Female-Headed Households with Own Children 1,229 7% Owners* 1,318 50% Renters* 1,343 50% % Large Families Living in Poverty* 729 27% * Note: Data available only for families not households. Source: US Census Bureau 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates PAGE – 2.16 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN In Lake Elsinore, 3,622 (21 percent) of households are female headed and 1,229 are female headed and have children of their own. Female headed households are evenly split between renters and owners. A larger proportion of female-headed families live in poverty (27 percent) compared to all Lake Elsinore families (12 percent). Female-headed households can benefit from many of the same programs that benefit other special needs households, particularly County programs that provide direct rental assistance or local programs that will facilitate the development of affordable housing. The Housing Plan (Chapter 6) includes various programs aimed at increasing the amount of affordable housing in Lake Elsinore (Programs 6, 7, and 8). The Riverside University Health System-Community Health Centers offer primary and specialty care at 12 Health Centers throughout Riverside County that focus on residents who are uninsured, underinsured, and underserved. One facility is in Lake Elsinore. The Lake Elsinore Family Care Center offers primary care, family planning, perinatal care, cancer screening, adult and pediatric immunizations, tuberculosis skin testing, well childcare and nutrition services. People Experiencing Homelessness Population estimates for people experiencing homelessness are very difficult to quantify. Census information is often unreliable due to the difficulty of efficiently counting a population without permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often the sources for estimating the number of unhoused individuals. The County of Riverside conducts an annual Point-in-Time (PIT) Count that is planned, coordinated, and carried out by county agencies, city municipalities, non-profit service providers, and volunteers, including those experiencing homelessness. The PIT Count serves as the primary source of population data collected countywide on individuals and families who live in places that are not meant for human habitation (e.g., on the streets or in vehicles). In 2020, an estimated 50 unsheltered individuals lived in Lake Elsinore, which is 2.3 percent of the total number of unsheltered individuals in Riverside County. None of the unsheltered individuals were children or families with children; 33 of the unsheltered individuals were male and 17 were female. Since 2017, the City of Lake Elsinore and its Homeless Task Force have taken an aggressive and proactive approach to address homelessness. In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through Project Homekey —a State program to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. The funding was used for purchase costs and renovations to The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing complex owned by the City and operated by Social Work Action Group (SWAG) and serving chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and TO DATE, THE CITY HAS SECURED MORE THAN $4.8 MILLION TOWARD ITS HOMELESS PROGRAMS AND SERVICES INCLUDING STREET OUTREACH, CASE MANAGEMENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT, SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, AND HOUSING. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.17 adjacent unincorporated county areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. Each individual is selected and placed by the City’s Homeless Task Force for up to 90 days. In addition, this grant provided the City with $336,000 toward operating expenses through June 2022. The City was previously awarded a $1.5 million Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funded by the State and awarded by Riverside County’s Continuum of Care. This funding will also be used to provide critical case management and support services at The Anchor. These on-site services will be fully provided by SWAG. The City was also awarded $256,680 in Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) funding from the County of Riverside in December 2020. HHAP funding is designated to support regional coordination and develop local capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges. This funding was secured by the City to cover ongoing operational costs for The Anchor through June 2025. To date, the City has secured more than $4.8 million toward its homeless programs and services including street outreach, case management, law enforcement, supportive services, and housing. Additional resources near Lake Elsinore include the Lake Elsinore Adult Mental Health Clinic operated by the Riverside County Behavioral Health Department and the Dream Center, a volunteer driven organization that helps individuals and families in the Lake Elsinore. The Dream Center operates a variety of projects aimed at assisting persons struggling with homelessness and poverty including the HOPE food pantry. In 2012, the City amended its Zoning Code (Ordinance No. CC-2012-1309) to allow for the development of emergency shelters in the C-M and M-2 zones. Program 22 is included in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) and directs the City to amend its Zoning Regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for transitional and supportive housing, the Supportive Housing Streamlining Act (AB 2162) and AB 101 (Low-Barrier Navigation Centers). Energy Conservation Opportunities Energy-related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing. While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy-related expenses. Policies addressing climate change and energy conservation are integrated into the Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. Primary avenues to address climate change in Lake Elsinore include lowering of transportation emissions through increased bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit travel, and increased efficiency of land use patterns, as well as reducing energy-related emissions by increasing energy efficiency of new and existing buildings, reducing water consumption, and increasing use of renewable energy. Presently, Southern California Edison offers various energy conservation programs. The Energy Savings Assistance Program helps income-qualified customers with free appliances and installation of energy- efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, and more, as well as home efficiency solutions like weatherization. The Home Energy Efficiency Rebate Program offers financial incentives for installing approved energy upgrades. The Multifamily Energy Efficiency Rebate Program offers property owners and managers incentives on a broad list of energy efficiency improvements in lighting, HVAC, insulation, and window PAGE – 2.18 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN categories. These improvements are to be used to retrofit existing multi-family properties of two or more units. Additionally, the Southern California Gas Company offers various rebate programs for energy- efficient appliances and makes energy-efficient kits available to residents at no cost. The Southern California Gas Company also offers no-cost weatherization and furnace repair or replacement services for qualified limited-income customers. At-Risk Housing Analysis State housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government-assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower-income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, mortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.11, the State maintains a list of “Entities Interested in Participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program” at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/docs/HPD-00-01.xlsx. This list includes various entities working in County and several entities interested in properties located in any county. If a development becomes at risk of conversion to market- rate housing, the City will maintain contact with local organizations and housing providers who may have an interest in acquiring at-risk units and will assist other organizations in applying for funding to acquire at-risk units. Based on City records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation, in the next 10 years (2021-2031) no assisted units have expiring affordability covenant. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 2.19 Table 2.16: Affordable Housing Developments Project Name Tenant Type Total Units # of Affordable Units Funding Program Earliest Conversion Date Pottery Court Large Family 113 111 LIHTC; RDA Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Fund 2066 Villa Siena Apartments Large Family 126 124 LIHTC 2052 Lakeview I At-Risk 88 87 LIHTC; HUD; USDA 2065 Lakeview II At-Risk 64 63 LIHTC; HUD; RDA Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund 2065 Mission Trail Apartments Large Family 81 80 LIHTC; Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund; Fund 106 2076 Cottages at Mission Trail Large Family 143 142 LIHTC; Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund; Fund 106 2076 Parkside Apartments Older Adults 37 37 USDA 2037 Lakeside Apartments Family 128 52 Multi-Revenue Housing Bonds 2054 Broadway Machado Apartments Family 28 14 Housing Authority of Riverside County N/A Fairview Apartments Family 16 16 Housing Authority of Riverside County N/A Broadstone Rivers Edge Apartments Family 184 28 Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency Restrictions 2060 Total 1,008 754 Source: California Housing Partnership, City of Lake Elsinore 2020 Projected Housing Need (RHNA) Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. HCD, in conjunction with the SCAG, determine a projected housing need for the region covered by SCAG: the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and Imperial. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 1,341,834 new housing units for the 2021-2029 planning period PAGE – 2.20 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN throughout the SCAG region. SCAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Lake Elsinore has a RHNA of 6,681 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period. The income distribution is as shown in Table 2.17. Table 2.17: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029 Income Group % of County AMI Number of Units Allocated Percent of Total Allocation Very Low1 <= 50% AMI 1,878 28.1% Low >50% to <= 80% AMI 1,099 16.4% Moderate >80 to <= 120% AMI 1,134 17.0% Above Moderate >120% AMI 2,570 38.5% Total --- 6,681 100.0% Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. Therefore, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 1,873 units can be split into 939 extremely low-income and 939 very low-income units. • Extremely Low-Income Households earn <= 30% of AMI. • Very Low-Income Households earn >30% to <= 50% of AMI. • Low-Income Households earn >50% to <= 80% of AMI. • Moderate-Income Households earn >80 to <= 120% of AMI (federal data uses <= 100%). • Above Moderate-Income Households earn >120% of AMI (federal data uses >100%). 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS This section discusses potential constraints on the provision and cost of housing development in Lake Elsinore. The key factors constraining housing development include land availability, the economics of development, and governmental regulations, all of which may impact the cost and amount of housing produced. According to State Housing Element Law, the constraints analysis must demonstrate local efforts to remove barriers to achieving goals for housing production and housing for persons with disabilities. Should constraints preclude the achievement of housing goals, jurisdictions are required to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Where constraints to housing production related to the City’s regulations or land use controls are identified, appropriate programs to mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Plan. Non-governmental Constraints Many factors affecting housing costs are related to the larger housing market. The availability of land, the cost and availability of financing the price of land, and the cost of construction all contribute to the cost of housing and can hinder the production of affordable housing. Additionally, the availability of financing can limit access to homeownership for some low-income households. Development Costs Building materials are a significant cost factor associated with residential building, which can represent a significant portion of the sales price of a home. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. These national data do not consider regional differences, nor do the data include the price of the land upon which the buildings are built. The 2020 national averages for costs per square foot of apartment units and single-family homes are as follows: PAGE – 3.2 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • Type I or II, Multi-family: $167.27 to $147.35 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), Multi-family: $117.40 to $112.76 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), One- and Two-family Dwelling: $130.04 to $122.46 per sq. ft. Another factor related to construction cost is development density. With an increase in the number of units built in a project, overall costs generally decrease as builders can benefit from the economies of scale. This reduction in costs is of particular benefit when density bonuses are utilized for the provision of affordable housing. However, higher density developments that require underground parking or concrete or steel foundation components generally are more costly than wood-frame construction, so higher densities overall do not always equate to lower costs. In Lake Elsinore, where buildings typically are no more than three stories, this is not of concern. The price of land can be the most significant component of housing development costs. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (steep slopes, soil stability, seismic hazards, or flooding) can also be factored into the cost of land. The cost of land in Lake Elsinore and surrounding cities has risen substantially since the 1990s due to a decrease in the availability of vacant or otherwise developable land in the Inland Empire region. Current market volatility may result in lower land prices, although the economic impact of COVID-19 is largely unknown. The high cost of land is a contributing factor to the lack of affordable housing across Southern California. Land Availability and Cost The cost of land directly influences the cost of housing. Land prices are determined by several factors, most important of which are land availability and permitted development density. As land becomes scarcer, the price for land increases. In terms of development density, land prices are positively correlated with the number of units permitted on each lot. Thus, a higher density lot may command a higher price than one designated for lower densities, but upon completion the developer may realize a higher profit margin based on a greater number of units sold. Over the past few decades, vacant residential land sales have increased due to the highly active Southern California housing market. Even in this market environment, there are significant differences in land prices in the region. In general, land prices in Riverside County are more affordable than the pricier Los Angeles and Orange County markets; in fact, the lack of inexpensive residential land in Los Angeles and Orange Counties was a major impetus for the development of the Inland Empire, including Lake Elsinore and western Riverside County. Accordingly, Lake Elsinore, along with other cities within Riverside County, provides more affordable housing for workers commuting to Orange County and Los Angeles County. Although land prices remain a significant cost component of a new home, land prices in Lake Elsinore do not significantly constrain the production of housing relative to surrounding jurisdictions. In fact, the land costs in Lake Elsinore are more conducive to construction than other areas of Riverside County and have contributed to the potential for single-family market rate units to be constructed which are generally affordable to moderate, and in some cases, lower income households. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.3 Labor Costs The California Labor Code applies prevailing wage rates to public works projects exceeding $1,000 in value. Public works projects include construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work performed under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. While the cost differential in prevailing and standard wages varies based on the skill level of the occupation, prevailing wages tend to add to the overall cost of development. For developers pursuing projects using SB35 streamlining provisions, a key requirement is that the developer pay prevailing wages. In other circumstances where no public subsidies or funding is involved, this requirement does not apply. Financing The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home; the cost of borrowing money for residential development is incorporated directly into the sales price or rent. Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and there is virtually nothing a local government can do to affect these rates. Jurisdictions can, however, offer interest rate write-downs to extend home purchasing opportunities to a broader economic segment of the population. In addition, government-insured loan programs are an option available to some households to reduce mortgage requirements. Under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The availability of financing for a home greatly affects a person’s ability to purchase a home or invest in repairs and improvements. As shown in Table 3.1, a total of approximately 48,200 households applied for conventional mortgage loans to purchase homes in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2017, of which Lake Elsinore is a part. The data include purchases of one- to four-unit homes, as well as manufactured homes. More than half of the loan applications were received from households that reported their income as above-moderate income (earning greater than 120 percent of Median Family Income [MFI]). Moderate- income households (80 to 120 percent of MFI) and lower-income households (less than 80 percent MFI) accounted for 21 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Sixty-nine percent of total applications were originated (approved by lenders and accepted by applicants) and 11 percent were denied, with the remaining applications withdrawn, closed for incompleteness, or not accepted by the applicants. Denial rates were lower for the upper-income group. PAGE – 3.4 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.1: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications in Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA Applicant Income Total Applications Percent of Total Originated Denied Number Percent Number Percent Lower- Income (<80% MFI) 6,540 14% 3,800 58% 1,228 19% Moderate-Income (80 to <= 120% MFI) 9,951 21% 6,721 68% 1,101 11% Upper-Income (>120% MFI) 30,525 63% 21,734 71% 2,867 9% Totals 48,209 100% 33,048 69% 5,325 11% Note(s): Totals do not equal the sum of Total Applications due to the unavailability of income data for some applicants. Source(s): Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2016-2017. Government-backed lending represents a significant alternate financing option for Lake Elsinore residents. About 35,900 Riverside/San Bernardino-area households applied for government-backed lending in 2017 (see Table 3.2). Usually, low-income households have a better chance of getting a government-assisted loan than a conventional loan. However, in 2017, the number of applications for conventional loans exceeded that for governmental-assisted loans by approximately 26 percent. The 2019 Analysis of Impediments for Riverside County analyzed the most recent available Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for 2017 and found that the County and Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) have made great strides toward helping low-income and minority purchasers achieve a more level playing field in terms of lending outcomes. In 2017, no low-income minority group had a loan approval rate (purchase, refinance, or home improvement) that was disproportionately lower than that of non-Hispanic White applicants. Through its private and public grant funding sources, FHCRC provided extensive homebuyer education, credit counseling, fair housing counseling, and awareness training to first-time home buyers and homeowners, particularly low-income and very low-income applicants. With respect to steering, there was insufficient publicly available data to support the charge that real estate agents in Riverside County are steering clientele into particular neighborhoods based on protected status. Additionally, HMDA data suggest that at least from a lending perspective, loan approval rates for home purchases were within 10 percentage points when comparing census tracts with high concentrations of minorities as well as for tracts with low concentrations of minorities. Similarly, family income levels for residents of census tracts where loan applicants were applying did not appear to impact lending decisions, as 71 percent of home purchase loans for properties located in low-income census tracts were approved, 77 percent of loans for middle-income tracts were approved, and 75 percent of loans for upper income census tracts were approved. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.5 Table 3.2: Disposition of Government-Assisted Home Purchase Loan Applications for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA Applicant Income Total Applications Percent of Total Originated Denied Number Percent Number Percent Lower-Income (<80% MFI) 6,993 20% 4,525 65% 932 13% Moderate-Income (80 to 120% MFI) 12,362 35% 8,935 72% 1,138 9% Upper-Income (>120% MFI) 16,268 45% 11,998 74% 1,372 8% Totals 35,874 100% 25,573 71% 3,469 10% Note(s): Totals do not equal the sum of Total Applications due to the unavailability of income data for some applicants. Source(s): Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2016-2017. According to a 2017 HUD Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis, the improvement in the sales housing market since 2012 led to a reduction in the rate of seriously delinquent (90 or more days delinquent or in foreclosure) home loans and real estate-owned (REO) properties in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario submarket. As of December 2016, 1.9% of home loans in the HMA were seriously delinquent or had transitioned into REO status, down from 2.4% in December 2015 (CoreLogic, Inc.) and a peak of 18.8 percent in January 2010. The 2017 rate is above the 1.3% rate for California, but below the 2.6% rate for the nation.1 According to RealtyTrac 2, the number of Lake Elsinore homes entering the formal foreclosure process dropped in the second quarter of 2020. This may change considering the current economic uncertainty due to COVID-19. Program 2 enforces the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Ordinance 1252) and encourage owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure to maintain or rehabilitate the properties. Government Code 65583(a)(6) Development Analysis Government Code section 65583(a)(6) requires an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in site inventory, and to describe the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for a building permit. The analysis must also identify local efforts to address nongovernmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdiction’s ability to meet RHNA by income category. The primary non-governmental constraint is the overall cost of affordable housing development (high land and development costs) in most parts of the State. In general, constructing affordable housing, especially 1 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/RiversideCA-comp-17.pdf https://www.huduser.gov/portal/MCCharts/MsasCharts_hc_new.html?msaID=064014,40140&msaName=Riversid e-San%20Bernardino-Ontario,%20CA%20MSA&dt=September%2011,%202020 2 https://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/ca/riverside-county/lake-elsinore/ PAGE – 3.6 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN for low- and very low-income households, is not profitable to housing developers. Therefore, deed- restricted affordable units require subsidy beyond available density or financial incentives. This places the construction burden on non-profits and similar grant-funded housing developments and may result in affordable projects that are not always dispersed throughout the region but are concentrated in limited areas with lower development costs. While the City has Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds available to assist some qualified affordable housing projects and can offer developer incentives such as expedited permit processing or fee deferrals, the City lacks the funding to fully mitigate the high cost of development for all affordable housing developments. Moreover, not all projects will qualify for these resources. The City of Lake Elsinore will continue to facilitate housing development by providing technical assistance, regulatory incentives, and concessions, as available and appropriate. To encourage infill residential development in the City’s Historic Downtown District, the City has and will continue to explore land purchases for future housing development. In Lake Elsinore, requests for development at densities below anticipated densities are rare. In general, and based on recent development in the City, development applications aim for densities as close as possible to what is allowed. The length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permit is typically less than one year, depending on project complexity and the development consultant’s lead time to get construction documents completed. For example, a residential project with more complex grading or drainage plans may take longer than usual to submit permits. Governmental Constraints Although local governments have little influence on such market factors as interest rates and availability of funding for development, their policies and regulations can affect both the amount of residential development that occurs and the affordability of housing. Since governmental actions can constrain development and affordability of housing, State law requires the Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.” Consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)) this section addresses six potential constraints to residential housing development: • Land use controls; • Building codes and enforcement; • On- and off-site improvements; • Fees and exactions; • Local processing and permit procedures; • Housing for persons with disabilities; and • Fair housing. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.7 Land Use Controls The City’s primary policies and regulations that affect residential development and housing affordability include the 2011 General Plan, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (referred to in this document as Zoning Code or LEMC), and the City’s 22 Specific Plans. In addition to a review of these policies and regulations, an analysis of governmental constraints on housing production for persons with disabilities is included in this section. 2011 General Plan Chapter 2.0 of the 2011 General Plan (Community Form Element) sets forth the City's policies for guiding local development and growth. These policies, together with zoning regulations, establish the density, intensity, and distribution of land uses within the City. The 2011 General Plan identifies 17 land use designations, eight of which allow for residential development offering a mix of housing types to Lake Elsinore residents. Residential land use designations and development standards are outlined in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Specific Plans and Specific Plan Districts (SPD) A specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the development of a defined geographic area in a mix of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, schools, and parks and open space. Specific plans typically include more detailed information than the General Plan about land use, site circulation, affordable housing programs, resource management strategies, development standards, street improvements, and the phasing of the project. Specific plans can also be used to achieve creative design by providing flexibility in development standards beyond those contained in the Zoning Code. Alignment with the City’s District Plans, the LEMC, and the Community Form Chapter of the General Plan allows the City the opportunity to consider a well-integrated design that responds to the unique location and physical features of a site, as well as providing opportunities for public input. The City Council has adopted 22 specific plans. Each one establishes a Specific Plan District (SPD) unique to the planning area. A specific plan document, site plan, tentative tract map, and final tract map are required to develop a specific plan development. Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Sites Inventory highlights the residential capacity remaining within 17 of 22 of the City’s Specific Plans which will inform the site inventory analysis. LEMC Title 17 (Zoning) The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through the LEMC Title 17 (Zoning). Zoning regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, as well as implement the City’s General Plan policies. Zoning regulations also serve to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning standards can be accessed online through the City’s website (www.lake-elsinore.org/city- government/municipal-code). Table 3.5 lists the permitted uses in residential zones. PAGE – 3.8 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.3: Residential Land Use Designations General Plan Land Use Category Corresponding Residential Zone Districts Densities (dwelling units per net acre) Typical Residential Types Hillside R-M-R, R-H 0-1 DU/acre 1 Detached single-family dwellings and small agricultural uses in areas of steep slopes Lakeside L 0-4 DU/acre Detached single-family homes with an orientation and accessibility to the lake Low Density R-M-R, R-R, R-E, R-H 1-3 DU/acre Detached single-family dwellings, secondary residential units, hobby farming and keeping of animals, public and quasi-public uses Low-Medium Density R-H, R-1 1-6 DU/acre Detached single-family dwellings, secondary residential units, public and quasi-public uses Medium Density R-2 7-18 DU/acre Attached and detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, multi- family residential units, group quarters, public and quasi-public uses High Density R-2, R-3, CMU, RMU 19-24 DU/acre Attached single-family dwellings, multi-family residential units, group quarters, public and quasi-public uses Commercial Mixed Use CMU 7-18 DU/acre 2 Emphasis on retail, service, civic and professional office uses. Residential uses are allowed in a subordinate capacity Residential Mixed Use RMU 19-24 DU/acre 3 Emphasis on high density residential uses, such as apartments, condos, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, boarding houses, row houses. Retail, service, civic, and professional uses are allowed in a subordinate capacity. 1 Minimum parcel sizes apply here and are determined based on percent slope. See page 2-13 of 2011 General Plan. 2 FARs apply here. See page 2-15 of 2011 General Plan. 3 Density Bonus incentives apply here. See page 2-15 of 2011 General Plan. Source(s): City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Appendix B General Plan/Zoning Compatibility Matrix, Sept 2014; City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Table 2-1: Land Use Designation Standards, 2020. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.9 Table 3.4: Residential Development Standards Standards R-M-R R-R R-E R-H R-1 R-2 R-3 RMU CMU Minimum Lot Area per Unit 10 acres 2 acres ½ acre* 12,000 sf* 6,000 sf* 7,260 sf 8,400 sf 2,420 sf* 1,815 sf Mixed Use horizontal 1 - - - - - - - 1,850 sf* 1,850 sf* Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Standard/Residential - - - - - 3,630 sf* - - ≤ minimum lot area 2,420 sf/unit* (18 du/acre) - - ≥ minimum lot area 1,850 sf/unit* (24 du/acre) - - Minimum Lot Width Standard 160 ft 160 ft 100 ft 80 ft 60 ft* 60 ft 70 ft - - Corner - - - - 65 ft - - - - Cul-de-sac 70 ft* 70 ft* 50 ft* 45 ft* 40 ft* - - - - Flag - - 25 ft* 25 ft* 25 ft* - - - - Minimum Setbacks * Front 40 ft 30 ft 30 ft* 20 ft 20 ft* 20 ft 20 ft* - - Side 30-40 ft* 20 ft* 15 ft* 5-15 ft* 5-15 ft* 5-15 ft* 10-15 ft* - - Rear 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 20 ft 20 ft 15 ft* 10-15 ft* - - Maximum Lot Coverage 10%* 20% 25% 30% 50% 50% 60%* - - Maximum Building Height 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft* 30 ft* 30 ft* no height limit no height limit Minimum Dwelling Unit Size Single-family dwelling unit 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,500 sf* 1,200 sf* 1,000 sf* - - - - Studio 450 sf 450 sf 450 sf 450 sf 1-bedroom 600 sf 600 sf 600 sf 600 sf 2-bedroom (or more) 700 sf* 700 sf* 700 sf* 700 sf* Open Space * Exceptions and/or specifications apply. See LEMC. Source(s): City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, 2020. PAGE – 3.10 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.5: Permitted Uses in Residential Zones Uses R-M-R R-R R-E R-H R-1 R-2 R-3 RMU CMU Single-family Dwelling, Detached P P P P P P 2 P 3 Single-family Dwelling, Attached 10 P P Multi-family Dwelling: P P Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex P P P Apartment Unit P P P P Condominium P 5 P C C Accessory Dwelling Unit 8 P P P P P P P P P Emergency Shelter 9 C Transitional Housing C P P P Supportive Housing P P P Manufactured/Mobile Housing 1 P P P P P Residential Care Facility: 4 P (see below) P P P P P P C C Residential Care for the Elderly People, ≤ 6 persons P 6 Residential Care for the Elderly People, ≥ 7 persons C 7 Note(s): This table is for reference only, refer to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) for the latest official zoning designations. Zoning Regulations may be amended independently of this table. P = Permitted Use A = Accessory Use (Use permitted only if accessory to another primary use on the same site) C = Conditional Use. Use eligible for consideration under the conditional use procedures and permitted only if the conditional use permit is approved, subject to the specific conditions of such permit. - = Not a permitted use. 1 In compliance with the provisions of LEMC Chapter 17.44.020-Manufactured housing. 2, 3 In compliance with the provisions of LEMC Chapter 17.76-R-1 Single-family Residential District. 4 In compliance with the provisions of LEMC Chapter 17.415.130-Residential care facilities. 5 In compliance with the provisions of LEMC Chapter 17.108-Planned Unit Development Overlay District. 6 Subject to approval by the State Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. 7 Subject to approval by the State Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. 8 Pursuant to LEMC Chapter 17.415.110-Accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is a residential use that is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for lots allowing residential uses. 9 Emergency shelters are permitted as a by-right use in the C-M Commercial Manufacturing District and M-2 General Manufacturing District per Zone Code Amendment No. 2012-03 (http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=9759). See LEMC Chapter 17.132.150-Emergency shelter use and development standards for details. 10 Including but not limited to rowhouses and townhomes. Source(s): City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, 2020. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 3.11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PAGE – 3.12 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Providing for a Variety of Housing Options Mixed-Use Developments The City’s two mixed-use General Plan designations provide expanded opportunities for different types of housing and increased densities. The mix of uses is intended to provide development opportunities that combine residential and retail or service; promote pedestrian-friendly, interactive communities; reduce reliance on vehicles; reduce traffic, emissions, and energy consumption; and strive to provide quality of life for City residents. Density Bonus Developers of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus and/or equivalent concessions of incentives under certain circumstances. The City last updated the Zoning Code to establish density bonus provisions in 2008. However, recent changes to State law necessitate an amendment to the Zoning Code. Program 6 ensures that the City complies with the requirement of the State's bonus density laws set forth in Government Code sections 65915-65918. Multi-family Housing Multi-family housing is permitted by right in the R-2, R-3, CMU, and RMU zones. Multi-family developments in residential zones are subject to regulations related to the distance between buildings, as this distance is not permitted to be less than 15 feet. Multi-family housing requires either a Major Design Review per LEMC Sections 14.145.050 or Minor Design Review 14.145.060 for Multi-family dwellings with no more than 4 units. Per LEMC Chapter 14.45, Major Design Review is subject to a Planning Commission hearing, with a receive and file report to the City Council. The Minor Design Review is administratively acted on by the Community Development Director who has the discretion to elevate it to Planning Commission for action. In its review of the City’s draft 2021 Housing Element, HCD asked the City to analyze whether height limits for multifamily uses in residential zones and for those sites identified in the sites inventory could be a potential constraint. Building height requirements in Lake Elsinore are not a constraint to development. Table 3.4 shows that the City has a 30-foot building height limit in all residential zones and no height limit in the two mixed use zones (RMU and CMU). Building code standards require at least 7’6” per floor plus ceiling space for mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering which allows for development of three stories. The site inventory includes capacity for 2,392 lower income units on sites zoned R-3 and RMU. The sites identified in the RMU zone (1,090 total units or 58 percent of the very low income RHNA) are not subject to a building height requirement. The height requirement for the sites identified in the R-3 zone (1,302 total units) are not constrained by the building height requirement. Recent affordable housing developments have been constructed in Lake Elsinore with 2 to 3 stories. The 81-unit, affordable Mission Trails Apartment built in 2019 was developed with three floors. Additionally, Government Code section 65915(e)(1) provides that the City may administratively waive development standards, which the City understands includes height limitations, for qualifying affordable housing projects. PAGE – 3.13 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct land costs. The City permits accessory dwelling units (formerly referred to as second units) on all residential sites containing an existing single-family home, as consistent with State law at the time of ordinance adoption in 2019. Conditions of approval for second units are standard and do not impede the creation of second units. Since 2017, the State Legislature adopted additional changes to the accessory dwelling unit requirements to promote development of ADUs. These include allowing ADUs to be built concurrently with a single- family home, opening areas where ADUs can be built to include all zoning districts that allow residential uses, modifying fees from utilities such as special districts and water districts, and reducing parking requirements. AB 2299 provides that any existing ADU ordinance that does not meet the new requirements is null and void as of January 1, 2017. In such cases, a jurisdiction must approve ADUs based on Government Code Section 65852.2 until the jurisdiction adopts a compliant ordinance. Jurisdictions are not required to create ordinances for ADUs; however, any jurisdiction that does adopt an ADU ordinance must submit the ordinance to HCD within 60 days. In March 2021, the City adopted amendments to the Municipal Code’s accessory dwelling unit provisions to reflect changes in the State law that went into effect on January 1, 2020. In Lake Elsinore, ADU applications are reviewed by the Community Development Deportment within two to three weeks. Program 19 in the Housing Plan commits the City to adopting an updated ADU ordinance to comply with any subsequent changes to Government Code Section 65852.2. Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers SB 2 from the 2007-2008 legislative session requires jurisdictions to identify zones within which emergency shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits. In 2012, the City amended the Zoning Code (Ordinance No. CC-2012-1309) to allow for the development of emergency shelters. Consistent with SB 2, emergency shelters are permitted as a by-right use in the C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) and M-2 (General Manufacturing) zones. LEMC Title 17.132.150 (Emergency shelter use and development standards) outlines development standards and operational regulations consistent with State law. The C-M and M-2 zones encompass 194 acres, centrally located and easily accessible. Properties in these two zones are either undeveloped or developed with commercial/business park buildings with a variety of light industrial and commercial uses. The 2020 County of Riverside Point-in-Time (PIT) Count identified 50 unsheltered individuals in Lake Elsinore. In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million State grant which was used to purchase and renovate The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing complex serving chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and adjacent unincorporated county areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. The acreage in the C-M and M-2 zones provide ample opportunity for the establishment of shelters to house the remaining 30 unsheltered individuals in the City either through new shelter construction or reuse of existing building space in the zones. The C-M and M-2 zoned-properties are located just south of the Central Avenue exit on Interstate 15 and the area is served by Riverside Transit Agency lines (8 and 9) and two commuter link express bus lines (205 and 206). The C-M and M-2 zones are located within walking distance from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center and two major commercial centers. PAGE – 3.14 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The City’s Zoning Code describes emergency shelters as follows: • Emergency shelters provide short-term shelter (usually for up to six months of stay) for homeless persons or persons facing other difficulties, such as domestic violence. State law (AB 101), as of June 2019, requires that low-barrier navigation centers be allowed as a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses (by-right or conditionally). California Government Code section 65660 defines a low barrier navigation center as follows: • A Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. "Low Barrier" means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following: o The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth. o The presence of pets. o The storage of possessions. o Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms. Program 22 is proposed to ensure that the City meets the requirements of AB 101. Transitional and Supportive Housing SB 2 from the 2007-2008 legislative session requires that transitional housing and supportive housing be considered residential uses and are subject only to the standards applied to residential uses in the same zone. In 2012, the City amended the Zoning Code (Ordinance No. CC-2012-1309) to allow for the development of transitional housing, and supportive housing. Transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted in, and subject to the standards outlined in, the R-3, RMU, and CMU zones. The City’s Zoning Code describes transitional housing and supportive housing as follows: • Transitional housing provides longer-term housing (up to two years), coupled with supportive services such as job training and counseling to individuals and families who are transitioning to permanent housing. • Supportive housing refers to housing with no limit on length of stay. Supportive housing is often coupled with on- or off-site services such as job training, alcohol and drug abuse programs, and case management for populations in need of assistance, such as people experiencing homelessness, those suffering from mental illness or substance abuse problems, and older or medically frail persons. SB 2 requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone PAGE – 3.15 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). In other words, transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted in all zones allowing residential uses and are not subject to requirements not imposed on similar dwellings (e.g., single-family homes, apartments) in the same zone in which the transitional housing and supportive housing is located. For example, transitional housing located in an apartment building in a multifamily zone is permitted in the same manner as an apartment building in the same zone and supportive housing located in a single-family home in a single-family zone is permitted in the same manner as a single-family home in the same zone. The City will amend its zoning standards for transitional and supportive housing to comply with SB 2 (Program 22). Effective January 1, 2019, AB 2162 (Supportive Housing Streamlining Act) requires supportive housing to be considered a by-right use in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses, if the proposed housing development meets the following specified criteria (California Government Code 65651) : (1) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for 55 years. (2) One hundred percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, within the development are dedicated to lower income households and are receiving public funding to ensure affordability of the housing to lower income Californians. (3) At least 25 percent of the units in the development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population. If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, in the development shall be restricted to residents in supportive housing. (4) The developer provides the planning agency with the information for providing supportive services, with documentation demonstrating that supportive services will be provided onsite to residents in the project. (5) Nonresidential floor area shall be used for onsite supportive services in the following amounts: (A) For a development with 20 or fewer total units, at least 90 square feet shall be provided for onsite supportive services. (B) For a development with more than 20 units, at least 3 percent of the total nonresidential floor area shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use, including, but not limited to, community rooms, case management offices, computer rooms, and community kitchens. (6) The developer replaces any dwelling units on the site of the supportive housing development in the manner provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (7) Units within the development, excluding managers’ units, include at least one bathroom and a kitchen or other cooking facilities, including, at minimum, a stovetop, a sink, and a refrigerator. The law prohibits the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within a half-mile of a public transit stop. AB 2162 also require local entities to streamline the approval of housing projects containing a minimum amount of supportive housing by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for conditional use authorization or other similar discretionary entitlements. Program 22 is proposed to ensure that the City meets the requirements PAGE – 3.16 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN of AB 2162, specifically that supportive housing be considered a by-right use in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted in zones outside where it is already permitted (R-3, RMU, and CMU zones). Single-Room Occupancy Units Single-room occupancy units (SROs) house people in single rooms, with tenants often sharing bathrooms and kitchens. SROs are not specifically identified in LEMC Title 17 (Zoning); however, the City will review SRO projects with the same process it uses to review hotel, motel, or multi-family housing, depending on the project composition and zone. The density and services available in the downtown make this an ideal location for permitting SROs. The possible conditional use permit criteria for the review of SROs pertain to performance standards such as hours of operation, security, and parking, etc. Manufactured and Mobile Homes Manufactured housing, including mobile homes on permanent foundations, is permitted by right on all lots which permit single-family houses subject to certain restrictions, pursuant to State law. The City’s Mobilehome Community District (MC) accommodates and allow mobile homes situated on individually owned lots. The MC district requires that mobile home parks be at least 10 acres in size. Residential Care Facilities Under State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (aka Lanterman Act), small State-licensed residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons must be permitted in all zones that allow single- or multi- family uses, subject to the same permit processing requirements and development standards. Lake Elsinore is compliant with the Lanterman Act. The City permits residential care facilities for six or few persons as by-right use in all zones allowing residential uses. Residential care facilities for seven or more clients are not addressed in the municipal code. If a proposal for such a facility were proposed, the Community Development Director would make a determination as to whether such a use was permitted or if it requires a conditional use permit. Program 25 in the Housing Plan includes an action item to address residential care facilities for 7 or more persons and to ensure that the City’s definition of residential care facilities is consistent with State law. Housing for Agricultural Employees The Employee Housing Act (Government Code Section 17021.5 and 17021.6) requires that any employee housing occupied by six or fewer employees shall be considered a single-family structure with a residential land use and must be treated the same as a single-family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. In addition, employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters, or 12 units or separate rooms or spaces designed for use by a single-family or household, must be considered an agricultural land use and be treated the same as any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The City’s Zoning Code allows agriculture use in only R-M-R (Rural Mountainous Residential District) and R (Recreational District). None of the zoning designations specifically distinguish housing for Agricultural Employees from any other programmatic housing dedicated or developed to be affordable. As indicated in the Community Needs Assessment, only 55 residents, or 0.1% of the workforce are farmworkers. City records indicate that there are no agricultural operations in Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is evolving into an urbanized community and does not contain any large-scale commercial agricultural activities. Urbanization has precluded the demand for farmworker housing. However, the City will ensure PAGE – 3.17 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN complies with the State Employee Housing Act where it would apply (Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code) (Program 22). Planning Districts and Spheres The 2011 General Plan designates the City and its Sphere of Influence into eleven (11) Planning Districts and five(5) Planning Spheres. Each Planning District and Sphere plan identifies the area’s unique characteristics and attributes, planning context, and considerations (including possible nongovernmental constraints). Goals, policies, and programs establish the intent for development. Each Planning District and Sphere plan includes a land use map but does not regulate land use densities or intensities. The Planning District and Sphere plans carry over the same land use designations as the 2011 General Plan and defer to the area’s Specific Plan(s) for additional development regulations. Parking Standards The City’s parking requirements are based on unit type and size. Parking requirements for residential and mixed-use developments are listed in Table 3.6. Reduced parking requirements can be achieved by conducting a parking study, available to commercial or industrial projects through compliance with LEMC Chapter 17.148.030 and more recently extended to mixed-use projects by LEMC Chapter 17.86.070-Residential Mixed Use and LEMC Chapter 17.134.070- Commercial Mixed Use. PAGE – 3.18 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.6: Parking Requirements Type of Dwelling Parking Requirements Residential Land Use Designations Single-family Detached 2 garage spaces per DU plus 2 open spaces in a driveway Single-family Attached, Multi-family, Duplexes Studio and One-bedroom unit 1 covered space, plus 2/3 open space per dwelling unit Two- (or more) bedroom unit 1 covered space, plus 1 1/3 open space per dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 1 space per bedroom or ADU, whichever is less, in a covered, uncovered, or tandem configuration. ADU parking is not requires in the following instances: a. The ADU is located within one-half mile of public transit. b. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. c. The ADU is contained entirely within the permitted floor area of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant(s) of the accessory dwelling units. e. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. Boarding houses, fraternities, and group living quarters 1 space per resident Hospitals, convalescent homes and sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes, retirement homes, and similar establishments 1 space for each 3 licensed beds Mixed Use Land Use Designations Commercial Mixed-Use District PAGE – 3.19 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.6: Parking Requirements Type of Dwelling Parking Requirements Residential Mixed-Use District Nonresidential uses < 3,000 sf – no off-street parking required Nonresidential uses > 3,000 sf – 1 off-street parking space required for every 250 sf beyond 3,000 sf Places of assembly: 1 off-street parking space required for every 21 sf of floor area Residential parking requirements shall comply with LEMC Chapter 17.148-Parking requirements (reflected above) A request to reduce the number of required parking spaces may be made to the Planning Commission concurrent with a design review or conditional use permit application, provided a parking study supports the finding that the number of parking spaces needed for a specific project is less than that required by code Tandem parking may be allowed for residential uses with the approval of the Director of Community Development Source(s): City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, 2020. Local Ordinances State law requires that cities include an analysis of any locally adopted ordinance that impact the cost and supply of residential development. The City has no growth control measures or urban growth limit line. The City has no local ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development such as inclusionary ordinances, short-term rental ordinances, or moratoriums on specific development types. Other local ordinances, while intentionally controlling the quality of development in the community, can also unintentionally increase the cost of development and thus the cost of housing. For example, fees and capital improvement requirements are aimed at ensuring adequate infrastructure to serve the health, safety and welfare of future residents. These and other potential governmental constraints which may affect the supply and cost of housing in Lake Elsinore are discussed below. Building Codes and Enforcement In addition to the previously mentioned land use controls, Lake Elsinore utilizes the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) to regulate building standards including housing, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes. Local amendments to the building code PAGE – 3.20 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN address plan check and permit fees, the appeals process, violation penalties, minimum roof covering classifications, erosion, and the definition of enclosure, none of which add to the burden or cost of housing. The City utilizes its code enforcement powers in a manner that does not constrain housing development or improvement. A goal of the Code Enforcement Division is to find solutions to problems resulting from violations of the Municipal Code. To assist neighborhoods and businesses in preserving positive community character, the City has established property maintenance standards. These standards are part of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and establish the minimum maintenance standards for properties. To ensure that the Municipal Code is followed, Code Enforcement Officers assist individuals in keeping their properties in compliance. Enforcement actions are taken proactively and in response to citizen complaints and requests for action by other City departments and outside public agencies. The abatement process typically requires the clean-up or repair of properties that are found to be in violation of City Code. City staff promptly responds to property maintenance complaints and is available to work with property owners in preventing and correcting Code violations. The local enforcement of these codes does not add significantly to the cost of housing. In situations where a property owner does not have the resources to address violations, the City can refer them to the Lake Elsinore Dream Center. Other building codes that the City employs include the California Energy Code 2019 Edition, as published by the International Code Council regulating all buildings in the City with respect to State energy requirements. No local amendments have been made. The City also uses the 2019 Edition of the California Green Building Standards Code, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, locally amended to address light pollution reduction. On- and Off-Site Improvements Site improvements in Lake Elsinore consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (fronting streets, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). On- and off-site improvements are costs associated with the provision of services necessary for the health and safety of the public. On- and off-site improvements add relatively little to total cost of housing, but are costs associated with the provision of services necessary for the health and safety of the public. Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are not seen as a constraint to the development of housing. Developed residential areas in Lake Elsinore are served by existing infrastructure. Additional infrastructure is required for all new developments and vary depending on the existing condition of each project. Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are not seen as a constraint to the development of housing. In most of the City’s undeveloped areas, Specific Plans are in place and guide the improvements and infrastructure provision and financing are addressed within the specific plan documents. Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Sites Inventory shows potential sites for housing in the City’s Specific Plan areas and in developed areas of the City where future development will be infill in nature and have full access to infrastructure. PAGE – 3.21 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Required on-site improvements for residential development are determined largely by the zoning of the property. Lake Elsinore’s requirements for on-site improvements are typical of California communities and are not considered to be unusually restrictive or as a constraint on the development of housing. In a typical subdivision, minimum street right of way, which includes sidewalks, curbs, gutters and landscaped area, must be provided. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan’s 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. Streets not shown on the General Plan’s Roadway Classification figure are considered Local Streets. The required street width construction for a typical subdivision would most likely range from a 60-foot right of way for local streets up to 120-foot right-of-way for an urban arterial highway (Figure 2.2 in the General Plan’s Community Form Chapter). Narrower streets may be allowed within some adopted Specific Plans. The costs of on- and off-site improvements are usually passed along to the homebuyer as part of the final cost of the home. The on- and off-site improvement standards imposed by the City are typical for most communities and do not pose unusual constraints for housing development. Fees and Exactions Development and Planning Fees The City charges various fees and assessments to cover the costs of processing development permits and providing services. Impacts fees are also charged to cover the cost or providing municipal services or mitigating project impacts. These fees are summarized in Table 3.7. The total amount of fees varies from project to project and are based on type, existing infrastructure, and the cost of mitigating environmental conditions (e.g., flooding). The additional cost to develop, maintain, and improve housing due to development fees can result in increased housing unit cost, and therefore is generally considered a constraint to housing development. However, fees are necessary to provide planning and public services in Lake Elsinore and in the region. The City of Lake Elsinore has adjusted its fee system to reduce staff time, uncertainty, and cost. In the past, most application fees were deposit-based, and projects were assigned a Cost Recovery System (CRS) number and staff time for application processing was charged against the deposit. Once the deposit was exhausted, additional fees were required to continue processing the applications. Any remaining CRS funds at the end of the development review and public hearing process were refunded to the project applicant. However, the City of Lake Elsinore has changed most applications to a flat fee. This has eliminated the need to track staff time and related development review expenses through the Cost Recovery System process. Only a few applications are still deposit-based and subject to the Cost Recovery System. Residential development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and with Zoning (i.e., require only Conditional Use Permit and/or Design Review or tentative map approval) are subject to flat fees and not subject to the CRS. General Plan Amendment and/or Zone changes are deposit-based fees and thus subject the CRS, although the related applications would remain a flat fee. Any required environmental review is also subject to the CRS. The City’s Engineering Division contracts with outside PAGE – 3.22 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN firms for plan check of project related plans. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning fees can be accessed online through the City’s website at http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/public- works/engineering/fees/plan-check-fees. Tables 3.7 show that in fees in Lake Elsinore are comparable and, in some cases, lower than similar fees for the neighboring cities of Temecula and Murrieta. A 2019 fee study by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) also showed that Lake Elsinore’s fees were lower than most other cities for multi-family development. The WRCOG study, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in western Riverside County, showed that when compared with other jurisdictions, the City of Lake Elsinore had higher development fees for the single-family detached unit study prototype as compared with neighboring cities, but had one of the lowest development fee estimates for the multi-family unit study prototype. Additional findings include: • Average residential development impact fees for WRCOG jurisdictions are lower than the average of selected San Bernardino County cities and higher than the average of selected Coachella Valley cities. • Total development impact fees for WRCOG jurisdictions represent 8.5 percent and 8.9 percent of total development costs/returns respectively for the prototype single-family and multifamily developments evaluated. • Water and sewer fees together represent the greatest proportion of residential development impact fees followed by similar proportions from other City fees, TUMF, and school fees. • Direct construction costs represent the largest proportion of total development costs/returns, typically followed by other land costs, other soft costs (collectively), developer returns, and development impact fees. The report also acknowledges that many of the fees imposed on new development are outside the purview of the Cities themselves. These fees are set/administered by a combination of water districts, school districts, individual cities, the County, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Authority, and other special districts. PAGE – 3.23 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.7: Development and Planning Fees Action/Activity Lake Elsinore 1 Murrieta 1 Temecula 2 Conditional Use Permit Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) $4,358 $4,214 - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $8,716 $5,801 $3,947* Design Review Residential $9,335 - - Minor Design Review $4,685 - - Development Agreement City Staff Review $16,887** $15,000 $63,533* City Attorney Review $2,179** Development Agreement Amendment $4,348** $10,000** Environmental Review Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study $11,984 + 3rd Party Costs** $4,098* $5,359 - $7,326 Environmental Impact Review/ Report $23,000 + 3rd Party Costs** $15,000** $57,733 - $85,127 General Plan Amendment $8,876** $10,000** $4,835 - $8,965* Specific Plan Specific Plan $27,238* $20,000** $100,654* Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps Tract $23,969 $10,949 $12,428 - $18,012 Revised (Minor) $9,805 $3,395 $7,038 Revised (Major) $6,038 Parcel Map $10,399 $6,026 $4,733 Revised (Minor) $3,208 $3,395 $4,124 Revised (Major) $5,577 Variance Variance $4,358 $1,611- $2,123 $4,567* Zone Change Zone Change $7,626** $10,000** $4,835 - $8,965* 1 Lake Elsinore and Murrieta totals include only planning fees. 2 Temecula totals include Planning, P/W, TCSD, Fire and Police fees. * Additional costs apply. See respective User Fee Schedules. ** Deposit vs fee amount. Source(s): Cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula, July 2020. PAGE – 3.24 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.8 below lists an estimate of total typical fees for single-family and multi-family building permit fees based on the square foot area of the home. Table 3.8: Building Permit Fees Action/Activity 1,800 sf SFR w/600 sf garage 2,000 sf SFR w/600 sf garage 2,500 sf SFR w/600 sf garage 855 sf MFR unit Structural Plan Check $1,155 $1,233.00 $1,554 $2,125.82 Planning Review Fee $119.89 $119.89 $119.89 $566.88 Building Permit Fee $1,540 $1,643 $2,072 $2,857.42 TOTAL 2,814.89 2,995.89 $3,745.89 $5,550.12 Estimated sale price/value1 $409,750 $390,000 Estimated proportion of building fee cost to overall development cost/unit >1% 1.4% Source(s): City of Lake Elsinore staff, July 2020. 1. Median Home Sales Price in January 2020 (CoreLogic) and estimated home value for multiple family properties (condos, co- ops) on Zillow.com on April 27, 2020. In addition to planning application fees, many municipal jurisdictions charge impact fees, and developers in turn incorporate those fees into housing costs, which affect housing costs for both rental and for-sale housing. These fees can include park fees, police and fire fees, and sewer and waterline fees imposed in accordance with new development. Low impact fees reduce constraints and expenses for moderate- and low-income developers looking to build in the region. Impact fees for Lake Elsinore are included in Table 3.9. Some fees such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee are mandated by the County of Riverside. The impact fees are typical for the region. As a point of comparison, the City of Murrieta (as shown in the City’s draft 2021-2029 Housing Element), has development impact fees that total $13,853 per single-family units and $9,724 per multi-family unit plus mandated school fees. PAGE – 3.25 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.9 Impact Fees Fees Cost Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees Subdivisions under 50 parcels, apartments, condominiums, fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, single-family residences: Single-family Residential $1,600 per unit Duplexes $1,500.00 per unit Triplexes $1,500.00 per unit Fourplexes $1,450.00 per unit Apartments $1,400.00 per unit Subdivisions over 50 parcels: Dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee equal to the fair market value of the land that would have otherwise been dedicated. 1 Storm Drain Capitol Improvement Fund Fee 2 Storm Drain Capitol Improvement Fund Fee Based on a project’s Drainage District location on a per acre basis. $2,225-$8,675/acre. Traffic Impact Fee Single-family Residential $1,369.00 per unit Multi-family Residential $959.00 per unit Commercial Building $3.84 per sf of building Office Building $1.45 per sf of building Industrial Building $0.81 per sf of building Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Single-family Residential $8,873.00 Multi-family Residential 3 $6,231.00 Industrial Use $1.73 per sf Retail Commercial Use $10.49 per sf Service Commercial Use $4.19 per sf Class A and B Office $2.19 per sf Library Capitol Improvement Fund Fee All residential properties $150.00 per dwelling unit Development Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential (2-4) Multi-family Residential (5+) City Hall and Public Works Facilities $809.00 $696.00 $404.00 Community Center Facilities $545.00 $469.00 $272.00 Marina Facilities $779.00 $671.00 $389.00 Animal Shelter Facilities $348.00 $299.00 $174.00 Total Public Building Impact Fee $2,481.00 $2,135.00 $1,239.00 Per 1,000 Square Feet Office Retail Industrial City Hall and Public Works Facilities $180.00 $108.00 $36.00 PAGE – 3.26 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 3.9 Impact Fees Fees Cost Fire Facilities Single-family Residential $751.00 Multi-family Residential $612.00 Office $337.00 Retail $489.00 Industrial $159.00 1 See Development Fees for formula for determining the amount of land to be dedicated (www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city- departments/community-development/building-safety/building-related-fees) 2 Based on location as shown on the City of Lake Elsinore's Drainage Facilities Plan Map 3 Greater than eight (8) dwelling units per acre Source(s): www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/building-safety/building-related-fees (Revised April 2016). Processing and Permit Procedures The processing time required to obtain approval of development permits is often cited as a contributing factor to the high cost of housing. For some proposed development projects, additional time is needed to complete the environmental review process before an approval can be granted. Unnecessary delays add to the cost of construction by increasing land holding costs and interest payments. The review process in Lake Elsinore involves up to three levels of reviewing bodies: Community Development Department and Engineering Department, Planning Commission, and the City Council. The City’s development timeframes are designed to accommodate development. The predominant form of residential development in the City is single-family homes. The average processing times for single- family and multi-family projects vary, most frequently depending on the size of the development and if a subdivision map is involved. All new multi-family residential developments must complete a development plan application, which is then reviewed and approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the responsible hearing authority. State and federal environmental resource protection is a component that can delay the processing time for new development. Compliance with the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) can require additional analysis and approvals that can add significant time to the processing of residential development projects. Regulatory permitting such as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement requirements and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permitting issues also cause delays. The City has no control or jurisdiction over these processes and requirements. Table 3.10 lists average processing times for the various permits or procedures that may be required for project approval. Processing times required for the various entitlement applications are reasonable and do not represent a constraint to the preservation of housing. These timeframes are approximate and depend on the scope of the project, number of corrections in plan check, and timeliness of the applicant’s PAGE – 3.27 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN resubmittal. In addition, projects requiring environmental review and/or appeals may take longer to process. Table 3.10: Development Review Timeframes Type of Process Approximate Timeframe Reviewing Body Design Review – Minor (Up to 2 DU per Lot) 2-3 weeks Community Development Department Design Review 4-8 months Planning Commission Plan Check/Building Permits 2 weeks/check 1st check; 1-week resubmittals Various: Building Division, Community Development Department, Fire Department, Engineering, Public Works Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 3-5 months Planning Commission Variance Up to 6 months Planning Commission Tentative Parcel/Tract Map 4-8 months Planning Commission/City Council General Plan Amendment 4-6 months Planning Commission/ City Council Zone Change 4-6 months Planning Commission/ City Council Source(s): Lake Elsinore City staff, July 2020. Small Residential Projects All Minor Design Review (for single-family residences [two to four units] and multi-family projects [four or fewer units]) projects and conditional use permits require approval from the Planning Commission. Small homes constructed on existing lots of record could be issued permits within five to six weeks of Planning Commission approval, including Planning and Building and Safety review. Larger Residential Projects All Zone Changes, Specific Plans, Planned Unit Developments, Subdivisions (Parcel and Tract Maps), and Design Review (residential projects involving four or more units) are required to be approved by the City Council unless the project is within an approved specific plan, which may provide a shorter approval process. Apartment developments require Planning Commission and City Council approval. As such, the development process is increased by approximately three months from the small residential project timeline. Larger projects with many corrections required during building permit review typically take longer to process. Design Review The City has a design review process for development proposals and design concepts to verify compliance with the City’s developments standards and to ensure a quality physical environment. The design review process makes sure that new development, or the alteration of existing development, occurs in a manner which enhances the character and quality of surrounding properties and that the scale, special relationships, and architectural treatment of structures, including materials, colors, and design, visually contribute to the area and environment in which they are located. The design review process is also intended to apply to the ancillary elements of projects such as signs and landscaping to ensure that the overall development maintains the same integrity of design as approved for the primary structure(s). PAGE – 3.28 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Minor design review is required for detached single-family dwelling on existing lot(s) involving a total of two to four units and attached multiple-family dwellings not involving more than a total of four units. The Community Development Director is the approving authority for the minor design review. Larger projects go through a major design review process. The Planning Commission is the approving authority for the major design review. Both reviews look at general design concepts and a limited number of findings as listed below. Design Review Design Concepts: 1. The scale and spatial relationship of all structures should be appropriate to the site and to surrounding developments. Structures should be located on their lots so as to create interest and varying vistas as a person moves along the street. 2. The design concept should complement the quality of existing development and create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed and existing projects. Garish colors at substantial deviance to the rest of the neighborhood will be discouraged. 3. Exterior materials should evidence a concern for quality and originality. The use of a particular material should, as a rule, exemplify the special characteristics of the product or demonstrate its unique application. Tilt-up panels employing formed design or with exposed aggregate are preferable to smooth-surface or painted panels. Similarly, metal as an enhancement material is acceptable while plain metal buildings are not. Paint, in general, should be considered an enhancement tool but should not be considered a replacement for the use of textured surfaces. 4. Visible electrical, mechanical, and special processing equipment such as vent stacks as well as similar features should be avoided; however, if essential should be screened and such screening should be an integral aspect of the project design. 5. The design of accessory structures, fences, and walls should be harmonious with the design of the principal structures and should employ compatible building materials. 6. Projects should demonstrate a respect for a neighboring property’s privacy, quiet, function, or views, and elements of the design including, but not limited to, openings, docks, and equipment placement should not be located in such a way as to create a nuisance for an adjoining property. 7. The project should be designed in such a way that its circulation patterns and parking areas are efficient, and do not impact traffic on adjoining rights-of-way. Adequate on-site parking should be provided and intrinsic maneuvering such as for trucks and for drive-through facilities should be contained entirely on site. 8. Landscaping should be evenly divided over the site and be visually attractive regardless of the season. In addition to its aesthetic attributes, landscaping should be available to screen parking and storage areas and to shade parking lots. 9. The project should demonstrate concern for solar orientation and other forms of energy conservation. Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other features that provide shelter and shade should be apparent in the design. 10. The project should be harmonious with the topography of the site in order to minimize the requirement for grading and the associated disruption of the City’s scenic amenities. PAGE – 3.29 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN 11. The size and scale of signs should be harmonious with the overall design concept of the project and materials and colors should reflect those used for the principal structures. Signs should enhance, not dominate or distract from the appearance of the project. Design Review Findings: 1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the zoning district in which the project is located. 2. The project complies with the design directives contained in LEMC 17.415.050(F) and all other applicable provisions of the municipal code. 3. Conditions and safeguards, as may be deemed appropriate, pursuant to LEMC 17.415.050(E), including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of this section and the planning district in which the site is located. The design review process is not a constraint to residential development in Lake Elsinore. By and large the City has not recommended denial of residential projects in general and less so during design review. The design review process also does not negatively impact residential development as the City’s already short processing time and the criteria for design review is generally objective. In compliance with SB 330, the City will adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law (Program 12). Part of the objective design standards creation process will include assessing how the standards can be used to encourage a variety of housing types and limit the size of residential units on multi-family zoned properties to encourage units that are affordable by design. Subdivisions Before a developer or property owner makes any division of land or real property, a tentative map is required pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. Once an application is deemed complete by the City, the Planning Commission will act on the tentative map and either recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial. At a subsequent regular meeting, after receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council will act on the tentative map and either approve, conditionally approve, or deny it. Minor land divisions (4 or less parcels) are processed in the same manner. Design Review Process The City’s processing for land use entitlement approval includes review by the Design Review Committee (DRC). Part of the DRC review process includes ensuring projects are consistent with the requirements of LEMC Section 17.184 - Design Review. Applicants may review this section of the code to understand and be consistent with the guidelines the DRC will be using to assess the project. A Design Review entitlement application requires a public hearing and adoption of specific findings. The approval process for smaller and larger residential projects includes submitting a development application and fees to the City and completing the Design Review process (see Figure 3.1). Smaller projects may receive approval at a public meeting scheduled after the project has completed the Design Review Committee process. Larger projects are first reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public PAGE – 3.30 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN meeting and then forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or denial, unless the project is within an approved specific plan, which may result in a shorter approval process. Land Use Entitlement Process The City’s average development processing times are typical of those for surrounding jurisdictions. They allow for State-mandated review periods for environmental documents as well as for legally advertised and noticed public hearings. In addition, the City of Lake Elsinore, like surrounding jurisdictions, is required to adhere to the development review timeframes mandated by the State Permit Streamlining Act. Program 11 is included in the Housing Plan and directs the City to review, and if necessary, revise local review procedures to facilitate a streamlined review process. SB 35 Approval Process SB 35 requires cities and counties to streamline review and approval of eligible affordable housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process, exempting such projects from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When the State determines that jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their lower-income RHNA (Very-Low and Low Income), these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 [Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017] streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward the above-moderate income RHNA, then that jurisdiction is subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 10 percent affordability. PAGE – 3.31 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN As of July 2020, Lake Elsinore was determined to have made insufficient progress toward the above- moderate income RHNA and/or not submitted the latest annual progress report (APR for 2019) and therefore is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.3 To accommodate any future SB 35 applications or inquiries, Program 11 calls for the City to create and make available to interested parties an informational packet that explains the SB 35 streamlining provisions in Lake Elsinore and provides SB 35 eligibility information. Program 12 is included and specifies that the City will adopt objective design standards to provide local guidance on design and standards for by-right projects, per State law. Housing for Disabled Persons California law requires jurisdictions to analyze potential and actual constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, demonstrate efforts to remove governmental constraints, and include programs to accommodate housing designed for people with disabilities. Review of the LEMC, permitting procedures, development standards, and building codes revealed the following findings: • The City has no special zoning or land use restrictions that regulate the siting of housing for persons with disabilities. • In accordance with California law, Lake Elsinore permits State-licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons in all residential zoning districts by right, provided such uses are housed within structures that comply with the development standards required of all structures within the zoning district. • Residential care facilities for seven or more clients are not addressed in the municipal code. If a proposal for such a facility were proposed, the Community Development Director would make a determination as to whether such a use was permitted or if it requires a conditional use permit. Program 25 in the Housing Plan includes an action item to address residential care facilities for 7 or more persons and to ensure that the City’s definition of residential care facilities is consistent with State law. • Rest homes and similar congregate care facilities are permitted with a conditional use permit in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Conditional use permits to accommodate housing for disabled persons are no more stringent than those for other conditional uses. The City enforces Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code that addresses access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City also requires compliance with the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, which requires a minimum percentage of dwelling units in new multi-family housing projects to be fully accessible to the physically disabled. No additional accessibility standards above State and federal law are required. • Inclusion of an overly restrictive definition of “family” in the LEMC may have the potential of discriminating against group homes or other housing for persons with disabilities on the basis of familial status. The LEMC defines family as “one or more persons immediately related by blood, 3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/SB35_StatewideDeterminationSummary.pdf PAGE – 3.32 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN marriage or adoption living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit together with any domestic employees. A group of not more than six unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit with their domestic employees shall also be considered a family.” The City has determined that the LEMC definition of “family” is consistent with applicable laws and fair housing policies. However, the City also acknowledges that this definition of “family” may cause the misperception by the public that development can be restricted to blood-related families. Program 25 calls the City to revisit the definition of “family” as well as establish a definition for “household” that is more flexible and includes a variety of household types, consistent with State and federal laws. • For developers and providers of housing for disabled persons who are often confronted with siting or use restrictions, reasonable accommodation provides a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing. Cities and counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. The City actively provides reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of City zoning and building regulations. In June 2019, the City adopted an amendment to the LEMC (Title 17.415.150 Reasonable Accommodation) formalizing a reasonable accommodation process. Once an application for a reasonable accommodation is filed (no noticing or public hearing are required for a reasonable accommodation request). the Community Development Director must make a written determination within 45 days of the application being deemed complete and either approve, modify, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation decisions take into consideration of the following factors: 1. Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual defined as disabled under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Acts”); 2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; 3. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; 4. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning; 5. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others; and 6. Whether there are alternative reasonable accommodations that provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant. PAGE – 3.33 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Signed into law in 2018, AB 686 requires California cities and counties to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and to not take any action that is materially inconsistent with this obligation. “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The law also requires a fair housing analysis to be included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The primary data source for the AFFH analysis is the County of Riverside 2019-2024 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer. Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity The County of Riverside 2019-2024 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) serves as the fair housing planning document for the County of Riverside Public Housing Authority (PHA) programs that address the entire County, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs that address the unincorporated areas of the County, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the following other cooperating cities: Banning, Beaumont, Blythe, Coachella, Canyon Lake, Desert Hot Springs, Eastvale, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Murrieta, Norco, San Jacinto, and Wildomar. The purpose of this report is to identify impediments to fair and equal housing opportunities in Riverside County. The AI provides an overview of the laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect access to housing and other services in Riverside County. Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, ancestry, age, marital status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other arbitrary factor. The AI examines local housing conditions, economics, policies, and practices to ensure that housing choices and opportunities for all residents are available in an environment free from discrimination. The AI assembles fair housing “AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING” MEANS TAKING MEANINGFUL ACTIONS THAT OVERCOME PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION AND FOSTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES FREE FROM BARRIERS THAT RESTRICT ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY BASED ON PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS. PAGE – 3.34 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN information, identifies existing impediments that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to mitigate those impediments. The County of Riverside has contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. (FHCRC), a non-profit organization that fights to protect the housing rights of all individuals. Since 1986, FHCRC’s mission is “to provide comprehensive services which affirmatively address and promote fair housing (anti- discrimination) rights and further other housing opportunities for all persons.” FHCRC provides services focused on eliminating housing discrimination, general housing assistance, and education and outreach activities to all residents in the Riverside County. The comprehensive services offered throughout Riverside County include: • Fair Housing (Anti-Discrimination) Services; • Landlord-Tenant Services; • Housing Counseling Services; and • Training for Real Estate Professionals. Lake Elsinore is an active partner with the FHCRC. FHCRC provides a comprehensive education and outreach program and services and has been actively involved in outreach activities throughout Riverside County, including the provision of informational materials, brochures, newsletters, and referrals relating to fair housing. FHCRC also provides workshops, presentations, and seminars to community organizations, including presentations at meetings of groups such as neighborhood organizations, advocacy organizations, chambers of commerce, government officials, real estate trade groups, and housing organizations. FHCRC investigates allegations of discrimination based on a person’s status as a member of one of the State or federal protected categories. From 2013 to 2018, FHCRC assisted County residents with fair housing discrimination complaints, addressing 3,108 complaints in total, with 95% of those from in-place tenants, 3% from landlords or managers, and the balance from other types of complainants. Consistent with State and national trends, the leading bases of complaints included physical disability (51%), mental disability (12%), race (10%), familial status (8%), national origin (7%), and sex (3%). Taken together, complaints based on disability status accounted for 63% of all cases in Riverside County. These data are consistent with HUD data that show that in 2017, 59.4% of all discrimination complaints made to HUD originating from the County of Riverside were based on the protected category of disability. In addition, FHCRC data show that more than 95% of fair housing discrimination complaints were made by low- and moderate-income households during the five-year study period. Fair housing inquiries data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicates that from 2013 to 2021 there were 19 inquiries originating from residents in Lake Elsinore or 0.30 inquiries per thousand residents. Compared with surrounding jurisdictions, the number of inquiries per thousand residents was similar to the level of inquiries seen in the cities of Riverside, Temecula, and Perris but slightly higher than the cities of Menifee or Murrieta. PAGE – 3.35 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN FHRC data for Lake Elsinore (2021) indicates that there were 191 inquiries in the last five years, more than half were from White residents and close to 63 percent of inquiries were related to fair housing issues based on physical disability. Table 3.11: Fair Housing Inquiries (2016-2021) Race/Ethnicity Number Black 55 (28.8%) Hispanic 48 (25.1%) White 87 (45.5%) Other 1 (0.5%) Total 191 (100%) Type of Inquiry/Complaint Number of Inquiries Age 6 (3.1%) Color 5 (2.6%) Familial Status 15 (7.9%) Mental Disability 12 (6.3%) National Origin 4 (2.1%) Physical Disability 120 (62.8%) Race 21 (11.0%) Sex 8(4.2%) Total 191 (100%) Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, 2021. Segregation and Opportunity Patterns and Trends The County of Riverside AI uses data from various indices to identify segregation and disparities in access to opportunity These indices are: • Dissimilarity Index; • Low Poverty Index; • School Proficiency Index; • Jobs Proximity Index; • Labor Market Engagement Index; • Low Transportation Cost Index; • Transit Trips Index; and • Environmental Health Index. Analysis of these indices shows that except for their ability to access low transportation costs and proximity to jobs, County residents enjoy relative access to opportunity at levels with or slightly higher than residents of the region generally. Higher index scores nearly across the board indicate greater access for Riverside residents to opportunity in the important areas of education and employment, and lower exposure to poverty. Further, these scores are consistent across various protected groups, meaning that PAGE – 3.36 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN members of most racial and ethnic groups enjoy a better standard of living by various measures than their counterparts within the greater statistical region. However, an examination of overall trends reveals a different picture. While the County saw racial segregation in the Black community decline 13 percent relative to the 2010 U.S. Census, current estimates show the County trending toward more, not less, segregation within the Black community and for all affected ethnic groups. In every category, the County is trending in the direction of more, not less, segregation at a rate that is in keeping with than that of the region overall. With respect to Non-Whites, the level of segregation from Whites, as measured by the Dissimilarity Index, has increased almost 23 percent in the County since 1990. This is slightly less than the regional increase of 25 percent during the same period. Except for the Black community, in which segregation has ticked up in recent years, but is still statistically declining, this upward trend holds true for the other ethnic/racial groups within the County, as well as for their regional counterparts. Hispanics have become increasingly segregated by a factor of 24 percent within the County and the region. Asians and Pacific Islanders are not experiencing significant increases locally (17 percent versus 30 percent in the region), but any increase should be considered of concern. The following information discusses the levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, income, familial status, persons with disabilities. Race and Ethnicity The ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. White non-Hispanic and Hispanic residents make up most of the City of Lake Elsinore population. Since 2010, the City has become more ethnically diverse with an increase in the proportion of Hispanic and Black residents. Compared with the County of Riverside, the City has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents and a lower percentage of white, non- Hispanic residents. In Lake Elsinore, more than half (53 percent) of residents identify as Hispanic, while 49 percent of the County population does the same. Overall, 69 percent of the City’s population is non-White. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of non-white residents in Lake Elsinore. Most of the City block groups show a population that is between 60 and 80 percent non-white. Overall, concentrations of non-white population in Lake Elsinore are minimal. Two small areas show concentrations higher than this. One is located west of Riverside Drive between Joy and Lincoln Streets, and another is located west of I-15, east of Main Street and west of Franklin Street. The second area includes the northeast portion of the Downton Elsinore Specific Plan area. Areas of the City in the west and east edges have lower concentrations of non- white residents. Compared with nearby jurisdictions, the City has less concentrations of non-white residents than the cities of Perris, Corona and Riverside but higher concentrations than the cities of Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula. To assist in this analysis of integration and segregation, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains (economic, environmental, and education) made up of a set of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial PAGE – 3.37 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN segregation (Census tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line and a location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County). According to the California Fair Housing Task Force’s 2021 opportunity maps, there are no census tracts or areas of high racial segregation and poverty in Lake Elsinore. Regionally, areas with high segregation and poverty are in northern Riverside County in the City of Riverside and Corona (HCD AFFH Data Viewer). Nonetheless, racial segregation maps in the Riverside County 2017 AI reveal patterns of segregation and concentrations including: • High concentrations of White residents in the Northwest region of the County, especially along the State Route 91 corridor, beginning near the intersection with State Route 71 in Corona, and continuing through the Norco area and into the City of Riverside. Other concentrations of White residents are found along the Interstate 15 corridor, through the communities of Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula. Still other concentrations of White residents are found farther East, in Hemet, as well as in the Coachella Valley communities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. • Concentrations of Hispanics in the extreme Northwest of the County in the communities of Mira Loma, Glen Avon, and Rubidoux. Another heavily Hispanic area is found more inland, radiating out from the Perris area, which also has concentrations of Black residents. Still another heavily Hispanic area begins in Indio and stretches southeastward toward the Salton Sea. Persons with Disabilities In Lake Elsinore, 5,937 residents (nine percent) are living with a disability. Figure 3.2 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract (2015-2019). At a regional level, Lake Elsinore is similar to the rest of the county in that all of the census tracts have less than 20 percent of their population living with a disability. There are no concentrations of persons with a disability in Lake Elsinore as areas with a lower proportion of disabled persons coincides with areas of the City that have large undeveloped (vacant) areas. Factors such as affordability and design significantly limit the supply of housing available to households of persons with disabilities. The most obvious housing need for persons with disabilities is housing that is adapted to their needs. The City works with applicants who need special accommodations in their homes to ensure that application of building code requirements does not create a constraint. The City actively provides reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of City zoning and building regulations. In June 2019 the City adopted an amendment to the LEMC (Title 17.415.150 Reasonable Accommodation) formalizing a reasonable accommodation process. The City will encourage and facilitate housing opportunities to meet the special housing needs of special needs residents— including disabled and developmentally disabled persons—by giving priority for available funding to development projects that include a component for special needs (Program 14). The City will also revise the definition for Residential Care Facilities and clarify siting for residential care facilities for 7 or more persons and ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities (Program 25). PAGE – 3.38 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Familial Status Using Census tract data from 2015-2019, Figure 3.3 shows the percent of children in married couple households and Figure3.4 shows the percent of children in Female headed (no spouse) households. The composition and distribution of family households in Lake Elsinore are generally like that of the region, in which more than 60 percent of children in each census tract live in a household with a married couple and less than 40 percent live in a female headed household (no spouse). Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show that within Lake Elsinore, there are higher levels of children living in female-headed households (no spouse) in the areas north of the Lake (west of I-15). Income Level According to the U.S. Census 2019 five-year estimates, the median household income for Lake Elsinore was $71,476, or close to seven percent higher than the County of Riverside median household income of $67,005. Using 2015-2019 Census data, Figure 3.5 shows median household income by Census block group and Figure 3.6 shows poverty status by Census tract. In Lake Elsinore the highest median household incomes are located outside the areas near the Lake (generally east of I-15 and west of Riverside Drive). This data is consistent with poverty status data which show that the area surrounding the Lake has a higher level of residents living in poverty (20 to 30 percent) compared to the surrounding areas (10 to 20 percent living in poverty). Compared with the surrounding areas, the City has higher level of residents living in poverty compared to cities to the south (Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar) but lower than cities to the north and east (Perris, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Riverside). Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographic areas and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the AMI). Figure 3.5 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in Lake Elsinore by Census block group. At the County level, the latest iteration of this data from 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) shows 914,489 low- and moderate-income residents in Riverside County against a population of 2,264,280. This yields a low- and moderate-income percentage of 40.39 percent countywide. In other words, 40.39 percent of people living in Riverside County are members of families earning less than 80 percent of Area Median Income. Though significant, this percentage compares favorably to the broader geographical region. Neighboring Los Angeles County’s percentage was 56.03; Orange County, 49.26; San Bernardino, 43.79; and San Diego, 47.70). In western Riverside County a concentration of LMI areas can be seen in and around the City of Perris and in the cities of Corona, Riverside, and Moreno Valley. Lake Elsinore has a low- and moderate-income percentage of 39.7 percent, lower than the countywide percentage. Within the City, LMI areas are located in most areas of the City west of Interstate 15 and in the northernmost area of the City (which is undeveloped, so it is most likely picking up demographic data from outside the City in unincorporated County pockets In Lake Elsinore, local and regional data for segregation and integration data by income show that: • The highest median household incomes are located outside the areas around the Lake (generally north/east of I-15 and west of Riverside Drive). PAGE – 3.39 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • Lake Elsinore has a low- and moderate-income percentage of 39.7 percent, lower than the countywide percentage as well as surrounding counties. • A concentration of lower income households exists in the areas of the City west of I-15. • There is a higher proportion of residents living in poverty in the areas surrounding the Lake (west of I-15). These areas also have a higher proportion of renters, rising rents, and households experiencing housing cost burden. • Compared with the surrounding areas, the City has higher level of residents living in poverty. PAGE – 3.40 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.41 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.42 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.43 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.44 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.45 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.46 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) as a census tract where: (1) the non-white population comprises 50 percent or more of the total population and (2), the percentage of individuals living in households with incomes below the poverty rate is either (a) 40 percent or above or (b) three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever is lower. In Riverside County, there are R/ECAPs scattered in small sections of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Hemet. A large R/ECAP is in an unincorporated pocket of land west of Perris just north of the Lake Elsinore. Part of this R/ECAP is located within Lake Elsinore in the northernmost area of the City (Figure 3.7). The area within the City is undeveloped, and the R/ECAP is most likely picking up demographic data from outside the City in unincorporated County pockets. While there are no R/ECAPs in other parts of the City, Figure 3.1 shows that most of the City’s block groups show a population that is between 60 and 80 percent non- white. Overall, concentrations of non-white population in Lake Elsinore are minimal. Two small areas show concentrations higher than this. One is located west of Riverside Drive between Joy and Lincoln Streets, and another is located west of I-15, east of Main Street and west of Franklin Street. These areas coincide with LMI areas, lower median income areas, and areas with a higher proportion of residents living in poverty (Figures 3.5 and 3.6). Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), they are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Comparing Lake Elsinore relative to the surrounding area, the city has a lower presence of high-income households compared with cities to the north and south. Even though 69 percent of the City’s population is non-White, the City also has less concentrations of areas with a high proportion of Non-White residents compared with cities located to the north of Lake Elsinore. As was discussed previously, Hispanics are the predominant racial/ethnic group in Lake Elsinore (53 percent). Additionally, the median household income in most census block groups is equal to or less than the 2020 state median income (see Figure 3.5). In Lake Elsinore the areas with the highest median household incomes are outside the neighborhoods near the Lake (generally east of I-15 and west of Riverside Drive). However, there are only a few areas of the City above the state median household income. Two areas located at the west and east ends of the City have a higher proportion of White residents and higher incomes. These areas coincide with the Alberhill Ranch and Canyon Hills Specific Plan areas. These areas of the City have developed more recently compared with the areas in and around Downtown (near the Lake). The areas are characterized by newer subdivisions with a predominately single-family character. Nonetheless, there is ample opportunity for new development in this area and as such the Sites Inventory in Chapter 4 shows that there is capacity for development of single- and multi-family housing. The City will continue to work towards development of these Specific Plan areas and will coordinate with developers/owners to encourage development of affordable housing (Program 20). PAGE – 3.47 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN As mentioned earlier, since 2010, the City has become more ethnically diverse with an increase in the proportion of Hispanic and Black residents. Compared with the County of Riverside, the City has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents and a lower percentage of white, non-Hispanic residents. As a result, Lake Elsinore has less concentrations of White residents. A regional comparison shows that Lake Elsinore has fewer areas with predominantly White residents compared with the surrounding area and the County. There is a concentration of Census tracts with predominately White residents in the central part of the County (between the City of Hemet and the I-10 near Palm Desert), south of the City (Temecula and Murrieta) and in unincorporated parts of the County north of the City. These areas also have median incomes higher than the State median Income for 2020. Opportunity Access The Riverside County 2019 Analysis of Impediments found that except for their ability to access a low transportation costs and proximity to jobs, residents of the County of Riverside enjoy relative access to opportunity at levels equal to or slightly higher than residents of the region generally. Data indicates greater access for Riverside County residents to opportunity in the important areas of education and employment, and lower exposure to poverty. Further, these scores are consistent across various protected groups, meaning that members of most racial and ethnic groups enjoy a better standard of living by various measures than their counterparts within the greater statistical region. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) coordinated efforts to produce opportunity maps that evaluate specific economic, environmental, and educational characteristics that have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low- income families. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps are intended to display the areas that offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. The primary function of TCAC is to oversee the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, which provides funding to developers of affordable rental housing. The opportunity maps play a critical role in shaping the future distribution of affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity. Shown on Figure 3.8, the highest resources areas are generally located in the western and eastern ends of the City. Low and moderate resources areas in Lake Elsinore are generally located west of I-15 where the most developed areas of the City are located. TCAC and HCD define these as areas where there are fewer opportunities to access jobs, education, and lower home values in this tract in addition to other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. The designation of Low Resource in the city means there is a need for the City to prioritize its resources towards improving opportunities for current and future residents. The City has been proactive in prioritizing resources for these lower resource areas. The City successfully pursued a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities Program to fund a comprehensive development plan to spur development in the Downtown area by analyzing existing assets and potential investments needed to increase infill residential development. The City has also purchased vacant lots for the future development of affordable housing, pedestrian pathways and linkages, and creation of a new civic center and other community amenities such as a public library or community center. PAGE – 3.48 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The County of Riverside AI shows various opportunity index scores that HUD has calculated for as a measure of relative access to opportunity in such important facets of life as education, employment, and transportation. Generally speaking, these scores indicate that members of most racial and ethnic groups within Riverside County enjoy equal or superior access to high performing schools, good jobs, good public transit, and relatively low exposure to poverty. The discussion below addresses opportunity access in Lake Elsinore education, environmental, transportation, and economic scores. Education Information on schools in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (from publicschoolreview.com) show that the district's average testing ranking is 4/10, which is in the bottom 50 percent of public schools in California and is ranked within the bottom 50 percent of all 989 school districts in California (based on combined math and reading proficiency testing data) for the 2018-2019 school year. School ranking in the City varied by location. A comparison of schools in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District on publicschoolreview.com show that the lowest scoring K-12 schools (rank of 3/10 or less) are all located in areas of the City west of I-15. The schools include Elsinore Elementary School, Lakeland Village, Machado Elementary School, Elsinore Middle School, and Withrow Elementary School. These schools are in areas classified as Moderate or Low Resources areas (according to TCAC data shown on Figure 3.8). In contrast, two of the top three scoring schools (rank of 7/10 or more) are in High Resources areas of the City east of I-15. These schools include Tuscany Hills and Cottonwood Canyon Elementary Schools. School achievement can vary within the same areas. For example, Rice Canyon Elementary School scored in the top three and is west of the I-15 west in a higher opportunity area (according to TCAC data shown on Figure 3.8) as is Terra Cotta Middle School which scored in the bottom five schools. TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps Education Domain data shows that there are education opportunity disparities within the City and compared to the local region. The data combines scores for math and reading proficiency with high school graduation rates and student poverty. In Lake Elsinore, the areas west of I-15 have lower scores and thus less positive education outcomes compared with areas east of I-15. Education outcomes improve gradually toward the eastern areas of the City. The differences in school quality between the areas of the City west and east of I-15 mirror other demographic variation such as poverty and income with the higher scoring schools being in areas of the City with higher incomes and less residents living in poverty relative the lower scoring school areas, and vice versa. In terms of race and ethnicity, the City is very diverse and that racial and ethnic diversity is relatively consistent throughout the city. There are however, some residential areas of the City with a lower Non-White population (such as Canyon Hills) that are served by some higher scoring schools. Compared with the local region (western Riverside County), the City has TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps Education Domain scores similar to those of Perris, Moreno Valley, Jurupa Valley and westernmost parts of the City of Riverside. Areas of the County in and around the Cities of Corona, Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula shows higher scores and this more positive education outcomes. In general, the areas with more positive education outcomes also had higher overall opportunity index scores, and vice versa. In most parts of Western Riverside County, areas with less positive education outcomes coincided with areas with higher proportion of Non-White residents, lower incomes, and a higher proportion of residents living in poverty. California Department of Education data shows that , 65.4 percent of students qualified for PAGE – 3.49 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN free/reduced-price meals within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. This proportion is the same for the County of Riverside but higher than the State of California (58.9 percent). The Lake Elsinore Unified School District has a lower proportion of English-learner students, 10.4 percent compared with 16.5 percent for all school districts in Riverside County, and 17.7 percent for all districts in California. The Education Data Partnership reports an ethnic diversity score of 38. The Ethnic Diversity Index reflects how evenly distributed these students are among the race/ethnicity categories. The more evenly distributed the student body, the higher the number. A school where all of the students are the same ethnicity would have an index of 0. The index is out of 100; the highest score any school currently receives in the country is 76. Combined, all school districts in Riverside County have an ethnic diversity score of 37 and across the State, the diversity index of 47. The Lake Elsinore School District allows intra-district transfers for any student seeking to attend an LEUSD school other than his or her school of attendance. Intra-district transfers will be permitted only as space permits and when requests exceed spaces available, a random drawing is held for award of intra-district transfer to the desired site(s). Transfer opportunities are limited by capacity. Students who reside in the school boundaries will not be displaced due to intra-district transfer requests; therefore, students on intra-district transfers could be displaced in the event of excessive enrollment. Environmental The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. Figure 3.12 shows CalEnviro Screen results for Lake Elsinore. The map shows that in Lake Elsinore, the areas west of I-15 and in the northern part of the City (north of SR-74) have higher scores. Areas with a high score experience a higher pollution burden and vulnerability than census tracts with low scores. Figure 3.12 also shows that two Census tracts located north of the Lake (west of I-15) and to the northern end of the City and are identified as Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) consistent with SB 535. These DACs are defined as the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen. Two additional Census tracts located in the upper northeast corner of the City north of SR-74 and north of Greenwald Avenue that are identified as a DACs. While parts of these Census tracts are within City limits, these areas of Lake Elsinore are largely undeveloped, and the DAC designation is most likely due to communities located outside City limits. Compared to the County, Lake Elsinore had no tracts scoring over 80 percent. In areas north of the City such as Corona, Mira Loma, Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris there are concentration of areas with CalEnviro Screen scores over 80 percent. In western Riverside County, the lowest scores are concentrated in parts of Lake Elsinore and to the south to the cities of Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula. In Lake Elsinore, areas with higher scores (higher pollution burden and vulnerability) are in areas west of I-15. These areas coincide with lower resources, lower income, higher poverty areas. In terms of race and ethnicity, the City is very diverse and there are very few variations of race and ethnicity across the City. In PAGE – 3.50 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN terms of race and ethnicity, the City is very diverse and that racial and ethnic diversity is relatively consistent throughout the city. There are, however, smaller pockets of the City with a higher Non-White population (near the Lake) that have higher pollution burdens. Although the City has a relatively low proportion of residents with a disability, one larger area with a slightly higher concentration of disabled persons (10-20 percent) is in an area deemed to have a higher pollution burden. The City is in the process of creating a new General Plan Environmental Justice Element. The Element acknowledges that the burden of pollution is not equally shared. Minority and low-income populations often face a greater exposure to pollution and may also experience a greater response to pollution. The Element includes goals and policies address pollution exposure particularly for disadvantaged populations which have traditionally borne a greater pollution burden than other communities. Goal 18 and its associated 14 policies in the draft Environmental Justice Element aim to minimize the exposure of residents to pollution in the environment through sound planning and public decision-making. Strategies include reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to reduce pollutant emissions, new specific plans or existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities should address Environmental Justice goals and policies. This is an important policy given that a significant amount of future housing in the City will be developed within Specific Plan areas. Other policies address practices that impact access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods such as: • The involvement of the public in decisions that affect their environment and quality of life • Increased mobility options will provide critical links and opportunities for active living • Access to healthy food and a healthy home environment • Public improvements, services and community amenities that benefit disadvantaged communities. Transportation The County of Riverside AI states that Riverside County residents in urban and suburban areas generally enjoy superior access to transportation infrastructure. The County is also traversed by numerous major freeways within its boundaries (including Interstate 15 and State Route 74 which bisect the City of Lake Elsinore). Proximity to I-15 enables easy access to northern parts of Riverside County and San Bernardino County and west into Los Angeles County and south to San Diego County. The AI also states that the major population centers in the County appear to be well-served by public transit. The City scored 2.1 in the AllTransit Performance Score (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2019, AllTransit, alltransit.cnt.org ) indicating that the City had very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling negligible number of people to take transit to work. The City’s score was lower than the County score of 3.3. AllTransit data also shows that in Lake Elsinore, 47.3 percent of workers live within ½ mile of transit compared with 64.6 percent for the County. The Riverside Transit Agency provides bus service to Lake Elsinore, with service primary concentrated west of the I-15. Based on the available data, the areas of the City best served by transit coincide with lower opportunity areas and higher need areas. As mentioned earlier, areas west I-15 are considered lower resources areas, with a concentration of lower income households, a higher concentration of PAGE – 3.51 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN households with cost burden issues, residents living in poverty, and persons with a disability. In terms of race and ethnicity, the City is very diverse and there are very few variations of race and ethnicity across the City. Nonetheless, there are smaller pockets of the City with a higher Non-White population in the areas best served by transit. The HCD AFFH Data viewer provides additional information on job proximity, creating an index by Census Block Group indicting areas that are most proximate to jobs. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood (out of 100). Most areas of the City rank in the two lowest categories (20 and below, and less than 20). In Lake Elsinore, areas furthest from I-15 had the furthest proximity scores meaning they travelled . These areas coincide with higher resources and higher income areas. The areas with a slightly higher proportion of disabled residents have better access to job locations. These areas are also closer to I-15. Employment/Economic Local economic characteristics impact local housing needs, even though these characteristics may not be directly related to fair housing. These economic characteristics include the types of jobs available within the municipality, the way residents access jobs (e.g., auto, transit, etc.), the types of occupations held by residents, and their household income. The County of Riverside AI shows that the County’s top ten employers are primarily in the medical, education, and municipal sectors. While one major retail company, Amazon, remains among the top ten County employers, it is surpassed by the United States military, a major university, and a regional government units in terms of numbers of employees. Residents who work within Lake Elsinore are primarily employed in educational services, health care and social assistance, retail trade, and construction. This is consistent with the major employers in the City of Lake Elsinore. Major employers include the Lake Elsinore Unified School District with 2,497 employees, M & M Framing with 500 employees, Stater Bros. with 329 employees, and Lake Elsinore Hotel and Casino with 275 employees. Half of the top ten employers in Lake Elsinore are in the retail sector. Employment characteristics are important as they have a direct relationship with income. In 2019 the median earnings for civilian employed Lake Elsinore residents (age 16 years and over) over in the labor force was $34,933. Jobs in industries that employ more than half of Lake Elsinore residents (educational services/health care/social assistance, manufacturing, professional services, and construction) pay higher than the median earnings while than those in the retail and arts industries, which employ a quarter of residents, paid incomes lower than the City’s median earnings. In terms of unemployment, October 2021 unemployment data from the State Employment Development Department reported that Riverside County had an unemployment rate of 6.6 percent while the State of California had an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. While Lake Elsinore had a similar level of unemployment (6.7 percent), among cities in western Riverside County it was higher than most cities except for Moreno Valley (7.0 percent). Unemployment was slightly lower in Wildomar (5.9 percent), Murrieta (5.2 percent), Temecula (4.8 percent), Corona (4.8 percent), Riverside (5.6 percent), and Jurupa Valley (5.8 percent). PAGE – 3.52 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. PAGE – 3.53 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.54 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.55 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Disproportionate Housing Need Disproportionate housing need generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in certain groups of residents experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The disproportionate housing need analysis looks at cost burden, overcrowding, and environmental justice. Cost Burden (Overpayment) State and federal programs define whether a household experiences a housing cost burden (or is considered overpaying) as any household spending more than 30 percent of its gross annual income on housing. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care or education. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. Cost burden is more prevalent in Lake Elsinore than it is countywide. Among the County of Riverside’s 718,350 total households, 285,035, or 39.7 percent, are cost burdened (HUD Chas Data 2014-2018). This is significantly higher for lower-income households (earning up to 80 percent of the County AMI), of which 72.4 percent are cost burdened. In Lake Elsinore, 42.8 percent of all households are cost burdened while 78.8 percent of lower income households (earning up to 80 percent of the County AMI) are cost burdened. Tenure is tied to overpayment. For owner-occupied households, 34.9 percent are overpaying for housing, while 54.3 percent of renter-occupied households are overpaying for housing. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 shows housing overpayment for homeowners and for renters. In general, the percent of owner households with mortgages whose monthly owner costs are 30 percent or more of household income is between 40 and 60 percent and is consistent with the surrounding region. The areas in the southern portion of the City running along the southern boundary of the City have a higher proportion of overpaying homeowners but overall, the level of overpayment is consistent with the surrounding region. For renters, the percent of renter households who pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing is also consistent with the surrounding region and in fact is slightly better as the City has no areas where more than 80 percent of renters overpay. Within the City there is a clear concentration of overpaying renters west of I-15 in the neighborhoods north of the Lake. Overcrowding and Substandard Housing Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. In Lake Elsinore, nine percent of occupied housing units are overcrowded. Overcrowding is more prevalent in rental units where 18 percent are considered overcrowded compared to owner occupied housing where only five percent are considered overcrowded. Overcrowding in most of Lake Elsinore is similar to the average overcrowding rates at the State level (8.2 percent or less). Only two areas in the City had overcrowding in higher levels (Figure 3.11), in the area northeast of the Lake and in the southwestern corner of the City around McVicker Canyon Park. It is important to note that this tract is developed with a single-family subdivision and includes areas outside the City that are likely contributing to higher levels of overcrowding as those areas that are in unincorporated areas have a wider variety of housing types including multi-family developments. In contrast to the level of overcrowding in the City, PAGE – 3.56 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN areas in and around the cities of Perris, Corona, Mira Loma, Riverside and Moreno Valley show that there are significantly more tracts with overdrawing levels higher than the State average. Areas in the City east of I-15 and south to the cities of Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula show very few tracts with overcrowding levels higher than the State average. The Census Tract with overcrowding higher than the state average is in the area northeast of the Lake, an area with higher levels of overpayments (Figures 3.9 and 3.10) and poverty (Figure 3.6). Most of the City’s housing stock is fairly new (13 percent of housing units built in the last 10 years and more than half, or 51 percent of housing unit built in the last 20 years). Based upon observations and experiences of the Community Development Department, the City estimates that in 2020, fewer than 10 housing units were in severe need of replacement or substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions. HUD CHAS data (2014-2018) provides an estimate of households with at least one of four housing problems (incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or cost burden greater than 30 percent). In Lake Elsinore, 47.9 percent of households reported one of these housing problems, a level higher than Riverside County (44 percent). To address substandard housing, the City enforce the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Ordinance 1252) and encourages owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure or other circumstances to maintain or rehabilitate the properties (Program 2). The City uses CDBG funds to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work (Program 3). Persons Experiencing Homelessness The County of Riverside conducts an annual Point-in-Time (PIT) Count that is planned, coordinated, and carried out by county agencies, city municipalities, non-profit service providers, and volunteers, including those experiencing homelessness. The PIT Count serves as the primary source of population data collected countywide on individuals and families who live in places that are not meant for human habitation (e.g., on the streets or in vehicles). In 2020, an estimated 2,155 unsheltered individuals were counted in Riverside County. In Lake Elsinore, 50 unsheltered individuals were counted, which is 2.3 percent of the total number of unsheltered individuals in Riverside County and one of the lowest counts in western Riverside County. Table 3.12: 2020 Riverside County Point in Time Count of Unsheltered Adults Jurisdiction Unsheltered Count Jurisdiction Unsheltered Count Riverside County 2,155 Moreno Valley 165 Lake Elsinore 50 Murrieta 18 Corona 109 Perris 52 Hemet 93 Riverside 587 Jurupa Valley 103 Temecula 59 Source: Riverside County’s 2020 Point in Time Count. PAGE – 3.57 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The City uses CDBG funding to support service organizations serving special needs population in Lake Elsinore including homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population (Program 15). The City has also convened a Homeless Task Force to further the City's efforts to address homelessness and to engage key community leaders, businesses, and residents to join the City in its efforts to reduce homelessness in our community. The City has taken strong and proactive action to address homelessness. In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through Project Homekey, California’s innovative $600 million program to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. In 2020, the City purchased a motel to be used for crisis stabilization housing for homelessness residents and residents at risk of homelessness. The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing development, is owned by the City of Lake Elsinore and operated by Social Work Action Group (SWAG) and serves chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and adjacent unincorporated areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. PAGE – 3.58 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. PAGE – 3.59 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.60 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.61 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.62 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.63 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Displacement Risk Displacement refers to instances where a household is forced or pressured to move from their home against their wishes. Areas with high demand for homes drives up housing costs and increases pressure for redevelopment, resulting in the potential for displacement. The displacement risk in Lake Elsinore can be evaluated based on physical and economic displacement. The HCD AFFH viewer identifies communities, or places where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the context of rising property values. Almost all cities in Riverside County that have Census Tracts along major corridors (such as freeways) are categorized as vulnerable to displacement. The same holds true for areas of Lake Elsinore west of Interstate 15. The vulnerability, according to the data is based on the higher proportion of persons of color and lower income and renter households and observed rent increases. Physical Displacement Physical displacement is the result of eviction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of property; the expiration of covenants on rent- or income-restricted housing; or the rising cost of housing. Tenure and displacement are closely tied as renters are at higher risk of displacement from rising rental prices. One area in the City is susceptible to displacement because of the high proportion of households that are renters and lower income. Figure 3.13 shows areas with higher proportion of households in renter- occupied housing units. In Lake Elsinore, the area just north of the Lake and west of I-15 have the highest level of renter-occupied units (60 to 80 percent) compared to the rest of the City. These areas also have higher levels of lower income households (Figure 3.5) and residents living in poverty (Figure 3.6) compared with the rest of the City. Physical displacement may also be linked to non-financial forces such as segregation. The most common index of racial segregation is the dissimilarity index, which measures the extent to which different groups of people live in different neighborhoods in a city or metro area. Generally, the Riverside metro area is less segregated than many parts of the County and State. The median large metro area has a dissimilarity index (white/non-white) of 45, meaning that about 45 percent of a city’s population would have to move to balance the composition of individual neighborhoods to the region’s overall demographic composition. The Riverside metro area has an index score of 37 and is less segregated than areas such as Los Angeles (57) and San Diego (44). The UC Berkeley Roots of Structural Racism Project ranked all major cities by their levels of segregation using a relatively new measure called the divergence index. While the City of Lake Elsinore is not on the list (it does not meet the 200,000-person population threshold) , the cities of San Bernardino, Fontana, Riverside are listed as having “Low-Medium Segregation”, most likely due to the overall diversity of the region compared with other cities across the country. Also, it is possible for local government policies to result in the displacement or affect representation of minorities or persons living with a disability. Currently, most of the cities with adopted reasonable accommodations procedures have a definition of a disabled person in their zoning ordinances. The City of PAGE – 3.64 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Lake Elsinore has established the procedures to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in the application of zoning law and other land use regulations, policies, procedures, and conditions of approval. At-Risk Housing Housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government-assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower-income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, mortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. Based on City records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation and City records, in the next 10 years (2021-2031) no assisted units have expiring affordability covenant. Economic Displacement Economic displacement is due to inability to afford rising rents or costs of homeownership like property taxes. Residents of Lake Elsinore have a lower risk of economic displacement due to the relative affordability of housing in the City. The lower housing costs are due in part to the lower land values and availability of vacant land. Home sales process are lower than in the region, and typical rents generally align with HUD fair market rents. Nonetheless, housing cost burden is still common in the City. Cost burden occurs when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care. In Lake Elsinore, 42.3 percent of all households are overpaying for housing. This is significantly higher for lower income households, of which 73.6 percent are overpaying for housing. For owner- occupied households, 31.5 percent are overpaying for housing, while 55.9 percent of renter-occupied households are overpaying for housing. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show that the areas in the southern portion of the City running along the southern boundary of the City have a higher proportion of overpaying homeowners and that there is a clear concentration of overpaying renters west of I-15 in the neighborhoods north of the Lake. Figure 3.14 shows median gross rent by Census Tracts. Areas of the City with the lowest rents are located west of I-15. In general, rents in the City are lower than surrounding jurisdictions which may indicate a lower risk of economic displacement. The former Redevelopment Agency and the City have worked to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City using the former Redevelopment Agency’s Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund to assist qualified affordable housing projects, including 111 very low-income units in the Pottery Court project. As successor to the former Redevelopment Agency’s affordable housing functions, the City has recently leveraged Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds (LMIHAF) to assist the Cottages at Mission Trail and the Mission Trail Apartments projects to add 222 deed-restricted affordable units to the City’s supply of affordable housing. The LMIHAF have also been used to acquire infill sites in the downtown area for the development of affordable housing units. Future revenues to the LMIHAF will be paid as an enforceable obligation from Real Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) monies pursuant to the Successor Agency’s Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS). In a lawsuit filed by the Agency and the City against the California Department of Finance and others, Case Number 34-2017-80002762, the California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento confirmed the enforceability of a Housing Fund Loan agreement as an enforceable obligation of the Successor Agency to be recognized by the California PAGE – 3.65 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Department of Finance, the Riverside Auditor-Controller, and the Oversight Board on the Agency’s ROPS. The outstanding balance due to the LMIHAF as reflected on the Successor Agency’s 2021-22 ROPS is $27,012,366. These funds will be paid over time from available RPTTF. Disproportionate Need and Displacement Issues The Disproportionate Need and Displacement analysis reveals that areas of the City located west of interstate 15 have a disproportionate needs and higher vulnerability to displacement in these areas: • Cost burden; • Overcrowding; and • Displacement risk. The areas of the City west of Interstate 15 (near the Lake) have lower household incomes, a higher proportion of renters, rising rents, higher levels of residents living poverty, and households experiencing housing cost burden. PAGE – 3.66 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. PAGE – 3.67 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.68 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.69 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Sites Inventory Consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) State law requires that for housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities (Government Code Section 65583[c][10]). “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity. Figure 3.15 shows site inventory site locations and data that shows the location of lower opportunity resources areas and areas of Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). Low and moderate resource areas in Lake Elsinore are generally located west of I-15 where the most developed areas of the City are located. Because of this, many sites (including Specific Plan capacity sites) are located here. Eight specific plan areas are located in low or moderate resource areas, and they have a combined capacity of 4,187 units (345 very low, 2,622 moderate, and 1,220 above moderate income RHNA units). Almost all vacant R3 and RMUS sites are located in these areas as well. Combined, sites in low and moderate resource areas have a total capacity of 3,842 units (2,289 lower income units, 2,622 moderate income units, and 1,220 above moderate-income units). While there is an overconcentration of above moderate-income units in higher resources areas this is due to the single-family, specific plan nature of the newer parts of Lake Elsinore. Nevertheless, higher resources areas have a large capacity of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income units. Nine specific plan areas and two vacant sites are located in higher resources areas and have a combined capacity of 4,901 units (931 lower income units, 2,727 moderate income units, and 2174 above moderate-income units). The sites inventory for the 2021-2029 planning period consists of estimated ADU production, vacant, undeveloped capacity in specific plan areas and vacant land designated for high density and mixed-use development. Exclusive of ADU estimates, the lower-income RHNA is addressed with sites designated for multi-family residential development based on density for those units. Those sites have capacity for 3,173 lower-income units, with 71 percent of these lower-income units being identified on vacant sites (zoned HDR or RMU) and 29 percent in specific plan areas. 1,900 additional multi-family units are identified in Specific Plan areas but are credited toward the moderate income RHNA due to the allowable densities for those plan areas (less than 24 units per acre, specifically densities of 18 and 20 units per acre). Nonetheless, affordable housing in Lake Elsinore has most commonly been developed in areas allowing up to 18 units per acre, which demonstrates that while the City is not taking credit for lower income affordability for these sites, there is a very realistic potential for development of affordable housing here. • Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RE/CAPs): The sites inventory does not exacerbate conditions in regard to racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Part of a R/ECAP is located within Lake Elsinore in the northernmost area of the City (Figure 3.7) in the area where the North Peak Specific Plan is located. This area (and specific plan) is undeveloped, and the R/ECAP is most likely picking up demographic data from outside the City in unincorporated County pockets. The North Peak Specific Plan includes 1,200 future single-family units (no multi- family units) as such, no lower income sites are in this area. • Segregation and integration: race/ethnicity: The sites inventory does not exacerbate race/ethnic concentration conditions. The City is very diverse with 69 percent residents identifying as non- White and more than half (53 percent) of residents identifying as Hispanic. Most of the City block groups show a population that is between 60 and 80 percent non-white. Of the 30 blocks groups PAGE – 3.70 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN that cover the City (many of these also cover areas outside the City), only three have a proportion of non-white residents higher than 80 percent. Of these three, only one (0430.012) is in an area with identified sites. Three sites (R3-11, R3-12, and R3-13) are located here with a total capacity of 58 lower income units. This translates to less than 2 percent of lower income RHNA capacity in areas. • Segregation and integration: persons with disabilities: Lake Elsinore is like the rest of the county in that all of the census tracts have less than 20 percent of their population living with a disability. There are no concentrations of persons with a disability in Lake Elsinore as areas with a lower proportion of disabled persons coincides with areas of the City that have large undeveloped (vacant) areas. • Segregation and integration: familial status: The composition and distribution of family households in Lake Elsinore are generally like that of the region, in which more than 60 percent of children in each census tract live in a household with a married couple and less than 40 percent live in a female headed household (no spouse). Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show that within Lake Elsinore, there are concentrations of children living in female-headed households (no spouse) in the areas north of the Lake (west of I-15). This area is where most of the R3 and RMU sites are located (with a total lower income capacity of 1,844 units) and two specific plans with identified available capacity (1,250 moderate income units). • Segregation and integration: income level: Figure 3.5 shows median household income by Census block group and Figure 3.6 shows poverty status by Census tract. In Lake Elsinore the highest median household incomes are located outside the areas near the Lake (generally east of I-15 and west of Riverside Drive). Of the 30 blocks groups that cover the City (many of these also cover areas outside the City), only six have a median household income higher than the state median of $87,000. The block group (0430.012) with the lowest median income (less than $30,000) is in an area with three identified sites (R3-11, R3-12, and R3-13) with a total capacity of 58 lower income units. This translates to less than 2 percent of lower income RHNA capacity in areas. A large proportion of sites are in areas with the second lowest median household incomes ($30,000 to $55,000). In these areas there are more moderate and above moderate income RHNA units than there are lower income units. There are 19 R3 and RMU sites (with a lower income capacity of 1,386 units) and four specific plans (Eastlake, Nichols Ranch, North Peak, and The Diamond) with capacity for 1,934 moderate and 684 above moderate-income units. • Disproportionate housing need: cost burden (overpayment): In Lake Elsinore, 42.8 percent of all households are cost burdened while 78.8 percent of lower income households (earning up to 80 percent of the County AMI) are cost burdened. Cost burden is most prevalent among renter households. Within the City there is a clear concentration of overpaying renters west of I-15 in the neighborhoods north of the Lake. This area coincides with the location of 25 R3 and RMU sites with a lower income capacity of 1,844 units and two specific plans (Eastlake and The Diamond) with capacity for 1,250 moderate-income units. • Disproportionate housing need: overcrowding: Levels of overcrowding in most of Lake Elsinore is similar to average overcrowding rates at the State level (8.2 percent or less). Only two census tracts in the City had overcrowding in higher levels (Figure 3.11), in the area northeast of the Lake and in the southwestern corner of the City around McVicker Canyon Park. This area coincides with the location of 15 R3 and RMU sites with a lower income capacity of 1,509 units 67 percent of all PAGE – 3.71 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN lower income units on vacant non-specific plan sites) and two specific plans (Eastlake and The Diamond) with capacity for 1,250 moderate-income units. • Displacement risk: Tenure and displacement are closely tied as renters are at higher risk of displacement from rising rental prices. Figure 3.13 shows areas with higher proportion of households in renter-occupied housing units. In Lake Elsinore, the area just north of the Lake and west of I-15 have the highest level of renter-occupied units (60 to 80 percent) compared to the rest of the City. These areas also have higher levels of lower income households (Figure 3.5). The three census tracts with the higher proportion of renter households coincide with the location of 25 R3 and RMU sites with a lower income capacity of 1,844 units and two specific plans (Eastlake and The Diamond) with capacity for 1,250 moderate-income units. Most areas designated for future specific plan development are identified as high resources areas (shaded in blue) and as such most future residential development sites will be located in high resources areas. The location of potential HDR and RMU sites in this area represents both improved and exacerbated fair housing and equal opportunity conditions: • The sites inventory improves fair housing conditions and access to opportunity as new multi- family development in higher resources areas (through Specific Plan development) will provide new housing opportunity for current and future residents. In the older areas of the City , in and around Downtown and the Lake, new residential development in these areas is expected to stimulate economic development, job creation, and will contribute to a higher quality of life for existing and future residents of this area. No lower income sites are located in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPs). There is also a large proportion of new housing capacity at all income levels in higher resources areas. Nine specific plan areas and two vacant sites are located in higher resources areas and have a combined capacity of 4,901 units (931 lower income units, 2,727 moderate income units, and 2174 above moderate-income units). • The sites inventory exacerbates fair housing conditions by adding housing in areas with lower incomes, higher proportions of children living in female headed households, and housing problems (cost burden and displacement risk). This is seen most clearly in areas located around the Lake because most infill, higher-density development is expected to occur in these areas. The location of very low-income sites around the Lake requires a continued effort from the City to address needs of the community and work toward revitalization of these areas. The City has been proactive in improving and revitalizing this part of the City. The City has added incentives to encourage lot consolidation in the text of the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan. The City successfully pursued a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities Program that will fund a comprehensive development plan to spur development in the Downtown area by identifying potential investments needed to increase infill residential development. The City has also purchased land for the future development of affordable housing, pedestrian pathways and linkages, and creation of a new civic center and other community amenities such as a public library or community center. Finally, the City’s “Dream Extreme 2040” comprehensive long-term strategic plan has been adopted and directs the City to focus on the assets that matter most to the Lake Elsinore community including the Lake and the Downtown area. As a result of the analysis, Program 9 directs the City to pursue land PAGE – 3.72 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN purchases for residential development, redevelop tax-delinquent properties, consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown, pursue modifications to residential development standards to facilitate development in Downtown, and identify funding sources to invest in infrastructure and housing. PAGE – 3.73 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN PAGE – 3.74 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Local Knowledge Public Outreach As part of the Housing Element update, the City of Lake Elsinore proactively engaged the community through a variety of avenues including digital/social media outreach, a community survey, a community workshop, and direct email to stakeholder groups. The results of the workshop and survey findings relevant to the AFFH analysis include: • Housing Cost is an issue to many residents [Disproportionate Housing Need]: o Over 44 percent of respondents indicated that the cost of housing in Lake Elsinore prevents children from being able to stay/own homes when they grow up. o Nearly 34 percent of respondents wishing to own a home in Lake Elsinore indicated that they cannot find a home in their target price range and 18 percent indicated that they do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment. o When identifying the types of housing needed in Lake Elsinore, the 4th most frequent response was “affordable or workforce housing”. o When asked to indicate the importance of potential housing-related actions or programs, establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers and programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default were in the top three housing actions identified as very important. • Residents expressed an interest in new housing that was affordable and met the needs of seniors and families [Sites Inventory]: o Residents would like to see new housing in areas with the least impact on traffic and that new housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the City. o Participants expressed interest in Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development as a housing opportunity that can help address housing needs such as overcrowding. o Participants expressed the need for more senior housing. o Participants expressed a desire for additional strategies to encourage development in Downtown. Historic Patterns of Development In Lake Elsinore, areas west of Interstate 15 near the Lake were the epicenter of residential growth during the late 1800s and early 1900s. In contrast, new residential growth since the early 1990s has been primarily in areas outside of the historic core in the City’s Specific Plan areas (primarily east of Interstate 15). The Disproportionate Need and Displacement analysis shows that these older areas of the City have disproportionate needs and higher vulnerability to displacement as well as lower household incomes, a higher proportion of renters and minority residents, rising rents, and higher levels of residents living poverty. The City has worked to address issues that are common for older historic core areas in smaller cities such as blight and aging infrastructure. The City has undertaken several placemaking, economic development and community revitalization strategies: PAGE – 3.75 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • The City successfully pursued a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities Program that will fund a comprehensive development plan to spur development in the Downtown area by analyzing existing assets and potential investments needed to increase infill residential development. • The City has purchased vacant lots for the future development of affordable housing, pedestrian pathways and linkages, and creation of a new civic center and other community amenities such as a public library or community center. • In July 2020, the City purchased a motel to be used for crisis stabilization housing for homelessness residents and residents at risk of homelessness. The City anticipates that by 2030, the property will be converted to permanent housing for extremely low-income households. • Adopted in July 2020, the City’s “Dream Extreme 2040” comprehensive long-term strategic plan focuses on the assets that matter most to the Lake Elsinore community including the Lake and the City’s Downtown area. The City is working to attract residential development to the area through strategies such as acquiring and redeveloping tax-delinquent properties and consolidating parcels and by focusing on parcel assembly to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. Fair Housing Issues The 2019-2024 County of Riverside AI does not identify impediments to fair housing specific to Lake Elsinore, however some of the regional impediments to fair housing identified within jurisdictions in Riverside County may assist the City in identifying local fair housing issues. The County of Riverside AI identified the following issues and establishes recommendations to improve fair housing choice. Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities: Consistent with findings in the 2019 AI, nearly 63 percent of the discrimination complaints in the County of Riverside over the last five years were based on physical or mental disability. The high proportion of disability complaints to FHCRC is consistent with other communities in the area and is also consistent with data at the state and federal level. Fair housing discrimination based on disability demonstrates a lack of understanding in the housing industry of the housing rights of persons with disabilities. Disabled persons are experiencing difficulties when requesting reasonable accommodations or modifications. Persons with cognitive disabilities experience significantly more problems with these accommodations. Local Recommendation: The City of Lake Elsinore, through implementation of Program 14, will provide housing opportunities to meet the special housing needs of special needs residents— including older adults, disabled, developmentally disabled, large families, the homeless, farmworkers, and extremely low-income households—by giving priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups in addition to other lower-income households. The City also accommodates persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waivers or modifications of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Municipal Code and to promote public awareness of federal, State, and local regulations regarding equal access to housing. PAGE – 3.76 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Siting and Standards for Transitional and Supportive Housing: The County of Riverside AI included an analysis of public policies to determine if impediments to fair housing choice exist that negatively affect the ability of members of protected classes to secure or maintain housing. The City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code addresses the siting of transitional and supportive housing, provides definitions, and allows such housing in the same manner as all multi-family housing. Local Recommendation: Program 22 directs the City to amend its Zoning Regulations to comply with SB 2 requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). Effective January 1, 2019, AB 2162 (Supportive Housing Streamlining Act) requires supportive housing to be considered a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. Program 22 is proposed to ensure that the City of Lake Elsinore meets the requirements of AB 2162, specifically that supportive housing be considered a by-right use in zones where multi- family and mixed uses are permitted in zones outside where it is already permitted (R-3, RMU, and CMU zones). Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors in Lake Elsinore Housing Element law requires that the City list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues, are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, and must be related to the overall analysis. This identification and prioritization must give highest priority to factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or negatively impact fair housing. The following are contributing factors that affect fair housing choice in Lake Elsinore. Programmatic actions to address the fair housing issues ands contributing factors can be found in Chapter 6 under Program 25. Highest priority is given to the first two fair housing issues (concentration of minority, low- and moderate- income population and households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk) and their associated contributing factors due to the number of residents these issues affect. The two other fair housing issues (discrimination against persons with disabilities and siting and standards for transitional and supportive housing) are identified as having a lower priority not because they are not important, rather because these are tied to changing State laws and have specific actions that will be implemented early in the planning period to directly address these. 1. Concentration of minority, low- and moderate-income population, households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk. – HIGH PRIORITY The Disproportionate Need and Displacement analysis reveals that areas of the City located west of interstate 15 have a disproportionate needs and higher vulnerability to displacement due to: • Cost burden; • Overcrowding; and PAGE – 3.77 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • Displacement risk. The areas of the City west of Interstate 15 (near the Lake) have lower household incomes, a higher proportion of renters and minority residents, rising rents, and higher levels of residents living poverty. Almost all cities in Riverside County that have Census Tracts along major corridors (such as freeways) that are categorized as vulnerable to displacement. The same holds true for areas of Lake Elsinore west of Interstate 15. The vulnerability, according to the data is based on the higher proportion of persons of color and lower income and renter households and observed rent increases. Contributing Factors: 1. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods. 2. The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes and prices. 3. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures. 2. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – HIGH PRIORITY The analysis found disparities in access to opportunities particularly regarding: • School performance; • Environmental health; and • Access to transit. A comparison of schools in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District on publicschoolreview.com show that the lowest scoring K-12 schools (rank of 3/10 or less) are all located in areas of the City west of I-15. These schools are in areas classified as moderate or Low Resources areas (according to TCAC data shown on Figure 3.8). Figure 3.12 shows that areas west of I-15 and in the northern part of the City (north of SR-74) have higher CalEnviro Screen scores. Areas with a high score experience a higher pollution burden and vulnerability than census tracts with low scores. Figure 3.12 also shows that two Census tracts located north of the Lake (west of I-15) and to the northern end of the City and are identified as Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) consistent with SB 535. These DACs are defined as the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen. The City scored 2.1 in the AllTransit Performance Score (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2019, AllTransit, alltransit.cnt.org ) indicating that the City had very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling negligible number of people to take transit to work. The City’s score was lower than the County score of 3.3. AllTransit data also shows that in Lake Elsinore, 47.3 percent of workers live within ½ mile of transit compared with 64.6 percent for the County. Contributing Factors: 1. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods. 2. Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies. 3. Location of environmental health hazards PAGE – 3.78 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN 3. Discrimination against persons with disabilities and siting and standards for transitional and supportive housing – LOWER PRIORITY The land use constraints analysis identified various issues that would affect fair housing opportunities for special needs residents including: • The need to revise the definition for Residential Care Facilities and clarify siting for residential care facilities for 7 or more persons and ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities. • The need to revise the definition of “family” as well as establish a definition for “household” that is flexible and includes a variety of household types, consistent with State and federal fair housing laws. • The need to amend the City’s zoning regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 2 that requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. • The City has included these actions in the Housing Plan and are expected to be completed early in the planning period. Contributing Factors: 1. Land use and zoning laws 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 4. HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES INVENTORY State law requires that jurisdictions provide an adequate number of sites to allow for and facilitate the production of their regional share of housing. To determine whether a jurisdiction has enough land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, that jurisdiction must identify “adequate sites.” Under State law (California Government Code section 65583[c][1]), adequate sites are those with appropriate zoning and development standards—with services and facilities—needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing for all income levels. This section identifies available sites in Lake Elsinore for future housing development and evaluates how these land resources can work toward satisfying future housing needs. Also discussed are the financial and administrative resources available to support affordable housing. Housing in Lake Elsinore Demand for new housing in Lake Elsinore has significantly increased since 2015 due to the lack of available re-sale units. The City is well positioned to leverage this demand with ample availability of vacant, residentially zoned land and entitled Specific Plan areas. Due to the availability of undeveloped land and relatively lower costs (compared to other jurisdictions), housing in Lake Elsinore is more affordable. Many new market-rate units can provide affordability at the moderate-income level (80 percent of the area median income) even at market-rate costs. While market conditions are favorable for housing production, the City is working diligently to remove constraints to housing development and being proactive in encouraging and facilitating development of both market-rate and affordable housing. • The City successfully pursued a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities Program that will fund a comprehensive development plan to spur development in the Downtown area by analyzing existing assets and potential investments needed to increase infill residential development. PAGE – 4.2 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • The City has purchased vacant lots for the future development of affordable housing, pedestrian pathways and linkages, and creation of a new civic center and other community amenities such as a public library or community center. • In July 2020, the City purchased a motel to be used for crisis stabilization housing for homelessness residents and residents at risk of homelessness. The City anticipates that by 2030, the property will be converted to permanent housing for extremely low-income households. • The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing development, is owned by the City of Lake Elsinore and operated by Social Work Action Group (SWAG) and serves chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and adjacent unincorporated areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. • In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through Project Homekey, California’s innovative $600 million program to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. This funding was used to reimburse the City for most of its purchase costs and to complete renovations to The Anchor such as utility work, safety improvements, ADA accommodations, landscaping, and furnishings for each unit. In addition, this grant provided the City with $336,000 toward operating expenses through June 2022. • Adopted in July 2020, the City’s “Dream Extreme 2040” comprehensive long-term strategic plan to provide a framework to guide all decision making over the next 20 years by identifying key Anchors, Aspirations, and Strategies. City efforts will focus on the assets that matter most to the Lake Elsinore community, including an inventory of development opportunities. Several housing sites in this inventory are in and around two of the three identified anchors: the Lake and the Downtown area. The City will prioritize attracting residential development to the area through strategies such as acquiring and redeveloping tax-delinquent properties and consolidating parcels and by focusing on parcel assembly to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. This chapter presents the housing resources availability in Lake Elsinore and will be implemented alongside this Element’s Housing Plan, which lays out specific actions to facilitate residential development in Lake Elsinore. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The sixth cycle RHNA for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region covers an 8.3- year planning period (June 30, 2021 – October 15, 2029). For every SCAG jurisdiction, the RHNA is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. SCAG has assigned Lake Elsinore an allocation of 6,681 units to be accommodated during this planning cycle, with the units divided among the four income categories as shown in Table 4.1. The City of Lake Elsinore is not responsible for the actual construction of these units. The City is, however, responsible for creating a regulatory environment in which the private market could build these units. This includes the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards, and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.3 Table 4.1: RHNA Allocation 2021-2029 Income Group Total Housing Units Percentage of Units Extremely-/Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI)* 1,878 28% Low-Income (>50-80% AMI) 1,099 16% Moderate-Income (>80-120% AMI) 1,134 17% Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 2,570 38% Total 6,681 100% Notes: AMI: Area Median Income * Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low- income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation (939 units). Progress towards the RHNA Permitted Housing Units Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the planning period, jurisdictions may count any housing units permitted or approved from June 30, 2021 to the start of the Housing Element planning period (October 15, 2021) against the RHNA allocation.1 Table 4.2 shows credit for 36 single-family units permitted since June 30, 2021. Approved Projects Tessera Development Project The Tessera condominium project was approved in 2005, and the property developer estimates construction to occur in late 2021. The project consists of 90 condominiums located just south of I-15 along Franklin Street. Corelogic’s 2020 Southern California Resale Activity report estimates a median sales price of $390,000 for condominiums in Lake Elsinore. The 90 units are credited against the moderate- income RHNA, as median sales prices for condominiums fall within the affordability level of moderate- income households. Approved Projects Summary Approved residential development projects credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA can accommodate 126 units (Table 4.2). The City has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units to be addressed through site identification. 1 The Housing Element planning period differs from the RHNA Planning period. The Sixth Cycle RHNA covers a 10-year planning period of December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2028. The Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period of December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2028. PAGE – 4.4 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.2: Approved Projects Affordability Distribution Affordability Distribution Ex./Very Low (0-50% AMI) Low (>50-80% AMI) Moderate Income (>80-120% AMI) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) Total Building Permits issued since 06/30/21 -- -- -- 36 36 Tessera Development -- -- 90 -- 90 Total -- -- 90 36 126 2021-2029 RHNA 1,878 1,099 1,134 2,570 6,681 Remaining RHNA: Surplus/Remaining (+/-) -1,878 -1,099 -1,044 -2,534 -6,555 Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2020 Residential Sites Inventory State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. After accounting for approved projects, the City has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units. Throughout the City, various properties zoned for residential and mixed-use use and approved for Specific Plan development collectively provide sufficient capacity to meet and exceed identified housing needs for very low-income households, as well as provide an inventory buffer for all income categories. A detailed listing of sites, consistent with State law, is included in Appendix A. Sites Inventory Methodology Realistic Capacity Consistent with HCD Guidelines, the methodology for determining realistic capacity on each identified site must account for land use controls and site improvements. The High Density Residential (HDR) and Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) designations allow residential development at a density of 19 to 24 units per acre. Based on the intent of designations and the potential for the development of non-residential uses, the realistic capacity assumptions are set forth as follows: • High Density Residential. The HDR designation provides locations for multi-family residential development at densities between 19 and 24 units per acre. To account for land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity is calculated based on the median allowable density (22 units per acre). This is a conservative estimate; more recent multi-family, affordable developments in Lake Elsinore have exceeded this density estimate. Pottery Court, an affordable housing apartment complex built in 2011, was entitled at a density of 26 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the General Plan estimates. The Rivers Edge Apartments, built in 2007, was also entitled at 26 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The 81-unit, affordable Mission Trail Apartments built in 2019 was developed at close to 84 percent of the maximum density allowed in the Eastlake Specific Plan area (18 units per acre). The use of median densities is a conservative estimate for projects within the City of Lake Elsinore as development generally occurs at a higher density. • Residential Mixed Use. The RMU designation provides for a mix of residential and non-residential uses on a single development site, with an emphasis on high-density residential uses. All- residential developments are allowed, and non-residential uses are allowed in a subordinate capacity. The RMU designation has a density of 19 of 24 dwelling units per acre. An additional 20 to 35 percent of the building square footage may be utilized for commercial uses as an incentive for mixed-use development. Therefore, a two-acre RMU development could propose a 48-unit housing development with additional space for commercial uses—up to 35 percent of the building square footage. Projects that utilize a density bonus pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.86.060 can achieve a density of up to 35 dwellings per acre, provided the site meets certain criteria (proximity to a bus or rapid transit system stop) or provides community benefits. One benefit is consolidation of disparate parcels. Because RMU allows for combined residential/non- commercial uses in a manner that protects the maximum density and facilitates development of affordable units at higher densities, a 24-unit per acre realistic capacity is feasible. Nonetheless, the median allowable density (22 units per acre), conservative estimate, is used to account for land use controls and site improvements and to mirror expected development in the HDR zone. To assess the potential for nonresidential demand in the RMU zone and to assess the appropriateness of densities in the RMU and HDR zones, two developers with experience working in Lake Elsinore were interviewed. One of the interviewees specializes in market-rate housing and the second interviewee specializes in development of affordable, multi-family housing. Both interviewees confirmed that in the areas of Lake Elsinore where the RMU zone is located, the market demand is overwhelmingly for residential standalone development. In fact, both interviewees indicated that the development of mixed-use (with a residential and non-residential component) is very unlikely given the lack of demand for that type of development in Lake Elsinore. The demand for commercial or office uses in this zone is also very limited given the residential nature of the area and the availability of higher visibility commercial areas in other parts of the City. While the potential for higher non-residential development demand may occur as the area is further developed, currently and in the planning period that is unlikely to happen. The interviewees assessment fit with development trends in the RMU zone which point to a lack of demand for non-residential development. A survey of all developed RMU properties show only two non-residential uses (a commercial strip center built in 1978 and a church built in the 1960s) and both pre-date the creation of the RMU zone (in 2011). No properties have been developed since 2011 (when the RMU zone was adopted) although a five-unit multifamily rehabilitation project was completed in 2017. While additional vacant land is available in the Commercial Mixed-Use Zone (CMU), that zone is not included in the inventory as uses in that zone are expected to have a more commercial character. Sites that allow for mixed use have been limited to the RMU zone because that zone is PAGE – 4.6 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN in areas with residential development and future development is expected to be primary residential. The RMU zone allows non-residential uses in a limited capacity and in a manner compatible with the street environment and adjacent to residential areas. Capacity for Specific Plan sites are based on the approved units for the plan minus any developed units. Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower Income Housing The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Lake Elsinore), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. This is referred to colloquially as the “default density.” Developments in Lake Elsinore have demonstrated that affordable housing can be constructed at substantially lower densities than normally associated with affordable housing; this is due to the ample supply of vacant land priced at levels lower than land costs in the region. As a result, housing costs in the City have generally remained lower than in other areas of the region. Affordability assumptions differ for the 28 vacant residential sites (zoned for High Density Residential (HDR) and Residential Mixed Use (RMU) at 19 to 24 units per acre) and for residential development capacity in Specific Plan areas. For vacant residential sites, the zoning assumption is that the HDR and RMU sites are credited toward the very low income RHNA based on the zoning and the City’s strong track record of developing affordable housing at even lower densities than 19 to 24 units per acre. The two zones are expected to develop with multi-family housing and the sites are in areas with lower housing costs than the Specific Plan areas. Interviews with two local developers confirm that the 19 to 24 unit per acre density for both zones is at the top end of what can be developed in the areas of Lake Elsinore near the Lake. The availability of undeveloped land and lower land costs relative to surrounding areas in these two designations point to a lack of demand for higher multi-family residential densities. Both developers expressed that going above 24 units per acre is not realistic in Lake Elsinore as the demand for multi-family housing is not strong, due to the relative affordability of single-family homes in the City. In essence, new residents move to Lake Elsinore to buy a home, not rent an apartment. For those in the rental market, rising rents are pushing families to rent homes that have similar rental costs than multifamily housing but with more space. One of the interviewees who specializes in the development of affordable housing stated that the major barriers to development of multi-family housing in Lake Elsinore are lack of demand and limited financing availability. One of the interviewees indicated that the allowable densities in the RMU and HDR zones (19 of 24 dwelling units per acre) are at the high end for realistic residential development in this area due to the availability of vacant land at relatively low prices in this part of Lake Elsinore, making higher densities unnecessary and infeasible. The interviewee who specializes in affordable housing development also indicted that affordable housing at these densities is achievable given the City’s track record of affordable housing development in this part of Lake Elsinore and because affordable housing developers would most likely use a density bonus. The interviewee pointed to the newest examples of affordable housing in 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.7 areas near the Lake. There are currently no affordable housing developments in the RMU zone for direct comparison, nonetheless, most of the RMU zone is in an area with a strong multi-family development track record. In fact, most RMU properties are located from less than one to three miles from the City’s three newest affordable housing developments: Pottery Court (113 units), Mission Trail Apartments (81 units), and Cottages at Mission Trail (143 units). These three projects were developed in zones that allow a lower density (18 units per acre) than the RMU zone (19 to 24 units per acre). Several of the City’s affordable housing developments have occurred in the HDR zone but the most recent developments were developed within the Eastlake Specific Plan area located just east of the RMU and HDR zone areas. The Pottery Court Apartments, an affordable housing development built in 2011 and located in the same area provides further evidence of density appropriateness. The 113-unit development was built in the MDR zone which only allows a density of 7 to 18 units per acre. When asked about the barriers to developing affordable housing, the developer indicated that it is a matter of funding competitiveness, not density that has limited additional development in Lake Elsinore. Specifically, they pointed to the scoring structure for popular funding sources such as cap and trade funds which favor new development in high resources areas. Finally, the developer indicated that affordable housing developers assume the use of a density bonus and see a density of 24 units per acre as the equivalent of at least 36 units per acre with the anticipated density bonus. For undeveloped Specific Plan capacity, the affordability assumptions are more nuanced as the Specific Plan areas allow for a wider range of housing types, sizes, and amenities and many of the Specific Plans are areas of the City with slightly higher housing costs. The affordability assumptions for both site types are discussed below. Affordable Densities for Vacant Residential Land A significant number of affordable housing developments in the City have been constructed at densities lower than the 30 units per acre default density. Specifically, affordable housing units (affordable to very low- and low-income households) have most commonly been built in zones with a maximum allowed density of 18 units per acre. The Broadstone Rivers Edge Apartments (2007), Pottery Court (2011), Mission Trail Apartments (2020), and the Cottages at Mission Trail (2020) developments (all affordable housing projects) were developed on properties allowing a maximum of 18 units per acre. Table 4.3 presents a sample history of affordable developments in the City and one development located in the Sphere of Influence (one block from the City’s boundary). The City is also in preliminary discussions with a developer interested in developing a nine-unit affordable housing project. The tentative project would have a density of 16.6 units per acre in a zone that allows a density of 7 to 18 units per acre. Development patterns and a strong history of affordable housing development demonstrates that affordable housing projects are and will continue to be achieved in lower density areas. As such, crediting sites identified in the HDR and RMU designations (19-24 units per acre) toward the lower-income RHNA is a realistic assumption. PAGE – 4.8 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.3: Affordable Housing Developments Name Locations Year Built Total Units Affordable Units General Plan and Zoning Density Parkside Apartments 442 Kellogg Street 1987 37 14 HDR/R3 (19-24 du/ac) Villa Siena Apartments 31300 Auto Center Dr 1998 126 126 MDR/R2 (7-18 du/ac) Lake View Apartments (Phase 1) 32209 Riverside Drive 1980 88 87 HDR/R3 (19-24 du/ac) Lake View Apartments (Phase 2) 32211 Riverside Drive 1980 64 63 HDR/R3 (19-24 du/ac) Lakeside (Lakehouse) Apartments 15195 Lincoln Street 1983 128 52 HDR/R3 (19-24 du/ac) Broadway Machado Apartments (Townhomes) 16436 Broadway Street 1987 28 14 MDR/R2 (7-18 du/ac) Fairview Apartments (Townhomes) 33051 Fairview Street 1976 16 16 LMR (1-6 du/ac)/ No Zone, Sphere of Influence Broadstone Rivers Edge Apartments 2088 Lakeshore Drive 2007 184 28 East Lake SP (up to 18 du/ac) Pottery Court Apartments 295 W. Sumner Avenue 2011 113 111 MDR/R2 (7-18 du/ac) Mission Trail Apartments 32585 Mission Trail 2020 81 80 East Lake SP (up to 18 du/ac) Cottages at Mission Trail 32675 Mission Trail 2020 143 142 East Lake SP (up to 18 du/ac) Total 1,008 733 Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2020 Due to the availability of undeveloped land and relatively lower costs (compared to other jurisdictions), housing in Lake Elsinore is more affordable. Many new market-rate units can provide affordability at the lower income level even at market-rate costs. The vacant residential sites are in areas with lower real estate costs and the sites are expected to develop as stand-alone multi-family or mixed-use developments. In addition to favorable conditions for housing production, the City is working diligently to remove constraints to housing development and being proactive in encouraging and facilitating development of both market-rate and affordable housing. Objectives related to housing production in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) include assistance for two affordable housing projects in the planning period (Program 7 and 8), pursuing land purchases for residential development, redeveloping tax-delinquent properties, and consolidating parcels to create two larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown during the planning period (Program 9, adoption of objective design standards to facilitate high-quality residential development and compliance with State objectives regarding streamlined project review (Program 12), and regular outreach to owners/developers of Specific Plans to identify any issue with development timeframes and to inform owners/developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing (Program 21). Affordability for Specific Plan Capacity The City has many approved Specific Plan areas that have significant residential capacity remaining. These areas have a high level of certainty of development given that they are approved projects and specific parameters for the quantity and type of development have been established. Development types authorized by Specific Plans include single-family and multi-family uses (a portion of which are expected to be developed in a mixed-use context). The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.9 of market-rate and affordable housing. The developers and/or property owners have not specifically included affordable units—although any of the projects could be implemented to include affordable units—and housing costs are not yet known. Development within Specific Plan areas will allow for a wider range of housing types, sizes, and amenities. For multi-family units in Specific Plan areas, density is used to make the affordability assumptions. As previously discussed, 24 units per acre is used in place of the 30 units per acre default densities for a variety of reasons discussed under the “Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower Income Housing” heading. Multifamily and mixed-use units with an allowable density of 24 units per acre are credited toward the very low/low income RHNA. As shown on Table 4.6, since 2007, three affordable housing developments, with a total of 279 units, have been built in a Specific Plan area. Two of the City’s most recent affordable housing developments were built within a Specific Plan. The 81-unit, affordable Mission Trail Apartment built in 2019 and the 143-unit Cottages at Mission Trail built in 2020 were developed in the East Lake Specific Plan. Multifamily and mixed-use units with a lower allowable density (most commonly 18 and 20 units per acre) are credited toward the moderate income RHNA. Single-family units in Specific Plan areas can be credited against the moderate-income RHNA based on the cost of single-family homes in Lake Elsinore. While the median home sale price in Lake Elsinore ($409,750 in 2020 according to Corelogic data) is affordable to moderate-income households, some single-family units may come in at higher prices based on size or amenities. To account for a range of potential home prices, single-family unit capacity in Specific Plan areas is split evenly between the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. Table 4.4: Specific Plan Affordability Assumptions Affordability Distribution Low (>50- 80% AMI) Moderate Income (>80-120% AMI) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) Total Single-family Units -- 50% 50% 100% Multi-family/Mixed Use Units – 24 units per acre 100% -- -- 100% Multi-family/Mixed Use Units– <24 units per acre -- 100% -- 100% Table 4.5: Affordable Housing Costs by Household Size and Tenure - 2020 Affordable Payment (Per State Guidelines) Maximum Affordable Price City of Lake Elsinore Housing Costs Income Group/ Household Size Annual Income Limits Renter Owner Home (purchase price) Rental (per month) Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 1-Person $63,250 $1,581 $1,845 $334,920 $1,376 2-Person $72,300 $1,808 $2,109 $387,409 $1,591 Median condo. price 2020: $390,000 PAGE – 4.10 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.5: Affordable Housing Costs by Household Size and Tenure - 2020 Affordable Payment (Per State Guidelines) Maximum Affordable Price City of Lake Elsinore Housing Costs Income Group/ Household Size Annual Income Limits Renter Owner Home (purchase price) Rental (per month) 3-Person $81,300 $2,033 $2,371 $436,165 $1,791 Median home price 2020: $409,750 4-Person $90,350 $2,259 $2,635 $485,228 $1,992 5-Person $97,600 $2,440 $2,847 $522,695 $2,146 Assumptions: California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020 income limits; 30 - 35% gross household income as affordable housing costs (depending on tenure and income level); 20% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment, 3% interest rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage loan; housing cost include utilities based on Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Utility Allowance by room size, 2020. Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020; Housing Authority of the County of Riverside, 2020; MIG, 2020. Rent: U.S. Census 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Housing Prices: CoreLogic California Home Sale Activity by City, April 2020. Residential Site Inventory The Housing Element Sites Inventory consists of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections, remaining Specific Plan capacity, and vacant residential and mixed-use sites. Together, these sites ensure that the remaining RHNA can adequately be accommodated during the planning period. The sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Tables. 4.6 and 4.7 summarizes the sites inventory (see also Figure 4.1 and 4.2). ADU Projections A projection of ADU development during the planning period is included in the site inventory. In 2019, two ADUs were permitted; in 2020, six ADUs were permitted; In 2021 the City has approved nine ADU applications. The previous demand for ADUs in Lake Elsinore has been minimal due to the availability of relatively affordable housing. Nonetheless with recent, favorable ADU legislation which has created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs and the City’s efforts to publicize ADU development, demand for ADU development is expected to increase. As part of Housing Element implementation, the City will work to encourage and facilitate development of ADUs (Program 19). The City projects that during the planning period (8.3 years), at least 50 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be developed (6 per year). The affordability assumptions for the ADUs are based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) ADU affordability analysis for San Bernardino/Riverside County that have been approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)2. 2 SCAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs in the San Bernardino/Riverside subregion as follows: 15% extremely low-income, 8% very low-income, 35% low-income, 35% moderate-income, and 8% above moderate- income. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Assistance – ADU Affordability Analysis, August 27, 2020. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.11 Specific Plan Capacity A considerable portion of Lake Elsinore is designated for specific plan development. The Specific Plans are intended to allow greater design flexibility and encourage integrated developments. The City has several Specific Plan areas that have significant residential capacity remaining. These areas have a high level of certainty of development given that they are approved projects and specific parameters for the quantity and type of development have been established. Development types authorized by Specific Plans include single-family and multi-family uses (a portion of which are expected to be developed in a mixed-use context). The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development of market-rate and affordable housing. As shown on Table 4.6, since 2007, three affordable housing developments, with a total of 279 units, have been built in a Specific Plan area. Combined, the 14 Specific Plan areas identified in this Housing Element have a remaining capacity of 9,444 units. Table 4.6 also shows the level of entitlement activity for each plan area. While there are no pending projects, various specific plans have submitted applications for new or revised tract maps. Specific plan development in the City is ongoing. In 2020, permits were issued for 146 units in the Villages at Lakeshore Specific Plan. None of the listed Specific Plan areas have any site restrictions or governmental constraints that would delay development of the identified remaining capacity. Interviews with developers with working knowledge of the housing market in Lake Elsinore indicate that the main barrier to development of Specific Plan areas is financial feasibility. Due to the combination of infrastructure needs (that are no different than the needs of any new, large subdivision or master plan development in any city) and lower home sales prices in Lake Elsinore (relative to the region) the interviewees indicated that many projects would not be financially feasible, in other words would not generates as high of a return on investment for the developer as would development in more expensive housing markets. Table 4.6 also shows phasing information from the Specific Plan documents. Most indicate a phasing plan but acknowledge that the timing of residential and commercial development is a function of market conditions. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area is not included in the inventory. While the Plan has a remaining capacity of over 8,000 units, active mining activities preclude its development within the planning period. The Canyon Creek Specific Plan is also not included given the requirement for wildlife conservation in the Plan area. Affordability distribution of capacity in Specific Plans is shown on Table 4.4: Specific Plan Affordability Assumptions. For multi-family units in Specific Plan areas, density is used to make the affordability assumptions. Multifamily and mixed-use units with an allowable density of 24 units per acre are credited toward the very low/low income RHNA. Multifamily and mixed-use units with a lower allowable density (most commonly 18 and 20 units per acre) are credited toward the moderate income RHNA. To account for a range of potential home prices, single-family unit capacity in Specific Plan areas is split evenly between the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. Land use plans for the Specific Plans listed in Table 4.6 are presented in Appendix C. PAGE – 4.12 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (Vesting Tentative Tract Map) Partially Developed Last Amendment: 1997 1989 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 1,559 units/ 1,901 ac. The completed 567 units were part of amendments #2 that moved these units into the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. Those units have been built. Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. 619 225 120 964 Amendment 1 increased densities for multifamily and mixed-use units from 24 du/ac to 30 du/ac Amendment 1: Zoning Regulations lays out the land use plan, zoning regulations, and map. Areas identified for MF residential (16 acres) and mixed use with MF residential (89 acres) are included on Figure 1 and summarized on Table 2 of the Plan. Multifamily and mixed uses are in the southern part of the Plan area along Nichols Road. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 35001 (referred to as the “Alberhill Ridge”) was redesigned to reduce the number of single-family lots to 939 lots on April 14, 2020. The number of multi-family residential units within the new VTTM 35001 has remained the same as the original VTTM 35001 at 225 multi- family units and 120 mixed use residential units. Necessary steps are the recordation of final map(s), design review approval and approval of grading plan(s) and building plans. From Specific Plan document: Phase 1: 0 DUs Phase 2 (3-10 years): 3,200 DUs Phase 3 (11-15 years): 505 DUs All residential uses are in Phases 2 and 3; 38% of residential units are already constructed. Current Activity: VTTM 35001 was redesigned in 2020. There are no constraints to initiating full development of the Plan within the planning period. “The project will be phased out in response to market demand and a logical and orderly extension of roadways, utilities, and infrastructure…residential and commercial development are primary function of current market conditions. The timing of the future development can only be estimated” SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate MFR and MU units: Very Low (based on density) Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan (Tentative Tract Map) Not Developed Adopted 2006 2006 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 302 units/ 246 ac. No multifamily uses; Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. 302 0 0 302 N/A no MFR Application for revised Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 34249 submitted 12/9/2021. Revision No. 1 to TTM No. 34249 proposes to phase the development of the previously approved tentative map into four (4) phases. The first phase 1 proposes a subdivision of 81.32 acres into 132 single family residential lots, 10 open space lots, one detention basin, and one park. RDR 2022-06 proposes the design and construction of 132 single-family residential dwelling units located in Phase 1. The project proposes two (2)-different product lines which include six floor plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 3,291 sq. ft. No Phasing Plan in SP and able to move forward with remaining development. SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.13 Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total with each product line including 3- elevation styles. The previously approved TTM 34249 included a subdivision of 246 acres into 302 single family residential lots, 12 open space lots, one park, and two tank sites. Currently under review at the staff level. Canyon Hills Specific Plan (Tentative Tract Map) Mostly Developed Last Amendment: 2021 1989 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 4,275 units/ 1,969 ac. Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. Undeveloped area consists of several large parcels not yet subdivided. 63 216 0 123 8-15 du/ac townhouse (developed already) 24 du/ac for MFR units Figure 2.1 (Amendment 2) shows the land use plan and identifies areas for attached residential development (140.5 acres). Multifamily uses are in several areas along Canyon Hills Road. In 2021, a 9.02-acre site within the SP was changed from Neighborhood Commercial to Multifamily 2 with a density of up to 24 du/ac or up to 216 residential units. 60 of these units are expected to be condominiums. Tract Map No. 38008 for development of the 9.02-acre site with 60 detached condominium units was approved on June 22, 2021, as was the related residential design review. The final map is currently in plan check. Remaining steps for development will be recordation of final map, approval of grading and building plans. From Specific Plan Amendment #2: Phase 1: 608 SF, 154 MF Phase 2: 210 SF, 235 MF Phase 3:508 SF, 227 MF Phase 4: 148 SF Phase 5: 434 SF Phase 6: 133 SF, 243 MF Phase 7: 382 SF Open Phase: 548 MF Phases 1 and 2 done, Phases 3 and 4 graded and utilities installed Phase 5 TTM approved 2 phases left. The SP indicates that buildout rate and order are primarily a function of market conditions. Attached residential are available in the phases shown but depend on market conditions. SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate MFR units (60 condos): Moderate MFR units (remaining 156 units): Very Low (based on density) Cape of Good Hope Specific Plan (no identified constraints to immediate development) Not Developed 1993 1993 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 67 units/ 41 ac. no MFR; Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. 68 0 0 68 N/A No MFR From Specific Plan: “Intended to be completed in a single phase” No phasing assumed SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate The Diamond Specific Plan 2015 2010 No expiration 600 units/ 87 ac. 0 0 225 225 18 du/ac From Specific Plan: Phase 1: PA 2 (DONE) MU units: Moderate (based on density) PAGE – 4.14 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total (no identified constraints to immediate development) Not Developed date for the Specific Plan Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. Undeveloped area consists of subdivided larger parcels (generally between 0.5 and 1 acre in size). Figure 1.4 (Amendment 2) shows the land use plan and identifies areas for commercial mixed-use development (81.6 acres – includes open space). These areas are located on the eastern edge of the Plan area along Mission Trail. Phase 2 PA-2 (Underway) Phase 3 PA 3 Phase 4: PA-6 Phase 5: PA-1 (Underway) Phase 6: PA 5 “The phasing order is not intended to dictate time sequential development. Concurrent development may occur depending on market conditions and infrastructure development” A sports complex and commercial project were approved in 2016/2017, showing ongoing development of the Specific Plan. 225 residential units are in PA 6 (225), but the Plan indicates that the developer is not limited to developing in the phase order included in the plan. East Lake Specific Plan (no identified constraints to immediate development) Partially Developed 2018 1993 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 3,640 units/ 2,977 ac. Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. Undeveloped area consists of subdivided larger parcels generally around an acre in size although some areas of PA 8 have smaller parcels generally around 0.2 acres in size). 0 0 1025 1,025 18 du/ac Figure 2-1 shows planning areas. Residential uses are in PA 1, 2, 4, and 8 (which total over 1,300 acres and include a variety of other land uses as well as land for preservation/mitigation). The project requires MSHCP (Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan) clearance before being able to move forward. Next steps after MSHCP clearance will be • the processing of the development applications • completion of CEQA review • taking the project to public hearing. • Following hearings, the typical grading plan and building plan approvals. From Specific Plan: “…the phasing program for the East Lake Specific Plan area will be based upon the anticipated timing of these Development Targets. As development is initiated, infrastructure improvements will be constructed prior to or concurrent with incremental development in a manner to maximize cost effectiveness and efficiency.” Phase 1 – 5 years (by 2022): 2,915 DUs Phase 2 (2040): 725 MU units: Moderate (based on density) Lakeshore Village Specific Plan 2003 2003 No expiration date for 410 units/ 37 ac. 0 153 0 153 Attached apartment dwellings 18 du/ac From Specific Plan: No time sequential phasing. SFR portion done, MFR remaining. MFR units: Moderate (based on density) 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.15 Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total (no identified constraints to immediate development) Partially Developed the Specific Plan Parcelization: areas for detached residential are fully subdivided. The area for attached residential is made up of two large parcels totaling 9.8 acres) Exhibit 6 shows the land use plan and identifies areas attached and detached residential development. There areas make up most of the plan area and total 32 acres. Murdock Alberhill Specific Plan (Vesting Tentative Tract Map) 2008 (amendments pertain to changes to the location of schools and parks only) 1992 No expiration date for the Specific Plan. 1,819 units/ 511 ac. Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. Undeveloped area consists of several large parcels not yet subdivided. 1,278 541 0 1,819 R-3 20 du/ac (207 units) R3 24 du/ac (334 units) Exhibit 1 shows 3 planning areas and 12 sub areas. Residential uses are in all but 4 sub areas and total 367 acres. From Specific Plan: “Over a ten-year period in response to market demands”. “The timing of residential and commercial development is a function of current market conditions. 4 phases – MFR residential is in Phase 1 and 2. R-3 Phasing: Phase 1 – 207 units Phase 2: 334 units As of December 8, 2020, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 28214 has 567 completed Single- Family dwelling units showing ongoing development of the Specific Plan. SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate R3 20 MFR units (207): Moderate (based on density) R3 24 MFR units (334): Very Low (based on density) Nichols Ranch (Tentative Tract Map 37305) Not Developed 2019 2019 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 168 units/ 72.5 ac. Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. 168 0 0 168 N/A No MFR Figure II-1 shows the land use plan and identifies areas for SF residential development totaling 31 acres. (There is no multifamily development in this SP). Residential uses are located throughout most of the plan but are generally located along Nichols Road and Wood Mesa Court. Residential Design Review for 168 single-family residential units was approved on 11/9/2021. No further entitlement needed for SFR construction. Next steps: Recordation of tract map and approval of grading permits and building permits From Specific Plan: Three phases, “Planning Areas may be developed out of the expected sequence, or in smaller increments” Phase 1: 34 units Phase 2: 134 units Phase 3 – commercial SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate PAGE – 4.16 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total North Peak Specific Plan (no identified constraints to immediate development) Not Developed 1999 1991 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 1,200 units/ 1,786 ac. Parcelization: there is a mix of parcel sizes in the Plan area. While several section shows parcelization that range roughly from 1 to 5 acres in size and there are also areas that are not yet subdivided. 1,200 0 0 1,200 N/A No MFR Figure 3 in Amendment 2 shows the land use plan and identifies areas for SF residential development totaling 816 acres. (There is no multifamily development in this SP). Residential uses are located throughout the Plan area. Next steps would be the submittal and processing of new development application, such as tentative tract maps. Other steps are the same as described above. From Specific Plan: Over 17 years Phase 1 and 2 Phase 1A 89 acres of res Phase 1B 62 acres of residential Phase 2A 97 acres residential Phase 2B 108 acres residential SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate Ramsgate Specific Plan (Tentative Tract Map) Partially Developed 2008 1984 No expiration date for the Specific Plan Tentative Tract Nos. 32537 & 37382 totaling 272 SFR lots currently active until May 2023. 2,759 units/ 1,366 ac. Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. Undeveloped area consists of several large parcels not yet subdivided. 947 0 0 947 N/A No Remining MFR capacity Exhibit 3 shows the land use plan and identifies areas for residential development. Residential uses are in the northernmost portions of the Plan area where there is access from Highway 74 and several smaller roads. There is no remining multifamily residential capacity. Necessary steps include recordation of final map(s), approval of the design review application and approval of grading permits and building permits. Recorded Tract Map No. 30698 with 151 SFR, received Design Review approval on May 25, 2021. Necessary steps are approval of grading plans and building permits. Specific Plan Approximates over 20 years based on infrastructure and market demand. 66% of Specific Plan developed and able to move forward with remaining development SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan (Tentative Tract Map) 2015 2008 No expiration date for the 1,035 units/ 259 ac. 745 290 0 1,035 15-20 du/ac Tentative Tract Map 35337 approved in 2015 for entire Specific Plan. Currently working to record final map for first phase. From Specific Plan: 3 phases approx. 10 years, Currently working to record final map for first phase. SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.17 Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total Not Developed Specific Plan Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. Figure III-1 shows the land use plan and identifies areas for residential development. Residential uses are located throughout the Plan and total 156 acres (14.5 acres are for multifamily residential uses). Multifamily uses are in the southern portion of the Plan area at the intersection of Camino Del Norte and a proposed new road that will provide access into the Plan area. All MFR in Phase 1 MFR units: Moderate (based on density) Terracina (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36557, Rev. 1) Not Developed 2015 2015 No expiration date for the Specific Plan 452 units/ 150.8 ac Parcelization: several large parcels not yet subdivided. 452 0 0 452 N/A No MF Exhibit IV-1 shows the land use plan and identifies areas for residential development. Residential uses are located throughout the Plan and total 151 acres. There are no multifamily residential uses in this Specific Plan. Necessary steps include recordation of final map(s), approval of the design review application and approval of grading permits and building permits. From Specific Plan: “Phasing of development must be flexible to meet market demands and sequence of infrastructure” Revised SP Phasing Plan Phase 1: 73 units Phase 2: 84 units Phase 3: 21 units Phase 4: 94 units Phase 5: 89 units Phase 6: 38 units Phase 7: 51 units Revision No. 1 to Vesting Tentative Tract No. 36557, approved July 23, 2019, reduced the total number of SFR lots to 450. Design Review for 402 SFR submitted and under staff review. SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (Tentative Tract Map) 2005 (addresses the northern portion of the site where the remaining 1990 No expiration date for the Specific Plan. 1,847 units/ 1,010 ac. Parcelization: developed area fully subdivided. 807 0 0 807 N/A No MF Exhibit 8B shows the land use plan for the undeveloped portion of the Plan (north From Specific Plan: Development of the last phase (2005 amendment) over 5 years. “Residential development is primarily a function of market conditions. Timing of development can only be estimated…” SFR units: Moderate/Above Moderate PAGE – 4.18 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.6: Residential Capacity within Specific Plans Specific Plan (entitlement activity for remaining capacity) Year Adopted or Last Amended Year of original approval Expiration Date (of SP, or TTM, or anything, pls specify) Total Plan Capacity/Size Unit Type Distribution of Remaining Capacity MFR Densities and Location Necessary Approvals/Next Steps Phasing or timing requirements Affordability Distribution SF MF MU Total southern portion constructed by multiple builders over several years Partially Developed capacity is at, the southern section is built) Tentative Tract Map No. 33725, for 204 single- family units has an expiration date of March 26, 2023. Undeveloped area consists of several large parcels not yet subdivided. section) and identifies areas for residential development. Residential uses are located throughout the Plan (north section) and total 213 acres. There are no multifamily residential uses in the undeveloped areas of the Specific Plan. Total 6,649 1,425 1,370 9,444 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.19 Vacant Residential Sites The vacant sites inventory includes 18 HDR/R-3 sites and 10 RMU sites totaling 104.7 acres; combined, these sites yield a realistic capacity of 2,255 units. Table 4.7 lists the sites and provides detailed descriptions of each. Table 4.7: Vacant Land Inventory Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-1 1.97 1 19-24 du/ac 43 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Adjacent to a commercially zoned area R3-2 1.50 6 19-24 du/ac 34 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (1.1 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-3 3.60 17 19-24 du/ac 79 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Half (1.8 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-4 0.54 3 19-24 du/ac 12 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-5 4.04 25 19-24 du/ac 85 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most of site (3 acres) owned by two owners Subject to AB 1397 R3-6 1.27 6 19-24 du/ac 29 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (1.1 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-7 1.60 7 19-24 du/ac 34 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-8 1.04 1 19-24 du/ac 23 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-9 0.79 4 19-24 du/ac 17 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 PAGE – 4.20 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.7: Vacant Land Inventory Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-10 0.56 3 19-24 du/ac 11 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership R3-11 0.59 3 19-24 du/ac 13 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability 2 owners including City of Lake Elsinore (0.21 acres) Located adjacent to a mobile home park and a new Specify Plan aimed at revitalization and intensification. Subject to AB 1397 R3-12 0.81 4 19-24 du/ac 18 units Vacant Half (0.47 acres) of site under common ownership Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial area Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-13 1.21 1 19-24 du/ac 27 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-14 4.55 4 19-24 du/ac 100 units Vacant Located adjacent to higher density residential development and future commercial area Under common ownership Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-15 4.35 1 19-24 du/ac 96 units Vacant Located adjacent to a mobile home park Located across the street from a future 146-unit condominium development. Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-16 13.16 1 19-24 du/ac 290 units Vacant Located adjacent to a mobile home park Located across the street from a future 146-unit condominium development. Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-17 3.47 1 19-24 du/ac 76 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.21 Table 4.7: Vacant Land Inventory Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-18 14.31 1 19-24 du/ac 268 units Vacant Located along a major corridor (CA-74) for easy access Multi-family development opportunity located in a single-family residential area and near a future commercial area Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 MSHCP habitat set-aside and ingress road required – 15.85-acre site, only 12 to 14.31 acres developable RMU-1 4.96 1 19-24 du/ac 109 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 RMU-2 5.03 3 19-24 du/ac 110 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-3 8.25 1 19-24 du/ac 181 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 RMU-4 5.99 11 19-24 du/ac 132 units Vacant Located across the street from a high-density residential development, next to Eastlake Specific Plan mixed-use overlay area with capacity for 750 residential units and adjacent to the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan mixed-use area. Very low/low-income affordability Most (4.56 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-5 3.26 25 19-24 du/ac 73 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (2.36 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-6 5.26 44 19-24 du/ac 117 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (3.91 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 PAGE – 4.22 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 4.7: Vacant Land Inventory Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes RMU-7 1.08 9 19-24 du/ac 26 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (0.59 acres) of site under common ownership Adjacent to underutilized land for potential larger site RMU-8 8.76 9 19-24 du/ac 192 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (5.61 acres) of site under common ownership Located next to Eastlake Specific Plan mixed-use overlay with capacity for 750 residential units and adjacent to future commercial development. RMU-9 0.56 3 19-24 du/ac 11 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Located in residential areas across the street from an R-3 residential area RMU-10 2.21 1 19-24 du/ac 49 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Located next to a mobile home park and a high- density residential area. Across the street from a commercial mixed-use area. Total 104.71 196 2,255 units Assembly Bill 1397 Consistent with updated Housing Element law (Assembly Bill 1397) related to the suitability of small and large sites, the lower-income sites inventory presented in this section is made up predominately of sites between 0.5 and 10 acres in size, as the State has indicated these size parameters are most adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need. Individual parcels under 0.5 acres in size are included only if they are part of a larger site. Many of the sites comprise multiple parcels. Lot consolidation in Lake Elsinore is not a constraint to housing development. Since 2014, 21 parcel mergers have occurred. The City has added incentives to encourage lot consolidation in the text of the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan and is considering expanding those incentives citywide (see Program 7 in the Housing Plan). To streamline the process of merging continuous parcels the City adopted a Voluntary Merger Ordinance in 2016 (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 16.22 Voluntary Merger of Continuous Parcels). Under the ordinance, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer may authorize the merger of continuous parcels or units of land in which at least one parcel fails to meet the minimum lot size or otherwise is not suitable for development. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.23 Two HDR sites over 10 acres in size (but smaller than 15 acres) are included in the inventory. In Lake Elsinore, development of lower income affordable housing on large sites is achievable; one such project was completed during the prior planning period. In 2020, the Cottages at Mission Trail, a 142-unit, all- affordable development, was constructed on a 19.5-acre site, much larger than the identified large sites (13.16 and 14.31 acres). The sites inventory includes vacant properties with various land use designations. AB 1397 establishes criteria for inventorying any vacant site included in two or more consecutive planning periods (e.g., fourth cycle 2008-2014 and fifth cycle 2014-2021 housing elements). Per the law, such sites, if included in the inventory, must allow residential use by right if a development proposal has at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Sites that are subject to the provisions of AB1397 are indicated in Table 4.7. Sites Inventory Summary Table 4.8 summarizes the sites available to address the 2021-2029 RHNA for the City of Lake Elsinore. The approved projects and site inventory identify capacity for 11,875 units, 3,119 units of which are on sites suitable for development of lower-income housing. Overall, the City can adequately accommodate—and has excess capacity for—the full RHNA for 2021-2029. Table 4.8: Sites Inventory Summary Ex./Very Low (0-50% AMI) Low (>50- 80% AMI) Moderate Income (>80- 120% AMI) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) Total RHNA 2021-2029 Final RHNA 1,878 1,099 1,134 2,570 6,681 APPROVED PROJECTS Building Permits issued since 06/30/21 -- -- -- 36 36 Tessera Condominium Project* -- -- 90 -- 90 subtotal -- -- 90 36 126 SITES INVENTORY: Estimated ADU Production* 12 17 17 4 50 Specific Plan Capacity** 835 -- 5,282 3,327 9,444 HDR Sites** 1,255 -- -- -- 1,255 RMU Sites** 1,000 -- -- -- 1,000 subtotal 3,102 17 5,299 3,331 11,749 TOTAL APPROVED PROJECTS & SITES Total 3,102 17 5,389 3,367 11,875 REMAINING RHNA (+shortfall/-surplus) -1,224 +1,082 -4,255 -797 Notes: PAGE – 4.24 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN *SCAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 15% extremely low-income, 8% very low-income, 35% low-income, 35% moderate-income, and 8% above moderate-income. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Assistance – ADU Affordability Analysis, August 27, 2020. **Affordability based on density. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.25 PAGE – 4.26 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.27 Site Infrastructure and Constraints The sites inventoried in this Housing Element have residential land use designations and zoning in place to accommodate the RHNA. No General Plan amendment or changes to the zoning map are required. Few constraints would impede development of new housing units on the identified sites. Potential environmental constraints to future development of sites are reflected in the identified site capacity. For example, Site R3-18 is subject to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) set-aside requirement; thus, only developable acreage is included in the capacity calculation. The City requires that project applications for new development be reviewed for adequate infrastructure. Applications are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure capacity exists to service new developments. Specific plan areas have infrastructure provision plans in place. State law requires a detailed identification of infrastructure needed to support planned land uses, including the methods to be used for infrastructure financing and a program for implementation. Full urban-level services are available to each site in the inventory. Specifically, water and sewer services are available or are programmed to be made available for all the sites in the inventory. Site development potential indicated in the sites inventory is consistent with development capacity reported in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR accounts for future build-out of the City of Lake Elsinore. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service to most of the City. Lake Elsinore’s RHNA can be accommodated within the existing zoning and General Plan designated parcels in the City and therefore would not create an impact on water services beyond that identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. All sites have access to full dry utilities. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas services, and Southern California Edison provide electric power. Telephone service in the local area is provided by Verizon. Cable service in the area is provided by Spectrum, although there are alternative services available for the provision of cable and internet services. Financial and Administrative Resources Primary responsibility for implementation of the City’s housing programs and activities lies with the City Manager, the Community Development Department, including the Planning and Building Divisions, and the Engineering Department. The primary responsibilities of the Community Development Department include overall implementation of the General Plan through the Zoning and the Subdivision Ordinances, as well as implementing Specific Plans. In addition, the Community Development Department is responsible for long-range planning and physical development. The department ensures the City's viability through enforcement of land use, construction, health, safety, and environmental regulations. Several financial resources are available to the City and City residents: • The City of Lake Elsinore participates in HUD federal CDBG funding programs through the County of Riverside. The County of Riverside is the lead agency in administering HUD funding programs PAGE – 4.28 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN for the County and 15 participating cities, including Lake Elsinore. Service providers with proposed activities that provide a primary benefit to any of the 15 cooperating cities participating in the County's CDBG program can apply for funding. • As a successor to the former Redevelopment Agency’s affordable housing functions, the City has Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds (LMIHAF) to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of affordable housing. Future revenues to the LMIHAF will be paid as an enforceable obligation from Real Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) monies pursuant to the Successor Agency’s Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS). In a lawsuit filed by the Agency and the City against the California Department of Finance and others, Case Number 34- 2017-80002762, the California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento confirmed the enforceability of a Housing Fund Loan agreement as an enforceable obligation of the Successor Agency to be recognized by the California Department of Finance, the Riverside Auditor- Controller, and the Oversight Board on the Agency’s ROPS. The outstanding balance due to the LMIHAF as reflected on the Successor Agency’s 2021-22 ROPS is $27,012,366. These funds will be paid over time from available RPTTF. • In 2021, the City was awarded an EPA Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities Grant. The grant is for technical assistance to spur development in the Downtown area. The program will include analysis of the City's existing assets and resources to ensure the City maximizes its investments and programs for the Downtown to encourage outside investment. • Qualified Lake Elsinore homebuyers can obtain assistance through the California Housing Finance Agency’s First-Time Homebuyer Program. Additionally, the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) offers a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program to eligible Lake Elsinore homebuyers. Through the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, qualified low-income homebuyers can receive a federal income tax credit equal to 20% of the interest paid on their primary mortgage; the remaining 80% of the interest can be taken by the homebuyer as a tax deduction. • In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through Project Homekey to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing or at risk of being homelessness. This funding was used to reimburse the City for most of its purchase costs and to complete renovations to The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing development, such as utility work, safety improvements, ADA accommodations, landscaping, and furnishings for each unit. In addition, this grant provided the City with $336,000 toward operating expenses through June 2022. • Lake Elsinore homeowners are eligible for the EDA Home Repair Program through the County of Riverside EDA, as well as the EDA Home Rehabilitation Program. The Home Repair Program offers qualified Lake Elsinore homeowners up to $6,000 in grant funding for eligible home repairs, whereas the Home Rehabilitation Program offers up to $20,000 for eligible home repairs. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 4.29 • The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside administers the development, rehabilitation, and financing of affordable housing programs. The primary mission of the Housing Authority is to provide affordable decent, safe, and sanitary housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income families while supporting programs to foster economic self-sufficiency. The Housing Authority provides two basic types of rental assistance. The largest is the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. HCV participants pay between 30 and 40% of their monthly income for rent. Depending on the income of the family, the Housing Authority may pay all or a very small portion of the rent. PAGE – 4.30 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 5. REVIEW OF 2014-2021 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS This chapter analyzes program performance from the 2014-2021 Housing Element programs. State law (California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to review its housing element as frequently as appropriate and evaluate: • The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal; • The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives; and • The progress in implementation of the Housing Element. This evaluation provides useful information regarding which programs have achieved stated objectives and whether these programs continue to be relevant to addressing current and future housing needs in Lake Elsinore. The evaluation provides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs and the establishment of new housing objectives. Following the evaluation table, a summary of quantified objective performance is provided. The City has made progress through project implementation in addressing the housing needs of the special populations (Program 7: Affordable housing sites, Program 10: Special needs housing partnerships, Program 11: Homeless need). In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant to purchase and rehabilitate a 14-unit crisis stabilization/transitional housing project to provide temporary housing to extremely low-income persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Anchor was opened in December 2020 and provides housing and supportive services to up to 20 individuals. City staff have also been active participants in organizing, hosting volunteer sites, and accompanying teams during the Homeless-Count-in-Time Program. On May 23, 2017, the City Council approved the creation of the Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts to address homelessness. The Task Force is a working group of community leaders who meet every other week to identify short- and long-term solutions. The Task Force has been instrumental in developing the “Housing LE Program.” In cooperation with the non- profit organization SWAG (Social Work Action Group), the City has secured Homeless Emergency Aid PAGE – 5.2 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Program funds to provide direct assistance to house persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Task Force has successfully conducted homeless street outreach and community engagement, provided rental assistance and housing subsidies, and case management and supportive services. Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 1: CODE ENFORCEMENT Enforce City codes to remedy unsightly or hazardous conditions in residential neighborhoods. Provide information and technical assistance to property owners regarding housing maintenance The City ordinance and procedure governing nuisance abatement allow homeowners an opportunity to repair their properties. Nuisance Abatement Board hearings are held to resolve appeals only. Code compliance is an important City goal; this program is continued in the 2021-2029 Housing Element with modified objectives to reflect funding and staffing levels. PROGRAM 2: REMOVAL OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING Eliminate, through demolition, unsafe and dilapidated housing units that cannot be rehabilitated. During the 2014 – 2020 period, twelve homes were demolished through the City’s Structure Abatement Program procedures because of fire damage that resulted in dangerous conditions that could not be rehabilitated. This program is still necessary, and an updated version of this program will be included in the Housing Element as part of a larger program addressing abandoned and substandard housing. PROGRAM 3: ABANDONED PROPERTIES Enforce the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Ordinance 1252) and encourage owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure to maintain or rehabilitate the properties. Bank/mortgage holders have registered abandoned properties with the City’s Building Department, enabling Code Enforcement to inspect the active cases periodically and ensure the properties are being maintained and no violations exist until sale and occupancy of the property. During the 2014-2020 period, a total of 397 foreclosed homes were registered, broken down as follows: Year Number of Properties 2014 105 2015 99 2016 68 2017 32 2018 32 2019 39 2020 22 This program is still necessary, and an updated version of this program will be included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element as part of a larger program addressing abandoned and substandard housing. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.3 Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 4: HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAMS CDBG Home Repair Program: Utilize CDBG or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. Provide assistance to approximately 10-15 very low- and low-income households. In-Lieu Fee Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program: Institute a pilot housing rehabilitation program funded with in-lieu fees received, providing loans and/or grants up to $5,000 for exterior improvements. Provide assistance to approximately 10 very low- and low-income households. Through administration by the County of Riverside, in 2019 and 2020 a portion of the City’s CDBG allotment was used by the Habitat for Humanity Critical Home Maintenance & Repairs program. The CHIP (City Home Improvement Program) adopted in 2013 was successfully implemented in 2014 to provide home improvement grants to 8 low-income homeowners. The CHIP is not currently being administered due to lack of available funding; this portion of the program will be removed. Receivership Program is ongoing and successful. The City’s Building Department implemented a Receivership Program in 2014 with the goal of rehabilitating at-risk residential properties. Instead of demolishing homes and leaving vacant lots in their place, the City works with a court- appointed receiver to remodel the homes for sale, and to recoup attorney and rehab costs. In 2014, two homes were completed and sold to new buyers. In 2015, there were two homes, in 2016 one home and in 2017 seven homes. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, no homes were identified, remodeled, completed, and sold to new buyers. As of July 2021, there are four properties ready for receivership. Housing rehabilitation is important to the City, and this program will be continued in the 2021-2029 Housing Element with modified objectives to reflect potential future funding levels and remove the CHIP program. PROGRAM 5: ENERGY CONSERVATION Implement the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with State law. Carry out the housing related strategies and measures identified in the CAP to meet GHG emissions targets over the next two decades. The City Building Department accepts solar system plan checks “over-the- counter,” with review in house, and with permits issued within three business days. This simplified, efficient process eliminates governmental constraints and encourages the use of alternative fuel sources. In 2020, 839 building permits for solar energy systems were issued; 413 permits were completed in 2019, 670 in 2018, 726 in 2017, 563 in 2016, and 761 in 2015. In 2017 the City supported the Western Riverside Energy Leader Partnership for the second year, called the 2017 Holiday LED Light Exchange and FREE Energy Efficiency Kit program made available by the Council of Governments. An updated version of this program is continued in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and will include programmatic actions to ensure compliance with AB 2188, which requires local governments to adopt a solar ordinance by creating a streamlined permitting process. PAGE – 5.4 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 6: DENSITY BONUS Encourage the use of the Density Bonus Ordinance to obtain higher densities in residential developments and increase the availability of affordable housing units in exchange for exceptional architecture and amenities. A copy of the Density Bonus Ordinance shall be attached to Residential Design Review Applications. The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is included with all Residential Design Review application forms and is suggested to potential developers of multiple-family housing. No applications were received requesting a density bonus and no project with a density bonus was approved in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020. The City received and approved one application for Density Bonus in 2016 for a project of 150 dwelling units, which met the qualifications described in the Residential Mixed-Use Zone. Affordable housing incentive tools are important. This program is continued in the 2021-2029 Housing Element with specific focus on updating the City’s density bonus ordinance to comply with State law. PROGRAM 7: AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a Residential Sites Inventory and Site Suitability Analysis. Update the City-owned property list annually. Provide Habitat for Humanity – Inland Valley with information on residential sites suitable for affordable housing development. The City is updating its housing sites inventory and will continue to reach out to affordable housing developers and post the updated inventory to the City’s website. City staff has coordinated with Habitat for Humanity – Inland Valley with information on three locations within the City that could accommodate affordable housing. An updated version of this program is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element as an Adequate Sites program consistent with State law. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.5 Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Habitat for Humanity. Endeavor to facilitate at least one affordable housing project during the planning period. The City has an Affordable Housing web page as part of its website. The Affordable Housing page includes links to available housing programs for low- and moderate-income homeowners and first-time home buyers, including Riverside County EDA and CHFA First Time Homebuyer Programs, the County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, and County EDA Home Repair Program. In addition, the website provides links to affordable housing projects in the City that offer affordable housing to very low-, low- and moderate-income tenants. The City continues to participate in the Riverside County Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program, which is implemented by the County Economic Development Agency, and entitles home buyers to reduce the amount of their federal income tax liability for an amount equal to 20% of the mortgage interest paid during the year on their primary mortgage loan. The remaining 80% of the interest can be taken by the homebuyer as a tax deduction. This provides the potential homebuyer the ability to qualify more easily for a home loan, qualify for a larger loan amount, or improve the borrower’s qualifying debt ratio. Since 2015, 15 Lake Elsinore households have used this program. In 2017, the City partnered with private developers to approve two affordable housing projects: the Cottages at Mission Trail and the Mission Trail Apartments. Both projects are located on properties acquired by the City as affordable housing opportunity sites. The Mission Trail Apartments project was approved, project financing closed, and development commenced in 2018. This project includes 80 deed- restricted affordable rental units, including 21 very low-income and 59 low-income units. The developments have been completed. The Cottages at Mission Trail project was approved in 2018. The Cottages project will provide 142 deed-restricted affordable rental units, including 20 very low-income and 122 low-income units. Both projects include one manager unit, bringing the aggregate new rental units in these projects to 224 units (222 affordable housing units) constructed. Building permits were issued for all the units in the Mission Trail Apartments project and for 48 units in The Cottages project during 2019. Building permits for the balance of the units in The Cottages projects were issued in 2020 and Certificate of Occupancy were issued in 2021. Encouraging development of housing affordable to all income groups throughout the City is a central goal for this Housing Element. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element as part of a larger affordable housing program. PAGE – 5.6 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 9: RENTAL ASSISTANCE Continue to support the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Direct eligible households to the Section 8 rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. Provide information to landlords regarding participation in the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. City staff continues to provide referrals to the Riverside County Housing Authority for possible Section 8 rental assistance. The City updated its Affordable Housing webpage to include a link to the County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and Section 8 project based rental opportunities spread throughout Riverside County. The City prides itself in helping provide affordable housing opportunities to area residents. As a courtesy, a list of housing developments that offer a portion of their units with affordability restrictions from the City, or units with reduced rents for low-income residents, is available on the City’s website. Rental assistance resources are limited; as such, this important program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. PROGRAM 10: SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS Encourage non-profit organizations to pursue funding for the construction of elderly, disabled, or other special needs housing. Provide referrals to programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program and the California Department of Mental Health/CalHFA Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Housing Program. The City did not receive any inquiries from non-profit organizations interested in developing affordable housing for special needs residents. Project feasibility funded with HUD program funding sources generally require additional funding—often from low- and moderate-income housing funds. With the elimination of redevelopment, the City is diligently working to secure affordable housing funds available to assist new affordable housing development aimed at serving the City’s special needs population. In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through a State program to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. The funding was used for purchase costs and renovations to The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing complex owned by the City and operated by Social Work Action Group (SWAG) and serving chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and adjacent unincorporated county areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. Encouraging development of housing for persons with special needs is an important goal for this Housing Element. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and will be combined with other programs related to special needs housing. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.7 Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 11: HOMELESS NEED Consistent with available funding, address the needs of at-risk and homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population. City staff are active participants in organizing, hosting volunteer sites, and accompanying teams during the Homeless-Count-in-Time Program. In 2020, Riverside County reported a homeless population of 2,884, with 50 persons living in Lake Elsinore. On May 23, 2017, the City Council approved the creation of the Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts to address homelessness. The Task Force is a working group of community leaders who meet every other week to identify short- and long-term solutions. The Task Force has been instrumental in developing the “Housing LE Program.” In cooperation with the non-profit organization SWAG (Social Work Action Group), the City has secured Homeless Emergency Aid Program funds to provide direct assistance to house persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Task Force has successfully conducted homeless street outreach and community engagement, provided rental assistance and housing subsidies, and case management and supportive services. City was awarded City $2,838,953 in Homekey funds in 2020 to purchase a motel in the downtown area. The City completed the rehabilitation/improvements necessary to operate a 14-unit crisis stabilization/transitional housing project to provide temporary housing to extremely low-income persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness (the “target population”). The Anchor was opened in December 2020 and provides housing and supportive services to up to 28 individuals. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and will be combined with additional action items addressing homeless resources. PROGRAM 12: CONSISTENCY ZONING Continue with subsequent phases of the Consistency Zoning Project to bring zoning consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations, in accordance with the Compatibility Matrix shown in Appendix B of the General Plan. As part of Zoning Code amendments, incorporate a matrix of permitted uses in residential zones into Title 17 – Zoning of the Municipal Code to facilitate understanding of allowed uses. The Consistency Zoning Program was completed in all 11 districts within the City. This program is updated in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to focus on General Plan/zoning consistency moving forward. PAGE – 5.8 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 13: SPECIFIC PLANS Promote development within existing and future specific plans to produce planned community environments with a variety of housing types and densities. Most of the residential development within the City of Lake Elsinore during the 2014-2021 period occurred within the Canyon Hills Specific Plan, the East Lake Specific Plan, and the Village at Lakeshore Specific Plan. A considerable portion of the City is designated for specific plan development. The specific plans are intended to allow greater design flexibility and to encourage integrated developments. The City has several specific plan areas that have significant residential capacity remaining to be developed. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. PROGRAM 14: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Work toward the incorporation of a wide range of housing types (including special needs housing), densities, and affordability levels during the negotiation or renegotiation of development agreements with residential developers. Encourage developers to construct a percentage of affordable housing concurrently with market rate housing in each phase of development. During the Development Agreement process, facilitate and incentivize, as feasible, the development of housing projects on small sites, lot consolidation of adjacent small sites, and development of large parcels sizes that facilitate multi- family developments affordable to lower income households. A Development Agreement was executed between the City of Lake Elsinore and the developer regarding the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and was recorded in July 2018. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan plans for the development of 8,024 residential units that will be a mix of single- family and multi-family dwellings, including mixed-use at a variety of densities that support the City’s policies of providing adequate and affordable housing for all segments of the population. There was no development activity for this project during 2019 and 2020. In September 2017, the City of Lake Elsinore recorded a Development Agreement regarding The Village at Lakeshore project. The Village at Lakeshore project authorizes development of 163 detached single-family condominium units. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the developer agreed to pay an “Affordable Housing in Lieu Fee” at the rate of $2.00 per square foot of assessable space for each dwelling unit in the project. During 2020, building permits were issued for 110 of the detached single-family condominium units. Development agreements are an important tool for the City in securing development of affordable housing. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.9 Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 15: SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Support the housing needs of special needs households by prioritizing projects that include special needs housing or housing for extremely/very low-income households and by referring residents to the Inland Regional Center for housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. Review the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) relating to transitional and supportive housing as a residential use of property, subject to only those restrictions applicable to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The City’s Zoning Code was revised in 2012 to allow for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing consistent with applicable laws. The City also amended its Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to provide exemptions for specially adapted homes for severely disabled veterans and continues to look to ways to eliminate impediments to the provision of special needs housing. No referrals were made and no inquiries from developers and/or non- profit organizations interested in developing special needs housing were received. With the elimination of redevelopment agency funding, the City is diligently working to secure affordable housing funds available to assist new affordable housing development aimed at serving the City’s special needs population. In September 2020, the City was awarded a $3.1 million grant through Project Homekey, a State program to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. The funding was used for purchase costs and renovations to The Anchor, a crisis stabilization housing complex owned by the City and operated by Social Work Action Group (SWAG) serving chronic homeless individuals from Lake Elsinore, Wildomar and adjacent county areas. The Anchor has 14 separate units and can house up to 20 individuals. Increasing the supply of new housing for persons with special needs is a central goal for this Housing Element. This program will remain in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and will be combined with other programs related to special needs housing. PAGE – 5.10 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Table 5.1: 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Program Performance and Continued Appropriateness PROGRAM 16: FAIR HOUSING Work towards ensuring fair housing choices for all residents by advertising resident rights under federal and State fair housing laws and providing access to local fair housing service providers. Make this information available on the City website. Amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to revise or remove the definition of family to be flexible for a variety of household types, consistent with State and federal laws. The Zoning Ordinance’s definition of “family” is consistent with applicable laws and fair housing policies. The City is an active member of the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, and fair housing brochures are available at the front counter of City Hall. The City’s website includes a link to the Fair Housing Council’s First-Time Homebuyer Program for informative fair housing materials. Providing resources and information to address fair housing issues is an important goal for the City. This program will be included in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element and will reflect updated fair housing requirements in State law. PROGRAM 17: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION Adopt a process to address requests for reasonable accommodation, and develop procedures regulating siting, funding, development and use of housing for people with disabilities. The City actively provides reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of City zoning and building regulations and in June 2019 adopted an amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code formalizing a reasonable accommodation process. This program is implemented and will be removed from the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Policies related to ensuring reasonable accommodation will be included in its place. As part of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, the City established a set of quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and preservation. Table 5.2 summarizes the quantified objectives contained in the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element and compares the City’s progress in fulfilling these objectives. The City recognizes that it had limited resources to address the varied affordable housing needs in the community. Nonetheless, it worked diligently to address the community’s housing needs. In 2017, the City partnered with private developers to approve two affordable housing projects: The Cottages at Mission Trail and the Mission Trail Apartments. Both projects are located on properties acquired by the City as affordable housing opportunity sites. The Mission Trail Apartments project was approved, project financing closed, and development commenced in 2018. This project includes 80 deed- restricted affordable rental units, including 21 very low-income and 59 low-income units. The Cottages at Mission Trail project was approved in 2018 and completed in 2021. The Cottages project includes 142 deed-restricted affordable rental units, including 20 very low-income and 122 low-income units. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 5.11 Table 5.2: Summary of 2014-2021 Quantified Objectives and Progress Objectives Income Levels Total Extremely/Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Construction Objective (RHNA) Goal 1,196 801 897 2,035 4,929 Progress 43 (3.6%) 185 (23.0%) 1,162 (130%) 1,136 (55.8%) 2,526 (51.2%) CDBG Home Repair Program Objectives Goal 10-15 -- -- -- 10-15 Progress 8 (53%) -- -- -- 8(53%) In-Lieu Housing Rehab Loan Program Objectives Goal 10 -- -- -- 10 Progress 0 (0%) -- -- -- 0 (0%) PAGE – 5.12 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.1 lake elsinore general plan housing element 6. HOUSING PLAN This Housing Plan’s goals, policies, and programs have been established to address housing issues in Lake Elsinore and meet State law housing requirements. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure development, revitalization, and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents. In particular, the City looks to ensure that all residents have decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing regardless of income. These goals, policies, and programs are informed by the housing needs assessment (Section 2), housing constrains analysis (Section 3), housing resources analysis (Section 4), and the review or program accomplishments for the previous (2014-2021) Housing Element (Section 5). As used here, a goal is a statement defining a desired end result; a policy is a plan of action to guide decisions and actions; and a program identifies the method, agencies, officials, funding sources, and time frame the City will undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals set forth in this Housing Element. The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs aim to: • Conserve and improve the condition of the existing housing stock; • Assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households; • Identify adequate sites to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels; • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; and • Promote equal opportunities for all persons. Programs generally include a statement of specific City action(s) necessary to implement a policy or goal and identify the City department or other agency responsible for implementation, the quantified objectives (where applicable), and a timeframe for completion. A summary of quantified objectives follows the program descriptions. PAGE – 6.2 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The plan also aims to reflect the values and preferences of the Lake Elsinore community. Through a series of public outreach efforts such as survey and community workshop and comments on the Draft Housing Element, the City obtained input from residents of the community, local agencies and housing groups, and community organizations. Several themes emerged that the City has tried to address in this plan. When asked to indicate the importance of potential housing -related actions or programs in the City’s Housing Element survey, the following priorities emerged: • Establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers; • Programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default; and • Encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods. Comments from the community workshop and public review of the Draft Housing Element include: • Addressing the impact on services and infrastructure from future residential development (schools, roads, infrastructure); • Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to address housing need including overcrowding; • The need for senior housing, affordable housing; and • More strategies to encourage development in Downtown. The comments have been folded into the Housing Plan through programs that facilitate development of new housing, including housing for lower-income residents and residents with special needs and programs to help existing residents with housing rehabilitation and rental assistance and future residents by supporting regional homeownership programs. These goals, policies, and programs provide the framework for the City’s overall housing program. Specific policies and implementation programs are intended to provide a wide variety of tools to implement housing goals. This Plan focuses on goals, polices, and programs that meet State law requirements and can realistically accomplished based on current funding and staffing levels. This does not preclude the City from undertaking additional program actions not included in this Plan if they are consistent with the goals and policies set here and throughout the General Plan. Actual programs will be implemented at the discretion of the City Council given available funding resources. Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal 1 Preservation, maintenance, and improvement of the existing housing stock, including the affordable housing stock Policy 1.1 Continue to enforce building, land use, and property maintenance codes. Policy 1.2 Facilitate the removal or rehabilitation of housing units that pose serious health and safety hazards to residents and adjacent structures. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.3 Policy 1.3 Continue programs directed at preserving the physical quality of housing and neighborhood environments and maintaining compliance with established standards. Policy 1.4 Invest in neighborhoods that have aging and deteriorating housing and infrastructure. Policy 1.5 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. Policy 1.6 Encourage energy conservation and sustainable building measures in new and existing homes and the addition of energy conservation devices/practices in existing developments. Program 1: Code Enforcement The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing City Municipal Codes and certain State codes which address public health and safety, property maintenance regulations dealing with rubbish, debris, overgrown yards/vegetation, lack of landscaping, unsecured vacant buildings, dilapidated fences and walls, inoperable abandoned vehicles on private property, and other public nuisance conditions. Enforcement actions are taken proactively and in response to citizen complaints and requests for action by other City departments and outside public agencies. The City will continue using code enforcement to identify housing maintenance issues and to expedite rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing by offering technical assistance or assistance referrals to homeowners and occupants. The City provides information on the Code Enforcement program and includes the process to file complaints, appeal a violation, and provides a detailed description of code violations enforced by the Code Enforcement Division. As new projects, code enforcement actions, and other opportunities arise, the City will investigate ways to meet its housing needs through rehabilitation and preservation of existing units. Timeframe: Ongoing; Annual Quantification of Cases/Inspection as part of the Annual Progress Report process; applying/approving CDBG funding on an annual basis. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Divisions Funding Source: General Fund (staff time), CDBG Quantified Objective: Rehabilitation assistance or assistance referrals to 16 lower-income households (2 per year) Program 2: Substandard and Abandoned Housing Eliminate—through demolition—unsafe and dilapidated housing units that cannot be rehabilitated. Enforce the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Chapter 8.60 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) and encourage owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure or other circumstances to maintain or rehabilitate the properties. Utilize PAGE – 6.4 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CDBG or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Timeframe: Ongoing; Annual quantification of new registrations and demolitions as part of the Annual Progress Report process Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Divisions Funding Source: Department Budget, General Fund, CDBG Quantified Objective: Assist approximately 25 lower-income households (3 per year). Program 3: Housing Rehabilitation Programs Utilize CDBG or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. Continue using the Receivership Program to rehabilitate at-risk residential properties. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: CDBG; City Affordable Housing Funds Quantified Objective: Assist approximately 25 lower-income households (3 per year). Program 4: Affordable Housing at Risk of Conversion Based on City records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation, in the next 10 years (2021-2031) no assisted units have expiring affordability covenant. However, the City will continue to monitor the status of subsidized affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes and provide technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term affordability. If affordable housing developments become at-risk of converting to market rate housing, the City will maintain contact with local organizations and housing providers who may have an interest in acquiring at-risk units. The City will keep track of and apply for funding opportunities to preserve at-risk units and assist other organizations in applying for funding to acquire at-risk units. Timeframe: Ongoing; Contact owners/operators if a property becomes at risk of conversion Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: Preserve 754 affordable units (listed in Table 2.16) Program 5: Energy Conservation Encourage and facilitate energy conservation and help residents minimize energy-related expenses by: 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.5 • Promoting environmentally sustainable building practices that provide cost savings to homeowners and developers. • Providing informational material at the Community Development Department counters from utility providers and others that detail energy conservation measures for new and existing buildings, the benefits of the Green and sustainable building, and resources to assist lower- income households with energy-related expenses. • Continue to implement the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with State law. • Continuing to strictly enforce the state energy standards of the California Green Building Code. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Assist residents in minimizing energy-related expenses Goal 2 Diverse and high-quality housing opportunities to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community Policy 2.1 Preserve and expand the City’s supply of affordable (low- and/or moderate-income) rental and ownership housing for lower- income households. Policy 2.2 Use incentives and regulatory concessions to promote the development of housing for lower-income persons and those with special needs including, but not limited to, large families, persons with physical or developmental disabilities, families with children, seniors, and persons experiencing homelessness. Policy 2.3 Continue to actively pursue and utilize federal and State subsidies, as well as partnerships and City resources to the fullest extent possible, to assist in meeting the housing needs of lower-income residents, including extremely low-income residents. Policy 2.4 Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of lower-income housing. Policy 2.5 Support local and regional efforts to address homelessness and programs that provide emergency resources. Policy 2.6 Provide information to residents and businesses about COVID-19 pandemic tenant, homeowner, and small landlord protection programs assistance on the City website. Policy 2.7 Promote coordination and cooperation between the City, developers, and neighborhood residents early and throughout the process for affordable housing developments. PAGE – 6.6 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Policy 2. 8 As funding allows, explore opportunities to address existing housing problems and support regional programs to assist prospective homebuyers. Program 6: Density Bonus Maintain an affordable housing density bonus ordinance that establishes procedures for obtaining and monitoring density bonuses in compliance with state law. Update the City’s density bonus ordinance to remain in compliance with Government Code §65915 or update the City’s zoning regulations to cross reference the most recent State laws governing density bonus provision. Include a copy of the Density Bonus Ordinance with Residential Design Review Applications. Timeframe: Updated density bonus ordinance adoption within two years of Housing Element adoption; reviewing ordinance for compliance with State law and density bonus information- ongoing Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: Four projects that use the density bonus provisions Program 7: Affordable Housing Development Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers and non-profit housing agencies a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a residential sites inventory. Update the City-owned property list regularly. Provide pre-application technical assistance to affordable housing providers to determine project feasibility. Address zoning and code compliance issues in the most cost-effective and expeditious manner possible. If not already initiated via potential projects, annually consult with local affordable housing developers, including offering letters of support for grant applications, advising on local zoning and code compliance, and facilitating partnerships. When appropriate (based on affordability level) and available funding, the City will provide incentives or financial assistance to residential developments that include units that are affordable to lower-income households, including extremely low-income households. Assistance can include expedited permit processing, impact fee deferrals, and funding assistance (Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds contingent on a project meeting the location and affordability requirements). The City will promote these incentives to developers during the application process and use development agreements to obtain the inclusion of affordable housing units in new residential projects. The City has added incentives to encourage lot consolidation in the text of the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan and will considering expanding those incentives citywide. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.7 Timeframe: List of City-owned properties upon Housing Element Adoption and Certification; Update annually. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget, Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds Quantified Objective: Assistance for two affordable housing projects in the planning period Program 8: Affordable Housing Partnerships Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Office of Economic Development (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and Habitat for Humanity. Endeavor to facilitate at least two affordable housing project during the planning period. Participate and leverage funds form the newly created Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust, a joint powers authority, for the purposes of funding housing specifically assisting the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income within the County of Riverside. Timeframe: Ongoing; Web link to available housing programs on the City website within one year; Assess the City’s role in the new Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust and explore timeframes for leveraging funds to be used within the City. Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: Two affordable housing projects during the planning period Program 9: Downtown Lake Elsinore Residential Development Incentivize infill development in the City’s historic Downtown to establish an attractive, walkable streetscape with a mix of shopping opportunities, restaurants, and housing in both well-maintained historic buildings and high-quality new development and open spaces. Pursue land purchases for residential development, redevelop tax-delinquent properties, and consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. Pursue modifications to residential development standards to facilitate development in Downtown and identify funding sources to invest in infrastructure and housing. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division PAGE – 6.8 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: Two infill development projects in the City’s historic Downtown; Assembly of two development ready pads in/near Downtown; Review and revision of Downtown developments standards within 3 years. Program 10: Homeowner Assistance Programs Continue to support first-time, home buyers in Lake Elsinore by connecting interested residents and members of the public to the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) and First Time Home Buyer Down Payment Assistance Program (FTHB)run by Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and the First Time Home Buyer program, run by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA). Direct residents to national and regional mortgage assistance programs, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside’s First-Time Homebuyer workshops, Homebuyer Pre-Purchase Consulting services, and Foreclosure Prevention/Loan Modification Services. Coordinate with local service providers and other community-based organizations to publicize these housing assistance programs. Provide information on these programs on the City’s website and via social media, through flyers posted at City facilities, and via staff assistance at City Hall. Timeframe: Ongoing; Post on City website by January 2023. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Manager Funding Sources: Departmental Budget Objective: Direct residents to regional or state homeowner assistance resources Program 11: Development Process Streamlining Continue streamlining the project review process by: • Reviewing, and if necessary, revising local review procedures to facilitate a streamlined review process. • Accommodating SB 35 streamlining applications or inquiries by creating and making available to interested parties an informational packet that explains the SB 35 streamlining provisions in Lake Elsinore and provides SB 35 eligibility information. Timeframe: Ongoing; SB 35 informational material within two years of Housing Element adoption Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Provide information about SB 35 streamlining provisions in Lake Elsinore and eligibility information 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.9 Program 12: Objective Design Standards In compliance with SB 330, adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law. Adoption of objective design standards will facilitate high-quality residential development and compliance with State objectives regarding streamlined project review. The objective design standards will ensure provision of adequate private open space, parking, and architectural features, consistent with state law. Part of the objective design standards creation process will include assessing how the standards can be used to encourage a variety of housing types and limit the size of residential units on multi-family zoned properties to encourage units that are affordable by design. Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget; State funding programs Objective: Adoption of objective design standards Program 13: Rental Assistance Continue to support the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program. Direct eligible households to the Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. Provide information to landlords regarding participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program. Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside to promote Housing Choice Voucher use in high resources area in the City. Expand the location of participating voucher properties by adding information for property owners and landlords to the City’s website about participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program and advertising the County’s Informational Seminars for Landlords. Timeframe: Ongoing; Add information to the City’s website on participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program within one year from Housing Element adoption. Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Preservation of 230 Housing Choice Vouchers currently in use in Lake Elsinore Program 14: Special Needs Housing The City will encourage and facilitate housing opportunities to meet the special housing needs of special needs residents— including seniors, disabled, developmentally disabled, large families, the homeless, farmworkers, and extremely low-income households—by: PAGE – 6.10 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN • Giving priority for available funding to development projects that include a component for special needs groups in addition to other lower-income households by proactively identifying and advertising available funds to assist in the development of affordable and special needs housing and annually contacting a list of developers and stakeholders with the capacity and experience to develop affordable and special needs housing in Lake Elsinore. • Creating an online inventory of City-owned properties that are appropriate for development of affordable or special needs housing and publicize their availability to promote the use of sites for housing. Share inventory with non-profit, or special needs organizations annually. • Adopt a density bonus ordinance in compliance with Government Code Section 65915. • Adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law. • Providing technical assistance (application assistance, references) for non-profit organizations to pursue funding for the construction of senior, disabled, or other special needs housing. Provide referrals to federal programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. • Assist interested affordable or special needs developers pursue projects in the City by offering expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized development and impact fees for affordable housing. Assist in meeting the housing needs for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, by assisting developers who seek State and federal monies in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities and providing regulatory incentives to projects targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities. Timeframe: Ongoing; List of City-owned properties appropriate for affordable or special needs housing by December 2022; Annual contact with special needs stakeholders to advertise available City funds if funding is available (including sharing a list of City-owned properties that can be used for affordable or special needs housing and available funding sources). Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget, Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds Quantified Objective: Assistance for two special needs housing projects in the planning period Program 15: Resources to Address Homeless Need The City will use available funding (CDBG) to support organizations that address the needs of at-risk and homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population. The City will annually contact service providers and share identified levels of CDBG or other available funds (including City funds) for homeless resources or housing programs. The City will continue working with non-profit organizations that address homelessness to aid residents in need and provide technical support (such as preapplication consultation, identification of available City funding or incentives such as expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.11 development and impact fees) as needed and will cultivate a close relationship with qualified and experienced non-profits to operate a safe and secure crisis stabilization housing complex (The Anchor). The City will create an online inventory of City-owned properties that are appropriate for development of affordable or special needs housing and publicize their availability to promote the use of sites for housing. Share inventory with non-profit, or special needs organizations annually. The City will continue using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City's efforts to address homelessness as a means to engage key community leaders, businesses, and residents to join the City in its efforts to reduce homelessness in our community. As part of the Homeless Task Force, the City will fund a position for homeless outreach. The City will also continue participation in the Regional Homeless Alliance for Southwest Riverside County Timeframe: Ongoing funding for the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force; applying/approving CDBG funding for non-profit organizations on an annual basis. List of City-owned properties appropriate for affordable or special needs housing by December 2022; Annual contact with special needs stakeholders to advertise available City funds if funding is available (including sharing a list of City-owned properties that can be used for affordable or special needs housing and available funding sources). Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department Funding Source: Department Budget; CDBG; Project Homekey funds Quantified Objective: Assistance for one non-profit organizations annually that helps residents experiencing homelessness Goal 3 Adequate sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure Policy 3.1 Use the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, other land use and development plans, and the development process to provide housing sites that meet the identified local need. Policy 3.2 Promote a balance of housing types, including mixed-use development, to meet the needs of the community. Policy 3.3 Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized land and make available to the development community. Policy 3.4 Provide avenues for the development of housing for extremely low-income and special needs persons. PAGE – 6.12 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Policy 3.5 Require that new development pay the cost of providing needed facilities and an equitable share of services and to mitigate negative impacts such as those to the transportation system. Program 16: Adequate Sites The City of Lake Elsinore has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units for the 2021-2029 RHNA planning period after credits for approved projects are taken into consideration. Overall, the City can adequately accommodate the City’s current RHNA under existing General Plan and Zoning Code standards. The residential sites inventory to address the current RHNA consists of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections, development capacity in Specific Plan areas, and vacant residential and mixed-use sites with capacity to yield 11,749 new units. The City will maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request. The City will continue to track the affordability of new housing projects and progress toward meeting the City’s RHNA. To facilitate effective coordination between local planning and water and sewer service functions to ensure adequate water and sewer capacity is available to accommodate housing needs, following Housing Element adoption, deliver the 2021-2029 Lake Elsinore Housing Element to all providers of sewer and water service within the City of Lake Elsinore in accordance with Government Code §65589.7. The City does not provide water and sewer services. As of June 2022, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), which provides water and sewer services to the City, indicated that it was unclear if procedures are in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households as required by Government Code 65589.7. The City of Lake Elsinore does not have jurisdiction over the District as such, EVMWD was alerted of the requirements under Government Code §65589.7 and staff at EVMWD indicated that they would take action to put a compliant procedure in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households by December 2022. The City is not responsible for the actual construction of these units. The City can, however, create a regulatory environment that enable the private market to build these units. This includes the adoption and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards, and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. Timeframe: Ongoing; annual assessment of status of housing sites inventory as part of the annual reporting process to the State; Submittal of Housing Element to local sewer and water service providers following Housing Element adoption; Confirm status of EVMWD priority procedures by April 2023. Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department and Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.13 Quantified Objective: 6,555 units (remaining RHNA) Program 17: No Net Loss Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city or county must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. The City will evaluate residential development proposals for consistency with goals and policies of the General Plan and the 2021-2029 Housing Element sites inventory. The City will make written findings that the density reduction is consistent with the General Plan and that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the RHNA by income level. If a proposed reduction of residential density will result in the residential sites inventory failing to accommodate the RHNA by income level, the City will identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate its share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced density project. Timeframe: Ongoing; as part of the entitlement review process, evaluate new projects for consistency with General Plan objectives as they relate to housing and RHNA obligations Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: Department Budget (staff time) and application fees Objective: Ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. Program 18: Consistency Zoning When updates to the General Plan are made, complete zoning actions necessary to bring Title 17 – Zoning of the Municipal Code consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Timeframe: Following any General Plan amendments or Updates Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Ongoing General Plan and Zoning Consistency Program 19: Accessory Dwelling Units PAGE – 6.14 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN The City has promoted the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by updating its ADU ordinance in 2021 (Ordinance No. 1448) which addresses the latest provisions in State law, including permit streamlining processes required by law (AB 68 and AB 881). The City will provide technical resources to interested property owners such as an ADU Frequently Asked Questions handout that explains where ADUs can be developed in Lake Elsinore and what development standards they must adhere to. The City will create a webpage on the City’s website with ADU resources. The City will also provide pre-approved ADU development plans within three years and provide written information at the City’s planning counter and website. Timeframe: Ongoing; ADU Ordinance - within two years of Housing Element adoption; ADU website and FAQ handout within one year; preapproved ADU plans within three years Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: 50 Units (this Objective is a subset of and not in addition to the Quantified Objective for Program 16: Adequate Sites) Program 20: Specific Plans While initiation of physical development of a Specific Plan is largely outside the control of the City, the City will continue to promote development within existing and future specific plans. The City will maintain a list of Specific Plans with remaining development capacity and provide entitlement information of each plan as well as necessary entitlements or actions. The City will reach to owners/developers of Specific Plans with no recent entitlements actions every other year to identify any development constraints that may be within the control of the City. The City will address any identified issues. During the outreach process, the City will also provide information to owners and developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. Timeframe: Ongoing; Post list of Specific Plan capacity and entitlement levels (Table 4.6 in Chapter 4) on the City’s “Adopted Specific Plans” webpage following Housing Element adoption. Annual update of a Specific Plan entitlement level list; Outreach to owners/developers every two years. Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Ongoing contact and support for Specific Plan owners/developers Program 21: Development Agreements Work toward the incorporation of a wide range of housing types (including special needs housing), densities, and affordability levels during the negotiation or renegotiation of Development Agreements with residential developers. Encourage developers to construct a percentage of affordable housing concurrently with market rate housing in each phase of development. During the Development 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.15 Agreement process, facilitate and incentivize, as feasible, the development of housing projects on small sites, lot consolidation of adjacent small sites, and development of large parcels sizes that facilitate multi- family developments affordable to lower-income households. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Quantified Objective: Two Development Agreements that result in the inclusion of special needs housing or affordable housing Goal 4 The removal of governmental and non-governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing Policy 4.1 Periodically review residential development standards and regulations, ordinances, processing procedures, and residential fees to identify and mitigate constraints that may impede the development, improvement, and conservation of housing. Policy 4.2 Review projects in as timely a manner as possible, while maintaining adequate public involvement and fulfilling the appropriate requirements of state and local laws. Policy 4.3 Monitor State and federal housing-related legislation—and update City plans, ordinances, and processes pursuant to such legislation—to remove or reduce governmental constraints. Policy 4.4 Assist applicants navigating the development approval process; facilitate building permit and development plan processing for residential construction. Program 22: Compliance with Zoning Laws • Amend the City’s zoning regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), the Supportive Housing Streamlining Act (AB 2162) and AB 101 (Low-Barrier Navigation Centers): o SB 2 requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). o AB 2162 requires supportive housing to be considered a use by right in zones where multi- family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi- family uses if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. The law prohibits the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within one- half mile of a public transit stop. AB 2162 also require local entities to streamline the PAGE – 6.16 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN approval of housing projects containing a minimum amount of supportive housing by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for Conditional Use Authorization or other similar discretionary entitlements. o AB 101 requires that Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) be a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed-use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses (by-right or conditionally). LBNC provide temporary room and board with limited barriers to entry while case managers work to connect homeless individuals and families to income, public benefits, health services, permanent housing, or other shelter. • Require that employee housing, including agricultural employees, be treated like any other residential use in the same zone consistent with the Employee Housing Act. • Allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households on sites identified in the Sites Inventory and Appendix B as subject to AB 1397. Timeframe: Ongoing; Review Zoning Code for ongoing consistency with State law within 2 years of Housing Element adoption. Zoning Code revisions within two years. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Compliance with SB2, AB 2162, AB 101, AB 1397, and the Employee Housing Act Program 23: Residential Development Standards The City will review developments standards for the residential zoning districts and revise standards that are found to constrain development of housing within two years. The City will identify residential or mixed-use zones or geographic areas where an increase in residential density would facilitate development of housing and increase those densities within two years. Potential changes will ensure that the City’s planning and design goals for residential and mixed-use projects are met. The City will provide prototype development plans for different residential types as a tool to streamline and facilitate residential development. Prototype plans can also assist with grant funding application for affordable or special needs housing as plans can be tailored to the funding application requirements Timeframe: Ongoing; Review and update residential developments standards within 3 years of Housing Element adoption; Prototype development plans within 3 years Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget; Grant Funding Objective: Revise developments standards that are found to constrain housing development Program 24: Non-Government Constraints 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.17 Continue to monitor and evaluate development standards and advances in housing construction methods. Although the City has limited influence over non-governmental constraints, if non-governmental constraints are identified, the City will review, and if necessary, revise, any development regulations or processes that can potentially lessen those constraints. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsible Agency: Community Development Department – Planning Division Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Revise standards or processes that are found to constrain housing development PAGE – 6.18 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Goal 5 Affirmatively furthering equal and fair access to sound, affordable housing for all persons Policy 5.1 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Policy 5.2 Assist in the enforcement of State and federal fair housing and anti-discrimination laws by assisting organizations that receive and investigate fair housing allegations and refer possible violations of fair housing laws to enforcing agencies. Policy 5.3 Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing options throughout the community for all persons and reduce the risk of displacement. Policy 5.4 Ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate access to housing and reasonable accommodation in zoning and land use regulations. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.19 Program 25: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The City promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities and promotes housing for all persons, including those protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and any other State and federal fair housing and planning laws. The City will continue to promote public awareness of federal, State, and local regulations regarding equal access to housing and will provide information to the public on various state and federal housing programs and fair housing law. Maintain fair housing service referral information on the City’s web site. Timeframe: Post fair housing information on City website by December 2022. The City will also continue to implement Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b), which requires the City to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Timeframe: ongoing. The City will work to address housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, strategies for preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection. Chapter 3 summarizes the fair housing issues and concerns in Lake Elsinore based on research conducted as part of this Housing Element update and supplemented by findings of the 2019 Riverside County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Program 25 includes the following summary of the issues, contributing factors, and the City’s actions in addressing these issues. Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions A. Concentration of minority, low- and moderate-income population, households experiencing disproportionate need and households with displacement risk. 1. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods. 2. Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities. 3. The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes and prices. 4. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures. HIGH Fair housing issues A and B are closely related as such the action items are grouped together. The concentration of minority, low- and moderate-income population, and households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk also affects access to opportunity. Many of the same strategies (housing mobility strategies, new housing choices in areas of opportunity and place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization) address both issues (disproportionate housing need and disparities in access to opportunity): Housing Mobility Strategies: • Affirmatively marketing available development sites to at least 2 affordable housing developers annually with a focus on City owned (fully or partially) sites. Measurable Action: contact 2 developers and B. Disparities in Access to Opportunity 1. Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods. HIGH PAGE – 6.20 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions 2. Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies. 3. The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation. 4. Location of environmental health hazards. provide information on opportunity housing sites; Timeframe: By December 2023, annually thereafter. • Provide information to residents on the City’s website (in English and Spanish) about the Lake Elsinore School District intra-district transfer opportunities. Measurable Action: Create a webpage that includes this information along with resources provide by the Lake Elsinore School District for parents and students. Timeframe: Post on City website by December 2023, annually thereafter. Related program actions in other programs in this Housing Plan: • Direct residents to national and regional mortgage assistance programs, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside’s First-Time Homebuyer workshops, Homebuyer Pre- Purchase Consulting services, and Foreclosure Prevention/Loan Modification Services. (See Program 10). Measurable Action: Post on City website by January 2023;Timeframe: Ongoing. • Reach out every other year to owners/developers of Specific Plans to identify any issue that may be within the control of the City. The City will address any identified issues. During the outreach process, provide information to owners/developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. (See Program 20). Measurable Action: Post list of Specific Plan capacity and entitlement levels (Table 4.6 in Chapter 4) on the City’s “Adopted Specific Plans” webpage, Annual update of a Specific Plan entitlement level list; contact 2 developers and provide information on opportunity housing sites; Initiate contact with specific plan owners/developers every two years; Timeframe: Ongoing; Post list of Specific Plan capacity and entitlement levels (Table 4.6 in Chapter 4) on the City’s “Adopted Specific Plans” webpage following Housing Element adoption. Annual update of a Specific Plan entitlement level list; Outreach to owners/developers every two years. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.21 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions New Housing Choice in Higher Opportunity Areas: • Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement requirements. Measurable Action: including a summary on the outcome of development applications for affordable or special needs housing in the APR; Timeframe: ongoing. Annually evaluate (as part of the APR process) the outcome of development applications for affordable or special needs housing. • Apply for or support applications for affordable housing funds for projects or programs that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. Measurable Action: Apply for one funding program per year; Timeframe: Ongoing. • Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. Prioritize community and stakeholder engagement specifically from lower resources or DAC areas and to underrepresented groups by recruiting them to participate in the public outreach process by advertising through service providers and posting information on social media in English and Spanish. Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process by recruiting residents or distributing information on participation opportunities to residents in areas of concentrated poverty to serve on boards, committees, task forces and other local government decision-making bodies. Measurable action: Post opportunities for participation in all known, upcoming vacancies on Boards, Commissions and Committees on the City’s webpage and PAGE – 6.22 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions on social media in English and Spanish; Timeframe: Ongoing; Include in staff reports regarding appointments a summary of the efforts that were used to engage stakeholders. Post opportunities for participation in the City’s Boards and Commissions on the City’s webpage and on social media in English and Spanish every year following the City Clerk public listing of all known, upcoming vacancies on Boards, Commissions and Committees for the entire year (per the Maddy Act). Initiate January 2023 and annually thereafter. Related program actions in other programs in this Housing Plan: • Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers and non-profit housing agencies a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a residential sites inventory. Update the City- owned property list regularly. (See Program 7). Measurable action: create a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects, update the City list every two years, provide incentives or financial assistance for two affordable housing projects in the planning period; Timeframe: List of City-owned properties upon Housing Element Adoption; Update annually. • Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Office of Economic Development (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and Habitat for Humanity. Pursue at least two affordable housing project during the planning period. (See Program 8). Measurable action: Coordinate with agencies and 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.23 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions organizations to produce two affordable housing projects during the planning period; Timeframe: Ongoing; Web link to available housing programs on the City website within one year; Assess the City’s role in the new Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust and explore timeframes for leveraging funds to be used within the City. • Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside to promote Housing Choice Voucher use in high resources area in the City. Expand the location of participating voucher properties by adding information for property owners and landlords to the City’s website about participation in the Voucher program and advertising the County’s Informational Seminars for Landlords. (See Program 13). Measurable action: Preservation of 230 Housing Choice Vouchers currently in use in Lake Elsinore; Timeframe: Ongoing; Add information to the City’s website on participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program within one year from Housing Element adoption. Place-based Strategies to Encourage Community Revitalization • New specific plans or existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities (DAC),” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies included in the Environmental Justice Element. Measurable action: creation of Environmental Justice assessments by applicants for specific plan application or significant amendments within “disadvantaged communities (DAC)”;Timeframe: assess DAC inclusion at the outset of development activity in Specific Plan areas and require Environmental Justice assessment for specific plans that are within “disadvantaged communities (DAC).” • Pursuing funding and target neighborhoods of concentrated poverty for investment in rehabilitation, parks, transit, and active transportation. Ensure economic development plans reflect the needs PAGE – 6.24 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions of lower-opportunity neighborhoods. Measurable action: Evaluate every two years the distribution of infrastructure and transportation investment by high versus lower need areas. Assess need based on DAC designation, poverty levels, and opportunity areas designations. If evaluation shows uneven distribution of investment, identify action items to make the distribution more equitable. submit one funding application annually or 8 total; Timeframe: one funding application annually; funding and investment evaluations: biennially. • Adopt an Environmental Justice Element with a focus on identifying steps/actions to address Census Tracts with a “Disadvantaged Community” designation and environmental issue identification and actions. Measurable action: creation and adoption of an Environmental Justice Element; Timeframe: adoption by December 2022. • Dedicate or seek funding to prioritize basic infrastructure improvements generally provided by the City (e.g., street and sidewalk improvements) and advocate for funding for basic infrastructure improvements provided by out governmental units (e.g., water, sewer) in disadvantaged communities. Measurable action: Implement at least three infrastructure improvement projects during the planning period in DACs; Timeframe: ongoing application for funding. (Also see Program 9). Related program actions in other programs in this Housing Plan: • Continue using Code Enforcement to identify housing maintenance issues and to expedite rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing by offering technical assistance or assistance referrals to homeowners and occupants. (See Program 1). Measurable Action: Rehabilitation assistance or assistance referrals to 16 lower-income households (2 per year). Timeframe: Ongoing; Annual Quantification 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.25 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions of Cases/Inspection as part of the Annual Progress Report process; applying/approving CDBG funding on an annual basis. • Enforce the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Chapter 8.60 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code). (See Program 2) and encourage owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure or other circumstances to maintain or rehabilitate the properties. Measurable Action: 25 new registrations (3 per year). Timeframe: Ongoing; Annual quantification of new registrations and demolitions as part of the Annual Progress Report process. • Target acquisition and rehabilitation to vacant and blighted properties in Downtown Lake Elsinore neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Pursue land purchases for residential development, redevelop tax- delinquent properties, and consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. (See Program 9). Measurable Action: Complete two infill development projects in the City’s historic Downtown; Assembly of two development ready pads in/near Downtown; Review and revision of Downtown developments standards within 3 years. Strategies to Mitigate Displacement Risk: • Evaluate all proposed amendments to the General Plan’s Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for their effect on the City’s policy of integrating diverse housing opportunities in each neighborhood or planning district and on potential residential displacement. Measurable Action: for all General Plan updates or Zoning Amendments include in staff reports regarding appointments an assessment of the negative and positive effects on the City’s distribution of opportunity areas. Timeframe: Ongoing; provide findings when any land use policy changes are evaluated such as a PAGE – 6.26 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions General Plan update or Zoning Amendment adoptions. Assess progress in the City’s Annual Progress Report. • (Also included under Housing mobility strategies): Affirmatively marketing available development sites to at least 2 affordable housing developers annually with a focus on City owned (fully or partially) sites. Measurable Action: contact 2 developers and provide information on opportunity housing sites; Timeframe: By December 2023, annually thereafter. • (Also included under New Housing Choice in Higher Opportunity Areas): Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. Prioritize community and stakeholder engagement specifically from lower resources or DAC areas and to underrepresented groups by recruiting them to participate in the public outreach process by advertising through service providers and posting information on social media in English and Spanish. Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process by recruiting residents or distributing information on participation opportunities to residents in areas of concentrated poverty to serve on boards, committees, task forces and other local government decision-making bodies. Measurable action: Post opportunities for participation in all known, upcoming vacancies on Boards, Commissions and Committees on the City’s webpage and on social media in English and Spanish; Timeframe: Ongoing; Include in staff reports regarding appointments a summary of the efforts that were used to engage stakeholders. Post opportunities for participation in the City’s Boards and Commissions on the City’s webpage and on social media in English and Spanish every year following the City Clerk public listing of all known, upcoming 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.27 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions vacancies on Boards, Commissions and Committees for the entire year (per the Maddy Act). Initiate January 2023 and annually thereafter. • (Also included under Place-based Strategies):New specific plans or existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities (DAC),” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies included in the Environmental Justice Element. Measurable action: creation of Environmental Justice assessments by applicants for specific plan application or significant amendments within “disadvantaged communities (DAC)”;Timeframe: assess DAC inclusion at the outset of development activity in Specific Plan areas and require Environmental Justice assessment for specific plans that are within “disadvantaged communities (DAC).” Related program actions in other programs in this Housing Plan: • Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers and non-profit housing agencies a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a residential sites inventory. Update the City- owned property list regularly. (See Program 7). Measurable action: create a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects, update the City list every two years, provide incentives or financial assistance for two affordable housing projects in the planning period; Timeframe: List of City-owned properties upon Housing Element Adoption; Update annually. • Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage PAGE – 6.28 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Office of Economic Development (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and Habitat for Humanity. Pursue at least two affordable housing project during the planning period. (See Program 8). Measurable action: Coordinate with agencies and organizations to produce two affordable housing projects during the planning period; Timeframe: Ongoing; Web link to available housing programs on the City website within one year; Assess the City’s role in the new Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust and explore timeframes for leveraging funds to be used within the City. • Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside to promote Housing Choice Voucher use in high resources area in the City. Expand the location of participating voucher properties by adding information for property owners and landlords to the City’s website about participation in the Voucher program and advertising the County’s Informational Seminars for Landlords. (See Program 13). Measurable action: Preservation of 230 Housing Choice Vouchers currently in use in Lake Elsinore; Timeframe: Ongoing; Add information to the City’s website on participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program within one year from Housing Element adoption. • Continue using Code Enforcement to identify housing maintenance issues and to expedite rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing by offering technical assistance or assistance referrals to homeowners and occupants. (See Program 1). Measurable Action: Rehabilitation assistance or assistance referrals to 16 lower-income households (2 per year). Timeframe: Ongoing; Annual Quantification of Cases/Inspection as part of the Annual Progress Report process; applying/approving CDBG funding on an annual basis. • Target acquisition and rehabilitation to vacant and blighted properties in Downtown Lake Elsinore neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.29 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions Pursue land purchases for residential development, redevelop tax- delinquent properties, and consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. (See Program 9). Measurable Action: Complete two infill development projects in the City’s historic Downtown; Assembly of two development ready pads in/near Downtown; Review and revision of Downtown developments standards within 3 years. • The City has promoted the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by updating its ADU ordinance in 2021 (Ordinance No. 1448) which addresses the latest provisions in State law, including permit streamlining processes required by law (AB 68 and AB 881). The City will provide technical resources to interested property owners such as an ADU Frequently Asked Questions handout that explains where ADUs can be developed in Lake Elsinore and what development standards they must adhere to. The City will create a webpage on the City’s website with ADU resources. The City will also provide pre- approved ADU development plans within three years and provide written information at the City’s planning counter and website. (see Program 19). Measurable Action: development of 50 ADUs (this Objective is a subset of and not in addition to the Quantified Objective for Program 16: Adequate Sites), update ADU Ordinance - within two years of Housing Element adoption; ADU website and FAQ handout within one year; preapproved ADU plans within three years • The City will use available funding to support organizations that address the needs of at-risk and homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population. The City will annually contact service providers and share identified levels of CDBG or other available funds (including City funds) for homeless resources or housing programs. The City will continue working with non-profit organizations that address homelessness to aid residents in need and provide technical support (such as PAGE – 6.30 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions preapplication consultation, identification of available City funding or incentives such as expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized development and impact fees) as needed and will cultivate a close relationship with qualified and experienced non-profits to operate a safe and secure crisis stabilization housing complex (The Anchor). Measurable Action: Assist one non-profit organizations annually that helps residents experiencing homelessness Ongoing funding for the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force; applying/approving CDBG funding for non-profit organizations on an annual basis. List of City-owned properties appropriate for affordable or special needs housing by December 2022; Annual contact with special needs stakeholders to advertise available City funds if funding is available (including sharing a list of City-owned properties that can be used for affordable or special needs housing and available funding sources). Assist one non- profit organizations annually that helps residents experiencing homelessness. C. Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities Land use and zoning laws LOW This issue is assigned a lower priority because these are tied to changing State laws and have specific actions that will be implemented early in the planning period • Ensure the definitions in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code do not distinguish the personal characteristics of persons with disabilities. Measurable Actions: o Revise the definition for Residential Care Facilities and clarify siting for residential care facilities for 7 or more persons and ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities. o Revise the definition of “family” as well as establish a definition for “household” that is flexible and includes a variety of household types, consistent with State and federal fair housing laws. • Timeframe: zoning amendments within two years of Housing Element adoption. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.31 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions to directly address these. • Use local permitting and approval processes to ensure all new multifamily construction meets the accessibility requirements of the federal and State fair housing acts. Measurable Action: Approval of projects the accessibility requirements of the federal and State fair housing acts. Timeframe: ongoing. • Refer residents involved in housing related civil disputes such as landlord/tenant disputes and housing discrimination complaints to the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Measurable Action: Provide fair housing services to 100 residents during the planning period. Timeframe: ongoing. • Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Municipal Code. In 2019, the City adopted an amendment to the LEMC (Title 17.415.150 Reasonable Accommodation) formalizing a reasonable accommodation process. Measurable Action: post reasonable accommodation procedures and related material on the City’s website by December 2022.Timeframe: ongoing; D. Siting and Standards for Transitional and Supportive Housing Land use and zoning laws LOW This issue is assigned a lower priority because these are tied to changing State laws and have Related program actions in other programs in this Housing Plan: • Amend the City’s zoning regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 2 that requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). Measurable Action: Bring the City’s zoning regulations into compliance with SB2, AB 2162, AB 101, AB 1397, and the PAGE – 6.32 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level (high, medium, low*) Meaningful Actions specific actions that will be implemented early in the planning period to directly address these. Employee Housing Act. Timeframe: review and revise within 2 years of Housing Element adoption (See Program 22) Note: Not all actions are included in Program 25. Some actions reference previous programs and the timeframe for implementation can be found under those programs. * State law requires that prioritization of contributing factors giving highest priority to those factors that most affect fair housing choice or access to opportunity in Lake Elsinore. Highest priority is given to the first two fair housing issues (concentration of minority, low- and moderate-income population and households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk) and their associated contributing factors due to the number of residents these issues affect. The two other fair housing issues (discrimination against persons with disabilities and siting and standards for transitional and supportive housing) are identified as having a lower priority not because they are not important, rather because these are tied to changing State laws and have specific actions that will be implemented early in the planning period to directly address these. Timeframe: Varies by action item, see actions above. Responsible Agency: Administrative Services Department; Community Development Department – Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Divisions; Funding Source: Department Budget Objective: Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE – 6.33 Summary of Quantified Objectives Table 6.1 summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period by income group. • The Construction Objective represents the City’s remaining (after counting as credit the units with approved or issued permits) 2021-2029 RHNA of 6,555 units. • The Rehabilitation Objective represents the combined objectives for the Code Enforcement, Substandard and Abandoned Housing, and Housing Rehabilitation programs. • The Conservation/Preservation objective refers to the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock throughout the planning period (as listed in Table 2.7: Affordable Housing Developments in the Housing Needs Assessment chapter). Table 6.1: Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives Income Level Total Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Construction Objective (Remaining RHNA) 939 939 1,099 1,044 2,534 6,555 Rehabilitation Objective 66 0 0 66 Conservation/Preservation Objective 754 0 0 754 Total 3,797 1,044 2,534 7,375 Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. PAGE – 6.34 LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN This page left intentionally blank. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT H - 1 2021-2029 housing element HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX lake elsinore general plan City o f Lake Elsinore Revised (3rd Revision) HCD Review Draft July 29, 2022 City of Lake Elsinore, California 2021 to 2029 Housing Element APPENDICES Prepared by MIG and the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division Table of Contents APPENDIX A. PUBLIC OUTREACH APPENDIX B. SITES INVENTORY APPENDIX C. SPECIFIC PLAN SITES LAND USE DIAGRAMS This page left intentionally blank. APPENDIX A Public Outreach This page left intentionally blank TAKE OUR ONLINE HOUSING SURVEY Tell us what you think about the future of housing in Lake Elsinore by taking our online survey available in English and Spanish. ATTEND OUR VIRTUAL WEBINAR ON JUNE 17 AT 6 P.M. The City is hosting a "Let's Talk Housing, Lake Elsinore" webinar to discuss the purpose of the Housing Element 2021 Update. Join us to learn more about this process and the community's role. The webinar will be conducted via Zoom from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. You must register to attend in advance. SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES Sign up to receive email updates about our efforts to update our Housing Element. The process is expected to last until October 2021 and the City will be seeking feedback from the community on a draft design. The City of Lake Elsinore is updating its Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of nine state-mandated elements of the City’s General Plan . It provides goals, polices, and actions that help the City plan for existing and future housing needs for all segments of the population and expresses community goals about housing in Lake Elsinore. The updated Housing Element will cover an eight-year planning period from 2021 through 2029. The City is expected to finalize the plan by October 2021. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2021 Find out more at www.lake-elsinore.org/housing. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Workshop Stakeholder List Type Name Contact Position Email Phone Address Stakeholder Type Non-Profit Organization Rotary Club of Lake Elsinore Jamie Schramm President jamie.lerotary@gmail.com 562-881-4267 PO Box 521, Lake Elsinore, CA, 92531 Various Non-Profit Organization Elsinore Woman's Club Pat Miller Programs elsinorewomansclub@yahoo.com 951-285-8856 710 West Graham Ave. Women, Families Non-Profit Organization American Legion Post 200 Bill Sauter Commander miapow@verizon.net 951-678-7777 18871 Grand Ave.Veterans Non-Profit Organization VFW - Wildomar Steve Regalado Post Commander vfwpost1508@gmail.com 951-674-4735 Post 1508, 21180 Waite St Wildomar CA 92595 Veterans Non-Profit Organization Lake Elsinore Historical Society Ruth Atkins jaratkin@verizon.net 951-678-0084 183 North Main St Various Non-Profit Organization Lake Elsinore Marine Search & Rescue (LEMSAR)Pete Dawson Member peterdawson@verizon.net 951-202-1584 Non-Profit Organization Lake Elsinore Valley Education Foundation Kevin Pape Chairman kwpape@aol.com 951-609-7525 914 Dolly Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530-7200 Youth education support Non-Profit Organization Studio 395 Grace Sandlin Advisory Board Member info@Studio395.org 951-471-4407 16275 Grand Ave, Lake Elsinore (Community Center) Arts programming, youth Non-Profit Organization Dream Center & HOPE Matthew Dobler matthew@dreamcenterle.org 951-775-2176 The Dream Center of Lake Elsinore, 114 East Peck Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Family assistance, counseling services Non-Profit Organization Assistance League Electra Demos jimnlec@verizon.net 951-694-8018 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA, 92590 Youth support services Non-Profit Organization Social Work Action Group & The Anchor Ashlee DiPhillippo Donor Coordinator ashleerene@msn.com 562-577-6686 215 W. Graham Ave., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Crisis stabilization housing for homeless (City of LE) Non-Profit Organization Trauma Intervention Prevention Program Magda Stewart magdaoftipswrc@gmail.com 951-609-5068 PO Box 585, Murrieta, CA 92564 Emergency counseling services Non-Profit Organization Boys and Girls Club Carly Bennett-Valle Interim CEO/CFO carlyv@bgcswc.org 951-699-1526 P.O. Box 892349, Temecula, CA, 92589 Youth Non-Profit Organization Animal Friends of the Valleys Beth Soltysiak Donor Development Beth@animalfriendsofthevalleys.com 951-805-6239 33751 Mission Trail, Wildomar, CA 92595 Animal services Non-Profit Organization Vista Community Clinic Betsy Heightman Chief Development Officer betsy@vcc.clinic 760-631-5000 30195 Fraser Drive Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Family health and emergency support services Non-Profit Organization United Way of the Inland Valleys Jennifer Thornton Program Manager, GEMS & Alllocationsjthornton@uwiv.org 951-697-5902 9624 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Youth, families Non-Profit Organization Encouragers Counseling and Training Centers Vicki Coffman Founder, Marriage and Family TherapistVicki@EncouragersUSA.com 951-900-4414 29970 Technology Dr., Suite #108 & 109, Murrieta, CA 92563 Family and community counseling services Non-Profit Organization Operation Safe House Luis Lopez info@operationsafehouse.org 951-351-4418 9685 Hayes St, Riverside, CA, 92503 Homeless youth Non-Profit Organization California Family Life Center-Planet Youth Mary Jo Ramirez Executive Director mjramirez@cflckids.org 951-765-9671 P.O. Box 727, Hemet, CA 92546-0727 Homeless youth Non-Profit Organization Riverside Recovery Resources Desmond Young Director of Recovery Operations dyoung@riversiderecovery.org 951-674-5354 600 Third Street, Suite C, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Family and community counseling services Non-Profit Organization Inspire Life Skills Krista Langford Resource Developer klangford@inspirelifeskills.org 951-314-2238 2279 Eagle Glen Pkwy. #112 PMB #131 Corona, CA 92883 Foster, formerly homeless youth Non-Profit Organization United States Veterans Initiative-Inland Empire Nicole Starks-Murray Executive Director 951-656-6893 15305 6th Street, March Air Reserve Base, CA 92518 Veterans Non-Profit Organization Village on Grand Community Center villageongrand@studio395.org 951-471-4407 16275 Grand Ave, Lake Elsinore , CA, 92530 Seniors Non-Profit Organization Lutheran Social Services Deniece Marshall Area Director rcinfo@LSSSC.org 951-689-7847 4162 Rubidoux Avenue, Riverside, CA 92506 Families Non-Profit Organization Catholic Charities - Murrieta 951-691-8203 39429 Los Alamos Rd, Murrieta, CA 92563 Family assistance, counseling services Non-Profit Organization Wildomar Senior Center Dawn Brennan Community Liaison & Admissions Coordinator 951-678-1555 32325 S Pasadena St, Wildomar, CA 92595 Seniors Non-Profit Organization H.O.P.E. Pantry Program (Dream Center)HopeOffice@DreamCenterLE.org 951-245-7510 506 Minthorn Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Family emergency assistance Non-Profit Organization Victor Community Support Services Simona Cataldo CEO 951-674-9243 265 San Jacinto River Rd Suite 107, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Youth and family counseling services Non-Profit Organization Habitat for Humanity-Inland Valley Tammy Marine Executive Director tammy@habitativ.org 951-296-3362 27475 YNEZ ROAD, #390, TEMECULA, CA 92591 Affordable housing Non-Profit Organization Together Freedom (FACESS)connect@togetherfreedom.org 951-399-3332 31500 Grape St., PMB 242, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 Youth counseling and support services Non-Profit Organization Restoring Hope Community Services awjackson6567@gmail.com 951-990-2519 P.O. Box 205, Perris, CA 92570 Veterans, homeless services Non-Profit Organization Angel View Patti Park Executive Director 760-329-6471 67625 E. Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 7A, Cathedral City, CA 92234 Children, adults with disabilities Non-Profit Organization Community Access Network 951-471-1426 600 Central Ave., Ste. E, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Children and families, social services, foster youth Non-Profit Organization Lake Elsinore Teachers Association Mario Mantano President 951-245-0446 31762 Mission Trail Suite M, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Education Non-Profit Organization EPOCH Center 951-657-4882 371 Wilkerson Ave., Ste. L, Perris, CA, 92570 Youth education support, persons with disabilities Faith-Based Organization Adonai Ministries Beau Arbornuat - Pastor AdonaiMinistriesLE@gmail.com Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Aletheia Christian Fellowship 951-757-1801 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Bread of Life Church 951-245-0124 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Calvary Chapel Bear Creek 951-678-1054 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Cantrell Community Unity / Ministry Dave Cantrell dncministry@yahoo.com 702-408-7897 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Canyon Lake Community Church Canyon Lake Various Faith-Based Organization Centerpoint Church 951-696-1002 Murrieta Various Faith-Based Organization Church on the REAL Jason Welsh pastorjason@churchonthereal.org 951-226-5061 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Circle of Care Ministries Terri Keim terri@circleofcareministries.org 951-973-3582 Temecula Various Faith-Based Organization Cornerstone Community Church 951-674-8661 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Corona Norco Rescue Mission jim@rescuemission.org 951-526-1200 Corona/Norco Various Faith-Based Organization Dream Center Dave Snow (youth dir.)Dave@dreamcenterle.org 951-264-1723 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Elsinore First Assembly 951-678-1757 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Encouragement Church readyec@gmail.com (951) 821-6270 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Faith Baptist Church 951-245-8744 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Faith Bible Church (Ice Cream Truck Church)Zulma 951-200-3173 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Fellowship Corona (Horsethief Canyon)Mel Cambell Corona Various Faith-Based Organization First Presbyterian Church (Mtn View Church)951-674-6372 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Fishes & Loaves 951-376-3703 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Grace and Truth Worship Ministry Willie Oliver - Pastor urimportantfoundation@gmail.com Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Gracepoint Church of the Nazarene Amanda Domenquiz 951-466-8603 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Hacienda House info@hislightonthehill.com 951-657-3041 Perris Various Faith-Based Organization Iglesia Crisstiana Brazos Eternos 951-445-0317 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization In The Light Ministries 951-965-5136 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Independent Church of Lake Elsinore (Baptist)951-674-3632 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization La Ultima Llamada Iglesia Cristiana 951-275-6823 Wildomar Various City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Workshop Stakeholder List Type Name Contact Position Email Phone Address Stakeholder Type Faith-Based Organization Lake Elsinore Baptist Church 951-674-9350 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lake Elsinore Calvary Chapel 951-674-5451 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lake Elsinore Church of Christ 951-674-5914 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lake Providence Baptist Church 951-674-4311 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lakeview Chapel Michael Ghoslin lakeviewchapel7@verizon.net 951-674-2825 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lambs Fellowship lfleoffice@gmail.com Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Lambs Fellowship Lake Elsinore 951-471-3807 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Leave No Women Behind Kymberli Boynton 951.775.6487 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Living Hope Lutheran Church 951-805-1353 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization MNE Church Carina foreverebenezer@hotmail.com 949-350-3095 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Mountainside Ministries 951-678-9402 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization New Hope Baptist Church 951-674-8053 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization New Song Calvary Chapel Cherie cherie@mynewsongcc.com Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization New Song Christian Community 951-245-5664 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Nineveh Ministries Debra Pollard debrapollard10@gmail.com 951-200-9759 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Oakstone Community Church 951-678-9000 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization One Salvation Church Jose Martinez josemartinez421@gmail.com 951-297-0418 Various Faith-Based Organization Our Redeemer Lives Church 951-245-0522 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Rhema World Ministries Marcus Robinson mrobinsonmdr@hotmail.com 951-837-6609 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization River View Christian Academy (RVCA)Jill Sackinger connect@teenrescue.com 800-494-2200 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Rock Church/Raw Church/7th Day Baptist Barry Oskey wfcusc56@gmail.com 951-490-6787 Various Faith-Based Organization Solid Rock Church International 951-735-4647 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization St. Andrews Episcopal Church 951-674-4087 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization St. Frances of Rome Sylvia 951-674-6881 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Teen Challenge of Southern CA paulette.nagle@teenchallenge.org 951-682-8990 Riverside Various Faith-Based Organization The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - L.E.Stake Ashlee DePhillippo ashleephotos@gmail.com 562-577-6686 Lake Elsinore/Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization The House of God James Salter - Pastor Salterj11@gmail.com 951-956-1828 Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization Work for the Glory of God Hector Calderon Hector.calderon@workforthegloryofgod.com Lake Elsinore Various Faith-Based Organization World Harvest Church (Dufresne Ministries)951-696-9258 Wildomar Various Faith-Based Organization Calvery Chapel LE https://www.calvaryle.org Lake Elsinore Various City Government City Council members Various City Council members Various Various Lake Elsinore Various City Government Planning Commission members Various Planning Commission members Various Various Lake Elsinore Various City Government Public Safety Advisory Commission members Various Public Safety Advisory Commission membersVarious Various Lake Elsinore Various City Government Measure Z Citizen Committee Members Various Measure Z Citizen Committee MembersVarious Various Lake Elsinore Various City Government Lake Elsinore Unified School District Denine Diaz Lake Elsinore Unified School District (951) 253-7000x5386Lake Elsinore Families, Youth Homeowner Associations Alberhill Ranch HOA Jennifer Alegria Manager (Keystone Pacific) jalegria@keystonepacific.com 949-833-2600 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Vista Del Lago HOA Sherry Neal Manager (Walters Management) sneal@waltersmanagement.com 951-698-8511 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Tuscany Hills HOA Jenny Bonnar Manager (Keystone Pacific)jbonnar@keystonepacific.com 951-245-9102 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Summerly HOA Deanna Casillas Manager (First Service Residential)deanna.casillas@fsresidential.com Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Canyon Hills HOA Kelley Aranda Manager (Action Property Management) karanda@actionlife.com 951-699-7656 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Canyon Hills HOA Jordan Large Manager Assistant jlarge@actionlife.com Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Canyon Hills HOA/Westridge HOA Scott Sears Manager (Action Property Management) ssears@actionlife.com 949-450-0202 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Elsinore Terrace HOA gprivitt@keystonepacific.com 949-838-3236 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Rosetta Canyon HOA Lana Hamadej Manager (Avalon Management)lana@avalonweb.com 951-244-0520 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Shore Pointe HOA Robert Supalla Manager (Equity Management) rsupalla@equitymgt.com 951-296-5640 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Viscaya Homeowners Association Krystal Cervantes Manager (Compass Property Management) Krystal@compasspropertymanagement.com 949-429-3708 Lake Elsinore Home Owners Homeowner Associations Lido at Lakeshore Condo Community Stacy Serna Manager (Cannon Management) stacyserna@cannonmanagement.com 951-354-5365 Lake Elsinore Home Owners June 17, 2021 Comments/Questions i Housing ElEsenm llHsuetnC yWor k hpAnDEUE klEse dvsnrE knvDDnr Housi e ncaga i LnlHdrndvsnerEnmuet D ne nEsd HyviEnerE etkEn .nDEUE klEsenLE sEEDw mvsnLEnvDD iyEEsokvdEonvsD ouDELv Wone nulky UE vyEvonvsDnveeyvde DEUE klEsew SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS pyv.eni Housing ElEsenf?f20f?f1 Issues/Concerns - vDndvkvduetnor H D 9EnevWEsnuse d souDEyveu snLuer sELnDEUE klEseo Rvdveu snyEsev on0nu.nLE v LnsELnr HousinLE or H Dnv LnUvdveu s yEsev o byvsW usnVeanuonv d sdEys Cu n Hynodr on9E v9 Ene vdd ll DveEneruo etkEn .niy Lerw c Wnuse nyEFHuyusi oWu EDSeyvusED L yW. ydEn. ynsEL DEUE klEsen0nHoEn dv v9 y qUEydy LDusin0ns env i DnuDEvne n9Hu DnHsueo usn9vdWtvyDon/hpAO( s uoE)nov.Eet)n:,yEnuooHEo - vDndvkvduet d sdEysn0n Wnuse LuDEsusinbyvsW usnVea Recommendations muetnor H DnyEFHuyE erEnHoEn .n dv oWu EDn v9 y glketn eonp Lse Ls( d souDEynky UuDusink vso . yn9Hu Dusione Esd HyviEnsEL DEUE klEse VEsu ynr Housi sEEDo VEd sDnuseEydrvsiE e nevWEnkyEooHyEn .. .n-vu y vDnmvst s City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update 2021 Housing Element Survey Results Summary Prepared by: 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena CA 91105 June 21, 2021 City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 2 Introduction: All California cities are required to adopt a General Plan. A General Plan establishes the framework for decision making in the community. As required by State law, the City of Lake Elsinore is updating one of its General Plan’s elements – Housing. The Housing Element identifies how Lake Elsinore can meet existing and future housing needs for all income levels of its population. Community input is critical to ensure community needs, values, and preferences are reflected in the Housing Element Update. Part of the Elements’ update is a community engagement component that will be used to inform the plan update process. The survey period ran from May 12, 2021 through the end of the day June 20, 2021. In total, 340 participants submitted surveys – 227 responded to all 21 questions, and 113 responded to one or more questions but not all 21. This Housing Element community survey solicited public input regarding housing issues facing Lake Elsinore and its residents. The survey responses and results are summarized below. The City’s website contains more information about the Housing Element updates and upcoming activities. https://www.lake-elsinore.org/housing Key Findings: Of those responding, 63.4% are homeowners and 75.3% live in a detached single-family home. 64.3% of respondents say they are satisfied with their current housing situation and 43.2% rated the physical condition of the dwelling they live in as excellent. Respondents say they chose to live in Lake Elsinore because of the cost of housing (63.9%), close distance to family and friends (26.4%), and the quality of housing (22.5%). For those who do not currently own a home the primary issue to finding a home is the ability to find a home in their target price range (33.9%). Over half of respondents noted that focusing new housing near downtown, creating walkable neighborhoods was a very important action for Lake Elsinore. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 3 Responses: Housing: 1. Currently, do you… ● 55.1% Live in Lake Elsinore and work somewhere else ● 26.4% Live and work in Lake Elsinore ● 11.5% Live in Lake Elsinore and do not currently work or are retired ● 2.6% Do not live in Lake Elsinore ● 2.2% Did not answer ● 1.3% Own a business in Lake Elsinore ● 0.9% Work in Lake Elsinore and live somewhere else 2. How long have you lived in Lake Elsinore? ● 32.6% Said 1 to 5 years ● 23.4% Said 11 to 20 years ● 21.2% Said 21 or more years ● 16.3% Said 6 to 10 years ● 1.8% Did not answer ● 4.9% question did not apply 3. Which best describes your current living situation? ● 75.3% Live in a detached single-family home ● 7.5% Live in an apartment ● 4.0% Live in a mobile home ● 3.5% Said other ● 2.6% Live in a condominium/townhome ● 0.9% Live in a duplex/triplex/fourplex ● 0.9% Do not currently have a permanent home ● 0.5% Live in an accessory dwelling unit 4. Which best describes your current housing situation? ● 63.4% Own ● 23.4% Rent ● 5.3% Live with friends/family, do not own or pay rent ● 1.3% Said other ● 0.9% Do not currently have a permanent home City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 4 5. Are you satisfied with your current housing situation? ● 64.3% Said yes ● 25.1% Said no ● 5.7% Did not answer ● 4.9% N/A 6. How would you rate the physical condition of the dwelling you live in? ● 43.2% Said excellent ● 34.8% Said it shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) ● 13.2% Said it needs one or more major upgrades (i.e., new plumbing, new electrical, new foundation, etc.) ● 3.1% Said other ● 0.9% Did not answer ● 4.9% N/A 7. Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home? ● 14.1% Said other ● 13.2% Said solar ● 11.0% Said HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) ● 4.9% Said room addition ● 4.0% Said roofing ● 3.1% Said Accessory Dwelling Unit/Granny Flat ● 9.7% Did not answer ● 40.1% Question did not apply 8. Which best describes your household type? ● 34.8% Said couple with children (younger than 18 years old) ● 17.6% Said couple ● 13.7% Said multi-generational household ● 10.6% Said single person household ● 5.7% Said single parent with children (younger than 18 years old) ● 5.3% Said young adult living with parents ● 4.0% Said other ● 2.2% Said single with roommates ● 1.3% Did not answer ● 4.9% N/A City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 5 9. What are your reasons for living in Lake Elsinore? Choose all that apply. ● 63.9% Said cost of housing ● 26.4% Said close distance to family and friends ● 22.5% Said quality of housing ● 18.1% Said distance from work ● 17.6% Said community and recreation amenities, like parks and recreation centers ● 17.6% Said safety of neighborhoods ● 13.2% Said other ● 13.2% Said destinations like the Lake, Outlets and Skydive Lake Elsinore ● 11.9% Said types of housing available ● 10.1% Said distance from home to shopping, restaurants, healthcare, or other services ● 8.4% Said range of housing choices ● 7.1% Said quality of schools ● 6.6% Said city services and programs ● 4.9% Did not answer 10. Do you think the range of housing options currently available meet your needs? ● 44.5% Said yes ● 38.3% Said no ● 9.7% did not answer ● 2.6% Didn’t know ● 4.9% N/A 11. Do you believe that the cost of housing in Lake Elsinore prevents children from being able to stay/own homes when they grow up? ● 44.1% Said yes ● 31.7% Said no ● 13.2% Didn’t know ● 6.2% did not answer ● 4.9% N/A 12. If you wish to own a home in Lake Elsinore but do not currently own one, what factors prevent you from owning a home? (Choose all that apply). ● 33.9% Said I cannot find a home in my target price range ● 18.1% Said I do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment ● 13.2% Said other ● 6.2% Said I cannot find a home that suits my quality standards ● 6.2% Said I cannot find a home that suits my living needs (housing size, disability accommodations, etc.) ● 2.6% Said I do not currently wish to own a home here City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 6 13. What types of housing does Lake Elsinore need most? Respondents ranked their top choices in order of importance, with 1 being the most important. The most frequent responses are detached single-family homes, condominiums/townhomes, and larger lot, rural estate homes. All responses are shown in the table below. When the responses are weighted (12 points for a 1 response, 11 points for a 2 response, and so on…) detached single-family homes and condominiums/townhomes remain the most frequent responses. Housing Needs in Lake Elsinore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Points Detached single-family homes 1,368 385 70 36 32 7 12 0 0 3 4 0 1,917 Condominiums/townhomes 192 319 290 108 80 42 18 10 16 0 0 0 1,075 Larger lot, rural estate homes 312 286 220 126 40 14 18 5 4 12 12 3 1,052 Affordable or Workforce Housing 312 264 100 90 32 35 36 35 4 6 0 0 914 Senior housing 60 275 250 90 56 42 42 15 16 6 6 5 863 Duplexes or Triplexes (2- or 3- unit buildings) 24 132 120 63 88 49 36 30 16 18 4 0 580 Accessory dwelling units (granny flats or guest houses) 48 99 130 81 64 35 6 35 32 12 12 2 556 Housing for families and individuals who need supportive services like job training and social services 36 132 140 63 32 28 30 35 16 12 14 4 542 Larger scale apartment buildings (5 units or more) 36 143 80 63 48 77 30 25 16 6 6 5 535 Interim/transitional housing for people looking to transition from homelessness 36 99 120 72 48 21 18 25 16 24 10 6 495 Smaller scale apartment buildings (4 units or fewer) 12 44 110 45 56 70 36 10 28 9 6 1 427 Mobile home parks 12 11 40 0 32 28 24 20 12 18 8 14 219 City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 7 14. Rank the importance of potential housing actions in Lake Elsinore. Respondents were asked to indicate the important each potential housing action. Encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods, establishing/supporting programs to help first-time homebuyers, and programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default were the top three housing actions identified as very important. Potential Housing Actions Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important Don’t Know No Answer Focus new housing near downtown, creating walkable neighborhoods. 114 68 33 5 7 Ensure that the housing market provides a diverse range of housing types (i.e., single-family homes, condominiums/apartments, townhomes, duplex/triplexes) to meet a variety of needs of local residents. 114 66 35 3 9 Streamline the process for new housing construction. 100 63 32 21 11 Support programs to help homeowners add accessory (second) units to their properties. 73 67 57 15 15 Establish housing for households with special needs such as seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities. 101 86 18 8 14 Provide shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, together along with services that help move people into permanent housing. 76 74 54 8 15 Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods. 149 55 7 4 12 Establish/Support programs to help first-time homebuyers, including down payment or closing cost assistance programs. 142 51 24 2 8 Establish/Support programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default to keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs. 126 55 28 6 12 Support programs to help renters through programs like rental assistance programs and the creation of more affordable rental housing. 105 52 49 6 15 Targeted efforts to address long-term inequities in the housing market, including discrimination in renting. 118 35 44 9 21 Integrate affordable housing throughout the community. 103 49 48 4 23 City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 8 15. There are a number of approaches for deciding where to allow new housing in Lake Elsinore. Respondents ranked their top choices in order of importance, with 1 being the most important. The top response was that new housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Lake Elsinore. All responses are shown in the table below. When the responses are weighted (4 points for a 1 response, 3 points for a 2 response, and so on…) the top answer remained the same. Locations for Housing in Lake Elsinore 1 2 3 4 Total Points New housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Lake Elsinore 356 138 58 17 569 New housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the city 292 162 56 15 525 New housing should be concentrated near downtown, to create walkable neighborhoods 88 111 104 29 332 New housing should be located within easy access of shops and services 80 144 48*2 39 263 City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 9 About You: 16. How old are you? ● 58.2% Said 30 to 49 ● 20.3% Said 50 to 64 ● 15.4% Said 18 to 29 ● 5.3% Said 65 and older ● 0.9% did not answer 17. Which ZIP code do you reside in? ● 76.7% Said 92530 ● 17.6% Said 92532 ● 4.0% Said other ● 1.8% Did not answer 18. Which best describes your annual household income? ● 5.3% Said Under $24,999 ● 17.2% Said $25,000 - $49,999 ● 18.1% Said $50,000 - $74,999 ● 22.9% Said $75,000 - $99,999 ● 21.6% Said $100,000 - $149,999 ● 10.1% Said $150,000 or more ● 1.8% Said they prefer not to state ● 3.1% Did not answer 19. Check all that apply to you: ● 8.8% Are the owner of a business in Lake Elsinore ● 3.1% Are a developer of housing ● 1.3% Are a developer of commercial buildings ● 2.2% Said they use public transportation ● 56.0% Said they commute more than 10 miles to work ● 7.1% Are a housing advocate ● 4.9% Are a social service provider 20. What else would you like the City to consider when updating Lake Elsinore’s Housing Element? Respondents were asked to write in any additional information for the City to consider. In total 124 – or 54.6% - participants submitted a written comment. Comments can be found at the end of the document in the appendix section City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 10 Appendix Question 20 – Other Considerations for the Housing Element Written in comments • Traffic is getting progressively worst throughout the city, especially in the area near freeway and Diamond drive. • Reconsider your master plan. Put housing in central locations. • The grocery stores and parking lots need trees and beauty like Murrieta and Temecula. We also need high-end restaurant instead of cheap fast food, uplift our city. • Low income housing should be spread evenly around LE. Not just centered around downtown or east lake district. We need new schools in downtown and east lake district • Sandwiched between Corona to the north and Murrieta/Temecula to the south, Lake Elsinore has the most upward potential, and the longest way to go, to reach the quality of life and standard of living offered by those communities. That will only happen by attracting the right types of business and entrepreneurs, and that is where the city's focus should be. • I would much rather have senior housing than affordable housing. We work hard to keep our community safe • Getting the county of Riverside involved to improve Lakeland village side as well, make all of Elsinore desirable. • Have local police Dept and eliminate wait time when called. Develope lake street from 15 freeway Add nicer restaurants on banks of Lake. Enforce pet control, fine with leashes Add a Kaiser hospital • No more housing. The more housing we get the more traffic we have and I worry the city will stop having a small town feel. Just more people in a hurry wanting everything to look the same and perfect. • Keep the the historic & cultural downtown area and neighborhoods near Main Street & Graham from turning into Temecula or Murrieta. We have a great vibe and relatively "safe" atmosphere but we're unique and don't need big houses or fast food joints on Main Street. Also, please clean up and patrol the Elm Grove Beach area. It's only a block from the sheriff station but I won't even go there any more. • Consider more parks and green space to support community growth at the north end of the lake - there are huge plots of lakefront land that are being overrun with homeless encampments when the city could be doing something positive for the communities that live there. • Parques que realmente sean parques que se puedan usar en el verano que provean sombra de árboles. Y unidades para 55 . • Add more businesses and and schools. We don’t need more affordable housing or places for the homeless to sleep in our new parks. Improve this city and make it somewhere higher end investors want to be. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 11 • The city should not be intimidated by nimbys(not in my back yard) who don’t want any development at all. • nice affordable homes with big lots for gardening. • Highway 74 between Home Depot and The Ortega Highway needs to be widened to 4 lanes. The traffic is atrocious and a stoplight every block and bottlenecks do not help matters. It's like you're participating in a parade!Think about infrastucture before all these housing tracts are approved. • We do not need more low income housing. We do need a new senior center and 55 plus communities w new single story detached housing. Lake street needs to be developed abs we need to find a new builder for the property off Nichols • Lake street and Nichols need to be developed. We need detached housing community for 55 plus. Our senior TWC is awful. Apartments have better facilities. No more low income housing. Maybe a development around the lake. • Work with nicer areas and figure out what’s working for them and why we have such terrible issues with run down areas and homelessness. We are getting worse whereas our surrounding areas are not. Think about that. Quality people over quantity. Enough with affordable housing. • Walkability, greenspace, and environmental impact. • Cheaper rates. California housing is overpriced and people are moving out of state. I'm considering it too if something doesn't change. • Put corner markets near housing so it is accessible by walking. Rosetta canyon is an example of being too far to walk from the stores that are on central. • We need more quality shopping and more options so we do not have to go to another city and buy the goods we need. • A basic standard of living for housing every citizen that needs a home. No matter their income. If we let our people sleep on the streets, we have failed as a community. • Make Grand ave., Riverside dr., hwy 74 Wider. Fix Collier and hwy 74 intersection • Infustructure! Side walks, parks, lighting. No more low income housing. Let's bring folks here that want to better our community. • To not saturate the Summerly area with the new planned housing. Summerly has been hit with all the low income/work force housing next to it and now a potential warehouse build. The city has LOTS of empty space in other areas that can be developed • Cluster of sing family homes impacts our beautiful ecosystem, we are one of the last city’s to grow and we need to stay small country, yet not overcrowding the area with an occupied homes that they people cannot afford(Rosetta canyon). Keeping rural open land draws people to our city because we are the action sports capital. We don’t need to end up like Temecula and menifee over run with traffic it’s not Elsinore best interest. • To avoid creating "housing deserts" that are heavily defended on cars to get to essential services and amenities, such as grocery stores, and public parks. • Make cleaning up the existing areas more often and accessible City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 12 • Please stop doing/building things that create more traffic. We’ll be like Orange County traffic soon. • why can’t living just be free Y’all need to stop wondering why homelessness is so bad • Affordable housing and childcare • stop crowding neighborhoods give larger backyards and space between homes for privacy. • create more bus routes, more grocery stores, remodel the public library, have a hospital and more doctors and specialist • More selection of restaurants and businesses • LE needs to renovate the city. It should get its own police department, bring good stores to the area, get rid of the outlets or get good investors who will make the city great. LE has so much potential but putting a homeless shelter in downtown was a wrong move. It should have been somewhere more isolated. LE should be like Murrieta Menifee and so on those places look really nice. Please do something don’t take so damn long to build. It would be nice to have stores locally where people can shop instead of going out of town. • New housing communities maybe town homes • Many of the existing apartments and houses need serious renovations, consider providing assistance to homeowners who need to update homes and to apartment owners to renovate the complexes • Tener tiendas cerca de las casas nuevas • Remodel neighborhoods in the Avenues on Mill St, and add parks and street lights. • More condos that are affordable. Offer incentives for people who don’t commute and work from home! • Fix the traffic problem on Lake St. • Enforce housing codes throughout city to ensure owners remove debris all around properties and maintain yards consistently throughout the year. Continue to improve roads everywhere and remove graffiti continuously. Create a walking path along the lake to continue to strengthen this wonderful asset in the city. Bring in our own police department to monitor city and remove homeless everywhere around lake. Stop allowing cannabis shops from taking over the city. These establishments only tarnish our reputation further. Just these actions alone will continue to improve the physical image of the city and help us become a more powerful player in the area for being a good and safe community to raise a family. • Take care of what you have first. Protect the residents from LEAPS. • Making Lakeland village part of Lake elsinore and higher standers for downtown elsinore shop fronts! • Limit the number of people and the number of automobiles that are allowed to reside in housing units • Also think about increasing commercial options as housing increases. More business are needed City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 13 • Schools Safety Cleanliness Parks • Put hard working families first by incentivising methods for families to own a home. • Family parks and activities be included in these communities. • Building new homes should be preceded by infrastructure improvements, not fixing traffic problems as a reaction to the new homes/businesses. Traffic in certain areas of the city has gotten much worse because businesses and homes have been added, but the necessary infrastructure to accommodate these construction projects has not been addressed. • Stop the over development before it starts!! You do not have the infrastructure to support 11, 000 new homes. You are killing the environment and neighborhoods that were the reason people came out to Elsinore in the first place. The traffic situation here is bad and only about to get way worse. Lake Elsinore residents have on average the longest commute of any other town in California. The city is slated to added 11,000 plus houses, with only two major arteries in and out of the area. Does that make sense to you? If you are developing why do you not make changes that bring permanent non retail jobs (technology, corporate, government, medical jobs) to this area so your residents do not have a 3 hour plus commute every day? Stop bending over backwards for developers to put in housing you cannot support. • Stop building houses, start building more parks and recreation • 1)Do not promote or develop housing for homeless. 2) Change definition of single family housing so only 2 adults with their children under 18 can live in home. • The prices of family homes for median earning families and traffic • Crime rates, more police, better schools • City should consider the effects of traffic with new housing projects, and upgrade the existing roadways/infrastructure at the same time as housing construction. • Get rid of all of the pot holes. • Expanding the roads to accommodate the traffic flow. Also aquire our own police force. • Definitely affordable housing with easier ways to qualify. Making safe and friendly neighborhoods. • Less apartments and more shopping with communities near by. No more palm trees plant pine trees or more oak trees. • I dont know how you would do it, but the housing market is driving people my age and younger to different towns that have more affordable and available homes/apartments. There isnt any work in LE, people have to drive to work, which adds to bills, traffic, homelessness, etc. There should be a maximum price per sqft any current or new homes can be sold or rented out for. The way it works now forces people who dont make massive wages out of the town and possibly adding to the homeless. A home that is 1000 sqft shouldnt cost 400K or 2500-3000 a month to rent, this community and the working class is being raped by greedy homeowners and City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 14 corporations who can sit with homes on the market indefinitely until someone who is desperate just gives in. Anyone who makes 15-20 an hour will be spending 60-75% of their income on rent and essential bills, instead of the recommended 30%. Single bedroom apartments are more than 70% the cost of 2 bedroom, making it smarter to live with roommates, which exacerbates the crowding (And, again, homelessness - if roommates leave to another state or town, leaving the other person(s) unable to afford rent for a place on their own what are they suppose to do???). This isnt a Lake Elsinore specific problem, but it could be easily solved here if people put their foot down and make real change to our housing laws. • No section 8 or “workforce”housing. No more building apartments around Summerly. I moved here because of the small town feel. Since the section 8 apartments went up there are groups of kids walking around my neighborhood and coming to our parks and pools. Drug dealing and graffiti is on the rise. The schools in lake Elsinore have a bad reputation that’s why kids are going to school in Murrieta. No commercial developments. We don’t want that for our city. Fix the traffic and roads. Take some pointers from Murrieta. That city is beautiful and clean. I don’t see section 8 housing popping up all over or the homelessness we have. Would be nice to have the city do something about everyone selling their homes and kicking renters out at this time. Lots of us renters are searching for a place to live even though we are up to date with our rent. We simply cannot afford the $2,800+ rent that landlords are requiring now. Over 100’s of applications for a single home. There is no hope for here for my family and we are forced to move out of state or risk living in a motel. Lots of people in my place right now all because sellers want to make a buck. I have to take my kids out of schools they love because our landlord wants to sell. We have nowhere to go • Please consider infrastructure first before building. Our roads are horrible and these new huge power poles are such an eye sore. Why aren’t they underground. This city has so much potential with people moving here from Orange County. We could be raising the medium income and attracting better stores if we would stop putting in weed shops and dollar stores. Let’s work on not taking another ten years to grow this city. • Please, oh please, consider creating a low-income or subsidized Senior Citizen safe, clean housing complex here in Lake Elsinore! All housing efforts seem to be focused on the homeless, drug addicted younger folk here. Us Baby Boomers have no place we can afford that is safe, clean and secure. I'm 66, living in an old delapidated RV for 16 years because I can't afford anywhere else. I know other Seniors just like me. Again, please think about the Seniors in Lake Elsinore. • Consider the single-families that have need to live paycheck to paycheck but don’t qualify for “low-income” homes. • More retail and food options every time we go to dinner we go to Temecula. Get homeless out. Stop low income • The city should allow additional garages be converted into additional living space. With the people rules in place this with help the owner as much as and the renter. The city giving out lesser strict permits or forgiveness can open the opertunity to make an agreement with owners and regulate rental by the square footage, utilities, taxes etc. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 15 I take home about 55,000 and my year end salary gross is $72,800. I still cannot move out because rent is much greater than I can afford (rent+utilities). As a single person why do I not qualify in the income bracket for income limits. Why is my only option to still live with parents or rents a 2,000+ apartment living paycheck to paycheck without any room to save? I work just as hard if not harder but it’s the welfare collecting individuals that given the advantage • sidewalks and incorporate lake land village • Make it more affordable! I don't want to leave Elsinore or Cali. The prices do NOT match the area or quality of the homes/apartments. • Implement environment justice principles to your approach. Displacement and gentrification of current residents should not be an outcome from the new housing element plans. • Add parks and community pools in existing/old neighborhoods. For example the avenues by Railroad canyon elementary school, there are no parks near by for children. • Review the traffic all around • Affordable, family and pet friendly rental HOUSES with yards. My mobile home park has multiple homes with 4 people in a 1 bedroom due to the ridiculous cost of housing, especially during a pandemic. It’s a shame that renters are being taken advantage of. Families with children are hit really hard by this, because one parent has had to be home to homeschool the kids. I know many residents that have moved out of LE because of the staggering rise in housing and how unkept and dilapidated these homes are. Hopefully it changes soon! • Rent is extremely expensive, there are (mostly) only minimum wage jobs around, over populated • I feel that the existing communities especially the Castelina development and the lower area of Tuscany Hills (Tuscana and Summerhill developments) which brought in a large population back in 2000 and helped Lake Elsinore thrive have been neglected. It seems like every time a new housing development opens, code enforcement moves on to those communities to keep them in order and pristine, but the older communities are forgotten. Code enforcement needs to implement the CC&R's imposed by builders/developer's whether or not communities have an HOA. These communities pay mello-roos tax and they lack support and are looking run down due to no enforcement or monitoring. I am very happy and proud to live in Lake Elsinore but sadly my neighborhood is looking rough and I may be considering a move if things don't improve. Also, it is discouraging to see so many vacant buildings especially along Grape Street and even at the LE Outlets. Please work to bring in good shopping and services. No more discount stores or marijuana shops please! • Look around Lake Elsinore. We are a podunk city in comparison to the surrounding cities and we're constantly criticized for it. The city is neglected with mindless projects. MAKE BETTER CITYWIDE DECISIONS! • Restaurants, no more fast food. Good stores st the outlets. They are awful, we want to spend our money here but there is nothing really out here for us. We end up driving to Menifee, or surrounding more developed areas. The Wreck downtown is not a place we feel comfortable going. It feels as though we could get mugged. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 16 • I would love to see better restaurants, and more stores, like a Trader Joe’s, Albertsons. We also need a hospital, Kaiser. Also, stop building where there is so much beautiful nature. All those gorgeous boulders are being destroyed. That is very sad. Fix the freeway!!! Don’t bring more people without fixing the 15 freeway!! That’s a mess. I truly have learned to love this city and we plan on staying here. • Upgrade roads • Stop focusing on housing and focus on bringing restaurants and other services to your residents. • Wider sidewalks or trails. • More code enforcement is the presidential tract. It’s ridiculous how the lack of enforcement has helped breed crime. • Clean up the trashy people around homes, restaurants and shopping • All infrastructure, such as, adding additional roads, schools, hospital/medical services. Also work with CalTrans to address freeway infrastructure. • Make sure there's a traffic lights that have left turns and right turns only • Bike friendly, you should be able to safely ride your bike from the north end to down town! • To have stores in the area that reflect the communities around them. This city needs more restaurants and nice stores. No more vacant stores. • We don’t need a bunch of low income housing. Crime is on the rise in Lake Elsinore and we’re considering moving because of it. More low income housing will only make things worse. • Ampliación y restauración de las calles para mejor fluidez del tráfico vehicular. • Mix use development near Lake Shore. • LE is growing. As a resident of the community, it would be nice if we have more available stores and shops like our neighboring city(Murrieta/Temecula). Most of the time we drive to either Murrieta or Temecula to shop. It could have been a revenue for the city. LE has potential to become the next City destination. It just needs a lot of work. • Must get rid of all the junky housing that makes Lake Elsinore know as the Meth capital of Riverside County. I live in Canyon Hills and is the only area plus the new area south of the city that I would live in. • We must revitalize the downtown area. We must condemn and rebuild much of old Elsinore. • Public Safety General Plan Upgrades for 20 years • $$$ - Affordable. lower property taxes, it really hurts cause it’s too much on monthly payments including your home. Exemption. More traffic outlet on the 74. There is no outlet at the moment and people have to take long alt route to go home or some wher. • Alternative homes should be allowed for affordable housing ie container homes and tiny on land that is owned • The impact it is having on our schools. Are our schools able to support an influx of new families? Are our schools receiving any additional funding to ensure all student needs are being met? I would also like the City to highly consider the impact additional housing is having on our roads/traffic and to address these issues to the public. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 17 • Affordability, and integrating neighborhood stores within walking distance such as vons in sycamore creek. • Stop building homes and fix up the town and lake. Clean up all the homes that have drug addicts and squatters in. Fix up all the abandoned graffiti buildings. Do something good for lake Elsinore instead of bringing in more daily traffic. • I feel that there is a demand for all forms of housing in Lake Elsinore. From homeless transitional housing to large lot homes. • Roads to accommodate traffic volume, safety of roads like speed limits and traffic lights • Promote preserve and improve natural open spaces, and trails and nature areas. • To provide accessible shopping for the new homeowners, so they don't have to leave the city they live in to shop or go to a nice restaurant. • Keep housing affordable. Stop the greed. Think about the community and those of us who proudly call this our home. I should not have to move because investors purchased and raised the rent on so many properties. • Sidewalks & bike infrastructure • Country Club heights • Better development along the lake. Riverside drive has several areas along the lake that need improvement. Let's make "the lake" a destination and get more tourists here to enjoy and spend $ in our city. • Road improvements, sidewalks clear of sign obstructions, assess need of and plan for new schools to accommodate the growing population. Public transportation for growing senior population. • Fire all corrupt government and city employees that are contributing to Americans drug and gang problem and are taking kickbacks from drug cartels and gang leaders. • Impact of traffic • Gas, food & shopping off Lake Street exit. Rehabilitation of the Outlets. Outdoor/shopping experience for the family (ex: Dos Lagos or Irvine Spectrum feel) • Give some sort of benefit to Social Service providers. Most of us live and work in the city but we can barely afford to pay our rents. Include social service providers in affordable housing buildings. Or some sort of assistance in being able to purchase a home. • Create less traffic • Unavoidable Services: we need a DMV Field office in LE near the 74/15 that meets the city’s available parking ordinance. A good location would be the old Falla’s suite at the Outlet Center. Not in a residential zone, easy access to the freeway, and not 25 miles away like Norco. 32 miles-Temecula, 40+ miles - Hemet. In the same square miles as these 3 DMV’s, OC has 12 in the same square miles. All we need is our state assembly person & a senator for requesting Additional federal DOT funding. PS. The Chamber has been aware of this request since 2014. So has our former city manager & ASM Melendez. Nothing has been done, except for me, gathering up all the figures and logistics and delivering them in writing. City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update | Community Survey Summary | 6/21/21 18 • Walkable city, mixed use zoning, employment opportunities, public transportation (bus rapid system) and connectivity along Freeway • I would like you to consider creating more strip malls and shops for the upcoming new housing. I would also like you to consider revamping the Lake Elsinore Outlets as a better draw to the town. • Have an accessible program that helps homeowners fix up their homes and get rid of weeds • Programs to help people learn how to make their own repairs to their own homes. • More restaurants shopping fun entertainment • Keep in mind development constraints. Either help address them or plan for housing where there are fewer constraints. • Consider the younger generation that may want to stay here but cannot afford purchasing a home in lake Elsinore especially when you have mello Roos and higher taxes on top of the mortgage payment. • Single parents that need housing assistance and income based. That people can easily quailfy for. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov Karen Brindley, Community Development Director Community Development Department 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Karen Brindley: RE: City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Lake Elsinore’s (City) draft housing element received for review on August 23, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on October 8, 2021, with Diana Gonzalez, Richard J. MacHott, Justin Kirk, and Laura Stetson of your staff. The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. The City’s statutory deadline to adopt a housing element is October 15, 2021. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of this statutory deadline, then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. October 22, 2021 Karen Brindley, Community Development Director Page 2 For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the County to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at Jamillah.Willliams@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Shannan West Enclosure Housing Accountability Unit Chief City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 October 22, 2021 APPENDIX CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) The element includes the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH); however, additional information is necessary to address the requisite affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis requirement, including local contributing factors to the fair housing issues and develop strong programs and strategies to address the identified fair housing issues as follows: Local Data and Knowledge: While the element includes state and regional data, the element must also include local data and knowledge to supplement the analyses. Local knowledge includes any information obtained through the community participation process. It can be a valuable means of supplementing county and state data and is important for providing context in a fair housing analysis. For more information on using local data, please refer to page 47 of the HUD AFFH rulebook https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-Rule-Guidebook.pdf. Integration and Segregation: The element includes data on integration and segregation at the regional and local level for race, disability, and familial status (p. 3.34). However, it must also describe local and regional trends and patterns of segregation and integration by income, complemented by data, and concluding with a summary of issues. Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP): While the element includes information and analysis relative to local R/ECAP, it should also include regional trends and patterns. The analysis must be complemented by quantitative evidence for the regional comparison and describe how the City’s R/ECAP compares to the rest of the City. In addition, the City should also analyze the regional trends and patterns of racial concentrations as it relates to areas of affluence. The combination in the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time and consider City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 October 22, 2021 other relevant factors, such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends. Access to Opportunity: The element provides some information (p. 3.41) on access to opportunity but fails to provide local and regional analysis of trends and patterns for all components. A complete analysis should include local and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, transportation, and economic scores through local, federal, and/or state data; and provide a description of education, environment, and employment. It should also include analyses for disability and access to transit. Please refer to page 35 of the AFFH guidebook (link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtml#guidance) for specific factors that should be considered when analyzing access to opportunities as it pertains to educational, employment, environmental, transportation, and any factors that are unique to Lake Elsinore. Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk: The element includes data and analysis on cost-burdened households but must also analyze regional trends and pattens on overcrowded households, substandard housing conditions, and households at risk of displacement as well as local and regional patterns of homelessness and conclude with a summary of issues. Site Inventory: The map of the approved projects inventory shows a concentration of very low- and extremely low-income (ELI) sites in low resource areas. The element must describe how the City will address this and include a program to mitigate the impact. Additionally, the analysis should evaluate the sites relative to other categories such as access to opportunity. The analysis should also address how the sites are identified to improve conditions (or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a program can mitigate the impact), whether the sites are isolated by income group and should be supported by local data and knowledge. Contributing Factors: The element relies heavily on Riverside County data to explain contributing factors, but the element should include data specific to Lake Elsinore. The element must list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues, are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, and must be related to the overall analysis. Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. The analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Currently, the element identifies program(s) to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to address AFFH requirements. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 October 22, 2021 Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtm. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 6,681 housing units, of which 2,977 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on vacant sites, including sites in Specific Plan Areas. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete a vacant sites analysis: Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates 18,403 units are entitled, of which 4,488 units in the Specific Plan will be affordable to low-income households (p. 4.17, Table 4.8). The element is unclear, however, about whether these units are part of a submitted development project or part of a specific or master plan community where project approvals are still required. For projects that have yet to receive entitlements, the element must include information on remaining approvals necessary prior to entitlement, timing for those approvals, and whether units are expected to be built within the planning period. Sites without pending projects should be included in the sites inventory rather than credited as a project. In addition, to credit units from pending and proposed projects toward the regional housing need, the element must demonstrate the affordability of units based on actual or projected sales prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period. Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The site inventory is relying on zoning that allows up to 24 units per acre to accommodate the lower-income housing need. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)(A) and (B), the element must identify sites with zoning and densities appropriate to encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower-income households based on factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, and development experience within zones. For communities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for Lake Elsinore), this analysis is not required (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3)(B)). While the element (p. 4.9) lists some affordable developments occurring at densities between 18 and 26 units per acre, the element must include a complete analysis to demonstrate how the zoning is appropriate to facilitate the development of units affordable for lower-income households. Realistic Capacity: The City uses maximum density allowed in the mixed-use zone multiplied by the size of the parcel. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land-use controls and site City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 October 22, 2021 improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element also needs to analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). If sites are rezoned to mixed-use, consider competing uses, the extent nonresidential uses are allowed, and environmental constraints limiting the usage. Also, there should be analysis on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction. This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element assumes an ADU build out of 12 ADUs per year based on the most recent (2020) production and changes in legislation. Given that the City has produced an average of four units per year between 2019 and 2020, it is not clear if this production level will be achievable in the planning period. As a result, the element should be updated to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policies and programs that incentivize the production of ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within 6 months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate. Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: • Emergency Shelters: The element must clarify if emergency shelters are a permitted use by right and demonstrate the C-M and M-2 zones have sufficient capacity to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(4).) The element must also demonstrate consistency with statutory requirements and include a program, as appropriate. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element- memos/docs/sb2_memo050708.pdf. • Transitional and Supportive Housing: The element shows transitional and supportive housing are only allowed in the R-3, RMU and CMU zones, but these housing types cannot be limited to specific zones. Transitional and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses, even nonresidential zones allowing residential, and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The element must describe and analyze the City’s transitional and supportive housing standards as a constraint and add or City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 October 22, 2021 revise programs that demonstrate consistency with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5). Water Sewer Priority: For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/other- requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land-use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land-use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. The element indicates that height limits in multifamily zones are restricted to thirty feet, which is the equivalent of two stories. The element should include an analysis of height limits for multifamily in these zones and for those sites identified in the inventory (p. 3.9) as potential constraints and include programs to address or remove any potential constraints as needed. Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards and associated fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1, subdivision (a)(1). Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 October 22, 2021 guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate. On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must quantify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. 4. Local Ordinances: The element must clarify if the City has an inclusionary ordinance. If an inclusionary ordinance exists, the City must analyze that ordinance’s direct impact on the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis should demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. 5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).) Special Needs Populations: While the element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (e.g., availability of senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. B. Housing Programs 1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, all programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following: City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 October 22, 2021 All programs should be reviewed and revised to include items (1) through (4) as stated above. While many programs contain objectives and timelines, many do not. The element should be revised to address any of these deficiencies, including those noted below: Program 1 (Code Enforcement): This program commits to rehabilitation and preservation of existing units as opportunities arise but should also indicate a specific timeframe and implementation date. The program should be revised to describe its outreach process and how frequently the City will apply for funds. Program 7 (Affordable Housing Development): This program commits to making a list of City-Owned properties suitable for affordable housing available to developers and non-profit agencies, pre-application technical assistance, and incentives. In paragraph three the City commits to providing, when available and appropriate, developer incentives. The program should be revised to clarify what is meant by providing incentives “when available and appropriate” and state how these incentives are decided upon and approved. The program should also be revised to quantify the City’s commitment and offer specific, meaningful actions within the planning period. Program 14 (Special Needs Housing): This program commits to giving priority to special needs projects, encouraging non-profits to pursue funding for special needs housing, and assisting developers seeking state and federal funding. However, it is not clear what specific actions the City is taking in any of those areas. The program should be revised to clarify how the City intends on prioritizing these projects and offer specific objectives to do so. The element should also clarify what actions and how the City intends on encouraging non-profit organizations and assisting developers. Program 15 (Resources to Address Homeless Need): This program commits to addressing needs of at-risk and homeless through assistance to non-profits, continuing to work with non-profit organizations to aid residents in need and offering technical assistance, and using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts. However, it is unclear of what specific actions the City intends on taking. The program should be revised to specify actions and objectives for each category and answer when the City intends on applying for the stated funds and what kind of assistance will or can be granted to the non-profits. Program 19 (ADUs): This program commits to promoting the development of ADUs by implementing a permit streamlining process, providing technical resources, and providing written information. The program should be revised to clarify how the streamlining process will be implemented and clarify the types of technical resources the City plans on providing to interested property owners, and the types of “written information” the City will produce or has available. Program 20 (Specific Plans): This program commits to promoting development within existing and future specific plan areas but does not state how the City will go about promoting development. The program should be revised to offer specific actions and how they intend on promoting different varieties of housing. City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 October 22, 2021 Program 23 (Residential Development Standards): This program commits to reviewing development standards, assessing potential for density increases, and exploring the potential of establishing prototype development plans. The City should consider going beyond exploring and commit to beneficial actions within a specified timeframe. 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single- room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding B3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. Program to Mitigate Governmental Constraints: The element must be revised to include a program that mitigates governmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).). Program 25 (Affirmatively Further Fair Housing): Among other components, Program 25 commits to review and revise the definition of family and residential care facilities for 7 or more persons. The City’s current definition of family limits persons in single housing keeping units unrelated to 6 or fewer. The program should be revised to include commitments beyond “reviewing” the ordinance but must commit to specific actions and timeframes to amend definition of family to be consistent with fair housing laws and to address the constraint for the definition of family. In addition, amendments to the zoning code for residential group homes for seven or more persons should not just address state law but also ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities. City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 October 22, 2021 4. Promote AFFH opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Program to AFFH: While the element includes Program 25 which describes how the City’s fair housing initiatives, it must also include stronger actions that promote AFFH opportunities. For example, the element could include a program committing to implement Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b), which requires the City to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to AFFH and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to AFFH. Specifically, AFFH means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to AFFH extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. C. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(8).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 1.4to 1.9), it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. The cover letter states the draft was made available to the public August 16, 2021 but was electronically submitted to HCD on August 23, 2021. By not providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission, the City has not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in the course of its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 1 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element A1. AFFH: Local Data and Knowledge: While the element includes state and regional data, the element must also include local data and knowledge to supplement the analyses. Local knowledge includes any information obtained through the community participation process. It can be a valuable means of supplementing county and state data and is important for providing context in a fair housing analysis. For more information on using local data, please refer to page 47 of the HUD AFFH rulebook https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFF H-Rule-Guidebook.pdf. Local data added to the Element: 1. Summary of relevant issues from the public outreach process and form historical patterns of development 2. Local fair housing inquiry data from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County 3. HUD Low- and Moderate-Income area data 4. The Access to Opportunity discussion has been expanded to address educational, environmental, transportation (access to transit), and employmen t factors. 5. Disproportionate housing need: regional context is added as well as a discussion on homelessness. A1. AFFH: Integration and Segregation: The element includes data on integration and segregation at the regional and local level for race, disability, and familial status (p. 3.34). However, it must also describe local and regional trends and patterns of segregation and integration by income, complemented by data, and concluding with a summary of issues. Chapter 3 under the “Segregation and Opportunity Patterns and Trends” heading has been edited to add local and regional trends and patterns of segregation and integration by income, complemented by data (HUD LMI data), and a summary of issues under this heading has been added. A1. AFFH: Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP): While the element includes information and analysis relative to local R/ECAP, it should also include regional trends and patterns. The analysis must be complemented by quantitative evidence fo r the regional comparison and describe how the City’s R/ECAP compares to the rest of the City. In addition, the City should also analyze the regional trends and patterns of racial concentrations as it relates to areas of affluence. The combination in the R /ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time and consider other relevant factors, such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends. The R/ECAP and Areas of Affluence discission is edited to add a regional comparison, As a result of the analysis, Program 25 is edited to address concentration of minority, low - and moderate- income population, households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk. The program includes a list of contributing factors and related action items. A1. AFFH: Access to Opportunity: The element provides some information (p. 3.41) on access to opportunity but fails to provide local and regional analysis of trends and patterns for all components. A complete analysis should include local and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, transportation, and economic scores through local, federal, and /or state data; and provide a description of education, environment, and employment. It should also include analyses for disability and access to transit. Please refer to page 35 of the AFFH guidebook (link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml#guidance) for specific factors that should be considered when analyzing access to opportunities as it pertains to educational, employment, environmental, transportation, and any factors that are unique to Lake Elsinore. The Access to Opportunity discussion has been expanded to address educational, environmental, transportation (access to transit), and employment factors. The Disability discussion has been supplemented with information about housing needs and resources. As a result of the analysis, Program 25 is edited to address disparities in Access to Opportunity. The program includes a list of contributing factors and related action items. A1. AFFH: Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk: The element includes data and analysis on cost-burdened households but must also analyze regional trends and pattens on overcrowded households, substandard housing conditions, and households at risk of displacement as well as local and regional patterns of homelessness and conclude with a summary of issues. The Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk has been updated to add: • Regional trends and pattens on overcrowded households and substandard housing conditions; • Households at risk of displacement; • Local and regional patterns of homelessness; and • A summary of issues. A1. AFFH: Site Inventory: The map of the approved projects inventory shows a concentration of very low - and extremely low-income (ELI) sites in low resource areas. The element must describe how the City will address this and include a program to mitigate the impact. Additionally, the analysis should evaluate the sites relative to other categories such as access to opportunity. The analysis should also address how the sites are identified to improve conditions (or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a program can mitigate the impact), whether the sites are isolated by income group and should be supported by local data and knowledge. The current analysis evaluates the sites relative access to opportunity: “Most areas designated for future specific plan development are identified as high resources areas …All non- Specific Plan sites (vacant HDR and RMU sites which make up 35 percent of the lower -income RHNA sites) are in lower resources areas in and around Downtown Lake Elsinore and north of the Lake. Based on the AFFH analysis, this area also has a higher proportion of renter households, non -White residents, residents living in poverty, children living in female headed households, overcrowded households, and co st burdened renter households.” City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 2 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element The section is edited to address the fact that the sites inventory represents both improved and exacerbated fair housing and equal opportunity conditions. The Section shows the actions the City has and will undertake to ad dress needs in parts of the areas where fair housing and equal opportunity conditions are exacerbated. As a result of the analysis, Program 9 directs the City to pursue land purchases for residential development, redevelop tax -delinquent properties, consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown , pursue modifications to residential development standards to facilitate development in Downtown , and identify funding sources to invest in infrastructure and housing. A1. AFFH: Contributing Factors: The element relies heavily on Riverside County data to explain contributing factors, but the element should include data specific to Lake Elsinore. The element must list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contribu ting factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues, are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, and must be related to the overall analysis. Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housin g discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. The analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. A new section has been added that Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors in Lake Elsinore. Two issues and a variety of contributing factors are listed. These are used to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing (see next comment). A1. AFFH: Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to ov ercome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Currently, the element identifies program(s) to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to address AFFH requirements. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete a nalysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtm. The element (particularly Program 25 in Chapter 6) is revised and enhanced with additional program actions based on the complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. 2. Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates 18,403 units are entitled, of which 4,488 units in the Specific Plan will be affordable to low-income households (p. 4.17, Table 4.8). The element is unclear, however, about whether these units are part of a submitted development project or part of a specific or master plan community where project approvals are still required. For projects that have yet to receive entitlements, the element must include information on remaining approvals necessary prior to entitlement, timing for those approvals, and whether units are expected to be built within the planning period. Sites without pending projects should be included in the sites inventory rather than credited as a project. In addition, to credit units from pending and proposed projects toward the regional housing need, the element must demonstrate the affordability of units based on actual or projected sales prices, rent levels, or othe r mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period. Chapter 4 has been edited to move the Specific Plan capacity from the approved projects section to the site inventory section. In addition, additional information about the level of entitlemen t has been added to Table 4.6 to show which Specific Plan areas will most likely develop during the planning period. As a result of the revised analysis two Specific Plan were removed: • Villages at Lakeshore Specific Plan: In 2020, permits were issued for full capacity. • Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area: While the Plan has a remaining capacity of over 8,000 units, active mining activities preclude its development within the planning period. The Specific Plan developers and/or property owners have not specifically included affordable units— although any of the projects could be implemented to include affordable units —and housing costs are not yet known. However, a comparison of affordability limits and current home prices and rental rates shows that a portion of the units will be affordable to lower - and moderate-income households based on 2018-2020 market rental and for-sale data. Development within Specific Plan areas will allow for a wider range of housing types, sizes, and amenities and more than ha lf of units will be single family homes. These factors require that affordability be distributed among the low, moderate, and above moderate -income categories. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 3 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element Program 20 has also been edits to add more action items to encourage development of the City’s Specific Plans. Specifically, the City will maintain a list of Specific Plans with remining development capacity and the entitlement levels for each one. The City will reach out every other year to owners/developers of Specific Plans with no entitlements actions to identify any issue that may be within the control of the City. During the outreach process, the City will provide information to owners/developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing within Specific P lan areas. Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The site inventory is relying on zoning that allows up to 24 units per acre to accommodate the lower-income housing need. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)(A) and (B), the element must identify sites with zoning and densities appropriate to encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower-income households based on factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, and development experience within zones. For commu nities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for Lake Elsinore), this analysis is not required (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3)(B)). While the element (p. 4.9) lists some affordable developments occurring at densities between 18 and 26 units per acre, the element must include a complete analysis to demonstrate how the zoning is appropriate to facilitate the development of units affordable for lower -income households. Due to the availability of undeveloped land and relat ively lower costs (compared to other jurisdictions), housing in Lake Elsinore is more affordable. Many new market-rate units can provide affordability at the lower-income level even at market-rate costs. The sites inventory includes 28 vacant sites zoned to allow 19 to 24 units per acre. In Lake Elsinore, ALL affordable housing developments have been built at similar or lower densities. The Department’s letter states that the element lists “some” affordable developments occurring at densities between 18 and 26 units per acre. In fact, the element lists 7 affordable developments that were built in zones that allowed for densities of up to 18 units per acre and the 4 projects that were developed in a zone that allows up to 24 units per acre. This shows that de nsity is not a barrier to development of affordable housing and that assuming very low -income affordability for HDR and RMU sites is reasonable and supported by data. Chapter 4 under the “Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower Income Housing” headi ng is edited to present affordability assumptions for the two categories of sites in the Element: remaining Specific Plan capacity and vacant HDR/RMU sites. Additional information has been added and shows that based on the site locations and the assumptio n that the Specific Plan areas will be more single -family in nature, different affordability assumptions are provided. Realistic Capacity: The City uses maximum density allowed in the mixed -use zone multiplied by the size of the parcel. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land -use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element also needs to analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). If sites are rezoned to mixed-use, consider competing uses, the extent nonresidential uses are allowed, and environmental constraints limiting the usage. Also, there should be analysis on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction. This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development. The discussion on realistic capacity shows that using the median density is reasonable based on similar projects. For the mixed-use sites, we explain that the RMU zone was chosen over the CMU zone because it is in residential areas and is expected to develop wi th a residential character with non-residential uses in a very limit capacity that will not impact densities. The Department’s letter states that “If sites are rezoned to mixed-use” but we are clarifying that the Element does not propose any rezoning. The City has ample vacant land with appropriate zoning to accommodate the RHNA. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element assumes an ADU build out of 12 ADUs per year based on the most recent (2020) production and changes in legislation. Given that the City has produced an average of four units per year between 2019 and 2020, it is not clear if this production level will be achievable in the planning period. As a result, the element should be updated to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policies and programs that incentivize the production of ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, Per the Department’s letter, the ADU has been adjusted downwards. In 2019, two ADUs were permitted; in 2020, six ADUs were permitted; In 2021 the City has approved nine ADU applications. Although the City believes that demand for ADU development will continue to increase, the ADU estimate of 12 per year (total of 100) has been adjusted to 6 per year (total of 50) based o n current trends and favorable ADU legislation which has created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs and the City’s efforts to publicize ADU development. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 4 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within 6 months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate actio n. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate. Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: • Emergency Shelters: The element must clarify if emergency shelters are a permitted use by right and demonstrate the C-M and M-2 zones have sufficient capacity to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(4).) The element must also d emonstrate consistency with statutory requirements and include a program, as appropriate. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community -development/housing- element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb2_memo050708.pdf. Zoning for emergency shelters is addressed under Table 3.3 with a footnote that explains that “Emergency shelters are permitted as a by-right use in the C-M Commercial Manufacturing District and M-2 General Manufacturing District per Zone Code Amendment No. 2012-03 (http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=9759). See LEMC Chapter 17.132.150-Emergency shelter use and development standards for details.” In Chapter 3 under the Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers he ading, zoning for Emergency Shelters is edited to add “by-right”. “In 2012, the City amended the Zoning Code (Ordinance No. CC-2012-1309) to allow for the development of emergency shelters. Consistent with SB 2, emergency shelters are permitted as a by-right use in the C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) and M -2 (General Manufacturing) zones. LEMC Title 17.132.150 (Emergency shelter use and development standards) outlines development standards and operational regulations consistent with State law.” The section is further edited to add a more detailed description of the size, uses, and transportation access to the C -M and M-2 zones. Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: • Transitional and Supportive Housing: The element shows transitional and supportive housing are only allowed in the R-3, RMU and CMU zones, but these housing types cannot be limited to specific zones. Transitional and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses, even nonresidential zones allowing residential, and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The element must describe and analyze the City’s transitional and sup portive housing standards as a constraint and add or revise programs that demonstrate consistency with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5). In Lake Elsinore, transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted in, and subject to the sta ndards outlined in, the R-3, RMU, and CMU zones. As a result, the City will have to amend its zoning ordinance to comply with SB 2. In Chapter 3 the discussion under the Transitional and Supportive Housing heading, is edited to add “SB 2 requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). In other words, transitional hou sing and supportive housing must be permitted in all zones allowing residential uses and are not subject to any not imposed on similar dwellings (e.g., single - family homes, apartments) in the same zone in which the transitional housing and supportive housi ng is located. For example, transitional housing located in an apartment building in a multifamily zone is permitted in the same manner as an apartment building in the same zone and supportive housing located in a single - family home in a single-family zone is permitted in the same manner as a single-family home in the same zone. The City will amend its zoning standards for transitional and supportive housing to comply with SB 2 (Program 22).” Program 22 in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6) is edited to add SB 2 compliance for transitional and supportive housing as an action item. Water Sewer Priority: For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units af fordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City’s The Department’s comments are noted. Program 16 was included in the submitted draft and includes the following action item: “To facilitate effective coordination between local planning and water and sewer service functions to ensure adequate water and sewer capacity is available to accommodate housing needs, following Housing Element City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 5 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community -development/building- blocks/other-requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml. adoption, deliver the 2021-2029 Lake Elsinore Housing Element to all providers of sewer and water service within the City of Lake Elsinore in accordance with Government Code §65589.7.” 3. Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land -use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land -use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. The element indicates that height limits in multifamily zones are restricted to thirty feet, w hich is the equivalent of two stories. The element should include an analysis of height limits for multifamily in these zones and for those sites identified in the inventory (p. 3.9) as potential constraints and include programs to address or remove any po tential constraints as needed. In Chapter 3 the discussion under the Multi-family Housing heading is updated to include the following: “Building height requirements in Lake Elsinore are not a constraint to development. Table 3.4 shows that the City has a 30-foot building height limit in all residential zones and no height limit in the two mixed use zones (RMU and CMU). Building code standards require at least 7’6” per floor plus ceiling space for mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering which allows for development of three stories. The site inventory includes capacity for 2,392 lower income units on sites zoned R -3 and RMU. The sites identified in the RMU zone (1,090 total units or 58% of the very low income RHNA) are not subject to a building height requirement. The height requirement for the sites identified in the R -3 zone (1,302 total units) are not constrained by the building height requirement. Recent affordable housing developments have been constructed in Lake Elsinore with 2 to 3 stories. The 81-unit, affordable Mission Trails Apartment built in 2019 was developed with three floors.” Table 3.4 is edited to note that in the CMU and RMU zones there is no maximum height limit. Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its complia nce with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards and associated fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1, subdivision (a)(1). Chapter 3 under the “LEMC Title 17 (Zoning)” heading has been edited to note that the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning standards can be accessed online through the City’s website (www.lake-elsinore.org/city- government/municipal-code). Chapter 3 under the “Fees and Exaction” heading section in Chapter 3 has been edited to note that The City’s Engineering Division contracts with outside firms for plan check of project -related plans. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning fees can be accessed online through the City’s website at http://www.lake -elsinore.org/city-hall/city- departments/public-works/engineering/fees/plan-check-fees. Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision -making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate. A new heading in Chapter 3 (“Design Review”) has been added to e xplain the design review process and list the design concepts and findings required for design review. The design review process is not a constraint to residential development in Lake Elsinore. By and large the City has not recommended denial of residential projects in general and less so on design review. The design review process also does not negatively impact as the City’s already short processing time and the criteria for design review is generally objective. In compliance with SB 330, the City will adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law (Program 12). Part of the objective design standards creation process will include assessing how the standards can be used to encourage a variety of housing types and limit the size of residential units on multi -family zoned properties to encourage units that are affordable by design. On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must quantify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. Chapter 3 under the “On- and Off-Site Improvements” heading section in Chapter 3 has been edited to add the following information: City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 6 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element “Required on-site improvements for residential development are determined largely by the zoning of the property. Lake Elsinore’s requirements for on -site improvements are typical of California communities and are not considered to be unusually restrictive or as a constraint on the development of housing. In a typical subdivision, minimum street right of way must be provided. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan’s 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. Streets not shown on the General Plan’s Roadway Classification figure are considered Local Streets. The required street width construction for a typical subdivision would most likely range from a 60-foot right of way for local streets up to 120-foot right-of-way for an urban arterial highway (Figure 2.2 in the General Plan’s Community Form Chapter). Narrower streets may be allowed within some adopted Specific Plans.” 4. Local Ordinances: The element must clarify if the City has an inclusionary ordinance. If a n inclusionary ordinance exists, the City must analyze that ordinance’s direct impact on the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis should demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. The City has no local ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of resid ential development such as inclusionary ordinances, short-term rental ordinances, or moratoriums on specific development types. The discussion in Chapter 3 under the Local Ordinances heading is updated to add the following information: “In the City’s Redevelopment Project Areas all new residential development must pay a $2.00 per square foot Affordable Housing in Lieu Fee. The fee is very low and has not been a constraint or deterrent to residential development.” 5. Special Needs Populations: While the element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (e.g., availability of senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gap s in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. Chapter 2 (under the “Special Housing Needs” heading) has been edits to add information on challenges and resources for the special needs housing groups and includes references to program in the Housing Plan (Chapter 6). B1: Programs: All programs should be reviewed and revised to include items (1) through (4) as stated above. all programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. While many programs contain objectives and timelines, many do not. All programs have been reviewed to ensu re that the required components are present. Objectives have been added to all programs. In cases where there are specific numerical objectives, “Quantified Objectives” are indicated. For programs with more general, non -numerical objectives, “Objectives” are indicated. Program 1 (Code Enforcement): This program commits to rehabilitation and preservation of existing units as opportunities arise but should also indicate a specific timeframe and implementation date. The program should be revised to describe its outreach process and how frequently the City will apply for funds. Program 1 is updates to add a more detailed description of the City’s role, a more specific timeframe for fund application and quantification of progress. Program 7 (Affordable Housing Development): This program commits to making a list of City-Owned properties suitable for affordable housing available to developers and non -profit agencies, pre-application technical assistance, and incentives. In paragraph three the City commits to provi ding, when available and appropriate, developer incentives. The program should be revised to clarify what is meant by providing incentives “when available and appropriate” and state how these incentives are decided upon and approved. The program should also be revised to quantify the City’s commitment and offer specific, meaningful actions within the planning period. Program 7 is updated to clarify what types of incentives are available and how the City decides when to offer financial assistance (based on location within redevelopment areas or based on the appropriate level of affordability). The Program is also updated to add a quantified objective. Program 14 (Special Needs Housing): This program commits to giving priority to special needs projects, encouraging non-profits to pursue funding for special needs housing, and assisting developers seeking state and federal funding. However, it is not clear what specific actions the City is taking in any of those areas. The program should be revised to clarify how the City intends on prioritizing these projects and offer specific Program 14 is updated to provide clarification on the City’s role in implementation, prioritization and source of funds, and an objective has been added to the program. The City will be proactive in advertising available funds to assist in the development of special needs housing by a nnually contacting a list of developers and stakeholders that may be interested in this type of development projects. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 7 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element objectives to do so. The element should also clarify what actions and how the City intends on encouraging non - profit organizations and assisting developers. Program 15 (Resources to Address Homeless Need): This program commits to addressing needs of at -risk and homeless through assistance to non-profits, continuing to work with non-profit organizations to aid residents in need and offering technical assistance, and using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts. However, it is unclear of what specific actions the City intends on taking. The program should be revised to specify actions and objectives for each category and answer when the City intends on applying for the stated funds and what kind of assistance will or can be granted to the non -profits. Program 15 is updated to include specific on funding sources (CDBG), the City’s role in the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force and participation in the Regional Homeless Alliance for Southwest Riverside County. The timeframe is clarified to address funding and an objective has been added. Program 19 (ADUs): This program commits to promoting the development of ADUs by implementing a permit streamlining process, providing technical resources, and providing written information. The program should be revised to clarify how the streamlining process will be implemented and clarify the types of technical resources the City plans on providing to interested property owners, and the types of “written information” the City will produce or has available. Program 19 is updated to clarify that the City will abide by the streamlining requirements established by law, the type of technical support and information to be provided as well as a more detailed timeframe and adjusted ADU estimates based on revisions to the ADU projections in Chapter 4. Program 20 (Specific Plans): This program commits to promoting development within existing and future specific plan areas but does not state how the City will go about promoting development. The program should be revised to offer specific actions and how they intend on promoting different varieties of housing. Program 20 is updated to clarify the action the City will take to encourage development of housing in Specific Plan Areas and includes a more detailed timeframe. While development of Specific Plan areas is largely out of the City’s control, the City will maintain a list of Specific Plans with remining development capacity and the entitlement levels for each one. The City will reach out every other year to owners/d evelopers of Specific Plans with no entitlements actions to identify any issue that may be within the control of the City. Program 23 (Residential Development Standards): This program commits to reviewing development standards, assessing potential for density increases, and exploring the potential of establishing prototype development plans. The City should consider going beyond exploring and commit to beneficial actions within a specified timeframe. Program 23 is edited to provide more definitive actions. 2. As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise progra ms to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. Program 16: Adequate Sites is updated to reflect edits to the Sites Inventory: • Revision of ADU estimates • Revision to Specific Plan sites and capacity 3. As noted in Finding B3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. Program to Mitigate Governmental Constraints: The element must be revised to include a program that mitigates governmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).). Program 22 is updated to include an action item to amend the City’s zoning regulations consistent with State law that requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). Program 25 (Affirmatively Further Fair Housing): Among other components, Program 25 commits to review and revise the definition of family and residential care facilities for 7 or more persons. The City’s current definition of family limits persons in single housing keeping units unrelated to 6 or fewer. The program should be revised to include commitments beyond “reviewing” the ordinance but must commit to specific actions and timeframes to amend definition of family to be consistent with fair housing laws and to address the constraint for the definition of family. In addition, amendments to the zoning code for residential group homes for seven or more persons should not just address state law but also ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities. Program 25 is updated to remove the “review” action and instead commit to a revision of the definitions for Residential Care Facilities and Family. The edits also clarify that revision of siting regulations f or residential care facilities for 7 or more persons will ensure that approval procedures do not constraint development of housing for persons with disabilities. A more specific timeframe is also added. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings and City Response 8 HCD Findings in 10/22/21 Letter City Edits/Response in Revised Draft Housing Element 4. Program to AFFH: While the element includes Program 25 which describes how the City’s fair housing initiatives, it must also include stronger actions that promote AFFH opportunities. For example, the element could include a program committing to implement Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b), which requires the City to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to AFFH and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to AFFH. Specifically, AFFH means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to AFFH extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. Program 25 has been revised and enhanced with additional program actions based on the complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. An action item related to implementation of Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b ) is also included. C. While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 1.4 to 1.9), it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. The cover letter states the draft was made available to the public August 16, 2021 but was electronicall y submitted to HCD on August 23, 2021. By not providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission, the City has not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in the course of its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisi ons to the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter. Chapter 1 has been edited to explain the connection between public outreach and HE contents. Chapter 1 also provides a very detailed list and description of the City’s outreach efforts. Because some Cov id-19 pandemic public gathering limitations were still in place, the meeting was made available through teleconferencing. To ensure that the housing concerns of low - and moderate-income and special needs residents were addressed, the City notified agencies and organizations that serve these communities in Lake Elsinore and surrounding areas. Stakeholder organizations servings families, youth, seniors, persons experiencing homelessness, veterans, and persons with disabilities are included in the stakeholder list. The list of agencies and organizations invited to the study session (and notified of the availability of the draft Housing Element for comment) are listed in Appendix A. In addition to this list, 934 commercial business license holders were also sent workshop invitations. Following the workshop, a summary of workshop comments was posted on the City’s website along with the workshop video recording and presentations. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov Jason Simpson, City Manager City Manager’s Office City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Jason Simpson: RE: City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Lake Elsinore’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on November 24, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element Janurary 21, 2022 Jason Simpson, City Manager Page 2 process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at Jamillah.Williams@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 January 21, 2022 APPENDIX CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1.Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) The element includes the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH); however, additional information is necessary to address the requisite affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis requirement, including local contributing factors to the fair housing issues and develop strong programs and strategies to address the identified fair housing issues as follows: Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element included some additional analysis (p. 3.47) for access to opportunity, it must still provide local analysis of trends and patterns transportation and environment and a regional analysis for education. The analysis should also address persons with disabilities and disparities in access to transit. Please refer to page 35 of the AFFH guidebook (link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml#guidance) for specific factors that should be considered when analyzing access to opportunities. Site Inventory: The map of the approved projects inventory shows a concentration of very low- and extremely low-income (ELI) sites in low resource areas. While Program 9 was added to mitigate the impact of lower income concentration and the narrative describes how the allocation of sites improves conditions, it does not address how sites exacerbate conditions. Additionally, the analysis evaluates the sites relative to access to opportunity but should also evaluate the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RE/CAPs), integration and segregation, and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk). City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 January 21, 2022 Contributing Factors: While the element includes additional issue areas as well as associated contributing factors, it does not explain how these factors are prioritized in the analysis. The element must prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues, are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, and must be related to the overall analysis. Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. The analysis must result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. While the revised draft includes an overview of two issues in Lake Elsinore along with contributing factors, it does not identify associated goals, metrics, and milestones. The element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. For sites that are in lower-resourced areas, the element must include specific actions that seek to transform and address disparities in low resourced areas. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtm. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 6,681 housing units, of which 2,977 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on vacant sites, including sites in Specific Plan Areas. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete a vacant sites analysis: Specific Plan Areas: The revised sites inventory identifies potential capacity in a number of specific plans for 18,403 units (Appendix B) and relies on capacity to accommodate at least 1,725 of its lower-income RHNA on multifamily sites within those specific plans (Table 4.8). While the housing element indicates the Specific Plans’ residential capacity and estimates the number of units by income group, it does not provide any analysis demonstrating their suitability and availability for development in the planning period or potential affordability. For specific plans that are anticipating a variety of housing types including multifamily, it remains unclear how multifamily is to be accommodated in these specific plans, land City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 January 21, 2022 capacity that will be available for multifamily, and allowable densities. To utilize residential capacity in Specific Plans, the element must: • Identify the date of approval of the plans and expiration date. • Identify approved or pending projects within these plans that are anticipated in the planning period, including anticipated affordability based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project. • Provide descriptions of allowable densities, development standards and other requirements for multifamily development anticipated to accommodate the lower- income RHNA; • Describe necessary approvals or steps for entitlements for new development (e.g., design review, site plan review, etc.). • Describe any development agreements, and conditions or requirements such as phasing or timing requirements, that impact development in the planning period. Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The site inventory is relying on zoning that allows up to 24 units per acre to accommodate the lower-income housing need. The element includes additional analysis to substantiate the City’s use of lower income based on “lower real estate costs” and programs to remove constraints. However, the element does not include a complete analysis to demonstrate the feasibility of 24 units per acre density. Specifically, the element must describe market demand and financial feasibility. To address this analysis, the City could consult with local developers. In addition, the element states that over 4,448 units affordable to lower-income households are expected to be accommodated in potential multifamily and mixed-use development in a variety of specific plans. However, the element does not include information allowable densities for multifamily development and therefore HCD cannot make a determination related to the appropriateness of sites within the specific plans to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income. Realistic Capacity: As stated in the previous element, the City uses maximum density allowed in the Residential Mixed-Use zone (RMU) multiplied by the size of the parcel. While the element was revised to indicate there is residential capacity in the Commercial Mixed-Use zone that was not included in the inventory, this information is not sufficient to address this requirement as it does provide support for the capacity assumptions in the RMU. The element should include typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at similar affordability levels within the zone and development trends supporting residential development. Please see HCD’s prior review. Water Sewer Priority: Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Program 16 (Adequate Sites) commits to delivering the housing element to water and sewer service providers but does not indicate a procedure to grant priority water and sewer service to City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 January 21, 2022 developments with units affordable to lower-income households. Please See HCD’s prior review. B. Housing Programs 1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) To address the program requirements of Gov. Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following: All programs should be reviewed and revised to include items (1) through (4) as stated above. While many programs contain objectives and timelines, many do not. The element should be revised to address any of these deficiencies, including those noted below: Program 14 (Special Needs Housing): This Program commits to giving priority to special needs projects, encouraging nonprofits to pursue funding for special needs housing, and assisting developers seeking state and federal funding. While the City clarified actions and included additional objectives, it did not describe how the City will encourage nonprofit organizations or how it will grant priority for special needs projects. Program 15 (Resources to Address Homeless Need): This Program commits to addressing needs of at-risk and homeless through assistance to nonprofits, continuing to work with nonprofit organizations to aid residents in need and offering technical assistance, and using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts. As stated in the previous letter, it is unclear of what specific actions the City will take to assist nonprofit efforts or what the City’s technical assistance will look like. The Program should be revised to specify actions and objectives for each category and answer when the City intends on applying for the stated funds and what kind of assistance will or can be granted to the nonprofits. 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 5 January 21, 2022 for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single- room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Program to AFFH: While the element includes Program 25 which describes how the City’s fair housing initiatives, it must also include stronger actions that promote AFFH opportunities. The element must be revised to include programs that go beyond status quo actions and include quantifiable objectives and concrete actions that are transformative and overcome patterns and trends identified in the element. For example, Disparities in Access to Opportunity section identifies lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, the location of proficient schools and school assignment policies as contributing factors, but none of the associated goals address any of these. Additionally, Bullet 2 in the same section should go beyond identifying issues and commit to addressing them once they are discovered. Bullet 4 does not proactively address identified issues such as a concentration of lower- and moderate- income minorities. Bullet 7 should be revised to include a specific implementation date. AFFH means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming RE/CAPs into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to AFFH extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 6 January 21, 2022 C. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 1.4 to 1.7) and describes public comments and how they were incorporated into the element, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 1 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter A.1 Disparities in Access to Opportunities While the element included some additional analysis (p. 3.47) for access to opportunity, it must still provide local analysis of trends and patterns transportation and environment and a regional analysis for education. The analysis should also address persons with disabilities and disparities in access to transit. Please refer to page 35 of the AFFH guidebook (link:https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development/affh/index.shtml#guidance) for specific factors that should be considered when analyzing access to opportunities. A regional analysis for education is added. Additional information on transportation (transit access and job proximity) is added. Edits address areas of high pollution burdens and how they intersect with lower resources and higher need areas (includes persons with disabilities and race/ethnicity) The City’s draft Environmental Justice Element and associated goal and policies is also addressed in the edits. A summary of the EJ Element policies that impact access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Edits address persons with disabilities and disparities in access to transit – Transit in Lake Elsinore is concentrated in lower resources and higher need areas of the City west of I‐15 – This includes persons with disabilities. A.1 Site Inventory The map of the approved projects inventory shows a concentration of very low‐ and extremely low‐income (ELI) sites in low resource areas. While Program 9 was added to mitigate the impact of lower income concentration and the narrative describes how the allocation of sites improves conditions, it does not address how sites exacerbate conditions. Additionally, the analysis evaluates the sites relative to access to opportunity but should also evaluate the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RE/CAPs), integration and The section in Chapter 3 titled: Sites Inventory Consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) has been updated to: Address how the site inventory exacerbates existing fair housing conditions. The site evaluation has been expanded to address existing patterns for access to opportunity, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RE/CAPs), integration and segregation, and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 2 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter segregation, and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk). A.1 Contributing Factors While the element includes additional issue areas as well as associated contributing factors, it does not explain how these factors are prioritized in the analysis. The element must prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues, are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, and must be related to the overall analysis. Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. The analysis must result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. Program 25 was included in the submitted Element and included prioritization fair housing issues and contributing factors similar to the example on Page 71 of the HCD AFFH handbook. The fair housing and contributing factors discussion in Chapter 3 is updated to more clearly explain and identify the priority assigned to these. The table under Program 25 is updated to address other related comments in the Department’s finding letter. A.1 Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. While the revised draft includes an overview of two issues in Lake Elsinore along with contributing factors, it does not identify associated goals, metrics, and milestones. The element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. For sites that are in lower‐resourced areas, the element must include specific actions that seek to transform and address disparities in low resourced areas. Furthermore, the element The fair housing and contributing factors discussion in Chapter 3 is updated to more clearly explain and identify the priority assigned to these. The table under Program 25 is updated to address other related comments in the Department’s finding letter. Program 25 is updated. The two main fair housing issues (prioritized as High) are closely related as such the action items are grouped together. The concentration of minority, low‐ and moderate‐income population, and households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk also affects access to opportunity. Many of the same strategies (housing mobility strategies, new housing choices in City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 3 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development/affh/index.shtm. areas of opportunity and place‐based strategies to encourage community revitalization) address both issues (disproportionate housing need and disparities in access to opportunity). The program is updated to group actions under three strategy themes. Program actions have been updated to include specific metrics and milestones for evaluating progress. A.2 Specific Plan Areas The revised sites inventory identifies potential capacity in a number of specific plans for 18,403 units (Appendix B) and relies on capacity to accommodate at least 1,725 of its lower‐income RHNA on multifamily sites within those specific plans (Table 4.8). While the housing element indicates the Specific Plans’ residential capacity and estimates the number of units by income group, it does not provide any analysis demonstrating their suitability and availability for development in the planning period or potential affordability. For specific plans that are anticipating a variety of housing types including multifamily, it remains unclear how multifamily is to be accommodated in these specific plans, land capacity that will be available for multifamily, and allowable densities. To utilize residential capacity in Specific Plans, the element must: 1. Identify the date of approval of the plans and expiration date. 2. Identify approved or pending projects within these plans that are anticipated in the planning period, including anticipated affordability based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project. 3. Provide descriptions of allowable densities, development The site inventory section addressing specific plan capacity has been edited to: Expand Table 4.6 by adding 1. Date of approval of the plans and expiration date 2. Approved or pending projects within these plans has not been added as there are currently none ‐ nevertheless various specific plans have submitted applications for new or revised tract maps. Specific plan development in the City is ongoing. In 2020, permits were issued for 146 units in the Villages at Lakeshore Specific Plan. 3. Descriptions of allowable densities for multifamily uses. 4. Necessary approvals or steps for entitlements for new development 5. Phasing information from the Plans. Most indicate a phasing plan but acknowledge that the timing of residential and commercial development is a function of market conditions/demand. Based on the additional information, the unit distribution of City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 4 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter standards and other requirements for multifamily development anticipated to accommodate the lower‐income RHNA; 4. Describe necessary approvals or steps for entitlements for new development (e.g., design review, site plan review, etc.) 5. Describe any development agreements, and conditions or requirements such as phasing or timing requirements, that impact development in the planning period. specific plan capacity has been changed: For multi‐family units in Specific Plan areas, density is used to make the affordability assumptions (consistent with state law). As previously discussed, 24 units per acre is used in place of the 30 units per acre default densities for a variety of reasons discussed under the “Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower Income Housing” heading. Multifamily and mixed‐use units with an allowable density of 24 units per acre are credited toward the very low/low income RHNA. Multifamily and mixed‐use units with a lower allowable density (most commonly 18 and 20 units per acre) are credited toward the moderate income RHNA. Single‐family units in Specific Plan areas can be credited against the moderate‐income RHNA based on the cost of single‐family homes in Lake Elsinore. But to account for a range of potential home prices, single‐family unit capacity in Specific Plan areas is split evenly between the moderate‐ and above moderate‐income categories. A.2 Zoning for Lower‐Income Households The site inventory is relying on zoning that allows up to 24 units per acre to accommodate the lower‐income housing need. The element includes additional analysis to substantiate the City’s use of lower income based on “lower real estate costs” and programs to remove constraints. However, the element does not include a complete analysis to demonstrate the feasibility of 24 units per acre density. Specifically, the element must describe market demand and financial feasibility. To address this analysis, the City could consult with local The use of 24 du/ac as density suitable for development of affordable housing is realistic given the lower development costs and that a significant number of affordable housing developments in the City have been constructed at densities lower than the 30 units per acre default density. Specifically, affordable housing units (affordable to very low‐ and low‐income households) have most commonly been built in zones with a maximum allowed density of 18 units per acre. The Broadstone Rivers Edge Apartments (2007), Pottery Court City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 5 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter developers. In addition, the element states that over 4,448 units affordable to lower‐income households are expected to be accommodated in potential multifamily and mixed‐use development in a variety of specific plans. However, the element does not include information allowable densities for multifamily development and therefore HCD cannot make a determination related to the appropriateness of sites within the specific plans to accommodate the RHNA for lower income. (2011), Mission Trails Apartments (2020), and the Cottages at Mission Trails (2020) developments (all affordable housing projects) were developed on properties allowing a maximum of 18 units per acre. The element has been updated to include information from two developers that expands of the market demand and financial feasibility aspect of development and confirms the approach used in the Element. For specific plan, an expanded table is included that includes densities for multifamily units – as a result the capacity distribution has been changed for multi‐family units. Multifamily and mixed‐use units with an allowable density of 24 units per acre are credited toward the very low/low income RHNA. The Element indicates that this is an appropriate density for affordable housing development. Multifamily and mixed‐use units with a lower allowable density (most commonly 18 and 20 units per acre) are credited toward the moderate income RHNA. A.2 Realistic Capacity As stated in the previous element, the City uses maximum density allowed in the Residential Mixed‐Use zone (RMU) multiplied by the size of the parcel. While the element was revised to indicate there is residential capacity in the Commercial Mixed‐Use zone that was not included in the inventory, this information is not sufficient to address this requirement as it does provide support for the capacity assumptions in the RMU. The element should include typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at similar affordability levels within the zone and development trends supporting residential Because RMU allows for combined residential/non‐commercial uses in a manner that protects the maximum density and facilitates development of affordable units at higher densities, a 24‐unit per acre realistic capacity is feasible. Nonetheless, the element is edited to use the median allowable density (22 units per acre), to account for land use controls and site improvements and to mirror expected development in the HDR zone. A survey of all developed RMU properties show only two non‐residential uses (a commercial strip center built in 1978 and a church built in the 1960s) and City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 6 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter development. Please see HCD’s prior review. both pre‐date the creation of the RMU zone (in 2011). No properties have been developed since 2011 (when the RMU zone was adopted) although a five‐unit multifamily rehabilitation project was completed in 2017. Nonresidential uses will not affect capacity. To assess the potential for nonresidential demand in the RMU zone and to assess the appropriateness of densities in the RMU and HDR zones, two developers with experience working in Lake Elsinore were interviewed. Both interviewees confirmed that in the areas of Lake Elsinore where the RMU zone is located, the market demand is overwhelmingly for residential standalone development and that the potential for non‐residential development would not affect the densities achievable on identified sites. A.2 Water Sewer Priority Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower‐income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Program 16 (Adequate Sites) commits to delivering the housing element to water and sewer service providers but does not indicate a procedure to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower‐income households. Please See HCD’s prior review. The City does not provide water and sewer services. as of March 2022, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), which provides water and sewer services to the City, indicated that it was unclear if procedures are in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower‐income households as required by Government Code 65589.7. The City of Lake Elsinore does not have jurisdiction over the District as such, EVMWD was alerted of the requirements under Government Code §65589.7 and staff at EVMWD indicated that they would confirm by May or June 2022 if procedures are place. B.1 Program 14 (Special Needs Housing) This Program commits to giving priority to special needs projects, encouraging nonprofits to pursue funding for special needs housing, Program 14 is edited to: 1. expand on funding priority 2. adding additional actions City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 7 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter and assisting developers seeking state and federal funding. While the City clarified actions and included additional objectives, it did not describe how the City will encourage nonprofit organizations or how it will grant priority for special needs projects. B.1 Program 15 (Resources to Address Homeless Need) This Program commits to addressing needs of at‐risk and homeless through assistance to nonprofits, continuing to work with nonprofit organizations to aid residents in need and offering technical assistance, and using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City’s efforts. As stated in the previous letter, it is unclear of what specific actions the City will take to assist nonprofit efforts or what the City’s technical assistance will look like. The Program should be revised to specify actions and objectives for each category and answer when the City intends on applying for the stated funds and what kind of assistance will or can be granted to the nonprofits. Program 15 is updated to add specific actions including: The City will annually contact service providers and share identified levels of CDBG or other available funds (including City funds) for homeless resources programs. The technical assistance action is expanded to provide more detail on available assistance including preapplication consultation, identification of available City funding or incentives such as expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized development and impact fees. Actions have been added to the timeframe for the program: “List of City‐owned properties appropriate for affordable or special needs housing by December 2022; Annual contact with special needs stakeholders to advertise available City funds if funding is available (including sharing a list of City‐owned properties that can be used for affordable or special needs housing and available funding sources).” B.2 As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a Chapter 4: Housing Resources And Sites Inventory has been updated to clarify and edit specific plan capacity affordability assumptions, expand the discussion on zoning to accommodate the lower‐income housing need, and realistic capacity for the RMU sites have been changed. The site City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 8 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. inventory capacity has been updated to reflect these changes. B.3 Program to AFFH While the element includes Program 25 which describes how the City’s fair housing initiatives, it must also include stronger actions that promote AFFH opportunities. The element must be revised to include programs that go beyond status quo actions and include quantifiable objectives and concrete actions that are transformative and overcome patterns and trends identified in the element. For example, Disparities in Access to Opportunity section identifies lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, the location of proficient schools and school assignment policies as contributing factors, but none of the associated goals address any of these. Additionally, Bullet 2 in the same section should go beyond identifying issues and commit to addressing them once they are discovered. Bullet 4 does not proactively address identified issues such as a concentration of lower‐ and moderate‐income minorities. Bullet 7 should be revised to include a specific implementation date. AFFH means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming RE/CAPs into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to AFFH extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. Program 25 is updated. The two main fair housing issues (prioritized as High) are closely related as such the action items are grouped together. The concentration of minority, low‐ and moderate‐income population, and households experiencing disproportionate need and displacement risk also affects access to opportunity. Many of the same strategies (housing mobility strategies, new housing choices in areas of opportunity and place‐based strategies to encourage community revitalization) address both issues (disproportionate housing need and disparities in access to opportunity). The program is updated to group actions under three strategy themes. Program actions have been updated to include specific metrics and milestones for evaluating progress. In addition to expanding on details and timeframes for existing actions, several new actions address School assignment policies Affirmatively marketing available development sites Adopt an Environmental Justice Element Concentration of lower‐ and moderate‐income minorities I s addressed through program actions under the New Housing Choice in higher opportunity areas heading in Program 25. The program action for outreach to lower income and minority residents is updated to include a specific implementation details and date. City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 01/21/21 Page 9 of 9 HCD Findings in 01/22/21 Letter C.1 While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 1.4 to 1.7) and describes public comments and how they were incorporated into the element, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. Chapter 1: Introduction is edited to add an AFFH section at the end of the chapter and describes the City’s diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov June 14, 2022 Jason Simpson, City Manager City Manager’s Office City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Jason Simpson: RE: Review of the City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Lake Elsinore’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on April 15, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s January 21, 2022 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) as follows. 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. While the revised draft identifies associated goals actions for most of the key areas, the element must also include goals and actions to mitigate displacement risk. Furthermore, for all programs to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), the element must include specific metrics and milestones for evaluating progress. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtm. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated Jason Simpson, City Manager Page 2 income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory...(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Specific Plan Areas: The revised sites inventory identifies potential capacity in a number of specific plans for 18,403 units (Appendix B) and relies on capacity to accommodate at least 1,725 of its lower-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) on multifamily sites within those specific plans (Table 4.8). However, to demonstrate the adequacy of these sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower- income households, additional information is necessary to show development potential within the planning period. First, the element now indicates that several Specific Plans have phasing requirements; however, it remains unclear the expected buildout timing for each phase, what conditions must be achieved prior to further phasing, which phase multifamily can be accommodated, and if future phases can be achieved during the planning period. Additionally, it is not clear how multifamily is to be accommodated (e.g. land capacity) within each specific plan. The element should provide indication of where the multifamily is to be located (e.g. map or other description of the specific plan), how much land is available for multifamily development (e.g. acreage), descriptions of any existing parcels, and describe additional entitlements or steps needed to build multifamily housing (e.g. subdivision map, lot splits, site plan review, design review, etc.). Water Sewer Priority: As stated in the previous element, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) The element Indicated that the City is not responsible for water and sewer services and is unclear if there is a procedure in place to facilitate priority water and sewer services to affordable developments servicing lower income households, but will have an answer from the provider by June 2022. However, HCD understands that no response has been received as of the beginning of June. The revised element should be revised to include this information once received. Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. Jason Simpson, City Manager Page 3 The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re-adopted to comply with the above requirements. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at Jamillah.Williams@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Senior Housing Accountability Manager City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 06/14/22 Findings Letter Page 1 of 2 HCD Findings in 06/14/22 Letter Response 1. AFFH: Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. While the revised draft identifies associated goals actions for most of the key areas, 1.the element must also include goals and actions to mitigate displacement risk. 2. Furthermore, for all programs to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), the element must include specific metrics and milestones for evaluating progress. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtm. CHAPTER 6 Policy 5.3 has been updated to address displacement and Program 25 has been updated with actions to mitigate displacement risk. All program actions for Program 25 include specific metrics and milestones for evaluating progress. 2. Site Inventory: Specific Plan Areas: The revised sites inventory identifies potential capacity in a number of specific plans for 18,403 units (Appendix B) and relies on capacity to accommodate at least 1,725 of its lower-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) on multifamily sites within those specific plans (Table 4.8). However, to demonstrate the adequacy of these sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, additional information is necessary to show development potential within the planning period. First, the element now indicates that several Specific Plans have phasing requirements; however, it remains unclear the expected buildout timing for each phase, what conditions must be achieved prior to further phasing, which phase multifamily can be accommodated, and if future phases can be achieved during the planning period. Additionally, it is not clear how multifamily is to be accommodated (e.g. land capacity) within each specific plan. The element should provide: 1. indication of where the multifamily is to be located (e.g. map or other description of the specific plan) – 2. how much land is available for multifamily development (e.g. acreage), 3. descriptions of any existing parcels 4. and describe additional entitlements or steps needed to build multifamily housing (e.g. subdivision map, lot splits, site plan review, design review, etc.). CHAPTER 4 The Specific Plans included in the sites inventory indicate a phasing plan, but all acknowledge that the timing of residential and commercial development is a function of market conditions. Table 4.6 shows the level of entitlement activity for each plan area. While there are no pending projects, various specific plans have submitted applications for new or revised tract maps. Specific plan development in the City is ongoing. In 2020, permits were issued for 146 units in the Villages at Lakeshore Specific Plan. During the review one SP was removed that, while still having available capacity, needed land set aside for habitat preservation (per the Riverside County MSHCP) which might reduce the capacity allowed. Another one was removed during an earlier review due to uncertainty about timing. AS a result, none of the remaining Specific Plans listed in Table 4.6 have any site restrictions or governmental City of Lake Elsinore – HCD Findings from 06/14/22 Findings Letter Page 2 of 2 HCD Findings in 06/14/22 Letter Response constraints that would delay development of the identified remaining capacity. Table 4.6 is updated to add information on: • Location of residential uses -including MF residential if the Plan includes that type of development. • Acreage for residential uses including MF residential if the Plan includes that type of development. • A description of the Plan area parcelization. Table 4.6 previously included the entitlement actions needed to move forward. 2. Site Inventory: Water Sewer Priority: As stated in the previous element, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) The element Indicated that the City is not responsible for water and sewer services and is unclear if there is a procedure in place to facilitate priority water and sewer services to affordable developments servicing lower income households but will have an answer from the provider by June 2022. However, HCD understands that no response has been received as of the beginning of June. The revised element should be revised to include this information once received. CHAPTER 6 Program 16 is updated to reflect the status of EVMWD’s priority service procedures. EVMWD staff indicated that they would take action to put a compliant procedure in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households. 2. Site Inventory: Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. No edits are required based on the above edits. APPENDIX B Sites Inventory This page left intentionally blank Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberConsolidated SitesGeneral Plan Designation (Current)Zoning Designation (Current)Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)Max Density Allowed (units/acre)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Use/VacancyInfrastructure Publicly-Owned Site StatusIdentified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s)Lower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal CapacityOptional Information SITE NAMELAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071023AHDRR30.77 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 090090 App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071028AHDRR31.87 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071021AHDRR31.50 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071020AHDRR31.74 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071027AHDRR30.02 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071026AHDRR30.40 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071022AHDRR31.34 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071024AHDRR30.27 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 5 92530373071025AHDRR30.81 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior 0000App prjct Tessera 90unitsLAKE ELSINOREAllan St /Cambern Av 92532377380015HDRR319241.97 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available430043 R3 1LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022022BHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 2LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022007BHDRR319240.43 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 9009R3 2LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022024BHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 2LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022019BHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 2LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022025BHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 2LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Mohr St92530374022023BHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 2LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024013CHDRR319240.23 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024016CHDRR319240.06 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 1001R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024007CHDRR319240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024014CHDRR319240.06 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 1001R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024005CHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024006CHDRR319240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024012CHDRR319240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024017CHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024001CHDRR319240.22 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024009CHDRR319240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024003CHDRR319240.06 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 1001R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024008CHDRR319241.72 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 380038 R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024011CHDRR319240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024004CHDRR319240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024010CHDRR319240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024015CHDRR319240.06 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 1001R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av bw Mohr St/Silver S92530374024002CHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 3LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av/Silver St 92530374025022DHDRR319240.27 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 6006R3 4LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av/Silver St 92530374025010DHDRR319240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 4LAKE ELSINOREOleander Av/Silver St 92530374025011DHDRR319240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 4LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031015EHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031016EHDRR319240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031018EHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031019EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031017EHDRR319240.09 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031025EHDRR319240.19 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031024EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031026EHDRR319240.17 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031023EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031013EHDRR319240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031012EHDRR319240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031014EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031027EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031002EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031005EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031008EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031006EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031009EHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031011EHDRR319240.19 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031003EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031020EHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031001EHDRR319240.19 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031004EHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031007EHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 5LAKE ELSINOREbounded by Pottery St/Lewis St/ 92530374031010EHDRR319240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 5LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032002FHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032005FHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032006FHDRR319240.22 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032003FHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032004FHDRR319240.22 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lewis St92530374032001FHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 6LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041027GHDRR319240.29 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 6006R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041026GHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041029GHDRR319240.29 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 6006R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041002GHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041003GHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041028GHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 7LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Lowell St92530374041008GHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 7LAKE ELSINORELangstaff St92530377231040HDRR319241.04 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 230023 R3 8LAKE ELSINOREPottery St/Langstaff St 92530374061015HHDRR319240.19 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 9LAKE ELSINOREPottery St/Langstaff St 92530374061029HHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 9LAKE ELSINOREPottery St/Langstaff St 92530374061028HHDRR319240.19 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 9LAKE ELSINOREPottery St/Langstaff St 92530374061014HHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 9LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Scrivener St 92530374232008IHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available4004R3 10LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Scrivener St 92530374232025IHDRR319240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003R3 10LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Scrivener St 92530374232007IHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available4004R3 10LAKE ELSINOREEllis St at Sumner St92530377292018JHDRR319240.29 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 6006R3 11LAKE ELSINOREEllis St at Sumner St92530377292019JHDRR319240.08 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002R3 11LAKE ELSINOREEllis St at Sumner St92530377292017JHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current YES ‐ City‐OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 11LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Granite St92530377273016KHDRR319240.17 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 12 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberConsolidated SitesGeneral Plan Designation (Current)Zoning Designation (Current)Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)Max Density Allowed (units/acre)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Use/VacancyInfrastructure Publicly-Owned Site StatusIdentified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s)Lower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal CapacityOptional Information SITE NAMELAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Granite St92530377273003KHDRR319240.34 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 7007R3 12LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Granite St92530377273015KHDRR319240.17 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 12LAKE ELSINOREFlint St/Granite St92530377273011KHDRR319240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003R3 12LAKE ELSINOREPottery St bw Rupard st/Rancho 92530 377320004 HDR R3 19 24 1.21 Vacant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 27 0 0 27 R3 13LAKE ELSINOREJoy St/Riverside Dr92530379131005LHDRR319240.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 5005R3 14LAKE ELSINOREJoy St/Riverside Dr92530379131019LHDRR319243.79 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 830083 R3 14LAKE ELSINOREJoy St/Riverside Dr92530379131015LHDRR319240.35 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 8008R3 14LAKE ELSINOREJoy St/Riverside Dr92530379131006LHDRR319240.20 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004R3 14LAKE ELSINORERiverside Dr/Wagon Wheel Ln 92530379060027HDRR319244.35 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 960096 R3 15LAKE ELSINORERiverside Dr/Grand Av 92530379060022HDRR3192413.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 29000290 R3 16LAKE ELSINORERiverside Dr/Grand Av 92530379060005HDRR319243.47 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 760076 R3 17LAKE ELSINOREHighway 74/Crumpton Rd 92570347110088HDRR3192415.85 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 31500315 R3 18LAKE ELSINORERiverside Dr/Lake Crest Dr92530379315033RMURMU19244.96 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 11900119 RMU 1LAKE ELSINORELake Vista Dr92530379090013MRMURMU19241.29 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 310031 RMU 2LAKE ELSINORELake Vista Dr92530379090023MRMURMU19242.48 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 590059 RMU 2LAKE ELSINORELake Vista Dr92530379090012MRMURMU19241.26 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 300030 RMU 2LAKE ELSINORERiverside Dr/Lakeside HS 92530379090022RMURMU19248.25 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 19800198 RMU 3LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154023NRMURMU19240.24 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 6006RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373145004NRMURMU19244.44 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 10600106 RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154020NRMURMU19240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154025NRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154022NRMURMU19240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154024NRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373145003NRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154021NRMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154003NRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154028NRMURMU19240.17 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 4LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Mountain View Av 92530373154030NRMURMU19240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 4LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081002ORMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081003ORMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081005ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081008ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081004ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081007ORMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081009ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081010ORMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081011ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081001ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081006ORMURMU19240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081012ORMURMU19240.08 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081014ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081017ORMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081015ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081016ORMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081019ORMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081020ORMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081021ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081022ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081018ORMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081024ORMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081023ORMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081025ORMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINORECole St/Avenue 6/Bancroft Wy/A92530373081013ORMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 5LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082010PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082036PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082012PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082014PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082017PRMURMU19240.15 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 4004RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082039PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082040PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082041PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082005PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082008PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082023PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082025PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082049PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082050PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082011PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082015PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082018PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082037PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082054PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082057PRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082045PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082046PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082048PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082042PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082044PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082047PRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082051PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082056PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082006PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082019PRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082020PRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082021PRMURMU19240.07 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082026PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082052PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberConsolidated SitesGeneral Plan Designation (Current)Zoning Designation (Current)Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)Max Density Allowed (units/acre)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Use/VacancyInfrastructure Publicly-Owned Site StatusIdentified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s)Lower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal CapacityOptional Information SITE NAMELAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082007PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082009PRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082024PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082027PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082043PRMURMU19240.14 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082013PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082022PRMURMU19240.07 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082038PRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082053PRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 2002RMU 6LAKE ELSINOREFranklin St/Avenue 6/Roger St/M92530373082055PRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior 3003RMU 6LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083006QRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083004QRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083002QRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083019QRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083003QRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083005QRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083018QRMURMU19240.12 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083020QRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORECole St bw Avenue 5/Avenue 6 92530373083021QRMURMU19240.13 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 7LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373205007RRMURMU19241.44 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available340034 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373185036RRMURMU19240.60 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available140014 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373205006RRMURMU19240.66 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available160016 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373185022RRMURMU19240.64 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available150015 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373185023RRMURMU19240.40 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available100010 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373185046RRMURMU19243.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available750075 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373176019RRMURMU19240.76 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available180018 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373205004RRMURMU19241.06 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available250025 RMU 8LAKE ELSINORELakeshore Dr/Center St 92530373185037RRMURMU19240.10 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available2002RMU 8LAKE ELSINOREGraham Av/Lindsey St 92530374153015SRMURMU19240.11 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available3003RMU 9LAKE ELSINOREGraham Av/Lindsey St 92530374153016SRMURMU19240.16 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available4004RMU 9LAKE ELSINOREGraham Av/Lindsey St 92530374153017SRMURMU19240.29 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available7007RMU 9LAKE ELSINOREGrand Av/Macy St92530381030001RMURMU19242.21 VacantYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available530053 RMU 10LAKE ELSINOREAlberhill Ranch Specific Plan92530SPSP1,901 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem187496309992 Alberhill Ranch Specific PlanLAKE ELSINOREAlberhill Villages Specific Plan92530SPSP1,375 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem2650401113638024 Alberhill Villages Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORECanyon Creek Specific Plan92532SPSP476 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem4110967217 Canyon Creek Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORECanyon Hills Estates Specific Plan92595SPSP246 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem0151151302 Canyon Hills Estates Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORECanyon Hills Specific Plan92532SPSP1,969 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem306231123 Canyon Hills Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORECape of Good Hope Specific Plan92530SPSP41 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem0343468 Cape of Good Hope Specific PlanLAKE ELSINOREThe Diamond Specific Plan92530SPSP87 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem3003000600 The Diamond Specific PlanLAKE ELSINOREEast Lake Specific Plan92530SPSP2,977 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem67567501350 East Lake Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORELakeshore Village Specific Plan92530SPSP37 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem76770153 Lakeshore Village Specific PlanLAKE ELSINOREMurdock Alberhill Specific Plan92530SPSP511 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem2719086401819 Murdock Alberhill Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORENichols Ranch92532SPSP72.5 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem08484168 Nichols RanchLAKE ELSINORENorth Peak Specific Plan92570SPSP1,786 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem06006001200 North Peak Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORERamsgate Specific Plan92532SPSP1,366 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem0474473947 Ramsgate Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORESpyglass Ranch Specific Plan92532SPSP259 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem1455183721035 Spyglass Ranch Specific PlanLAKE ELSINORETerracina92530SPSP150.8 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem0226226452 TerracinaLAKE ELSINORETuscany Hills Specific Plan92532SPSP1,010 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem0404403807 Tuscany Hills Specific PlanLAKE ELSINOREVillages at Lakeshore Specific Pla92530SPSP20 acVariousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Elem73730146 Villages at Lakeshore Specific Plan APPENDIX C Specific Plan Land Use Maps This page left intentionally blank Specific Plan Land Use Maps 1. Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 2. Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan 3. Canyon Hills Specific Plan, Amendment 2 4. Canyon Hills Specific Plan, Amendment 3 5. Canyon Hills Specific Plan, Amendment 3 & 4 6. Cape of Good Hope Specific Plan 7. The Diamond Specific Plan 8. Eastlake Specific Plan 9. Lakeshore Village Specific Plan 10. Murdock Alberhill Specific Plan 11. Nichols Ranch Specific Plan 12. North Peak Specific Plan 13. Ramsgate Specific Plan 14. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 15. Terracina Specific Plan 16. Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Section 41.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSECONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN CANYON HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NOs. 3 & 4 SEPTEMBER 20208 1-1 SEPTEMBER PLANNING AREA 2B Phase: 8 Acres: 9.1 Acres Density: 6.6 DU/AC (up to 24 DU/AC) Land Use/Zoning Designation: MF2 (Multi-Family Attached Residential 2 District) Dwelling Units: 60 DU Product: Multi-Family Condominiums School District: Lake Elsinore Unified School District Design Features: Incorporate cut slope variations. Preserve views of river and adjacent open space, where possible. Provide for unifying pedestrian trail system. Chapter 3: Development Plan 3-5 Figure 3-1 Land Use Plan FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Plan East Lake Specific Plan 2-16 Figure 2-1 Land Use Plan PA 8A Open Space 0.7 AC N.A.P. IN TERSTATE 15 FREE W AY MAINSTREETPA 9 Single Family 27.9 AC 125 DUs (4-8 DU/AC) PA 11 Single Family 31.6 AC 136 DUs (4-8 DU/AC) PA 13D Open Space 12.8 AC PA 4 Single Family 29.8 AC 106 DUs (4-8 DU/AC) PA 2 Single Family 22.8 AC 107 DUs (4-8 DU/AC) PA 8B Open Space 11.6 AC PA 10 Estate Lots 7.1 AC 7 DUs (0-2 DU/AC) PA 12 Courtyard Homes 11.7 AC 140 DUs (8-15 DU/AC) PA 13A Open Space 6.5 AC PA 13B Open Space 5.7 AC PA 13C Open Space 3.1 AC PA 13E Open Space 1.6 AC PA 8A Open Space 39.7 AC PA 6 Multi-Family 8.4 AC 168 DUs (15-20 DU/AC) PA 1 Courtyard Homes 10.4 AC 124 DUs (8-15 DU/AC) PA 5 Multi-Family 6.1 AC 122 DUs (15-20 DU/AC) PA 8C Open Space 4.1 AC PA 7 Park 6.5 AC PA 3 Estate Lots 0.4 AC 0 DUs (0-2 DU/AC) C A M IN O D EL N O R TE STREET"B"STRE E T "A "S T R E E T "C" S T R E ET "D "PROPOSEDELSINOREHILLSDRIVEPage 3-2 Specific Plan Land Use Plan T&B PLANNING, INC.17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p. 714.505.6360 f.7 14.505.6361 www.tbplanning.com III. SPECIFIC PLANSPYGLASS RANCH 0 250 500 Feet FIGURE III-1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Includes 0.7 AC Under Separate Ownership If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses, a commercial land use designation shall apply for development consistent with this Specific Plan. Proposed Water Tank Locations * ACRES DENSITY DU's Residential Estate Residential (0-2 DU/AC)7.5 0.9 7 Single-Family Residential (4-8 DU/AC)112.1 4.2 474 Courtyard Homes (8-15 DU/AC)22.1 11.9 264 Multi-Family Residential (15-20 DU/AC) *14.5 20.0 290 - Residential Subtotals 156.2 6.6 1,035 Non-Residential Parks 6.5 -- -- Open Space 85.8 -- -- Major Circulation 11.1 -- -- - Non-Residential Subtotals 103.4 -- -- PROJECT TOTALS 259.6 4.0 1,035 Note: One dwelling unit within Planning Areas 3 may be removed, resulting in 0.4 additional acres available for recreational purposes. Chapter 3.0 3-1 3.0 Public Safety and Welfare 3.1 Summary The safety and welfare of a community and its residents are vital to its growth and quality of life. This chapter of the General Plan addresses public safety and welfare issues, including: air quality, fire and police/law enforcement, community facilities and services, hazards, and noise within the City and the Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City recognizes the importance of addressing seismic hazards and reduces their negative effects by adhering to or enforcing state design standards. The focus is on maintaining a healthy and safe physical environment and ensuring community welfare through access to effective and efficient high-quality public services. 3.2 Air Quality 3.2.1 Introduction The major factors affecting local air pollution conditions in the Lake Elsinore planning area are the extent and types of both region-wide and local emissions, climate, topography, and meteorology. The combination of regional temperature inversions (the warm air mass that descends over the cool marine layer, thus preventing pollution from dispersing upward and creating smog), the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone (a boundary created by coastal winds that allows for the accumulation of air pollutants within the Lake Elsinore area), and the contribution of any air pollutants from sources within the Lake Elsinore planning area has the potential to significantly contribute to cumulative air quality conditions. Existing air quality conditions in Lake Elsinore can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. The pollutants of greatest concern in the Lake Elsinore area are carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Air quality in the area does not meet state and federal health standards for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for monitoring air quality and preparing attainment plans aimed at achieving state and federal air pollution standards. While emission control measures and alternative fuel vehicle purchasing requirements for public agencies and certain private entities have been implemented by the SCAQMD, increased development and segregated land use patterns that require motor vehicle trips threaten to offset these gains. Chapter 3.0 3-2 Air quality is a regional issue and Lake Elsinore has a role in improving the region’s air quality. The goals and policies in this section are designed to improve regional air quality. 3.2.2 Air Quality Baselines Climate and Meteorology Regional - Western Riverside County Temperature inversions are the prime factor in the accumulation of contaminants in the Basin. The mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring. Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known as smog. Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other areas of the nation. Local - Lake Elsinore Planning Area The major factors affecting local air pollution conditions in the Lake Elsinore planning area are the extent and types of both region-wide and local emissions, climate, and meteorology. The general climate of Lake Elsinore is characterized by sparse winter rainfall and hot summers tempered by cool ocean breezes. The climate in and around Lake Elsinore, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high- pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Most of the area’s precipitation occurs intermittently between November and April; the area is still dominated by sunny or partly sunny conditions during these months. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the region’s mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Just south of Lake Elsinore, the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone acts as an invisible boundary that obstructs much of the inland basin air pollutants from continuing south beyond the Lake Elsinore area. Coastal winds within the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone are a primary factor for the obstruction. They allow air pollutants to be dispersed just south of the convergence zone and Chapter 3.0 3-3 accumulate within the Lake Elsinore area, including surrounding communities to the north and east. Air Quality Regional - South Coast Air Basin, including Western Riverside County As California’s largest metropolitan region, the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB) contains some of the highest air pollutant concentrations statewide. The SCAB includes the western portion of Riverside County, including Lake Elsinore. On-road motor vehicles in the SCAB are the largest contributors to CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions; other on-road and off-road mobile emission sources are also significant contributors to CO and NOX emissions. Area-wide and stationary sources contribute to the remainder of air pollutant emissions within the SCAB. While high growth rates are often associated with corresponding increases in emissions and pollutant concentrations, aggressive emission control programs in the SCAB have resulted in emission decreases and a continuing improvement in air quality. SCAQMD operates a network of thirty monitoring stations throughout the SCAB to effectively monitor twenty-seven source receptor areas (SRA) of the expansive region. The SCAB relies on one or more monitoring stations to document local air pollutant concentration levels within each SRA. Concentration levels vary widely at each SRA depending on location and time of year. The highest levels of ozone and particulate matter recorded in SRAs in the interior valleys generally occur during warm, stable periods in summer and autumn. Recorded CO concentrations are highest near heavy traffic on freeways or near large business districts. 3.2.3 Air Quality Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs Goal 1 Continue to coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and the City’s Building Department to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is emitted into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites. Policy 1.1 Continue to implement requirements identified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Distant View of Smog Obscuring Scenery Chapter 3.0 3-4 Implementation Program The City shall continue to condition projects to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations. Agency/Department: Engineering and Community Development Departments Goal 2 Work with regional and state governments to develop effective mitigation measures to improve air quality. Policies 2.1 Support the SCAQMD in its 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. 2.2 Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions. 2.3 Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles. Implementation Program The City shall coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding effective methods for improving local air quality. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The City of Lake Elsinore has some businesses and activities that involve the transport, storage, or use of toxic or hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are defined as those that pose a potential threat to human health, having the capacity to cause serious illness or death. The term “hazardous materials” includes radioactive waste and explosives as well as substances such as gasoline, pesticides, and household cleaning products. While the use of hazardous materials is carefully regulated, the City seeks to reduce the potential for injury or damage in the event of accidents or spills. There are currently no active enforcement actions or violations relating to hazardous materials in the City. The goals and policies in this section are intended to ensure that the Hazardous Materials Chapter 3.0 3-5 appropriate agencies are adequately prepared to deal with a hazardous material emergency and that citizens are protected as much as possible from potential hazards. 3.3.1 Hazardous Sites There are large numbers of businesses and other entities within the City and the SOI that generate, transport, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Action (RCRA). Since almost all fuels, lubricants, solvents, and paints are considered hazardous materials under RCRA, businesses and institutions that use substantial quantities of such materials are required to adhere to very strict requirements in handling, transporting, and storing hazardous materials. There is a wide range and variety of entities that deal with hazardous materials in the course of their activities. As indicated above, these include but are not limited to: x Automobile repair facilities x Gas stations x Automobile service facilities x Construction firms x Manufacturing firms x Painting contractors and paint suppliers x Dry cleaning firms x Schools x Hospitals and medical facilities x Trucking firms. The City of Lake Elsinore Fire Department provides oversight of hazardous materials and regulates permits for the handling, storage, and use of any explosive or other hazardous material. These permits note the location of the user as well as the type of material used. This enables the City to be aware of locations where such uses occur and thus note areas where high concentrations of such uses occur, such as in industrial and manufacturing areas. Hazardous materials also occur in individual locations such as gas stations and dry cleaners. 3.3.2 Inland Empire Brine Line (SARI) The Inland Empire Brine Line, previously referred to as The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) is a regional pipeline constructed to protect the Santa Ana River Watershed from desalter concentrate and various saline wastes. It extends into the City of Lake Elsinore as shown on Figure 3-1. The Brine Line removes 500,000 pounds of salt per day from the watershed by Chapter 3.0 3-6 transporting salty wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant operated by the Orange County Sanitation District. After treatment, the water is discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The purpose is to maintain the quality of water in the Santa Ana watershed by balancing the amount of salt in the basin. Increased salt in the watershed is caused mainly by industrial and agricultural uses and can affect all water users. Increased salinity in the water creates problems ranging from decreased effectiveness of laundry detergents to worn out plumbing fixtures and household appliances. It also affects the taste of the water. A brine line is necessary because industrial and commercial users are able to dispose only a limited amount of saline waste into wastewater plants due to the difficulty of removing salts and minerals from water. Users that produce a lot of saline waste can go through an application process to make a connection to the Brine Line; the Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority (SAWPA) establishes connection fees and monthly rates for using the SARI line. Businesses that do not generate a substantial flow and are not close enough to make a direct connection can haul the waste by truck to a SARI truck collection station. SAWPA has permit fees and fees based upon volume for indirect connection users. 3.3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Goal, Policies and Implementation Programs Goal 3 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. Policies 3.1 Continue to require hazardous waste generators to implement a waste reduction program per the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan with necessary inspections per the Riverside County Hazardous Materials Handlers Program. 3.2 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. 3.3 Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with County agencies to protect the City against a hazardous materials incident. 3.4 Continue operating household hazardous waste education and collection programs in collaboration with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 3.5 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. §¨¦15 I-15 EL TORO RDLINDELL RDTE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LA K E S H O R E D R HIGHWAY 74 LI N C O L N S T SH-74GRAND AVELAKE STFLINT S TRIVERSIDE DRNICHOLS RDMACHADO STAMOROSE S T POTT E R Y S TCOLT DRPOE STD E X T E R A V E TOFT DR 11TH STHAMMACK AVELA S H A V E R Y A N A V EMAITRI RDJO Y A V E THIRD STASH STSUM N E R A V E VISTA AVE10TH STCHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E MAIN STHILL TOP DR DE PAL M A R D M I N T H O R N S TSUMAC RDCAMPBELL RANCH RD HEA L D A V E RED GUM DRDIANA LNEL TORO CUTOFFRIVERSIDE ST FRANKLIN S T SHRIER DR 2ND STBROADWAY AVE REISS RDALVARADO ST WASSON CANYON RDC A M I N O D E L N O R T E WALKE R C A N Y O N R D A C A C I A D RPALM DRTERRA COTTA RDPLUM STCRILLY RDFOSTER S T GATEWA Y D R I- 1 5 S B O N MOUNTAIN RD VIA GARDAGLEN EDEN RDBROML E Y A V E ROSTRATA AVEI- 1 5 N BO F F BOSLEY LN BARE D RCOBBLE DRDOLBEER STVIA LAKISTASMERMACK AVE I-15 NB O N ILLINOIS STI-15 SBOFFTOWHEE LNBILLINGS LN8TH STST CLAIR AVE PATTERSON STPINNELL STPLUMAS STREID ST SUNBLAZE RDLOVE LN C O R A L C A N Y O N R DLUCE CTWASHINGTON AVE LADRILLO ST CRANE STTRELLIS LNALBA STPAPAYA CT SILVER STIRRUP DR AUDELO STLA K E C R E S T D R B A R K S C H A T D R NI C H O L A S R D CIELITO DRC H I P P E W A R D CENTRAL STPALM VIEWBUFFALO TRLREBA RD LA R S O N R D BIRCH STB A N K H A L L S T GRUNDER DR B E L L A V ELASSO WAYSTARINA STFIR CIR MAURICIO ST DEW DR WALNUT S T BAUM AVEPA R K V I E W D R LE H A R V E A V E MI M O S A D REAGLE RUN STGUNDER AVEWHEATSTONE DRSTARVIE W S T COUNTRY DROAK STETIENNE STROLANDO RDE L TORO RDLAKE STI-1 5 I- 1 5 N B O N THIRD STSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, SAWPA ´010.5 Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Inland Empire Brine Line Planned Nichols Road Relocation I-15 SHWY-74 City of Lake Elsinore Inland Empire Brine Line Figure 3.1 Chapter 3.0 3-9 3.6 Comply with the Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Program, and Health and Safety Code Sections 25280-25289 and ensure adequate leak detection, maintenance of records, and reporting of spills. 3.7 In the event of a petroleum or gas pipeline leak, the City shall ensure that all responsible parties comply with the standards set by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA process the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and collaboration with its Department of Environmental Health. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.4 Wildfire Hazards Much of the area to the southwest, west, and northwest within the SOI supports coastal shrub and chamise redshank chaparral. These are prime fuel sources for wildfire. As shown in Figure 3-3, Wildfire Susceptibility, the wildfire susceptibility in this area is defined as moderately high. The steep terrain in these areas also contributes to rapid spread of wildfire when one occurs. The danger of damage to natural resources and structures from wildfire is high in California due to a generally dry climate and a preponderance of highly flammable vegetation over much of the state. From 2015 to 2019, wildfires within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE), including government contracts, averaged 5,791 fires per year and burned an average of 398,313 acres per year. However, when all wildfire firefighting agencies are considered, there was an average 7,915 fires per year and 1,059,051 acres burned per year in California during the same five-year period. The number of structures damaged during that 5-year span averaged about 7,781 per year, ranging from a low of 703 structures in 2019 to a high of 22,868 structures in 2018. Average annual monetary damages are estimated to be about $4 billion. However, the 2020 California wildfire season was characterized by a record-setting year of wildfires that burned across the state of California as measured during the modern era of wildfire management and record keeping. A summary of all 2020 incidents, including those managed by CAL FIRE and other partner agencies, shows that there were 9,917 incidents with an estimated 4,257,863 acres burned, 10,488 damaged or destroyed structures and 33 fatalities. Damage was estimated at about $950 million. There is a history of wildfires within the City and within the surround area. Table 3-1 contains a list of fires that have occurred within Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence between 1950 and 2020. Figure 3-2 shows the areas burned by historical fires within this area. Chapter 3.0 3-10 Table 3-1, Fires in Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence 1950 – 2020 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage Morrell 8/5/1950 N/A Unidentified 5,118 Jameson 8/30/1954 N/A Unidentified 7,881 Gilbert 7/27/1955 N/A Unidentified 486 Cornwell 9/11/1956 N/A Unidentified 3,173 Sandia 9/12/1956 N/A Unidentified 2,053 Pederson 6/17/1957 N/A Unidentified 1,979 Fiasco 6/18/1957 N/A Unidentified 7,310 Morey 9/141958 N/A Unidentified 2,662 Decker 8/8/1959 N/A Unidentified 1,485 Cow 4/28/1968 N/A Unidentified 536 Terrace Hill 5/2/1970 N/A Unidentified 1,848 Boundary 9/6/1970 N/A Miscellaneous 1,416 Robb 7/5/1976 N/A Unidentified 172 Estelle 7/21/1978 N/A Unidentified 3,080 Lemon 8/23/1978 N/A Unidentified 2,943 Turner 11/16/1980 N/A Unidentified 31,447 Lake #2 11/16/1980 N/A Unidentified 1,216 Indian 11/24/1980 N/A Miscellaneous 28,940 Cottenwood 6/15/1981 N/A Unidentified 1,279 Dawson 6/17/1981 N/A Miscellaneous 8,000 Wasson 7/22/1981 N/A Unidentified 356 Dexter 8/21/1981 N/A Unidentified 1,350 N/A 7/17/1982 N/A Arson 295 Rail 9/3/1982 N/A Unidentified 476 Canyon 6/16/1983 N/A Unidentified 1,231 Horse 7/11/1985 N/A Unidentified 761 N/A 9/1/1986 N/A Miscellaneous 53 Riverside 2/7/1987 N/A Playing with Fire 330 N/A 8/20/1987 N/A Playing with Fire 259 Chapter 3.0 3-11 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage State 1587 10/3/1987 N/A Equipment Use 3,276 Corona State #983 6/2/1988 N/A Equipment Use 913 Rosa 9/5/1988 N/A Campfire 632 Horsethief II 10/11/1988 N/A Equipment Use 135 State #2428 12/9/1988 N/A Equipment Use 1,446 Ortega 6/27/1989 7/5/1989 Miscellaneous 7,880 Nichols 7/2/1995 N/A Vehicle 1,264 Dawson 7/20/1995 N/A Playing with Fire 4,718 Short 6/1/1996 N/A Equipment Use 683 Walker 8/24/1996 N/A Arson 137 Lewin Fire 8/25/1998 N/A Equipment Use 109 Zeller 1/2/1999 1/2/1999 Miscellaneous 10 State Fire 3/14/1999 N/A Arson 127 Olive 7/11/2001 N/A Unidentified 283 Indian 3/31/2002 3/31/2002 Miscellaneous 50 Holland 9/30/2003 9/30/2003 Arson 106 Gafford 5/2/2004 5/3/2004 Unidentified 450 Cerrito 5/3/2004 5/7/2004 Playing with Fire 16,460 Lakeview 7/13/2004 7/13/2004 Unidentified 350 Lookout 2 11/12/2006 11/13/2006 Miscellaneous 290 Laguna 9/12/2007 9/12/2007 Unidentified 12 Wright 10/6/2007 10/6/2007 Miscellaneous 31 Lake 6/3/2008 6/3/2008 Unidentified 146 Cedar 5/25/2012 5/26/2012 Miscellaneous 72 Lindell 6/18/2012 6/18/2012 Unidentified 21 Falls 8/5/2013 8/14/2013 Miscellaneous 1,383 Gillette 6/15/2014 6/15/2014 Unidentified 10 Evergreen 1 7/16/2016 7/16/2016 Unidentified 2 Evergreen 2 8/28/2016 8/28/2016 Arson 43 Rose 7/312017 8/3/2017 Equipment Use 20 Holy 8/6/2018 10/17/2018 Miscellaneous 23,025 Chapter 3.0 3-12 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage Toro 8/5/2019 8/6/2019 Unidentified 94 South Main 3/6/2020 N/A Escaped Prescribed Burn 13 Source: CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) accessed at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/frap-projects/fire-perimeters/on 6.14.2021. In recognition of the risk proposed by fire, the City has adopted the High Fire Severity Zone Map (Figure 3-3). As shown on Figure 3-3, significant portions of the City and its Sphere of Influence are located within Very High Fire Severity Zone. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 show the general distribution of existing land use (2019) and General Plan land use designations as they relate to the Very High Fire Severity Zone. Wildfire susceptibility in the City of Lake Elsinore is defined as moderately high. The combination of Southern California’s Mediterranean climate, with its winter and spring rainfall and hot, dry summers, and the frequency of high wind velocity creates optimum conditions for wildfires. The annual rainfall pattern supports grasses, shrubs, and trees, and the hot arid summers result in dry vegetation. This readily combustible material can be easily ignited and will burn hot and fast, especially during high wind conditions. In fact, Southern California fires, which consumed more than 90% of the wildfire-burned acreage, were accompanied by high- velocity winds. These factors contributed to the Holy Fire, which was reported on the west side of the Santa Ana Mountains in Orange County on August 6, 2018. Over 1,500 resources were dispatched to the fire, but due to high temperatures, steep rugged terrain, and very dry fuels aided it ultimately consumed 23,025 acres, including property in and adjacent to the City of Lake Elsinore or its Sphere of Influence, by the time it reached full containment. On October 17, 2018, the Holy Fire was declared 100% controlled. Assessments of the Holy Fire burned area revealed numerous hazards, including the high potential for debris flow, flooding, mud flows, erosion, and rock fall, all of which could impact roads, trails, recreation areas, and long-term natural recovery. 2018 Holy Fire Photographer: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images _ _ £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 STATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sheriff Station Police Department/Sherrif Sub-Station LA KESH O REDRLAKE STBUNDY CANYON RDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E TEMESCALCANYONRD RAIL R O A D C A NYONR D RIVERSIDE DRMISSION TR BAXTER RD NEWPORT RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RD CE R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMNERAVE NICHOLS RD FRANKL I N S T GOETZ RDC A SI N O D RSUMMER HILL DRGRAHAM STCENTRAL STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore GIS, County of Riverside GIS California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)City of Lake Elsinore Historical Fire Perimeters Figure 3.2´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence _Sheriff Station Fire Station Historical Fire Perimeters 1900 - 1950 1950 - 1960 1961-1970 1970 -1980 1981 - 1990 1991 -2000 2001 - 2010 2011 - 2020 £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineSTATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility Figure 3.3´021Miles LEGEND Fire Station Sphere of Influence City Boundary C alifornia Fire Hazard Severit y Zones Very High High Moderate Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Urban Unzoned This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, SCAG City of Lake Elsinore Very High Fire Severity Zone and Existing Land Uses (2019) Figure 3.4´021Miles LEGEND Sphere of Influence C alifor nia Fire Hazard Severit y Zones Very High SCAG Existing Land Use (2019) Agriculture Commercial and Services Education Facilities General Office Industrial Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks Multi-Family Residential None Open Space and Recreation Rural Residential Single Family Residential Transportation, Communications, and Utilities Under Construction Vacant Water This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 I- 1 5 SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHWAY 74EL TORO RD LAKESHOR E D R ETHANAC RD PA L O M A R S TLINDELL RD MAPES RD A STS M A I N D I V I D E R D T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D GOETZ RDBUNDY CANYON RD MISSION TRLGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E ROBERT STRIVERSI D E D RLAKE STC E R E A L S T RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T NEWPO R T R D FLINT S T MARIE STCLINTON KEITH RD WILDOMAR TRLSPRING STC A N Y O N H I L L S R D MILL STNICHOLS RDORANGE STRIVERSIDE ST SOPHIE STMAURICIO ST AMOROSE ST HILLSI D E D R CORYDON STVALLEY BLVDCOLT DRTOFT DR D E X T E R A V E PALM AVEBYERS STSYLVESTE R S T TH E F A R M R D VISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE A C A C I A D R L A S H A V E RY A N A V E JO Y A V E THIRD STASH STSUM N E R A V E10TH STMC PHERSON R D CHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E VACATIO N D R STONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST PHILLIPS STWICKERD RDWHEAT STS U M A C R D LA ESTRELLA STSUNSET AVELA G U N A A V E REISS RDTHEDA STMELVIN STMAITRI RDH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRADELFA STJARVIS STLA LADERA RDMOUNTAIN AVE BARNES LNCONEJO DRSKYLARK DRJAN AVEDIANA LNREAD STVINE ST FIR ST LAKE DR LA BERTHA LN ENDERLEIN STLESSER LN RIDGE R D LITTLE VALLEY RD PRIELIPP RD VICTOR ST CONTI N E N T A L D R PERRY RDRIVER RDPEACH STCALDERA ST C A M I N O D E L N O R T E GEARY STLA STRADACRILLY RDEL NIGUEL RDGATEWA Y D R MILKY WAYCROSS HILL DRI-15 S B O N TERETICORNIS AVE MO U N T A I N R D LYNX RDCHERRY STSOTELO RD AVIDA DRI- 1 5 NBOFF PI E D M O N T D R LUCERNE STMAIN STCYPRESS PL ALPINE DR PLAZA AVIL A MERMACK AVE WHITE STELM STULMER ST RALPH RDONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RDBILLINGS LNDELCA LN CATT RDSHORELINE DRDAVID LNBLANCHE DRSTAGELINE ST PILE STLOVE LN EU R E K A S TLUCE CTWILD VIEW R DTOOKER STDIAL RDGILL LNCODY RD ELINA RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY RDPONTE RUSSOLAKE STG R A N D A V E I- 1 5 GOETZ RDTHEDA STSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Land Use Plan Figure 3.5´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Streams I-15 SHWY-74 nm Future Schools nm Existing Schools State Responsibility Areas Very High Fire Hazard Serverity Zone Extractive Overlay Auto Mall Overlay Main Street Overlay Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Low-Medium Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Residential Mixed Use Lakeside Residential Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Tourist Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Professional Limited Industrial Public Institutional Open Space Recreational Floodway Specific Plan This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. Chapter 3.0 3-21 The City of Lake Elsinore and the SOI are known for periodic high-velocity wind conditions through the Temescal Valley and the steep canyons to the northwest, west, and southwest portions of the SOI. Such winds are due mostly to the area’s topography, which forms a natural wind tunnel along the valley and through the canyons. The area is also subject to occasional Santa Ana conditions. Past fire management policy, mandated immediate fire suppression action for all fires, including those in wilderness areas, but also led to a long-term accumulation of vegetation (fuel) that can be easily ignited. Fire can spread quickly in high wind conditions, which poses a significant hazard in many areas, especially in forested and chaparral areas of rural Southern California. Much of the areas in the Cleveland National Forest and along the Ortega Highway (SR-74) contain large areas of chaparral and oak/pinyon plant communities that are highly flammable in the summer dry season and can promote the spread of wildfires over large distances, especially during high wind conditions. Chaparral in particular poses unique problems for fire prevention because its components (tough shrubs such as chemise, manzanita, and sage) are genetically predisposed to burn. Many of the plants in this community need fire to sprout their seeds; chaparral burns naturally every 30 to 100 years. Much of the area within the SOI supports this type of vegetation. The heavy use of the Ortega Highway and the residences in the mountains pose additional fire risks. Traffic provides a potential ignition source because of tossed cigarettes and vehicle fires; residences provide other potential ignition sources, such as power equipment, barbeques, and residential fires. 3.4.1 Wildfire Hazards Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 4 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. Policies 4.1 Require on-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary. 4.2 Create fuel modification zones around development within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within 100 feet of buildings and structures. The size of the fuel modification zone may be altered with the addition of fire-resistant building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire-resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control. 4.3 Establish fire resistant building techniques for new development such as non-combustible wall surfacing materials, fire-retardant treated wood, heavy timber construction, glazing, Chapter 3.0 3-22 enclosed materials and features, insulation without paper-facing, and automatic fire sprinklers. 4.4 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. 4.5 Create emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. 4.6 Identify and map the most current Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as described and mapped by CAL FIRE, on an ongoing and as-needed basis. 4.7 Identify existing developed areas within the City that have reduced or limited circulation access and develop an evacuation plan, and recommended improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. 4.8 Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to reassess fire hazards and future availability of water supplies, after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, for both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. 4.9 To the extent feasible and appropriate, locate new essential public facilities (e.g., health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities) outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. If new essential public facilities are located in a State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Zone, the facilities shall be constructed to meet or exceed the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code requirements, as adopted by the City, to allow them to continue to serve community needs during and after disaster events. Implementation Program The City will coordinate with the California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Department supporting public fire education and prevention programs. Agency/Department Community Development and Public Works Departments Implementation Program The City will work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, and La Strada to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development. Chapter 3.0 3-23 Agency/Department City Manager, Engineering and Community Development Departments Implementation Program The City shall work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. Agency/Department City Manager, City Fire Marshal and Public Works Department Goal 5 Minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. Policies 5.1 Require development to contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services necessary to address the fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. 5.2 Require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. 5.3 Require all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. 5.4 If new development is located in a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. 5.5 Require new development in VHFHSZs to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by: x Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns etc.; x Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g. through fire breaks) to the extent feasible; x Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent; x Using fire-safe building materials and design features, consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards; Chapter 3.0 3-24 x Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping; and x Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, defensible space, access, and water facilities. 5.6 Require new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. The agreement shall specify who is responsible for maintenance of these areas and the fire safe standards that will be implemented. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. 5.7 Require that all redevelopment of properties damaged or destroyed by a major wildfire comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. 5.8 Perform an evaluation of fire-related development standards should a major wildfire require portions of the City be rebuilt to ensure that redevelopment standards are as fire- safe as reasonably possible. Implementation Program The City shall condition projects to comply with Fire Department requirements. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.5 Flooding and Floodplains Development in the 100-year floodplain can increase flooding hazards by raising water levels upstream and adding flow, velocity, and debris downstream. Floodplains are the low, flat, periodically flooded lands adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans inundated by the 100-year flood and composed of the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100- year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. The floodway fringe is that portion of the floodplain between the floodway and the limits of the existing 100-year floodplain. As shown in Figure 3-6, significant portions of the City and the SOI are located within the 100-year Flooding in Lake Elsinore 1988 Chapter 3.0 3-25 floodplain. The City of Lake Elsinore has identified flooding sources within the City that include Arroyo del Toro, Channel H, Elsinore Spillway Channel, Lake Elsinore, Leach Canyon Channel, Lime Street Channel, McVicker Canyon, Ortega Wash, Ortega Channel, Rice Canyon, San Jacinto River, Stovepipe Canyon Creek, Temescal Wash, Wash G, Wash I, Murrieta Creek, Wasson Canyon Creek, and potentially Railroad Canyon Dam if the incidence of failure occurs. The City places a high priority on preventing flood damage and requires new projects to consider flooding and storm drainage effects. Limited encroachment into the 100-year floodplain fringe is allowed in order to permit development of properties within this area. However, encroachment shall maintain a focus on public facilities such as roads, parks, sewer and water improvements, and pedestrian routes. No development of the floodway is allowed. The City will review development projects within the floodplain to ensure compliance with City, state, and federal floodplain development projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) often have jurisdiction over areas that are located within floodplains. USACE, through the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, is the primary agency involved in wetland regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to veto any decision by the USACE on Section 404-permit issuance because the EPA has the ultimate authority over enforcement of wetland regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Section 404 permit by the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must issue a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver. In this way, the RWQCB regulates actions permitted by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be consulted and may take jurisdiction if any wetland impacts could affect federally endangered species. The USACE has jurisdiction over “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Not all waters of the U.S. are wetlands and not all wetlands are under USACE jurisdiction. The term “waters of the U.S.” covers many types of waters, including waters currently or historically used in interstate or foreign commerce (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides); all interstate waters (including interstate wetlands); all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, etc., the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S.; tributaries of waters of the U.S.; territorial seas; and wetlands adjacent to waters of the U.S. Regulated waters of the U.S. do not include isolated waters. However, isolated waters may be regulated by the RWQCB and the CDFW under the Porter-Cologne Act and the California Fish and Game Code, respectively. £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineLA K ES H O R E D RLAKE S T B U N D Y CANYONRDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E NEWPORT RD CLINTON KEITH RD R A I LR OA D C ANYON RDRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD FLINT S T D E X T E R A V E SUMMERHILLDRSCOTT RD CE R E A L S T JO Y A V E C H ANEYSTC O L L I E R A V E SUMN E R A V E M I N T H O R N S T NICHOLS RD FRANKLI N S T MAIN STGOETZ RDCENTRAL STDIAMOND DRG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, SCAG City of Lake Elsinore Floodplains Figure 3.6´021Miles LEGEND FLOOD ZONES 500-year Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone Chapter 3.0 3-28 The CDFW has jurisdiction covering lakes, rivers, and streams. Jurisdiction extends across the bed, banks, and channel of these features and includes areas beneath a riparian canopy, even if the canopy areas are well away from the stream channel (such as in oak riparian areas). More typically, the jurisdiction over streambeds is applied from the top of one channel bank to the top of the opposite bank. Regional flood control planning and facilities construction are within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District. The district is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of flood control facilities, including debris dams, storm channels, and storm drains. The City of Lake Elsinore owns and maintains certain flood control facilities in the City that are constructed generally as part of the drainage plans for individual projects. 3.5.1 Flooding and Floodplains Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 6 Minimize risk of injury to residents and visitors, and property damage due to flooding. Policies 6.1 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. 6.2 Continue to encourage floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities. 6.3 Reduce the risk of flooding by creating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation areas and by prohibiting development within the floodways. 6.4 Encourage that new developments within the floodplain fringe shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat. 6.5 Continue to require the construction of channel improvements to allow conveyance of the 100-year flow without extensive flooding. 6.6 Use FEMA regulations and mapping to ensure that flooding hazards are evaluated during the environmental review process, including placement of restrictions on development within designated floodplain areas. Chapter 3.0 3-29 6.7 Promote drainage improvements that maintain a natural or semi-natural floodplain. 6.8 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. Implementation Program Through the project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential flood hazards, and shall require compliance with FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas where appropriate. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.6 Geologic and Seismic Hazards 3.6.1 Geologic Setting The City of Lake Elsinore and its SOI are located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province and includes parts of two structural blocks, or structural subdivisions of the province. The Peninsular Ranges province extends from the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. It is located on the Pacific (tectonic or crustal) Plate, which is moving to the northwest relative to the adjacent North American Plate. The well-known San Andreas Fault forms the boundary between the Pacific and the North American Plates. As a result, the Southern California area contains numerous regional and local faults, and experiences substantial ground movement during frequent seismic events. The Elsinore fault zone is part of the same right-lateral crustal plate strain system as the San Andreas. In the City of Lake Elsinore, the majority of the Elsinore fault zone is located under the Lake. The Elsinore fault consists of multiple strands, a number of which are recognized as active and zoned by the State of California under the Alquist-Priolo Act. Risk of surface rupture along these zoned active traces is substantial. Although the County has zoned additional faults as active, none of the County-zoned traces is in the immediate vicinity of the City or SOI. The Uniform Building Code recognizes the northern portion of the Elsinore fault as a Type B seismic source (International Council of Building Officials 1997). The Elsinore fault is believed to be capable of generating earthquakes with moment magnitudes in the range of 6.5–7.5, with a recurrence interval of approximately 250 years between major events. Smaller events may occur more frequently. Thus, the City and the SOI are likely to experience repeated moderate to strong ground shaking generated by the Elsinore fault in the foreseeable future. The City and surroundings also have the potential to experience significant ground shaking as a result of seismic activity on a number of the Peninsular Ranges’ other active faults, shown in Figure 3-7, Approximate Traces of Principal Active Faults of the Peninsular Ranges and Mojave Desert Near Lake Elsinore, and Figure 3-8, Seismic Hazards. Orange Coun ty Riverside County Los Angeles County San Ber nardino County San Diego County Imperial Coun ty Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, USGS Approximate Traces of Principal Active Faults of the Peninsular Ranges and Mojave Desert Near Lake Elsinore Figure 3.7´084Miles Sphere of Influence Quaternary Faults California Offshore Faults ·|}þ74 ·|}þ74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 G R A N D A V E L A K E S H O R E D RLAKE STGRAPE ST TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D BUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD C A S I N O D RMACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RDMAIN STL INCO LN S T SCOTT RDCHANEY STC E R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E NEWPORT RD NICHOLS RD GOETZ RDCENTRAL STCopyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Seismic Hazards Figure 3.8´021Miles Shallow Groundwater Susceptible Sediments Very High High Moderate Low Very low Deep Groundwater Susceptible Sediments Moderate Low Very low No Groundwater Data Susceptible Sediments Moderate Low Very low Faults Chapter 3.0 3-34 Although the State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore area, when completed, these maps will be required to delineate areas at risk from secondary seismic hazards. Both the County General Plan and the Elsinore Area Plan delineate areas susceptible to secondary seismic hazards. The City has high potential for damage due to liquefaction and slope failure in some areas. 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq.) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. Earthquake Fault Zones were called “Special Studies Zones” prior to January 1, 1994. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. A licensed geologist must prepare an evaluation and written report of the specific site. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet set backs are required). Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code Section 2690 et seq.) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards. The State requires: (1) local governments to incorporate site-specific geotechnical hazard investigations and associated hazard mitigation, as part of the local construction permit approval process; and (2) the agent for a property seller or the seller if acting without an agent, must disclose to any prospective buyer if the property is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone. 3.6.3 Local Plans Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public safety planning generally focuses on how an agency or community members will prepare for, respond to, and/or recover from a disaster. Hazard mitigation planning focuses on how the impact of a disaster might be lessened. On September 11, 2018, the Lake Elsinore City Council adopted the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Chapter 3.0 3-35 The purpose of the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify the County’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex is to focuses on these topics as they relate specifically to the City. The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility and potentially secure mitigation funding through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. The LHMP includes an assessment of the City’s risk related to natural hazard impacts such as seismic events, drought, wildfire, extreme heat, hazardous materials, and flooding. The LHMP also includes a comprehensive set of actions the City will complete to mitigate, or reduce, the impacts of those hazards. The mitigation actions in the LHMP are included in the General Plan as a subset of the Plan’s overall implementation program. The current LHMP is incorporated into this Chapter by reference. Emergency Operations Plan The City of Lake Elsinore Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), approved on March 27, 2007, addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City of Lake Elsinore. The EOP describes the operations of the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is the central location responsible for directing and coordinating the various City of Lake Elsinore Departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities. Resilient IE Resilient IE was developed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) in collaboration with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) with funding from Caltrans. Resilient IE works to support regional and local efforts to prepare for and mitigate risks associated with climate adaptation on the region's transportation infrastructure with five primary project components. These components include community vulnerability assessments and city-level, climate-related transportation hazards and evacuation maps. The following is a list of climateဨrelated hazards that were identified as impacting the city of Lake Elsinore: x Air Quality – The city of Lake Elsinore may experience more frequent days of unsafe levels of atmospheric ozone by 2050, creating or exacerbating health risks for some individuals. Chapter 3.0 3-36 x Drought – Water sources will likely experience more frequent and intense droughts, which can cause water shortages. x Extreme Heat – Extreme heat incidents can strain the city’s power delivery networks and can increase rates of heatဨrelated illnesses, particularly in atဨrisk populations. x Flooding – More intense flooding is expected to occur along the to the north and south of Lake Elsinore reservoir and along the Temescal Wash and San Jacinto River in the City of Lake Elsinore. x Human Health Hazards – More frequent and severe wildfires near the city of Lake Elsinore could worsen air quality, causing health impacts. Warmer conditions are also expected to increase the spread of vectorဨborne diseases carried by organisms like mosquitoes. x Landslides – More frequent and intense rainfall could increase the chance that a landslide will likely occur in the city of Lake Elsinore. Deepဨseated landslides could occur on steeper slopes throughout the city, especially near the mountains on the southern edge of the City. x Severe Weather – Strong winds and heavy rains are expected to become more intense around the city of Lake Elsinore. x Wildfire – Drought conditions, extreme heat, and extreme wind events can increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the WRCOG region, including the wildlandဨurban interface. The city of Lake Elsinore could experience more wildfires throughout the City, due to its location in the wildlandဨurban interface. Chapter 3.0 3-37 Critical Assets Table 3-2 is a list of critical assets that are vulnerable to any of the key climateဨrelated hazards that are present in the region: Table 3-2 List of the City of Lake Elsinore’s Critical Assets by Type and Name Asset Type Asset Name Local and Regional Infrastructure Iဨ15, SRဨ74, major roadways, Lake Elsinore Reservoir, Skylark Field Airport, Lake Elsinore City Hall, Lakeside Library, Lake Elsinore Library, Lakeland Village Community Center, Lake Elsinore Community Center, Victor Community Support, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, electrical transmission lines, Police stations, Fire stations Major Commercial/Economic Hubs Lake Elsinore Outlets, Pacific Aggregates, Lake Elsinore Square, Lakeside Center, Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium, Lake Elsinore Town Center, Lake Elsinore Valley Center Medical Lake Elsinore Family Care Center, Total Care Family Medical Center, Vista Community Clinic, Lake Elsinore Primary Care Clinic, Lake Elsinore Dialysis Parks Lakepoint Park, Machado Park, Summerlake Park, Oak Tree Park, McVicker Canyon Park and Skate Park, Creekside Park, City Park, Swick and Matich Park, Yarborough Park, Tuscany Hills Parks, Summerhill Park, Sunshine Park, Spirit Park, Linear Park, Lincoln Street Park, Alberhill Sports Park Schools Canyon Lake Middle, Cottonwood Canyon Elementary, Earl Warren Elementary, Keith McCarthy Academy, Temescal Canyon High, Valley Adult School, Tuscany Hills Elementary, Heald Academy, Herk Bouris Elementary, Elsinore Elementary, Elsinore Middle, Lakeland Village, Lakeside High, Machado Elementary, Ortega High, Railroad Canyon Elementary, Rice Canyon Elementary, Terra Cotta Middle, Withrow Elementary, Jeanette Ellis Center. Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 34 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) Key Vulnerabilities Table 3-3 shows which hazards in the city of Lake Elsinore may pose the greatest harm to vulnerable groups or assets in the city. Chapter 3.0 3-38 Table 3-3 Key Vulnerabilities in City of Lake Elsinore by Applicable Hazard Vulnerability Hazards Air Quality Drought Extreme Heat Flooding Human Health Hazards Landslides Severe Weather Wildfire Households in poverty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Persons experiencing homelessness 3 3 3 3 3 3 Chronically ill individuals 3 3 3 3 3 Residential structures 3 3 3 Energy delivery systems 3 3 3 Water delivery systems 3 3 Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 35 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) Evacuation Routes Figure 3-9 shows the evacuation network for Lake Elsinore and the surrounding area. However, as listed in Table 3-4 significant portions of Lake Elsinore’s evacuation network pass through hazardဨprone areas, and over bridges and water crossings. Table 3-4 Hazard Impacts, Bridges, and Water Crossings for Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Route Network Miles and Quantity Percent of City’s Network Evacuation Route Miles in Fire Hazard Zones 35 59% Evacuation Route Miles in Flood Hazard Zones 21 36% Evacuation Route Miles in Landslide Hazard Zones 45 77% City of Lake Elsinore’s Total Evacuation Network Miles 59 100% 3.1%* Bridge Crossings in Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Network 31 Water Crossings in Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Network 38 *Indicates the percentage of city of Lake Elsinore’s total network as part of the larger Western Riverside County network. Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 35 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) §¨¦15 I-15 LAKESHO R E G R A N D SH-74 L A K E T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N RIVERSIDEMISS IONGREENWALD CORYDONHIGHWAY 74MAINLIN C O L N GRAPED E X T E RHORSETHIEF CANYONLA STRADA I-15 S B O N I- 1 5 NBO F F C A N Y O N H I L L S I-15 NBON BAXTERMISSIONI-1 5 HIGH W A Y 7 4 G R A N D I-1 5 I- 1 5LAKE CANYON HIL L S I- 1 5 I-215MURRIETA RDSH-74HIGH WAY 74 ETHANAC RD ANTELOPE RDEL TORO RD LA K E S H O R E D R HAUN RDNEWPORT RDLINDELL RDMAPES RD SHERMAN RDA STPA L O M A R S T S M A I N D I V I D E R D BUNDY CANYON RD GOETZ RDGARBANI RD WICKERD RD GRAPE STC O M O S T C A S E R D LOST RDGRAND AVESCOTT RD CRAIG AVE MCCALL BLVDENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STLUCERNE STLAKE STSUN CITY BLVDC E R E A L S T HOLLAND RD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLIN T S T MARIE STEVANS RDLA PIEDRA RDSPRING STMILL ST DAILY RDNICHOLS RDROUSE RD ORANGE STSOPHIE STHILLSI D E D R AMOROSE ST CLINTON KEITH RD VALLEY BLVDOLIVE AVE POTOMAC D R MC BOB RDTOFT DR PALM AVECARMEL RD BYERS STTHE FARM RDVISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVEA C A C I A D R GRE E R R D CANYON LAKE D R N RY A N A V EMAITRI RDTHIRD ST VISTA AVE10TH STMC PHERSON R D CHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E STONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST TYSON RD PHILLIPS STWHEAT STZEIDERS RDS U M A C R D LA ESTRELLA ST SUNSET AVENANCY LNLA G U N A A V E HOWARD RDDAWSON RDWATSON RD BARNETT RDTHEDA STVISTA RD MELVIN STTRUMBLE RDHEMLOCK STREISS RDDEBON STHILLTOP DRH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRLAZY CREEK RD ADELFA STMCELWAIN RDLA LADERA RDTATE RD MO N T E V I S T A D R MOUNTAIN AVE CONE J O D R COX RDGAF F O R D R DREAD STSHRIER DR FIR ST LAKE DR STEELE PEAK DR KURT ST2ND STD U N N S T LESSER LN RIDGE R D QUAIL PLLITTLE VALLEY RD CONTI N E N T A L D R PERRY RDRIVER RDPEACH STCALDERA ST EVANDEL RDGEARY STASPEL RDPALM DRCRILLY RDBEREA RDHAMPSHIRE DREL NIGUEL RDGATEWA Y D R MILKY WAYMARGO RDALMOND STGROSSE POINT DRWILD LILAC RDCAN Y O N D R LYNX RDTUPELO RD CHERRY STSOTELO RD SHADEL RD ROSTRATA AVEI- 1 5 N B O F F EMPIRE LN WRIGHT RDSKYLARK DRBIG TEE DR ALPINE DR PLAZA AVI L A WANKI AVEULMER ST ONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RD OAKM O N T D R BILLINGS LNPENCIN RDREFA STPATTERSON STI-215 SBOFFCATT RDTOOLE RDHEIM ST HIXON STDAVID LNSHORELINE DRSUNBLAZE RDLOVE LN BLANCHE DREU R E K A S T CRABAPPLE STLUCE CTWILD VIEW R D PILE ST 4TH STOUTRIGGER STTOOKER STROCKY RDGIFHORN CTVIA MADRID HUGHES DR READ STI-215 SBOFFGOETZ RDI-215SH-74 G R A N D A V E ANTELOPE RDS H - 7 4 I -15BYERS RDVALLEY BLVDEVANS RDMAPES RD Copyright:(c) 2014 Esri, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside ´021Miles Evacuation Routes City Boundary Sphere of Influence I-15 SHWY-74 City of Lake Elsinore Evacuation Routes Figure 3.9 Chapter 3.0 3-41 3.6.4 Secondary Seismic Hazards—Liquefaction and Ground Failure The State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore area under the mapping program mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. However, mapping has been completed for the adjacent Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles to the south and maps are planned for the Lake Elsinore and Wildomar quadrangles within the next decade. The City recognizes the importance of addressing secondary seismic hazards, and has delineated areas of known and suspected liquefaction hazard. In general, liquefaction susceptibility ranges from very low in the former lake footprint to moderate on much of the remainder of the valley floor and very high in the valley floor corridor formerly occupied by the axial riverine drainage. Liquefaction potential is also very high along the area’s principal tributary drainages and on portions of the alluvial fans on the valley’s eastern margin. Figure 3-10, Liquefaction Susceptibility in Lake Elsinore Area, presents a generalized map of liquefaction potential based on data on file with the City. 3.6.5 Landslide and Other Slope Stability Hazards As discussed in the previous section, the State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore Area; when completed, these maps will be required to delineate areas at risk from seismically induced landslides. In the meantime, as shown in Figure 3-11, Percent Slope, a substantial proportion of the City, SOI, and surrounding area are located on slopes of 25%–35% or steeper, and much of the area is at substantial risk of seismically induced slope failure. Non-seismically induced slope failure is also a hazard in these areas, as evidenced by numerous existing landslides. 3.6.6 Geologic and Seismic Hazard Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 7 Minimize the rise of loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social displacement due to seismic and geological hazards resulting from earthquakes and geological constraints. Policies 7.1 Continue to make every effort to reduce earthquake-induced fire as a threat. 7.2 Encourage the pursuit of federal and state programs that assist in the seismic upgrading of buildings to meet building and safety codes. Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Liquefaction Susceptibility Figure 3.10´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Water Bodies Liquefaction Potential Very low Low Moderate High Very High LAKE STRIVERSIDE DR§¨¦15 §¨¦15 ·|}þ74 ·|}þ74 I 1 5 G R A N DLAKEEL TOROHY 74RIVERSI D E KILINDELLHEAL D C O A L ORTEGAFAYMACHADO3RDTE M E S C A L C A N Y O N RY A N B A K E RCOLT JO Y NICHOLS FMISSIONL A SH 11THRICEMILLASH CORYDONBOSLEY DIAMONDLA G U N A DE P A L M A LA K E S H O R ECHANEY RAILROAD CANYON EL CARISOPIERCEHILL TOPCENTRALRED GUMGRE E N W A L D ADELFALOSTSTONEMANSKYLARKMINTHORN2ND RIDGE10THM O U N T A I N AMOROSE H A Y S GRAPETOFT HYATT SNAKE BILLINGSEL TORO CUT OFF GATE W A Y TERRA COTTABARE ELMONTARIOHILLSI D E KILLENLA STRADA CORKTREEVISTACOW CANYON ASTRIDELLIE SHA D Y O A K L E H R U L L A EU R E K A SHORELINEANNAGINGERPILEHIDDENAUDELOJOLENE DANNYSTEELE VALLEYL I N C O L N 3RDI 1 5 I 1 5 Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside ´01.50.75 Miles City of Lake Elsinore Percent Slope Figure 3.11 Percent Slope Sphere of Influence City Boundary I-15 SHWY-74 0 - 15% 15% - 25% 25% - 35% >35% Chapter 3.0 3-46 7.3 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 accordance with the Fault Rupture Hazard Overlay District adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. The City may require site-specific remediation measures during permit review that may be implemented to minimize impacts in these areas. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with Alquist-Priolo and other guidelines where appropriate. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.7 Noise 3.7.1 Introduction Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is part of everyday life in an urban community, resulting from on- and off-road vehicle traffic, railroads, aircraft, construction vehicles and other heavy equipment, other commercial activities, and loud music. The existing background or “ambient” noise level in the community is the product of the cumulative effects of a variety of noise sources that accumulate over a period of time. Exposure to excessive noise has often been cited as a health hazard. Roadway traffic is a major source of noise within the City. Some other reported noise sources in Lake Elsinore include industrial and manufacturing facilities, Skylark Airport, schools, construction activities, and recreational activities associated with the lake, the motocross park, and Diamond Stadium. The goals and policies in this section are designed to locate new development in areas with compatible noise levels and minimize intrusive noise from existing and new development. 3.7.2 Noise Baselines Land uses in the Lake Elsinore planning area include varying densities of both clustered and non- contiguous residential development, different densities and types of businesses and commercial Activities at Lake Elsinore Chapter 3.0 3-47 developments, open space, and recreation. The locations and densities of these land uses, in conjunction with major transportation routes and other significant activities within the Lake Elsinore area, such as construction, contribute to the ambient noise conditions, or setting, of the area. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. These land uses include uses such as schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas. The City has designated noise-sensitive zones for land uses that require exceptional quiet. Table 3-5 and Table 3-6 provide regulations to ensure noise and land use compatibility and recommend noise standards. Table 3-5, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Residential Single, Family, Duplex, Multiple Family A A B B C D D Residential Mobile Homes A A B C C D D Commercial Regional District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Regional Village, District Special Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Commercial Industrial Institutional Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building A A A B B C D Commercial Regional Institutional Civic Center Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Commercial Recreation Children’s Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D Commercial General, Special Industrial Institutional Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Institutional General Hospital, Church, Library, Schools, Classroom A A B C C D D Chapter 3.0 3-48 Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A A A A B C C Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Interpretation Zone A Clearly Compatible Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B Normally Compatible New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed nose insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C Normally Incompatible New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D Clearly Incompatible New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Chapter 3.0 3-49 Table 3-6, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories Energy Average LDN Categories Uses Interior Exterior Residential Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family 45 3, 5 60 Mobile Homes – 60 4 Commercial, Institutional Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 5 – Hospital, School’s classroom 45 – Church, Library 45 – Interpretation 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, Mobile Home Park. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 5. As per California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section T25-28. Topography and Climate Noise amplitude and attenuation characteristics are key factors in the establishment of noise conditions and vary considerably according to natural climate and topographical features. Meteorological factors affecting noise characteristics within the Lake Elsinore planning area include temperature changes, Santa Ana winds, and the amount and duration of rainfall. Topographical features in the planning area include the steep Santa Ana Mountains and Elsinore Mountains to the south and west; the large centrally located, low-lying Lake Elsinore and surrounding local valley; and the rolling hills throughout much of the area. Man-made features within the planning area, such as buildings and structures, agricultural fields, and roadways, also affect noise amplitude and attenuation. Vehicular Traffic Because two highly utilized transportation corridors, I-15 and SR 74, traverse the City, roadway traffic is one of the more prevalent sources of noise within the area. Traffic noise varies in how it affects land uses depending upon the type of roadway, distance of the land use from that roadway, topographical setting, and other physical land features such as landscaping, walls, Chapter 3.0 3-50 buildings, and other structures. Some variables that affect the amount of noise emitted from a road are speed of traffic, flow of traffic, and type of traffic (e.g., tractor trailers versus cars). Another variable affecting the overall measure of noise is a perceived increase in sensitivity to vehicular noise at night. Industry Industrial and manufacturing facilities are stationary noise producers that may affect sensitive land uses. Industrial land uses have the potential to exert a relatively high level of noise impact within their immediate operating environments. The scope and degree of noise impacts generated by industrial uses is dependent upon various critical factors, including the type of industrial activity, hours of operation, and the site’s location relative to other land uses. Noise-related complaints are often aimed at facilities such as Elsinore Ready-Mix, a concrete manufacturer located in Country Club Heights. Other noise complaints usually come from neighbors who live next to land that is under-developed. Airports Skylark Airport is a privately owned airport that occupies approximately 150 acres of land located at the southern city limits on Corydon Road. In 2010, the airport housed 21 single-engine aircraft, five multi-engine aircraft, and four gliders. This airport provides glider and skydiving opportunities for the community and surrounding region. The runway surface at Skylark Airport consists of gravel and sand; as such, this surface generally does not permit optimal conditions for frequent and convenient airport operations. Skylark Airport is a private use airport with runways that are 2800 feet in length and fall under the category of Short General Aviation Runways. Schools Schools can be a source of nuisance noise for neighboring residential uses. Noise-generating activities include children at play, bells, and public address systems. High schools may include stadiums used for day and evening athletic events, and the use of public address/loudspeaker systems can also generate substantial noise levels during the day and/or evening. Other Noise Sources Other sources of noise include recreational boating and personal watercraft on Lake Elsinore, the Motocross Park, Diamond Stadium, and construction activities. Lake Elsinore Motocross Track Chapter 3.0 3-51 Vibration As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration impacts are much greater indoors due to the shaking of the structure. The most common sources of vibration in the Lake Elsinore planning area are transit vehicles, construction equipment, and large vehicles. Several land uses are especially sensitive to vibration and therefore have a lower vibration threshold. These uses include but are not limited to concert halls, hospitals, libraries, vibration-sensitive research operations, residential areas, schools, and offices. 3.7.3 Noise Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 8 Maintain an environment for all City residents and visitors free of unhealthy, obtrusive, or otherwise excessive noise. Policies 8.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-5) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3-6) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City. 8.2 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. 8.3 Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the I-15. 8.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3-12, Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City. 8.5 Participate and cooperate with other agencies and jurisdictions in the development of noise abatement plans for highways. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes, the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with noise standards and compatibility criteria where appropriate. Agency/Department Community Development and Engineering Departments Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Noise Contours Figure 3.12´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Airport Ballpark Elsinore Ready Mix Motocross Track 70 Idn contour pref 65 Idn contour pref 60 Idn contour pref Chapter 3.0 3-54 3.8 Community Facilities and Protection Services City development and community welfare are dependent on a network of public facilities, infrastructure and services. These availability services provide the necessary components for quality life in the community. Quality services and facilities are critical to retaining existing households and businesses and attracting future residents and new businesses. The City seeks to ensure excellent services regardless of the provider. The goals and policies in this section are designed to promote community welfare and to enhance the overall well being of the City’s residents and visitors through responsive city government, efficient and timely emergency response, academic excellence that includes access to quality school and library facilities for all residents, and effective and efficient delivery of services and utilities. 3.8.1 Fire and Police Protection Services Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Baselines Effective fire protection and law enforcement services are essential to the welfare of a community. Without adequate provision of these invaluable services, the safety of the community could be jeopardized with the rise in crime and risk of fire damage. Long-term effects could result in a decrease in immigration of new residents and a low quality of life for current residents. The following goals and policies are intended to ensure that the community that the City remains safe and protected by fire and police services. Fire Protection Through a Cooperative Agreement, the City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) through its Cooperative Fire Programs Fire Protection Reimbursement Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to provide the City with fire protection, hazardous materials mitigation, technical rescue response, fire marshal, medical emergency services, and public service assists. CAL FIRE and RCFD have primary responsibility for fire protection in the City. The City itself does not have agreements for fire protection with any other agencies.Portions of the SOI are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRA), where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires, while the Lake Elsinore Fire Department, which is operated jointly by RCFD and CAL FIRE, has primary responsibility for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) within the City limit. Chapter 3.0 3-55 The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. Equipment used by the department has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD services the City of Lake Elsinore. The following stations are located within city limits: z Fire Station No. 10 (Elsinore), servicing the central area of the city, located on the northeast side of the lake at 410 W. Graham Ave. (Not funded as of July 1, 2017.) z Fire Station No. 85, (McVicker Park), located to the north at McVicker Park, slightly east of the lake at 29405 Grand Avenue; z Fire Station No. 94 (Canyon Hills), located in the southeast section of the City, at 21775 Railroad Canyon Road, east of the I-15. z Fire Station No. 97 (Rosetta Canyon), located in the north section of the City on Rosetta Canyon Drive. The following stations are located outside city limits: z Quail Valley Station No. 5 z Lakeland Village Station No. 11. z El Cariso Station No. 51. z Canyon Lake Station No. 60. z Wildomar Station No. 61. z Sycamore Canyon Station No. 64 z Menifee Station No. 68 z Rancho Capistrano Station No. 74. Although the fire stations are operated by RCFD, CAL FIRE staffs firefighters and stores firefighting equipment at stations throughout the City, particularly during peak fire season. Both agencies respond to all types of emergencies, depending on the need and equipment available. Emergencies range from wildland fires, residential/commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid of all types, search and rescue missions, hazardous material spills, floods, earthquakes, and more. Standard response times are established by RCFD guidelines. The response time goal is to arrive at any location within the City to be seven minutes, with the intent to reduce that time to five minutes. Since October 2003, fire paramedics are required at each station. These specially trained firefighters are equipped to respond to medical emergencies and ride on all calls. Their arrival on the scene can ensure the timely start of emergency medical treatment until an ambulance arrives Chapter 3.0 3-56 for patient transport. Each fire engine carries nearly $35,000 worth of state-of-the-art emergency medic equipment. Police Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for police protection from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department operates in Lake Elsinore as the Lake Elsinore Police Department. The Sheriff’s Department has mutual aid agreements with all of the local law enforcement agencies within Riverside County. In addition, the Department coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to provide and receive statewide mutual aid when necessary. The Lake Elsinore Sheriff’s Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Site.The Lake Elsinore Sheriff’s Station serves an area of 241 square miles, including the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Wildomar, and the unincorporated communities of Alberhill, El Cariso, Glen Eden Hot Springs, Glen Ivy Hot Springs, Good Hope, Lakeland Village, Quail Valley, and Sedco Hills. The police department has various programs in place to deter crime, such as neighborhood watch, Crime-Free Multi-Housing program, and community-oriented policing. The police and fire stations are depicted in Figure 3-13, Police and Fire Stations. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/2021, the total number of sworn officers serving the City was 53, which equates to a ratio of 0.76 sworn officer per 1,000 residents. Average response times for City police protection vary due to the differing priorities of each call received by 911 and dispatched to officers. During 2020, the average response times for priority one calls was 7.28 minutes, for priority two calls, 22.42 minutes, for priority three calls, 42.08 minutes, and for priority four calls, 60.83 minutes. The Lake Elsinore Police Department manages the Lake Patrol with Marine Safety trained police officers who patrol the lake, beaches and lake-adjacent parks. Officers enforce boating rules and regulations on the lake and assist stranded boaters. The Lake Patrol is augmented by a special group of volunteers known as Lake Elsinore Marine Search and Rescue (LEMSAR) who also patrol the lake and assist with boating collisions and stranded vessels. LEMSAR volunteers are trained in first aid and CPR and must complete a U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary boating and safety course. The Police Department also utilizes Reserve Police Officers. These volunteers are fully trained as police officers and offer an additional level of service and cost savings to the city of Lake Elsinore. _ _ £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 STATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sheriff Station Police Department/Sherrif Sub-Station LA KESH O REDRLAKE STBUNDY CANYON RDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E TEMESCALCANYONRD RAIL R O A D C A NYONR D RIVERSIDE DRMISSION TR BAXTER RD NEWPORT RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RD CE R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMNERAVE NICHOLS RD FRANKL I N S T GOETZ RDC A SI N O D RSUMMER HILL DRGRAHAM STCENTRAL STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore GIS, County of Riverside GIS City of Lake Elsinore Police and Fire Stations Figure 3.13´021Miles _Sheriff Station Fire Station City Boundary Sphere of Influence I-15 SHWY-74 Water Bodies Chapter 3.0 3-59 3.8.2 Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 9 Provide efficient and effective public safety services for the community. Policies 9.1 Continue to follow Riverside County Fire Department most current guidelines to achieve standard response times and staffing levels. 9.2 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide adequate police service and staffing levels. 9.3 Continue to provide Lake Patrol personnel who enforce boating rules and regulations, and perform rescue tactics. 9.4 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. Implementation Program The City shall annually evaluate fire and police services and staff ratios. Agency/Department City Manager Goal 10 Maintain an emergency response program consistent with State law, and coordinate with surrounding cities, Riverside County and other emergency response providers. Policies 10.1 Maintain participation in local, regional, state, and national mutual aid systems to ensure that appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. 10.2 Periodically review and test the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to address the City’s growth in population and built environment, as well as, to note any deficiencies and to incorporate new emergency response techniques. 10.3 Coordinate all emergency preparedness and response plans with neighboring cities, the County of Riverside, local health care providers and utility purveyors, and the California Chapter 3.0 3-60 Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). 10.4 Maintain a safe and secure, technologically advanced Emergency Operations Center allowing for room to expand as the City grows. 10.5 Continue to train Emergency Operations Center and general city staff in our Emergency Operations Plan and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS). 10.6 Continue coordinated training for City Emergency Response Team members, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and related response agency personnel. 10.7 Conduct public outreach to provide education programs and literature to Lake Elsinore’s residents, business people and property owners on earthquake preparedness, fire safety, flooding hazards, other emergencies and identified emergency access routes. 10.8 Incorporate the current Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into this Chapter by reference. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will maintain emergency preparedness information and handouts at City Hall, the Senior Center and the Library, and will distributed the information at community events. Additionally, the City’s website and other media resources shall be utilized to inform and educate residents and business owners on emergency preparedness matters and emergency evacuation routes. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will continue to coordinate training for city staff and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and publicize training sessions to the City’s residents and business owners. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will review and update the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) a minimum of every 5 years to update emergency response, evaluation plans and evacuation routes to reflect current conditions and community needs. Agency/Department City Manager, Public Works Department Chapter 3.0 3-61 3.8.3 Schools Baseline The Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) serves most of the City of Lake Elsinore, all of the City of Canyon Lake, all of the City of Wildomar and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside. The district covers a 140-square-mile area with a population of approximately 70,000. It is the largest employer in the Lake Elsinore Valley, with more than 1,955 full- and part- time employees. District boundaries are identified on Figure 3.8, Schools and District Boundaries. Menifee Union School District serves a portion of Canyon Hills Specific Plan area. The LEUSD is composed of 25 schools, including 12 elementary, two K-8 schools, four middle, three comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and two alternative education schools. The district also has a K-12 virtual school and an adult education program. The district also provides Head Start programs at four school sites. The District is in the process of updating its Facilities Master Plan. The District has experienced a slight growth in enrollment since 2005. The enrollment for 2010/2011 is 20,658 K-12 students. The District has recently closed two elementary schools and converted an elementary and middle school into K-8 programs. The decline in the economy and the loss of new housing construction has slowed down the need for new schools. However, there continues to be a need to expand and modernize current facilities to accommodate changing technology and additional enrollment. According to the 2011 enrollment projections and current housing market conditions the District expects only a slight increase in enrollment district wide over the next ten years. However, it is difficult to predict the future housing market, so the assumptions are made that minimal housing development will occur over the next ten years. When the housing market picks up again, the District will be ready for the surge of growth. The District currently owns property in the Wasson Canyon area and has several school sites in various planning stages in the Alberhill and Summerly Developments. There are two portions of the City of Lake Elsinore that are not within the LEUSD. In the center of the northern part of the City, a small section falls within the Perris Elementary and Union High School District; on the eastern edge of the City, a small section falls within the Menifee Union School District. There is one portion within the northwest corner of the City’s SOI that is not in the LEUSD. This small portion of the SOI falls within the Corona-Norco Unified School District. Figure 3-14 shows the location of the school districts within the City and SOI. Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Schools and District Boundaries Figure 3.14´02.51.25 Miles nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED MENIFEE UNION &PERRIS UNION HIGH PERRIS & PERRIS UNION HIGHCORONA-NORCO UNIFIED ROMOLAND & PERRIS UNION HIGH G R A N D A V E LAKESH O R E D RLAKE STCLINTON KEITH RD NEWPORT RD B U N D Y C A NYONRDGRAPE ST LIN COLN ST SCOTT RD TEMESCALCANYONRD RAILR O A D C ANYON R D RIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E SUMMERHILLDRC E R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMN E R A V E NICHOLS RD FRANK L IN STGOETZ RDSPRING STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R City Boundary Sphere of Influence nm Future Schools nm Existing Schools CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED MENIFEE UNION &PERRIS UNION HIGH MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED PERRIS & PERRIS UNION HIGH ROMOLAND & PERRIS UNION HIGH I-15 SHWY-74 Chapter 3.0 3-64 3.8.4 Schools Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 11 Encourage all school districts serving Lake Elsinore to provide school facilities that are adequate to serve all students. Policies 11.1 Encourage the establishment and development of a trade school, junior college, and/or four-year college campus within the City boundaries. 11.2 Continue cooperation between school districts and the City to provide joint use of recreational facilities. Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review and CEQA processes to inform school districts serving Lake Elsinore of new development. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.8.5 Libraries Baseline The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. Residents have access to all 29 libraries and two bookmobiles. There are two libraries within city boundaries, including the Lake Elsinore Library, located on West Graham Avenue northeast of the lake, and Lakeside Library on Riverside Drive, northwest of the lake. The Canyon Lake Library is just outside the city boundary on Railroad Canyon Drive. 3.8.6 Libraries Goal and Implementation Program Goal 12 Encourage the County of Riverside’s County/City Public Library System to provide adequate library facilities for City residents. Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review and CEQA processes to assess impacts and mitigation to the library system serving Lake Elsinore to ensure adequate facilities are provided. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.8.7 Animal Services Baseline The City contracts with a private company called Animal Friends of the Valley (AFV) for all animal control services. AFV also provides animal services to the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. AFV humane and animal services officers respond to calls from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and respond to all emergencies to the above cities 24 hours per day. AFV is located at Chapter 3.0 3-65 33751 Mission Trail in Wildomar, and open to the public from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with evening extended hours on Wednesdays until 7 p.m. The organization is dedicated to promoting humane care of animals through education and a proactive animal services program. The organization works to prevent animal suffering and ending pet overpopulation. 3.8.8 Animal Services Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 13 Provide high quality animal control services to ensure timely response and effective control that protect both citizens and animals. Policies 13.1 Continue to foster and participate in the operation of a regional animal control facility through participation in the South Western Communities Financing Authority. 13.2 Continue to develop an educational program in conjunction with Animal Friends of the Valley regarding animal control services, including spay and neuter programs. Implementation Program The City shall coordinate efforts with the County of Riverside Office of Animal Control, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Animal Friends of the Valley to ensure effective and timely animal control in Lake Elsinore Agency/Department City Manager 3.8.9 Utilities Baseline Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) is a public nonprofit agency. It was created on December 23, 1950, under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911. EVMWD provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Canyon Lake, the City of Wildomar, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated portions of the County of Riverside. EVMWD is a special district with powers that include provision of public water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment and disposal, and recycling. Currently, the district has more than 35,000 water, wastewater, and agricultural service connections. EVMWD is a subagency of the Western Municipal Water District, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from Metropolitan, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. It has access to groundwater from Elsinore Basin, Coldwater Basin, San Bernardino Bunker Hill Basin, Rialto- Colton and Riverside-North Basin. Almost all of the groundwater production that is used for Chapter 3.0 3-66 potable use occurs in the Elsinore Basin. Imported water supply is purchased from the Metropolitan via Eastern Municipal Water District and Western Municipal Water District. EVMWD’s service area is broken into two divisions, the Elsinore Division and the Temescal Division (also known as Temescal Domestic Service Area). The division between the two valleys is approximately two miles north of Lake Elsinore, near the intersection of Love Lane and Temescal Canyon Road (where the Temescal Wash flows north). The water system currently includes 33 pressure zones. Within these zones, there are approximately 3,063,000 feet (580 miles) of pipelines ranging in diameter from 3 inches to 42 inches, 67 storage reservoirs with an approximate total storage capacity of 83 million gallons (MG) and 46 booster pump stations. The District currently obtains its water from 13 groundwater wells, the Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and imported water from Metropolitan through the Auld Valley and Temescal Valley Pipelines. EVMWD’s existing recycled water demands are supplied by tertiary-treated wastewater from the Regional WRF, Railroad Canyon WRF, and Horsethief WRF. In the effort to minimize the need for imported water, EVMWD 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. The EVMWD Water Distribution Master Plan from February 2008 has a projected need assessment based on future growth projections. Water demands for future scenarios are determined based on water duty factor (WDF) and future projected growth. If growth occurs at a different pace than expected, it is acknowledged that improvements may need to be implemented so that water will be continuously available. To meet rising future demands additional water source capacities are also required. The district is currently planning two groundwater wells in the Lake Elsinore Back Basin. Improvements to fix existing system deficiencies and accommodate future growth are being funded by three different categories, including ratepayers for existing services, future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), and developers for future development projects. The EVMWD Sewer District provides service for the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Canyon Lake, the City of Wildomar, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated portions of the County of Riverside. The “backbone” of the system consists of trunk sewers, generally 10 inches in diameter and larger, that convey the collected wastewater to EVMWD’s Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs). EVMWD’s existing wastewater collection systems consist of approximately 358 miles of sewer mains up to 54 inches in diameter, 33 lift stations and three WRFs. EVMWD’s current service area is delineated into four separate collection systems. These are the Regional, Canyon Lake, Horsethief, and Southern collection systems. The flows conveyed in the Regional, Canyon Lake, and Horsethief collection systems are treated by EVMWD’s Regional, Railroad Canyon, and Horsethief WRFs, respectively. Whereas wastewater discharged into the Southern collection system is conveyed through the Rancho California Water District’s (RCWD’s) wastewater collection system to the RCWD operated Santa Rosa WRF for treatment. It should be Chapter 3.0 3-67 noted that future wastewater flows generated within the Horsethief collection system will be routed to the planned Alberhill WRF for treatment. EVMWD also produces recycled water. Recycled water is used to irrigate parks, street medians, golf courses, and wildlife habitat and facilitate lake stabilization. It is the goal of EVMWD to build additional lines and expand recycled water services in order to free up additional water for residents. Prior to July 2011, the Elsinore Water District (EWD) provided water services for a limited area in Country Club Heights and parts of Lakeland Village. The EWD did not provide wastewater services. Water resources for the EWD included several local wells as well as purchases from EVMWD. EWD supplied water to more than 1,800 customers. However, a consolidation of EWD into EVMWD was finalized by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and took effect July 1, 2011. Additional water lines will have to be constructed if additional development is anticipated within the area formerly served by EWD. Electrical and Natural Gas Southern California Edison (SCE), a subsidiary of Edison International, provides electricity to the City of Lake Elsinore. SCE is a provider for 13 million customers, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses in 430 cities. SCE provides a significant amount of energy from alternate and renewable energy and from a variety of other sources. There are 16 utility interconnections, 4,990 transmission and distribution circuits, and 425 transmission and distribution crews. The City of Lake Elsinore receives its natural gas through the Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company). The Gas Company is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy and is the nation’s largest natural gas distribution utility, serving 19.5 million consumers through 5.5 million meters. The company's service territory encompasses 23,000 square miles in most of central and Southern California. Both Southern California Edison and The Gas Company anticipate the ability to accommodate future growth within the City of Lake Elsinore; development proposals will be required to formally request “will serve” letters on an individual basis. Chapter 3.0 3-68 3.8.10 Utilities Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 14 Ensure that adequate electrical, natural gas and telecommunications systems are provided to meet the demand of new and existing development. Policies 14.1 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. 14.2 Encourage developers to contact Southern California Edison 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. 14.3 Encourage developers to incorporate energy efficient design measures into their projects and pursue available energy efficiency assistance programs from SCE and other utility agencies. Implementation Program Through the development review and CEQA processes, inform developers of utility agency assistance programs and encourage their early contact with such agencies. Agency/Department Engineering and Community Development Departments 3.8.11 Trash and Recycling Baseline CR&R is responsible for trash disposal in the City of Lake Elsinore as well as Temecula, Canyon Lake, and unincorporated parts of the County of Riverside. Residents are provided three separate 60-gallon containers for garbage, green waste, and recycling. Trash is taken to either a landfill within Riverside County or the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). There are no landfills within the City. Riverside County Waste Management (RCWM) manages the landfills used by the City of Lake Elsinore. According to RCWM, capacity levels of landfills within the jurisdiction of RCWM are calculated on a system wide capacity level. That is to say that landfills within its jurisdiction adhere to state guidelines, which specify that a minimum of 15 years of system wide landfill capacity shall be provided. RCWM facilitates waste management services for Riverside County. These services are provided on a countywide basis, and each private or public entity determines which landfill or transfer station to use. Typically, this determination is made according to geographic proximity. The landfills typically used by the City of Lake Elsinore are the El Sobrante, Badlands, and Lamb Canyon Landfills. Chapter 3.0 3-69 The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 70,000 tons of refuse per 7-day week, with a daily tonnage that shall not exceed 16,054 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which up to 5,000 tpd is reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 184 million tons, or 209.91 million cubic yards. As of end of 2010, the landfill had a remaining in-county disposal capacity of approximately 44.313 million tons. The landfill is expected to reach capacity by approximately 2045. The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue, which is accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tpd; it had an overall remaining disposal capacity of approximately 8,987,467 tons at the end of 2010. The Badlands Landfill is projected to reach capacity in approximately 2024. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and the City of San Jacinto. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 5,000 tpd; it had a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 6,647,603 tons at the end of 2010. The current remaining disposal capacity is estimated to last until approximately 2021. Landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site. As mandated by the State of California, 50% of Lake Elsinore’s trash had to be recycled by December 31, 2005. Due to the extensive amount of new homebuilding in the area leading to excessive construction waste, the City of Lake Elsinore has been granted an extension to comply with the law. 3.8.12 Trash and Recycling Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 15 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. Policies 15.1 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. 15.2 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. Implementation Program Through the project review and CEQA processes, the City shall condition projects to provide adequate disposal of solid waste generated by the project. Chapter 3.0 3-70 Implementation Program Through the franchise renewal process, the City shall request cooperation in meeting recycling and source reduction goals. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.8.13 Telecommunications Baseline Verizon provides the local “land line” telephone service, although long distance services may also be obtained from a number of other providers. In addition, a number of companies provide wireless or cell phone services. Comcast of Los Angeles provides cable television and high-speed Internet. Many newer subdivisions are fully wired for telecommuting purposes. 3.8.14 Telecommunications Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 16 Encourage the pursuit of state of the art Information Technology. Policies 16.1 Encourage the use of information technology as a communication tool to improve personal convenience, reduce dependency on nonrenewable resources, take advantage of ecological and financial efficiencies of new technologies. 16.2 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. Implementation Program The City shall consider opportunities to utilize state-of-the-art information technology Agency/Department City Manager 3.9 Environmental Justice Element 3.9.1 Introduction The State of California defines Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (California Government Code §65040.12.e). “The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” Chapter 3.0 3-71 In 2016, the State of California passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) amended Government Code Section 65302 to require that both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities incorporate environmental justice policies into their general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently. The purpose of the legislation is to address the “unique or compounded health risks” in disadvantaged communities by decreasing pollution exposure, increasing community assets, and improving overall health. 3.9.2 Background Environmental Justice According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the “principles of environmental justice call for fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community’s natural surroundings, and the places people live, work, play and learn.” CalEPA points out that California was one of the first states in the nation to codify environmental justice in statute. Beyond the fair treatment called for in code, leaders in the environmental justice movement work to include those individuals disproportionately impacted by pollution in decision-making processes. The aim is to lift the unfair burden of pollution from those most vulnerable to its effects. Disadvantaged Communities Section 39711(a) of the California Health and Safety Code requires the CalEPA to identify disadvantaged communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health ,and environmental hazard criteria, and may include, but are not limited to, either of the following: (1) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (2) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. “Disadvantaged communities” means an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. Chapter 3.0 3-72 The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), is a science-based tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (“OEHHA”) on behalf of CalEPA to help identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and vulnerabilities. The latest version of CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroscreen 4.0) uses existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank all census tracts in California based on 21 different indicators. The indicators are organized across four component categories: pollution exposure, environmental effects, sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors, which are then used to generate the CalEnviroScreen score. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. A summary of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators and how they relate to environmental justice is outlined in Table 3-7. CalEPA designated the top 25 percent of highest scoring census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 as “disadvantaged communities”. OEHHA periodically provides new updates to the model that further improve the science behind the model and can contain new and/or refined environmental justice indicators. The combined CalEnviroScreen map for the City of Lake Elsinore is shown in Figure 3-15. CalEnviroScreen identifies several census tracts in the City of Lake Elsinore in the top 25% of census tracts in California with the highest pollution burden and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore range in from 10.69 to 82.54. Figure 3-16 illustrates the census tracts completely or partially in Lake Elsinore that had a CalEnviroScreen score of 75% or above in 2021 and thus are considered disadvantaged by the state. Chapter 3.0 3-73 Table 3-7, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Environmental Justice Factors (Indicators) Category Indicator Pollution Burden Exposures 1. Ozone Concentrations 2. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentrations 3. Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions) 4. Pesticide Use 5. Drinking Water Contaminants 6. Children’s Lead Risk from Housing 7. Toxic Releases from Facilities 8. Traffic Density Environmental Effects 1. Cleanup Sites 2. Groundwater Threats 3. Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities 4. Impaired Water Bodies 5. Solid Waste Sites and Facilities Population Characteristics Sensitive Populations 1. Asthma Emergency Room (ER) Visits 2. Cardiovascular Disease (ER Visits for Heart Attacks) 3. Low Birth-Weight Infants Socioeconomic Factors 1. Educational Attainment 2. Housing Burdened Low-Income Households 3. Linguistic Isolation 4. Poverty 5. Unemployment Sources: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 464.01 419.11 420.07 429.02 430.08 427.15 430.01 427.31429.01 432.79 430.07 427.33 430.05 464.04 427.43 464.02 432.74 432.78 427.32 432.76 464.03 430.06 427.17 427.09 427.11 427.42 464.05 430.09 432.72 427.28 427.16 427.30 432.70 432.27 427.14 427.08 430.10 504 427.29 427.41 427.40 432.71 430.03 419.10 429.03 506 432.29 503 419.10 I -15I-215SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHWAY 74 ETHANAC RDEL TORO RD LAKESHO R E D R HAUN RDP A L O M A R S TLINDELL RDMAPES RD S M A I N D I V I D E R D SHERMAN RDT E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D BUNDY CANYON RDMISS ION TRLGOETZ RDA STCLINTON KEITH RDGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T GARBANI RD G R A N D A V E WICKERD RD NEW P O R T R D C A S E R D CRAIG AVEENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STSCOTT RD RIVERS I D E D RLAKE STC E R E A L S T MCCALL BLVD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLIN T S T EVANS RDWILDOMAR TRL SUN CITY BLVD C A N Y O N H I L L S R D MILL ST DAILY RDHOLLAND RDNICHOLS RD ROUSE RDMARIE STORANGE ST RIVERSIDE ST SPRING STMAURICIO ST AMOROSE ST HILLS I D E D R CORYDON STV A L L E Y B L VD OLIVE AVE WALNUT ST SOPHIE STCOLT DRPOTOMAC D R MC BOB RDTOFT DR CARMEL RD BYERS STTH E F A R M R D VISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE A C A C I A D R L ASH A VE RY A N A V E J O Y A V E THIRD STSUM N E R A V E10TH STMC PHERSO N R D CHA N EY ST BARNETT RDSTONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST PHILLIPS STBRYANT STZEIDERS RDSUNSET AVENANCY LNHOWARD RDL A G U N A A V E WATSON RD NUTMEG STMELVIN STTRUMBLE RDMAITRI RDS U M A C R D DEBON STH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRADELFA STJARVIS STMOUNTAIN AVE CONEJO DRHILLTOP DRSKYLARK DRRED GUM DRDIANA LNGAF F O R D R DREAD STVINE ST CARL ST LAKE DR SUSAN DRLA BERTHA LN ENDERLEIN STLESSER LN RIDGE R D PINE AVELITTLE VALLEY RD TALLY RDVICTOR S T PER R Y R D RIVER RD MONUMENT PKWY CATT RD EVANDEL RD C AM I NO D E L N O R T E GEARY STCRILLY RDGATEW A Y D R CROSS HILL DRI-15 S B O N M O U N T A I N R D WILD LILAC RDVIA SCEN ICA LYNX RDTUPELO RD SOTELO RD AVIDA DRCALLE GRANDELUCERNE STWRIGHT RD BIG TEE DR ALPINE DR MERMACK AVE ULMER S T ONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RDBILLINGS LNPENCIN RDST CLAIR AVE DEL C A L N HEIM STSHORELINE DRSAN JACINTO RD DAVID LNRIM CREEK PATH BLANCHE DRPILE STLOVE LNLUCE CTWILD VIEW R D 1ST STCERVERA RDCODY RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY R D ALBA STG R A N D A V E EVANS RDI- 1 5 WATSON RD I-215GOETZ RDLAKE STSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside Figure 3.15 City of Lake Elsinore CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map (2021)´021Miles LEGEND City Boundary Sphere of Influence Census Tracts C alEnvironScreen 4.0 Results 91 - 100% (highest scores) 81 - 90% 71 - 80% 61 - 70% 51 - 60% 41 - 50% 31 - 40% 21 - 30% 11 - 20% 1 - 10% (lowest scores) This map is for informational purposes only. The CalEnviroScreen scores shown on this figure are based upon CalEnvrioScreen 4.0 as of October 20, 2021. Future updates of this screening tool may yield different results. Always refer to the most current version of CalEnviroScreen available from California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Census Tract 420.07 Census Tract 429.02 Census Tract 430.05 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 429.01 I- 1 5 I-215SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHWAY 74 ETHANAC RD ANTELOPE RDEL TORO RD LAKESHO R E D R HAUN RDNEWPORT RDLINDELL RDMAPES RD P A L O M A R S T SHERMAN RDS M A I N D I V I D E R D T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D A STBUNDY CANYON RD GOETZ RDMISS ION TRL GARBANI RD WICKERD RDGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E SCOTT RD C A S E R D MCCALL BLVD CRAIG AVEENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STLAKE STC E R E A L S T HOLLAND RD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLIN T S T EVANS RDWILDOMAR TRLMARIE STSUN CITY BLVD C A N Y O N H I L L S R DSPRING STMILL ST DAILY RDNICHOLS RD ROUSE RD ORANGE STRIVERSIDE ST POE STMAURICIO ST SOPHIE STAMOROSE ST HILLS I D E D R CORYDON STV A L L E Y B L VD OLIVE AVE COLT DRPOTOMAC D R MC BOB RDTOFT DR 11TH STPALM AVECARMEL RD BYERS STSYLVEST E R S T THE FARM RDVISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE GRE E R R D CANYON LAK E D R N LASH AVE J O Y A V E THIRD STASH ST10TH STMC PHERSO N R D COL L I ER AVEBARNETT RDSTONEMAN STLONGHORN DRCLINTON K E I T H R D WAITE ST PHILLIPS STBRYANT STWHEAT STZEIDERS RDS U M A C R D LA ESTRELLA ST SUNSET AVENANCY LNHOWARD RDDAWSON RDWATSON RD MACY STTHEDA STMELVIN STTRUMBLE RDMAITRI RDHILLTOP DRDEBON STH A Y S A V E REISS RDDIAMOND DRLAZY CREEK RD LA PIEDRA RD ADELFA STJARVIS STLA LADERA RDTATE RD SCENIC VIEW DRCON E J O D R SKYLARK DRHEA L D A V E COX RDJAN AVEDIANA LNGAF F O R D R DREAD STVINE ST FRANKLIN ST SHRIE R D R FIR ST STEELE PEAK DR LAKE DR KURT ST2ND STD U N N S T LA BERTHA LN LESSER LN LITTLE VALLEY RD VICTOR S T CON TI N E N T A L D R LINE STPER R Y R D RIVER RDPEACH STCATT RD SAN JACINTO RDNORMA DR CALDERA ST EVANDEL RDGEARY STASPEL RDLA STRADACRILLY RDBEREA RDEL NIGUEL RDGATEW A Y D R ALMOND STVIA SA RA H I-15 S B O N M O U N T A I N R D WILD LILAC RDCAN Y O N D R LYNX RDVIA GARDA TUPELO RD CHERRY STSOTELO RD SHADEL RD I -15 NBOFF EMPIRE LN PI E D M O N T D R LUCERNE STWRIGHT RD BIG TEE DR ALPINE DR PLAZA AVI L A MERMACK AVE WANKI AVEWHITE STULMER S T RALPH RDI-215 SBONONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RD OAK M O N T D RBILLINGS LNPENCIN RDREFA STI-215 SBOFFU L L A L N HEIM STSHORELINE DRHIXON STALMA ST BLANCHE DRSTAGELINE ST PILE STLOVE LN NAPA STWALT RDTRADE WINDS DREU R E K A S TLUCE CTWILD VIEW R D 4TH STJAMIESON STTOOKER STLINNEL LN LEOS T R L CODY RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY R D PONTE RUSSOALBA STWOODLAKE STGIFHORN CTS H - 7 4 EVANS RDI-215 SBOFFTHEDA STS H - 7 4 I-215I -15BYERS RDGOETZ RDMAPES RD LAKE STG R A N D A V E Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside Figure 3.16 City of Lake Elsinore SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022)´021Miles LEGEND City Boundary Sphere of Influence Census Tracts SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities This map is for informational purposes only. The SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities shown on this figure are those identified by CalEPA in May 2022. The boundaries of Disadvantaged Communities may change with future updates of CalEnviroScreen. Always refer to the most current designation of Disadvantaged Communities by CalEPA. Chapter 3.0 3-78 3.9.3 Environmental Justice Issues in the City of Lake Elsinore As discussed above in Section 3.9.2, the burden of pollution is not equally shared. Minority and low-income populations often face a greater exposure to pollution and may also experience a greater response to pollution. This section discusses the major factors related to environmental justice as they apply to the City of Lake Elsinore. Population Characteristics (Demographics) Certain population characteristics (demographics) can make an area more vulnerable to the negative effects of pollution. Within the City of Lake Elsinore, some of the population characteristics related to environmental justice include the following. Ethnicity/Race In 2018, the City of Lake Elsinore had a population of 63,365, representing 2.6% of the total population of Riverside County. The City is a majority-minority area, meaning that one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities make up a majority of the population. In 2018, Hispanic and Latino residents made up 52.1% of the population and Black residents made up 4.5% of the population. Between 2000 and 2018, the City’s share of Hispanic and Latino residents increased from 38.0% to 52.1%, while the share of Black residents decreased from 5.2% to 4.5%. Figure 3-17 below illustrates the racial and ethnic breakdown of the City in 2018. Figure 3-17, City of Lake Elsinore Race/Ethnicity, 2018 Source: SCAG, Profile of the City of Lake Elsinore, 2019 47.8 31.3 8.3 6.7 1.4 0.6 0.1 3.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hispanic or Latino of Any Race Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Asian Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Other Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Two or more races alone, Not Hispanic or Latino Chapter 3.0 3-79 Linguistic Isolation Linguistic isolation refers to people and households who do not speak English at home and/or do not speak English very well. Linguistically isolated residents may have difficulty accessing daily activities, social services, and health care. As such, they may not get the care and services they need, which may result in poorer health outcomes. In addition, linguistically isolated households may not hear or understand emergency announcements and thus may suffer negative consequences as a result. According to the American Community Survey (2019), 12.4% of Lake Elsinore residents over age 5 speak English less than very well and are considered linguistically isolated. Income/Poverty Levels Income levels are an important socioeconomic factor related to environmental justice, because poor communities are more likely to be exposed to pollution. In addition, poor communities tend to be more susceptible to environmental pollution and suffer from greater health effects. In 2019, the median household income in the City of Lake Elsinore was $77,090, which was above the median household income of Riverside County of $73,260. However, 10% of households fell below the poverty level in 2019 (American Community Survey). The poverty level is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau and varies based on household size. For a family of four on an annual basis, the 2019 federal poverty level was $ $25,750. Unemployment Rates of unemployment also contribute to whether a community is disadvantaged in terms of environmental justice. According to OEHHA, adults without jobs may lack health care and insurance, and poor health can make it harder to find a job and stay employed. In addition, poor health can be a source of financial and emotional stress, which in turn can cause or worsen health conditions. On January 1, 2020, the unemployment rate in the City of Lake Elsinore was 4.3%, though by September 2020, it had increased to 10.8%. As of September 1, 2021, the City’s unemployment had dropped to 6.7% (California Employment Development Department). Educational Attainment Educational attainment measures the highest level of education that an individual has completed. For the purposes of environmental justice, people with more educational attainment tend to have better health, live longer, and live in areas that are less affected by air pollution and other environmental toxins (OEHHA). In the City of Lake Elsinore, 87.0% of the population 25 years of Chapter 3.0 3-80 age or older have a high school diploma or equivalent, and 23.0% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure 4 below provides a summary of educational attainment in the City of Lake Elsinore. Figure 3-18, Educational Attainment in Lake Elsinore (2019) Source: American Community Survey, 2019 Housing Burden According to the California Department of Finance, there were 63,453 total households in the City of Lake Elsinore on January 1, 2020. Housing burden relates to households severely burdened by housing costs and is one of the factors used to identify disadvantaged communities in the City of Lake Elsinore . Households experiencing severe housing burden include low-income households earning less than or equal to 80% of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Area Median Family Income by county and also paying greater than 50 percent their household income on housing and utilities (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). Spending a greater amount on housing means that these households have fewer resources available for non-housing goods and may suffer from “housing-induced poverty.” According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results, households within the individual census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore experience a severe housing burden that ranges from 8.7 to 29.0 percent, which represents 9.2% to 88.9% percentile statewide. 8.9% 4.1% 31.2% 25.2% 7.6% 17.7% 5.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 9th Grade 9th to 12 grade, no diploma High School graduation or equivalent Some college, no degree Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Chapter 3.0 3-81 Sensitive Populations The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Sensitive Population Indicators include rates of asthma, heart disease, and low birth weight infants. Asthma increases an individual’s sensitivity to pollutants. Air pollutants, including particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and diesel exhaust, can trigger symptoms among asthmatics, and people with asthma have increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases such as pneumonia and influenza. Similarly, people with heart disease may be particularly sensitive to pollution, which may worsen cardiovascular conditions. Finally, low birth weight infants are those who weigh 5.5 pounds or less at birth. These children are at risk of increased risk of later health problems as well as infant mortality. Studies also suggest links with environmental exposures to lead, air pollution, toxic air contaminants, traffic pollution, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, low birth weight infants may be more susceptible to other health and developmental conditions later in life. Rates for asthma, heart disease, and low birth weight infants in the City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County are shown in Figure 3-19. Figure 3-19, Sensitive Populations in Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Notes: Obesity’ is defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or higher. ‘Physical Activity’ refers to walking a minimum of 150 minutes per week. Source: SCAG, Profile Report of the City of Lake Elsinore 2019 28.0% 32.2%33.2%31.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Obesity Physical Activity Obesity/Physical Activity Rates (18 Years & Older) Lake Elsinore Riverside County 13.9% 7.0% 4.7% 14.7% 11.9% 7.2% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Asthma Diabetes Heart Disease Chronic Disease Rate (18 Years & Older) Lake Elsinore Riverside County Chapter 3.0 3-82 Pollution Exposure Air Quality Poor air quality can contribute to serious health problems including respiratory issues, worsening of asthma and cardiovascular disease, hospitalization and even premature death. Disadvantaged communities can be disproportionately exposed to air pollution due to the prevalence of pollution-emitting sources, which range from heavy industries to major roadways, and are also more likely to have underlying medical conditions that may be worsened by pollution. Noise The chief source of ambient noise in the City of Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence is vehicular traffic. Two major roadways, I-15 and SR-74, traverse the area, creating the greatest source of concentrated vehicular noise. Other major roadways within the City that produce traffic noise include Riverside Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Grand Avenue, and Railroad Canyon Road. Other sources of noise include Skylark Airport, industrial and manufacturing facilities, recreational boating and personal watercraft on Lake Elsinore, the Motocross Park, Diamond Stadium, and construction activities. Many homes in the City of Lake Elsinore are located in close proximity to I-15, SR-74, other major roadways and other noise sources, that fall within these limits and may be affected by high noise levels. Other Sources of Pollution Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the individual census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore have relatively low (good) percentile scores related to Pesticide Use, Clean- up Sites, Groundwater Threats, Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities, Impaired Water Bodies, Solid Waste Sites and Facilities and Toxic Release from Facilities. This means that these pollutants are not a major source of concern in the City of Lake Elsinore. However, the City has an average Drinking Water Contaminants percentile of 51.2, which means that it scores higher for the level of drinking water contaminants than 51.2% of other areas throughout California. The drinking water contaminant index is a combination of contaminant data that takes into account the relative concentrations of different contaminants and whether multiple contaminants are present. The indicator does not indicate whether water is safe to drink. The indicator results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to human health. Census tracts can encompass multiple public drinking water systems, and therefore, their scores may represent a combination of water contaminant data from several public drinking water systems and groundwater sources. As such, the drinking water contaminant score may not reflect the water that an individual resident of that census tract is Chapter 3.0 3-83 drinking. 3.9.4 Environmental Justice Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs The Environmental Justice goals, policies and implementation programs address the following topics: Public Engagement: The involvement of the public in decisions that affect their environment and quality of life is critical to any discussion of environmental justice. Residents and other stakeholders need to be aware of actions undertaken in a City that may have a lasting effect on them. The City of Lake Elsinore is committed to ensuring that all persons have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their environment, have their concerns considered in the process, and have the ability to influence decision-making. Pollution Exposure: The key to quality of life is the ability to live in a healthful environment with clean air, potable water, nutritious food, and a safe place to live. However, the urban environment often brings environmental risks that can adversely affect our health. Environmental pollution has a major effect on the healthfulness of a community. Exposure to pollution occurs when people come into contact with contaminated air, food, water and soil, as well as incompatible noise levels. While it is important to reduce pollution in the environment for all residents, disadvantaged populations have traditionally borne a greater pollution burden than other communities. Likewise, sensitive populations within and around disadvantaged communities are more vulnerable to the effect of pollution than other populations. Other issues identified included air pollution caused by motor vehicles, dust emissions from construction sites, a proliferation of trash in the neighborhoods, and light pollution from digital signs. The City seeks to reduce the pollution burden faced by disadvantaged population and all sectors of the community Mobility and Physical Activity: Mobility is a critical issue in bringing equity to disadvantaged persons and communities. These communities often lack access to needed resources, such as schools, health clinics, and healthy food outlets. Disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on public transportation than their more affluent neighbors are, but are often located in areas with limited transit service. Increased mobility options will provide critical links and opportunities for active living. Opportunities for physical activity are critical for bringing equity to disadvantaged communities. The built environment plays a large role in determining whether communities have opportunities for physical activity, which in turn have an extremely large impact on health. People can develop a range of health issues without places to walk, play, and exercise, and disadvantaged communities can be impacted by fewer public investments in such facilities and infrastructure. This means there are often less opportunities for formal and informal Chapter 3.0 3-84 recreation. A high level of physical activity in a community is directly related to the built environment through having places that encourage walking, biking and other forms of exercise such as parks, trails, open space, urban green spaces, and active transportation networks. Access to Healthy Food: To ensure the health and well-being of a community, it is essential that all community members have access to healthy food. This means having proximity and ability to travel to a food source that offers affordable, nutritionally adequate, and culturally appropriate food. Ensuring adequate food access is challenging in many communities in California. Low- income areas often lack supermarkets with a large selection of healthy foods. As a result, many residents in California do not have access to nutritional foods, which in turn exacerbates public health challenges. Safe and Sanitary Homes: A major emphasis of environmental justice is ensuring that people have a healthy home environment. According to the National Human Activity Pattern Survey, Americans spend 70% of the time in their homes. Low-income and minority populations are disproportionately affected by home health hazards, as their limited incomes reduce housing choices and their options for maintenance and repairs. Housing-related environmental hazards include exposure to indoor air pollution, lead-based paint, asbestos, mold, and mildew. These toxins can cause developmental delays, asthma, allergies, and other health risks. Ensuring that all residents have access to healthy homes is an important way to achieve environmental justice. Public Facilities: State law defines “public facilities” as public improvements, services and community amenities that benefit the community. They include facilities such as streets and roads, government buildings, schools, and public open space. Public improvements and programs also benefit the community and include amenities such as new development projects, recreation programs, and streetscape improvements. Public facilities are often directed to more affluent areas of the community where residents typically have a greater say in decisions that affect their environment. Disadvantaged communities have traditionally had fewer public investments in their neighborhoods, and also less access to public decision makers who decide where new facilities are placed. Public Engagement Goal 17 Encourage meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community. Policies 17.1 Encourage collaboration between the City, community, and community-based organizations, as well as local stakeholders, and environmental justice focus groups in promoting environmental justice. Chapter 3.0 3-85 17.2 Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process. 17.3 Initiate outreach efforts as early as possible in the decision-making process. 17.4 Ensure that affected residents have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their health. 17.5 Seek feedback on public decisions through traditional and online forms of communication, such as website, email, mobile phone apps, online forums, and podcasts. 17.6 Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. 17.7 Offer interpretation services at key meetings and workshops on issues affecting the environment 17.8 Utilize multilingual staff personnel to assist in evacuation and short-term recovery activities and meeting general community needs. Pollution Exposure GOAL 18 Minimize the exposure of residents to pollution in the environment through sound planning and public decision-making. Policies 18.1 Ensure that zoning and other development regulations require adequate buffering between residential and industrial land uses. 18.2 Encourage new development to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce pollutant emissions. 18.3 Promote reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging expanded multi-modal facilities, linkages between such facilities, and services that provide transportation alternatives, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. 18.4 Place adequate conditions on large construction projects to ensure they do not create noise, dust or other impacts on the community to the extent feasible. Chapter 3.0 3-86 18.5 Require proposals for new sensitive land uses to incorporate setbacks, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures to minimize exposure to unhealthful air and other toxins. 18.6 New specific plans or existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities,” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies similarly to this section. 18.7 Promote new development that emphasizes job creation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled in job-poor areas and does not otherwise contribute to onsite emissions in order to improve air quality. 18.8 Periodically review the City’s truck routes to ensure they adequately direct trucks away from residential areas and other areas with sensitive receptors. 18.9 Ensure that truck-dependent commercial and industrial uses incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. 18.10 Require the conversion of mining operations into uses that are compatible with surrounding areas in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. 18.11 Require new commercial and industrial development to incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. 18.12 Support traffic and highway techniques and technologies that reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic through traffic calming, noise barriers, pavement design, and other measures. 18.13 Encourage public and private development to incorporate green building techniques, such as construction waste management practices, optimization of energy efficiency measures, and avoidance of toxic chemicals. 16.14 Monitor and maintain City facilities and the City’s vehicle fleet to maximize energy efficiency and reduce emissions. Other Related General Plan Policies Air Quality Policy 2.1 Support the SCAQMD in its development of improved ambient air quality monitoring capabilities and establishment of standards, thresholds, and rules to address, Chapter 3.0 3-87 and where necessary mitigate, the air quality impacts of new development. Air Quality Policy 2.2 Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions. Air Quality Policy 2.3 Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles. Air Quality Implementation Program The City shall coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding effective methods for improving local air quality. Growth Management Policy 7.1 Encourage mixed-use developments to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems. Land Use Policy 3.2 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. Noise Policy 8.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-5) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3-6) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City. Noise Policy 8.3 Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the I-15. Noise Policy 8.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3.12, Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City. Noise Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes, the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with noise standards and compatibility criteria where appropriate. Alberhill District Policy AH1.1 Continue to encourage proper reclamation and enhancement of areas impacted by extractive/mining activities for the public’s health, safety and welfare. Alberhill District Policy 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. Chapter 3.0 3-88 Alberhill District Policy AH1.5 Encourage new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining operations to provide an adequate buffer with a buffer distance from mining operations based on an evaluation of: noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions and operating hours, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic and air quality. Mobility and Physical Activity GOAL 19: Develop increased mobility and accessibility for all residents. Policies 19.1 Support walking and bicycling by encouraging the development of complete streets that provide safe mobility for all users (e.g. bike lanes, traffic-calming measures, sidewalks separated from the roadway with tree planted landscaping), where feasible in the right-of- way. 19.2 Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open space through infrastructure investments and improvements. 19.3 Create land use patterns and public amenities that encourage people to walk, bicycle and use public transit. 19.4 Encourage transit agencies to establish and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks, and healthcare facilities that are convenient to low-income and minority populations. 19.5 Encourage new specific plans, existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision, and development projects be designed to promote pedestrian movement through direct, safe, and pleasant routes that connect destinations inside and outside the plan or project area. 19.6 Work with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to ensure that all schools have safe and walkable routes to school. 19.7 Ensure that emergency preparedness and disaster response programs, including evacuation routes, serve all parts of the City. Other Related General Plan Policies Circulation Policy 6.4 Maintain the system of bike lanes and multi use trails throughout the City. Encourage the implementation of the network of Class I, II, and III bike lanes on all Chapter 3.0 3-89 development projects through construction of the facility as described in the Bike Lane Master Plan and/or the Trails Master Plan. Circulation Implementation Program Through the development review and CEQA processes the City shall ensure the efficiency and safety of roadways, implement the Bike Lane Master Plan and Trails Master Plan, and consider innovative on-site circulation to minimize conflicts with the roadway network. Land Use Policy 1.7 Encourage the use of paseos, green belts, linear parks, and trails within future developments. Land Use Policy 2.5 Encourage a pedestrian circulation route around the lake to improve public access to this amenity. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.3 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. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.6 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities within residential and mixed-use developments. Park and Recreation Policy 8.7 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. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and distribution. Parks and Recreation Policy 9.1 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. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall implement strategies for the Trails Master Plan when feasible. Schools Policy 11.2 Continue cooperation between school districts and the City to provide joint use of recreational facilities. Chapter 3.0 3-90 Alberhill District Policy AH 4.5 Encourage the use of traffic-calming measures within commercial and institutional developments along Lake Street when recommended by traffic studies. Business District Policy BD 4.6 Encourage the creation of an environmentally sensitive and accessible pedestrian/bicycle trail along the Channel Walk project. Business District Policy BD 5.2 Encourage expanded open space areas, bike lanes, and sidewalks along major corridors within the Business District. Historic District Policy HD 5.1 Consider pedestrian linkages between the Channel Walk project and the nearby Historic District, commercial businesses, recreational facilities, major corridors, the Lake Edge Parkway, and the lake. North Central Sphere District Policy NCS 3.1 Encourage the creation of pedestrian/hiking trails between the central and southern areas of the North Central Sphere District to open space areas to the north. North Central Sphere District Policy NCS 4.1 Through the project and CEQA processes develop a pedestrian/hiking trail system that connects existing and future residential communities. Open space areas within the North Central Sphere District and surrounding areas shall include trail signs, maps, and information about the vegetation of the surrounding areas. Access to Healthy Food GOAL 20: Encourage the provision of healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food that is readily available to all members of the community. Policies 20.1 Encourage the development of healthy food establishments in areas with a high concentration of fast food establishments, convenience stores, and liquor stores. 20.2 Establish regulations that allow farmers’ markets to operate in the City, where appropriate. 20.3 Encourage and simplify the process of developing community gardens within or adjacent to neighborhoods and housing development sites. 20.4 Promote city-wide messaging about healthy eating habits and food choices through the Chapter 3.0 3-91 Healthy LE program. 20.5 Assist transit providers in the review of their transit routes to provide service to grocery stores, markets, and healthy restaurants that provide healthy food options. 20.6 Promote community gardens for suitable public and private land as well as an amenity in required open space areas of new multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects. 20.7 Educate the public on how to grow and maintain a private or community edible garden. Implementation Program Review and as required amend the Zoning Code to facilitate the access to healthy food by the City’s residents. Other Environmental Justice-Related General Plan Policies Land Use Policy 1.3 Encourage the development of sit-down restaurant establishments where appropriate and discourage the proliferation of drive-through fast food establishments. Safe and Sanitary Homes GOAL 21: Create healthy and affordable housing opportunities for all segments of the community. Policies 21.1 Promote development that includes both affordable and market rate housing. 21.2 Provide ongoing infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods through the capital improvement program. 21.3 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. 21.4 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. 21.5 Ensure that proposed new affordable housing projects meet the same standards of health and safety as conventional market rate housing. Chapter 3.0 3-92 21. 6 In addition to the requirements of the Building Code, encourage the use of green, healthy building materials that are toxin free in residential construction. Other Related General Plan Policies Housing Element Policy 1.2 Facilitate the removal or rehabilitation of housing units that pose serious health and safety hazards to residents and adjacent structures. Housing Element Policy 1.3 Continue programs directed at preserving the physical quality of housing and neighborhood environments and maintaining compliance with established standards Housing Element Policy 3.2 Promote a balance of housing types, including mixed-use development, to meet the needs of the community. Housing Element Policy 4.1 Periodically review residential development standards and regulations, ordinances, processing procedures, and residential fees to identify and mitigate constraints that may impede the development, improvement, and conservation of housing. Housing Element Policy 5.1 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Public Facilities GOAL 22: Provide adequate and equitably distributed public facilities throughout the community. Policies 22.1 Plan for the future public improvement and service needs of underserved communities. 22.2 Provide a park system that provides all residents with access to parks, community centers, sports fields, trails and other amenities. 22.3 Review the location and extent of community recreational facilities to ensure maximum use by children and adults and use that information to develop new recreational facilities and opportunities for the community, including indoor and outdoor facilities. 22.4 Provide for the equitable distribution of public facilities and services, and where feasible, prioritize new facilities in underserved areas. Chapter 3.0 3-93 22.5 Require that new development pay its fair share of public facilities and service costs, through the payment of all applicable development impact and Community Facilities District (CFD) fees. 22.6 Ensure that new public facilities are well designed, energy efficient and compatible with adjacent land uses. Other Related General Plan Policies Parks and Recreation Policy 8.3 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. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.6 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities within residential and mixed-use developments. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and distribution. Chapter 3.0 3-1 3.0 Public Safety and Welfare 3.1 Summary The safety and welfare of a community and its residents are vital to its growth and quality of life. This chapter of the General Plan addresses public safety and welfare issues, including: air quality, fire and police/law enforcement, community facilities and services, hazards, and noise within the City and the Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City recognizes the importance of addressing seismic hazards and reduces their negative effects by adhering to or enforcing state design standards. The focus is on maintaining a healthy and safe physical environment and ensuring community welfare through access to effective and efficient high-quality public services. 3.2 Air Quality 3.2.1 Introduction The major factors affecting local air pollution conditions in the Lake Elsinore planning area are the extent and types of both region-wide and local emissions, climate, topography, and meteorology. The combination of regional temperature inversions (the warm air mass that descends over the cool marine layer, thus preventing pollution from dispersing upward and creating smog), the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone (a boundary created by coastal winds that allows for the accumulation of air pollutants within the Lake Elsinore area), and the contribution of any air pollutants from sources within the Lake Elsinore planning area has the potential to significantly contribute to cumulative air quality conditions. Existing air quality conditions in Lake Elsinore can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. The pollutants of greatest concern in the Lake Elsinore area are carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Air quality in the area does not meet state and federal health standards for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for monitoring air quality and preparing attainment plans aimed at achieving state and federal air pollution standards. While emission control measures and alternative fuel vehicle purchasing requirements for public agencies and certain private entities have been implemented by the SCAQMD, increased development and segregated land use patterns that require motor vehicle trips threaten to offset these gains. Chapter 3.0 3-2 Air quality is a regional issue and Lake Elsinore has a role in improving the region’s air quality. The goals and policies in this section are designed to improve regional air quality. 3.2.2 Air Quality Baselines Climate and Meteorology Regional - Western Riverside County Temperature inversions are the prime factor in the accumulation of contaminants in the Basin. The mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring. Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known as smog. Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other areas of the nation. Local - Lake Elsinore Planning Area The major factors affecting local air pollution conditions in the Lake Elsinore planning area are the extent and types of both region-wide and local emissions, climate, and meteorology. The general climate of Lake Elsinore is characterized by sparse winter rainfall and hot summers tempered by cool ocean breezes. The climate in and around Lake Elsinore, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high- pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Most of the area’s precipitation occurs intermittently between November and April; the area is still dominated by sunny or partly sunny conditions during these months. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the region’s mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Just south of Lake Elsinore, the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone acts as an invisible boundary that obstructs much of the inland basin air pollutants from continuing south beyond the Lake Elsinore area. Coastal winds within the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone are a primary factor for the obstruction. They allow air pollutants to be dispersed just south of the convergence zone and Chapter 3.0 3-3 accumulate within the Lake Elsinore area, including surrounding communities to the north and east. Air Quality Regional - South Coast Air Basin, including Western Riverside County As California’s largest metropolitan region, the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB) contains some of the highest air pollutant concentrations statewide. The SCAB includes the western portion of Riverside County, including Lake Elsinore. On-road motor vehicles in the SCAB are the largest contributors to CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions; other on-road and off-road mobile emission sources are also significant contributors to CO and NOX emissions. Area-wide and stationary sources contribute to the remainder of air pollutant emissions within the SCAB. While high growth rates are often associated with corresponding increases in emissions and pollutant concentrations, aggressive emission control programs in the SCAB have resulted in emission decreases and a continuing improvement in air quality. SCAQMD operates a network of thirty monitoring stations throughout the SCAB to effectively monitor twenty-seven source receptor areas (SRA) of the expansive region. The SCAB relies on one or more monitoring stations to document local air pollutant concentration levels within each SRA. Concentration levels vary widely at each SRA depending on location and time of year. The highest levels of ozone and particulate matter recorded in SRAs in the interior valleys generally occur during warm, stable periods in summer and autumn. Recorded CO concentrations are highest near heavy traffic on freeways or near large business districts. 3.2.3 Air Quality Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs Goal 1 Continue to coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and the City’s Building Department to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is emitted into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites. Policy 1.1 Continue to implement requirements identified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Distant View of Smog Obscuring Scenery Chapter 3.0 3-4 Implementation Program The City shall continue to condition projects to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations. Agency/Department: Engineering, Building and Community Development Departments Goal 2 Work with regional and state governments to develop effective mitigation measures to improve air quality. Policies 2.1 Support the SCAQMD in its 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. 2.2 Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions. 2.3 Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles. Implementation Program The City shall coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding effective methods for improving local air quality. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The City of Lake Elsinore has some businesses and activities that involve the transport, storage, or use of toxic or hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are defined as those that pose a potential threat to human health, having the capacity to cause serious illness or death. The term “hazardous materials” includes radioactive waste and explosives as well as substances such as gasoline, pesticides, and household cleaning products. While the use of hazardous materials is carefully regulated, the City seeks to reduce the potential for injury or damage in the event of accidents or spills. There are currently no active enforcement actions or violations relating to hazardous materials in the City. The goals and policies in this section are intended to ensure that the Hazardous Materials Chapter 3.0 3-5 appropriate agencies are adequately prepared to deal with a hazardous material emergency and that citizens are protected as much as possible from potential hazards. 3.3.1 Hazardous Sites There are large numbers of businesses and other entities within the City and the SOI that generate, transport, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Action (RCRA). Since almost all fuels, lubricants, solvents, and paints are considered hazardous materials under RCRA, businesses and institutions that use substantial quantities of such materials are required to adhere to very strict requirements in handling, transporting, and storing hazardous materials. There is a wide range and variety of entities that deal with hazardous materials in the course of their activities. As indicated above, these include but are not limited to: x Automobile repair facilities x Gas stations x Automobile service facilities x Construction firms x Manufacturing firms x Painting contractors and paint suppliers x Dry cleaning firms x Schools x Hospitals and medical facilities x Trucking firms. The City of Lake Elsinore Fire Department provides oversight of hazardous materials and regulates permits for the handling, storage, and use of any explosive or other hazardous material. These permits note the location of the user as well as the type of material used. This enables the City to be aware of locations where such uses occur and thus note areas where high concentrations of such uses occur, such as in industrial and manufacturing areas. Hazardous materials also occur in individual locations such as gas stations and dry cleaners. 3.3.2 Santa Ana Regional InterceptorInland Empire Brine Line (SARI) The Inland Empire Brine Line, previously referred to as The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) line is a regional brine linepipeline constructed to protect the Santa Ana River wWatershed from desalter concentrate and various saline wastes. It extends into the City of Lake Elsinore as shown on Figure 3-1. The SARI Brine lLine collects up to 30 million gallons per day (MGD) of Chapter 3.0 3-6 non-reclaimable wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin; after treatment, it is discarded in the oceanremoves 500,000 pounds of salt per day from the watershed by transporting salty wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant operated by the Orange County Sanitation District. After treatment, the water is discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The purpose is to maintain the quality of water in the Santa Ana watershed by balancing the amount of salt in the basin. Increased salt in the watershed is caused mainly by industrial and agricultural uses and can affect all water users. Increased salinity in the water creates problems ranging from decreased effectiveness of laundry detergents to worn out plumbing fixtures and household appliances. It also affects the taste of the water. A brine line is necessary because industrial and commercial users are able to dispose only a limited amount of saline waste into wastewater plants due to the difficulty of removing salts and minerals from water. Users that produce a lot of saline waste can go through an application process to make a connection to the SARI lineBrine Line; the Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority (SAWPA) establishes connection fees and monthly rates for using the SARI line. Businesses that do not generate a substantial flow and are not close enough to make a direct connection can haul the waste by truck to a SARI truck collection station. SAWPA has permit fees and fees based upon volume for indirect connection users. 3.3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Goal, Policies and Implementation Programs Goal 3 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. Policies 3.1 Continue to require hazardous waste generators to implement a waste reduction program per the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan with necessary inspections per the Riverside County Hazardous Materials Handlers Program. 3.2 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. 3.3 Encourage the safe disposal of hazardous materials with County agencies to protect the City against a hazardous materials incident. 3.4 Continue operating household hazardous waste education and collection programs in collaboration with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 3.5 Evaluate new development on or adjacent to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) line Inland Empire Brine Line, requiring extensive subsurface components or containing Chapter 3.0 3-7 sensitive land uses such as schools on a project-by-project basis to determine impacts if an accident occurs. §¨¦15 I-15 EL TORO RDLINDELL RDTE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LA K E S H O R E D R HIGHWAY 74 LI N C O L N S T SH-74GRAND AVELAKE STFLINT S TRIVERSIDE DRNICHOLS RDMACHADO STAMOROSE S T POTT E R Y S TCOLT DRPOE STD E X T E R A V E TOFT DR 11TH STHAMMACK AVELA S H A V E R Y A N A V EMAITRI RDJO Y A V E THIRD STASH STSUM N E R A V E VISTA AVE10TH STCHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E MAIN STHILL TOP DR DE PAL M A R D M I N T H O R N S TSUMAC RDCAMPBELL RANCH RD HEA L D A V E RED GUM DRDIANA LNEL TORO CUTOFFRIVERSIDE ST FRANKLIN S T SHRIER DR 2ND STBROADWAY AVE REISS RDALVARADO ST WASSON CANYON RDC A M I N O D E L N O R T E WALKE R C A N Y O N R D A C A C I A D RPALM DRTERRA COTTA RDPLUM STCRILLY RDFOSTER S T GATEWA Y D R I- 1 5 S B O N MOUNTAIN RD VIA GARDAGLEN EDEN RDBROML E Y A V E ROSTRATA AVEI- 1 5 N BO F F BOSLEY LN BARE D RCOBBLE DRDOLBEER STVIA LAKISTASMERMACK AVE I-15 NB O N ILLINOIS STI-15 SBOFFTOWHEE LNBILLINGS LN8TH STST CLAIR AVE PATTERSON STPINNELL STPLUMAS STREID ST SUNBLAZE RDLOVE LN C O R A L C A N Y O N R DLUCE CTWASHINGTON AVE LADRILLO ST CRANE STTRELLIS LNALBA STPAPAYA CT SILVER STIRRUP DR AUDELO STLA K E C R E S T D R B A R K S C H A T D R NI C H O L A S R D CIELITO DRC H I P P E W A R D CENTRAL STPALM VIEWBUFFALO TRLREBA RD LA R S O N R D BIRCH STB A N K H A L L S T GRUNDER DR B E L L A V ELASSO WAYSTARINA STFIR CIR MAURICIO ST DEW DR WALNUT S T BAUM AVEPA R K V I E W D R LE H A R V E A V E MI M O S A D REAGLE RUN STGUNDER AVEWHEATSTONE DRSTARVIE W S T COUNTRY DROAK STETIENNE STROLANDO RDE L TORO RDLAKE STI-1 5 I- 1 5 N B O N THIRD STSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, SAWPA ´010.5 Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Inland Empire Brine Line Planned Nichols Road Relocation I-15 SHWY-74 City of Lake Elsinore Inland Empire Brine Line Figure 3.1 Chapter 3.0 3-10 3.6 Comply with the Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Program, and Health and Safety Code Sections 25280-25289 and ensure adequate leak detection, maintenance of records, and reporting of spills. 3.7 In the event of a petroleum or gas pipeline leak, the City shall ensure that all responsible parties comply with the standards set by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA process the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and collaboration with its Department of Environmental Health. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.4 WildlandWildfire Hazards Much of the area to the southwest, west, and northwest within the SOI supports coastal shrub and chamise redshank chaparral. These are prime fuel sources for wildfire. As shown in Figure 3-3, Wildfire Susceptibility, the wildfire susceptibility in this area is defined as moderately high. The steep terrain in these areas also contributes to rapid spread of wildfire when one occurs. The danger of damage to natural resources and structures from wildfire is high in California due to a generally dry climate and a preponderance of highly flammable vegetation over much of the state. From 19992015 to 20032019, wildfires within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDFCAL FIRE), including government contracts,averaged 6,0815,791 fires per year and burned an average of 217,908398,313 acres per year. However, when all wildfire firefighting agencies are considered, there was an average 7,915 fires per year and 1,059,051 acres burned per year in California during the same five-year period. The number of structures damaged during that 5-year span averaged about 1,5607,781 per year, ranging from a low of 703 structures in 2019 to a high of 22,868 structures in 2018. Average annual monetary damages are estimated to be about $275 million4 billion. In 2003 alone, the damage from wildfires, which burned 527,753 acres within the CDF jurisdiction, was estimated at about $950 million. As suchHowever, the 2020 California wildfire season was characterized by a record-setting year of wildfires that burned across the state of Country Club Heights Fire Chapter 3.0 3-11 California as measured during the modern era of wildfire management and record keeping. A summary of all 2020 incidents, including those managed by CAL FIRE and other partner agencies, shows that there were 9,917 incidents with an estimated 4,257,863 acres burned, 10,488 damaged or destroyed structures and 33 fatalities. Damage was estimated at about $950 million. There is a history of wildfires within the City and within the surround area. Table 3-1 contains a list of fires that have occurred within Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence between 1950 and 2020. Figure 3-2 shows the areas burned by historical fires within this area. Table 3-1, Fires in Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence 1950 – 2020 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage Morrell 8/5/1950 N/A Unidentified 5,118 Jameson 8/30/1954 N/A Unidentified 7,881 Gilbert 7/27/1955 N/A Unidentified 486 Cornwell 9/11/1956 N/A Unidentified 3,173 Sandia 9/12/1956 N/A Unidentified 2,053 Pederson 6/17/1957 N/A Unidentified 1,979 Fiasco 6/18/1957 N/A Unidentified 7,310 Morey 9/141958 N/A Unidentified 2,662 Decker 8/8/1959 N/A Unidentified 1,485 Cow 4/28/1968 N/A Unidentified 536 Terrace Hill 5/2/1970 N/A Unidentified 1,848 Boundary 9/6/1970 N/A Miscellaneous 1,416 Robb 7/5/1976 N/A Unidentified 172 Estelle 7/21/1978 N/A Unidentified 3,080 Lemon 8/23/1978 N/A Unidentified 2,943 Turner 11/16/1980 N/A Unidentified 31,447 Lake #2 11/16/1980 N/A Unidentified 1,216 Indian 11/24/1980 N/A Miscellaneous 28,940 Cottenwood 6/15/1981 N/A Unidentified 1,279 Dawson 6/17/1981 N/A Miscellaneous 8,000 Wasson 7/22/1981 N/A Unidentified 356 Dexter 8/21/1981 N/A Unidentified 1,350 Chapter 3.0 3-12 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage N/A 7/17/1982 N/A Arson 295 Rail 9/3/1982 N/A Unidentified 476 Canyon 6/16/1983 N/A Unidentified 1,231 Horse 7/11/1985 N/A Unidentified 761 N/A 9/1/1986 N/A Miscellaneous 53 Riverside 2/7/1987 N/A Playing with Fire 330 N/A 8/20/1987 N/A Playing with Fire 259 State 1587 10/3/1987 N/A Equipment Use 3,276 Corona State #983 6/2/1988 N/A Equipment Use 913 Rosa 9/5/1988 N/A Campfire 632 Horsethief II 10/11/1988 N/A Equipment Use 135 State #2428 12/9/1988 N/A Equipment Use 1,446 Ortega 6/27/1989 7/5/1989 Miscellaneous 7,880 Nichols 7/2/1995 N/A Vehicle 1,264 Dawson 7/20/1995 N/A Playing with Fire 4,718 Short 6/1/1996 N/A Equipment Use 683 Walker 8/24/1996 N/A Arson 137 Lewin Fire 8/25/1998 N/A Equipment Use 109 Zeller 1/2/1999 1/2/1999 Miscellaneous 10 State Fire 3/14/1999 N/A Arson 127 Olive 7/11/2001 N/A Unidentified 283 Indian 3/31/2002 3/31/2002 Miscellaneous 50 Holland 9/30/2003 9/30/2003 Arson 106 Gafford 5/2/2004 5/3/2004 Unidentified 450 Cerrito 5/3/2004 5/7/2004 Playing with Fire 16,460 Lakeview 7/13/2004 7/13/2004 Unidentified 350 Lookout 2 11/12/2006 11/13/2006 Miscellaneous 290 Laguna 9/12/2007 9/12/2007 Unidentified 12 Wright 10/6/2007 10/6/2007 Miscellaneous 31 Lake 6/3/2008 6/3/2008 Unidentified 146 Cedar 5/25/2012 5/26/2012 Miscellaneous 72 Chapter 3.0 3-13 Fire Name Alarm Date Containment Date Cause Acreage Lindell 6/18/2012 6/18/2012 Unidentified 21 Falls 8/5/2013 8/14/2013 Miscellaneous 1,383 Gillette 6/15/2014 6/15/2014 Unidentified 10 Evergreen 1 7/16/2016 7/16/2016 Unidentified 2 Evergreen 2 8/28/2016 8/28/2016 Arson 43 Rose 7/312017 8/3/2017 Equipment Use 20 Holy 8/6/2018 10/17/2018 Miscellaneous 23,025 Toro 8/5/2019 8/6/2019 Unidentified 94 South Main 3/6/2020 N/A Escaped Prescribed Burn 13 Source: CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) accessed at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/frap-projects/fire-perimeters/ on 6.14.2021. In recognition of the risk proposed by fire, the City has adopted the High Fire Severity Zone Map (Figure 3-3). As shown on Figure 3-3, significant portions of the City and its Sphere of Influence are located within Very High Fire Severity Zone. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 show the general distribution of existing land use (2019) and General Plan land use designations as they relate to the Very High Fire Severity Zone. Wildfire susceptibility in the City of Lake Elsinore is defined as moderately high. The combination of Southern California’s Mediterranean climate, with its winter and spring rainfall and hot, dry summers, and the frequency of high wind velocity creates optimum conditions for wildfires. The annual rainfall pattern supports grasses, shrubs, and trees, and the hot arid summers result in dry vegetation. This readily combustible material can be easily ignited and will burn hot and fast, especially during high wind conditions. In fact, Southern California fires, which consumed more than 90% of the wildfire-burned acreage, were accompanied by high- velocity winds. These factors contributed to the Holy Fire, which was reported on the west side of the Santa Ana Mountains in Orange County on August 6, 2018. Over 1,500 resources were dispatched to the fire, but due to high temperatures, steep rugged terrain, and very dry fuels aided it ultimately consumed 23,025 acres, including property in and adjacent to the City of Lake Elsinore or its Sphere of Influence, 2018 Holy Fire Photographer: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images Chapter 3.0 3-14 by the time it reached full containment. On October 17, 2018, the Holy Fire was declared 100% controlled. Assessments of the Holy Fire burned area revealed numerous hazards, including the high potential for debris flow, flooding, mud flows, erosion, and rock fall, all of which could impact roads, trails, recreation areas, and long-term natural recovery. _ _ £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 STATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sheriff Station Police Department/Sherrif Sub-Station LA KESH O REDRLAKE STBUNDY CANYON RDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E TEMESCALCANYONRD RAIL R O A D C A NYONR D RIVERSIDE DRMISSION TR BAXTER RD NEWPORT RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RD CE R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMNERAVE NICHOLS RD FRANKL I N S T GOETZ RDC A SI N O D RSUMMER HILLDRGRAHAM STCENTRAL STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore GIS, County of Riverside GIS California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)City of Lake Elsinore Historical Fire Perimeters Figure 3.2´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence _Sheriff Station Fire Station Historical Fire Perimeters 1900 - 1950 1950 - 1960 1961-1970 1970 -1980 1981 - 1990 1991 -2000 2001 - 2010 2011 - 2020 £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineSTATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility Figure 3.3´021Miles LEGEND Fire Station Sphere of Influence City Boundary C alifornia Fire Hazard Severit y Zones Very High High Moderate Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Urban Unzoned This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, SCAG City of Lake Elsinore Very High Fire Severity Zone and Existing Land Uses (2019) Figure 3.4´021Miles LEGEND Sphere of Influence C alifor nia Fire Hazard Severit y Zones Very High SCAG Existing Land Use (2019) Agriculture Commercial and Services Education Facilities General Office Industrial Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks Multi-Family Residential None Open Space and Recreation Rural Residential Single Family Residential Transportation, Communications, and Utilities Under Construction Vacant Water This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 I- 1 5 SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHW AY 74EL T ORO RDLAKESHOR E D R ETHANAC RD PA L O M A R S TLINDELL RD MAPES RD A STS MAI N D IVID E R D T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D GOETZ RDBUN DY CANYO N RD MISSION TRLGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T G R A N D AVE ROBERT STRIVERSI D E D RLAKE STC E R E A L S T RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T N E W P O R T R D FLINT ST MARIE STCLINTON KEITH RD WILDOMAR TRLSPRING STC A N Y O N HILL S R D MILL STNICHOLS RDORANGE STRIVERSIDE ST SOPHIE STMAURICIO ST AMOROSE ST HILLSIDE DR CORYDON STVALLEY BLVDCOLT DRTOFT DR D E X T E R A V E PALM AVEBYERS STSYLVESTE R S T TH E FA R M RD VISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE A C A C I A D R L A S H A V E RY A N A V E JO Y A V E THIRD STASH STSUM N E R A V E10TH STMC PHERSON R D CHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E VACATIO N DR STONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST PHILLIPS STWICKERD RDWHEAT STS U M A C R D LA ESTRELLA STSUNSET AVELA G U N A A V E REISS RDTHEDA STMELVIN STMAITRI RDH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRADELFA STJARVIS STLA LADERA RDMOUNTAIN AVE BARNES LNCONEJO DRSKYLARK DRJAN AVEDIANA LNREAD STVINE ST FIR ST LAKE DR LA BERTHA LN ENDERLEIN STL ESSER LN RIDGE R D LITTLE VALLEY RD PRIELIPP RD VICTOR ST C O NT INE NT AL D R PERRY RDRIVER RDPEACH STCALDERA ST C A M I N O D E L N O R T E GEARY STLA STRADACRILLY RDEL NIGUEL RDGATEWAY DR MILKY WAYCROSS HILL DRI-15 S B O N TERETICORNIS AVE MO U NT A I N R D LYNX RDCHERRY STSOTELO RD AVIDA DRI- 1 5 NBOFFPIE D M O N T D R LUCERNE STMAIN STCYPRESS PL ALPINE DR PLAZA AVIL A MERMACK AVE WHITE STELM STULMER ST RALPH RDONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RDBILLINGS LNDELCA LNCATT RDSHORELINE DRDAVID LNBLANCHE DRSTAGELINE ST PILE STLOVE LN EUR EKA S TLUCE CTWILD VI EW RDTOOKER STDIAL RDGILL LNCODY RD E LINA RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY RDPONTE RUSSOLAKE STG R A N D A V E I- 1 5 GOETZ RDTHEDA STSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Land Use Plan Figure 3.5´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Streams I-15 SHWY-74 nm Future Schools nm Existing Schools State Responsibility Areas Very High Fire Hazard Serverity Zone Extractive Overlay Auto Mall Overlay Main Street Overlay Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Low-Medium Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Residential Mixed Use Lakeside Residential Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Tourist Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Professional Limited Industrial Public Institutional Open Space Recreational Floodway Specific Plan This map is for informational purposes only. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zones shown on this figure are subject to change by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Always refer to the most current mapping available from CAL FIRE to address the risk of fire. Chapter 3.0 3-23 The City of Lake Elsinore and the SOI are known for periodic high-velocity wind conditions through the Temescal Valley and the steep canyons to the northwest, west, and southwest portions of the SOI. Such winds are due mostly to the area’s topography, which forms a natural wind tunnel along the valley and through the canyons. The area is also subject to occasional Santa Ana conditions. Past fire management policy, mandated immediate fire suppression action for all fires, including those in wilderness areas, but also led to a long-term accumulation of vegetation (fuel) that can be easily ignited. Fire can spread quickly in high wind conditions, which poses a significant hazard in many areas, especially in forested and chaparral areas of rural Southern California. Much of the areas in the Cleveland National Forest and along the Ortega Highway (SR-74) contain large areas of chaparral and oak/pinyon plant communities that are highly flammable in the summer dry season and can promote the spread of wildfires over large distances, especially during high wind conditions. Chaparral in particular poses unique problems for fire prevention because its components (tough shrubs such as chemise, manzanita, and sage) are genetically predisposed to burn. Many of the plants in this community need fire to sprout their seeds; chaparral burns naturally every 30 to 100 years. Much of the area within the SOI supports this type of vegetation. The heavy use of the Ortega Highway and the residences in the mountains pose additional fire risks. Traffic provides a potential ignition source because of tossed cigarettes and vehicle fires; residences provide other potential ignition sources, such as power equipment, barbeques, and residential fires. 3.4.1 Wildfire Hazards Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 4 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. Policies 4.1 Require on-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary. 4.2 Create fuel modification zones around development within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within 100 feet of buildings and structures. The size of the fuel modification zone size may be altered with the addition of fuel fire-resistant building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire-resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control. 4.3 Establish fire resistant building techniques for new development such as non-combustible wall surfacing materials, fire-retardant treated wood, heavy timber construction, glazing, Chapter 3.0 3-24 enclosed materials and features, insulation without paper-facing, and automatic fire sprinklers. 4.4 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. 4.5 Create emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. 4.6 Adhere to Chapter 7.1 of the Fire Code pursuant to adopted High Severity Zone Maps. Identify and map the most current Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as described and mapped by CAL FIRE, on an ongoing and as-needed basis. 4.7 Identify existing developed areas within the City that have reduced or limited circulation access and develop an evacuation plan, and recommended improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. 4.8 Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to reassess fire hazards and future availability of water supplies, after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, for both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. 4.9 To the extent feasible and appropriate, locate new essential public facilities (e.g., health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities) outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. If new essential public facilities are located in a State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Zone, the facilities shall be constructed to meet or exceed the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code requirements, as adopted by the City, to allow them to continue to serve community needs during and after disaster events. Implementation Program The City shallwill condition project to comply with Fire Department requirements, and workcoordinate with the California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Department supporting public fire education and prevention programs. Agency/Department Community Development and Building & SafetyPublic Works Departments Chapter 3.0 3-25 Implementation Program The City will work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, and La Strada to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development. Agency/Department City Manager, Engineering and Community Development Departments Implementation Program The City shall work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. Agency/Department City Manager, City Fire Marshal and Public Works Department Goal 5 Minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. Policies 5.1 Require development to contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services necessary to address the fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. 5.2 Require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. 5.3 Require all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. 5.4 If new development is located in a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. 5.5 Require new development in VHFHSZs to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by: x Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns etc.; x Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g. through fire breaks) to the extent feasible; Chapter 3.0 3-26 x Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent; x Using fire-safe building materials and design features, consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards; x Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping; and x Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, defensible space, access, and water facilities. 5.6 Require new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. The agreement shall specify who is responsible for maintenance of these areas and the fire safe standards that will be implemented. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. 5.7 Require that all redevelopment of properties damaged or destroyed by a major wildfire comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. 5.8 Perform an evaluation of fire-related development standards should a major wildfire require portions of the City be rebuilt to ensure that redevelopment standards are as fire- safe as reasonably possible. Implementation Program The City shall condition projects to comply with Fire Department requirements. Agency/Department Community Development Department Chapter 3.0 3-27 3.5 Flooding and Floodplains Development in the 100-year floodplain can increase flooding hazards by raising water levels upstream and adding flow, velocity, and debris downstream. Floodplains are the low, flat, periodically flooded lands adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans inundated by the 100-year flood and composed of the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. The floodway fringe is that portion of the floodplain between the floodway and the limits of the existing 100-year floodplain. As shown in Figure 3-6, Ssignificant portions of the City and the SOI are located within the 100- year floodplain. The City of Lake Elsinore has identified flooding sources within the City that include Arroyo del Toro, Channel H, Elsinore Spillway Channel, Lake Elsinore, Leach Canyon Channel, Lime Street Channel, McVicker Canyon, Ortega Wash, Ortega Channel, Rice Canyon, San Jacinto River, Stovepipe Canyon Creek, Temescal Wash, Wash G, Wash I, Murrieta Creek, Wasson Canyon Creek, and potentially Railroad Canyon Dam if the incidence of failure occurs. The City places a high priority on preventing flood damage and requires new projects to consider flooding and storm drainage effects. Limited encroachment into the 100-year floodplain fringe is allowed in order to permit development of properties within this area. However, encroachment shall maintain a focus on public facilities such as roads, parks, sewer and water improvements, and pedestrian routes. No development of the floodway is allowed. The City will review development projects within the floodplain to ensure compliance with City, state, and federal floodplain development projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife (CDFGW) often have jurisdiction over areas that are located within floodplains. USACE, through the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, is the primary agency involved in wetland regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to veto any decision by the USACE on Section 404-permit issuance because the EPA has the ultimate authority over enforcement of wetland regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Section 404 permit by the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must issue a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver. In this way, the RWQCB regulates actions permitted by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be consulted and may also take jurisdiction if any wetland impacts could affect federally endangered species. Flooding in Lake Elsinore 1988 Chapter 3.0 3-28 The USACE has jurisdiction over “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Not all waters of the U.S. are wetlands and not all wetlands are under USACE jurisdiction. The term “waters of the U.S.” covers many types of waters, including waters currently or historically used in interstate or foreign commerce (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides); all interstate waters (including interstate wetlands); all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, etc., the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S.; tributaries of waters of the U.S.; territorial seas; and wetlands adjacent to waters of the U.S. Regulated waters of the U.S. do not include isolated waters. However, isolated waters may be regulated by the RWQCB and the CDFGW under the Porter-Cologne Act and the California Fish and Game Code, respectively. £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Warm Springs El Cariso Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Meadowbrook TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D LAKE STG R A N D A V E LA K E S H O R E D RMACHADO STMAIN STCORYDON STBUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRiverside County LineLA K ES H O R E D RLAKE S T B U N D Y CANYONRDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E NEWPORT RD CLINTON KEITH RD R A I LR OA D C ANYON RDRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD FLINT S T D E X T E R A V E SUMMERHILLDRSCOTT RD CE R E A L S T JO Y A V E C H ANEYSTC O L L I E R A V E SUMN E R A V E M I N T H O R N S T NICHOLS RD FRANKLI N S T MAIN STGOETZ RDCENTRAL STDIAMOND DRG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, SCAG City of Lake Elsinore Floodplains Figure 3.6´021Miles LEGEND FLOOD ZONES 500-year Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone Chapter 3.0 3-31 The CDFG CDFW has jurisdiction covering lakes, rivers, and streams. Jurisdiction extends across the bed, banks, and channel of these features and includes areas beneath a riparian canopy, even if the canopy areas are well away from the stream channel (such as in oak riparian areas). More typically, the jurisdiction over streambeds is applied from the top of one channel bank to the top of the opposite bank. Regional flood control planning and facilities construction are within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District. The district is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of flood control facilities, including debris dams, storm channels, and storm drains. The City of Lake Elsinore owns and maintains certain flood control facilities in the City that are constructed generally as part of the drainage plans for individual projects. 3.5.1 Flooding and Floodplains Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 56 Minimize risk of injury to residents and visitors, and property damage due to flooding. Policies 56.1 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. 6.2 Continue to encourage floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities. 6.3 Reduce the risk of flooding by creating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation areas and by prohibiting development within the floodways. 6.4 Encourage that new developments within the floodplain fringe shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat. 6.5 Continue to require the construction of channel improvements to allow conveyance of the 100-year flow without extensive flooding. 6.6 Use FEMA regulations and mapping to ensure that flooding hazards are evaluated during the environmental review process, including placement of restrictions on development within designated floodplain areas. Chapter 3.0 3-32 6.7 Promote drainage improvements that maintain a natural or semi-natural floodplain. 5.26.8 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. Implementation Program Through the project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential flood hazards, and shall require compliance with FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas where appropriate. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.6 Geologic and Seismic ActivityHazards 3.6.1 Geologic Setting The City of Lake Elsinore and its SOI are located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province and includes parts of two structural blocks, or structural subdivisions of the province. The Peninsular Ranges province extends from the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. It is located on the Pacific (tectonic or crustal) Plate, which is moving to the northwest relative to the adjacent North American Plate. The well-known San Andreas Fault forms the boundary between the Pacific and the North American Plates. As a result, the Southern California area contains numerous regional and local faults, and experiences substantial ground movement during frequent seismic events. The Elsinore fault zone is part of the same right-lateral crustal plate strain system as the San Andreas. In the City of Lake Elsinore, the majority of the Elsinore fault zone is located under the Lake. The City of Lake Elsinore and SOI are located in the Elsinore Valley, a pull-apart depression formed at a right (releasing) step-over in the Elsinore fault system. The Elsinore fault consists of multiple strands, a number of which are recognized as active and zoned by the State of California under the Alquist-Priolo Act. Risk of surface rupture along these zoned active traces is substantial. Although the County has zoned additional faults as active, none of the County-zoned traces is in the immediate vicinity of the City or SOI. The Uniform Building Code recognizes the northern portion of the Elsinore fault as a Type B seismic source (International Council of Building Officials 1997). The Elsinore fault is believed to be capable of generating earthquakes with moment magnitudes in the range of 6.5–7.5, with a recurrence interval of approximately 250 years between major events. Smaller events may occur more frequently. Thus, the City and the SOI are likely to experience repeated moderate to strong ground shaking generated by the Elsinore fault in the foreseeable future. The City and surroundings also have the potential to experience significant ground shaking as a result of seismic activity on a number of the Peninsular Ranges’ other active faults, shown in Figure 3-7, Chapter 3.0 3-33 Approximate Traces of Principal Active Faults of the Peninsular Ranges and Mojave Desert Near Lake Elsinore, and Figure 3-8, Seismic Hazards. Orange Coun ty Riverside County Los Angeles County San Ber nardino County San Diego County Imperial Coun ty Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, USGS Approximate Traces of Principal Active Faults of the Peninsular Ranges and Mojave Desert Near Lake Elsinore Figure 3.7´084Miles Sphere of Influence Quaternary Faults California Offshore Faults ·|}þ74 ·|}þ74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 G R A N D A V E L A K E S H O R E D RLAKE STGRAPE ST TE M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D BUNDY CANYON RD RAILROAD CANYON RDRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD C A S I N O D RMACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RDMAIN STL INCO LN S T SCOTT RDCHANEY STC E R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E NEWPORT RD NICHOLS RD GOETZ RDCENTRAL STCopyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Seismic Hazards Figure 3.8´021Miles Shallow Groundwater Susceptible Sediments Very High High Moderate Low Very low Deep Groundwater Susceptible Sediments Moderate Low Very low No Groundwater Data Susceptible Sediments Moderate Low Very low Faults Chapter 3.0 3-38 Although the State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore area, when completed, these maps will be required to delineate areas at risk from secondary seismic hazards. Both the County General Plan and the Elsinore Area Plan delineate areas susceptible to secondary seismic hazards. The City has high potential for damage due to liquefaction and slope failure in some areas.The City recognizes the importance of addressing seismic hazards and taking preventative measures to reduce their negative effects. The following goals and policies are intended to minimize the effects of any seismic events on citizens and property. 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq.) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. Earthquake Fault Zones were called “Special Studies Zones” prior to January 1, 1994. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. A licensed geologist must prepare an evaluation and written report of the specific site. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet set backs are required). Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code Section 2690 et seq.) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards. The State requires: (1) local governments to incorporate site-specific geotechnical hazard investigations and associated hazard mitigation, as part of the local construction permit approval process; and (2) the agent for a property seller or the seller if acting without an agent, must disclose to any prospective buyer if the property is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone. 3.6.3 Local Plans Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public safety planning generally focuses on how an agency or community members will prepare for, respond to, and/or recover from a disaster. Hazard mitigation planning focuses on how the impact of a disaster might be lessened. On September 11, 2018, the Lake Elsinore City Council Chapter 3.0 3-39 adopted the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify the County’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex is to focuses on these topics as they relate specifically to the City. The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility and potentially secure mitigation funding through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. The LHMP includes an assessment of the City’s risk related to natural hazard impacts such as seismic events, drought, wildfire, extreme heat, hazardous materials, and flooding. The LHMP also includes a comprehensive set of actions the City will complete to mitigate, or reduce, the impacts of those hazards. The mitigation actions in the LHMP are included in the General Plan as a subset of the Plan’s overall implementation program. The current LHMP is incorporated into this Chapter by reference. Emergency Operations Plan The City of Lake Elsinore Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), approved on March 27, 2007, addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City of Lake Elsinore. The EOP describes the operations of the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is the central location responsible for directing and coordinating the various City of Lake Elsinore Departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities. Resilient IE Resilient IE was developed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) in collaboration with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) with funding from Caltrans. Resilient IE works to support regional and local efforts to prepare for and mitigate risks associated with climate adaptation on the region's transportation infrastructure with five primary project components. These components include community vulnerability assessments and city-level, climate-related transportation hazards and evacuation maps. The following is a list of climateဨrelated hazards that were identified as impacting the city of Lake Elsinore: Chapter 3.0 3-40 x Air Quality – The city of Lake Elsinore may experience more frequent days of unsafe levels of atmospheric ozone by 2050, creating or exacerbating health risks for some individuals. x Drought – Water sources will likely experience more frequent and intense droughts, which can cause water shortages. x Extreme Heat – Extreme heat incidents can strain the city’s power delivery networks and can increase rates of heatဨrelated illnesses, particularly in atဨrisk populations. x Flooding – More intense flooding is expected to occur along the to the north and south of Lake Elsinore reservoir and along the Temescal Wash and San Jacinto River in the City of Lake Elsinore. x Human Health Hazards – More frequent and severe wildfires near the city of Lake Elsinore could worsen air quality, causing health impacts. Warmer conditions are also expected to increase the spread of vectorဨborne diseases carried by organisms like mosquitoes. x Landslides – More frequent and intense rainfall could increase the chance that a landslide will likely occur in the city of Lake Elsinore. Deepဨseated landslides could occur on steeper slopes throughout the city, especially near the mountains on the southern edge of the City. x Severe Weather – Strong winds and heavy rains are expected to become more intense around the city of Lake Elsinore. x Wildfire – Drought conditions, extreme heat, and extreme wind events can increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the WRCOG region, including the wildlandဨurban interface. The city of Lake Elsinore could experience more wildfires throughout the City, due to its location in the wildlandဨurban interface. Chapter 3.0 3-41 Critical Assets Table 3-2 is a list of critical assets that are vulnerable to any of the key climateဨrelated hazards that are present in the region: Table 3-2 List of the City of Lake Elsinore’s Critical Assets by Type and Name Asset Type Asset Name Local and Regional Infrastructure Iဨ15, SRဨ74, major roadways, Lake Elsinore Reservoir, Skylark Field Airport, Lake Elsinore City Hall, Lakeside Library, Lake Elsinore Library, Lakeland Village Community Center, Lake Elsinore Community Center, Victor Community Support, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, electrical transmission lines, Police stations, Fire stations Major Commercial/Economic Hubs Lake Elsinore Outlets, Pacific Aggregates, Lake Elsinore Square, Lakeside Center, Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium, Lake Elsinore Town Center, Lake Elsinore Valley Center Medical Lake Elsinore Family Care Center, Total Care Family Medical Center, Vista Community Clinic, Lake Elsinore Primary Care Clinic, Lake Elsinore Dialysis Parks Lakepoint Park, Machado Park, Summerlake Park, Oak Tree Park, McVicker Canyon Park and Skate Park, Creekside Park, City Park, Swick and Matich Park, Yarborough Park, Tuscany Hills Parks, Summerhill Park, Sunshine Park, Spirit Park, Linear Park, Lincoln Street Park, Alberhill Sports Park Schools Canyon Lake Middle, Cottonwood Canyon Elementary, Earl Warren Elementary, Keith McCarthy Academy, Temescal Canyon High, Valley Adult School, Tuscany Hills Elementary, Heald Academy, Herk Bouris Elementary, Elsinore Elementary, Elsinore Middle, Lakeland Village, Lakeside High, Machado Elementary, Ortega High, Railroad Canyon Elementary, Rice Canyon Elementary, Terra Cotta Middle, Withrow Elementary, Jeanette Ellis Center. Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 34 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) Key Vulnerabilities Table 3-3 shows which hazards in the city of Lake Elsinore may pose the greatest harm to vulnerable groups or assets in the city. Chapter 3.0 3-42 Table 3-3 Key Vulnerabilities in City of Lake Elsinore by Applicable Hazard Vulnerability Hazards Air Quality Drought Extreme Heat Flooding Human Health Hazards Landslides Severe Weather Wildfire Households in poverty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Persons experiencing homelessness 3 3 3 3 3 3 Chronically ill individuals 3 3 3 3 3 Residential structures 3 3 3 Energy delivery systems 3 3 3 Water delivery systems 3 3 Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 35 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) Evacuation Routes Figure 3-9 shows the evacuation network for Lake Elsinore and the surrounding area. However, as listed in Table 3-4 significant portions of Lake Elsinore’s evacuation network pass through hazardဨprone areas, and over bridges and water crossings. Table 3-43-1 Hazard Impacts, Bridges, and Water Crossings for Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Route Network Miles and Quantity Percent of City’s Network Evacuation Route Miles in Fire Hazard Zones 35 59% Evacuation Route Miles in Flood Hazard Zones 21 36% Evacuation Route Miles in Landslide Hazard Zones 45 77% City of Lake Elsinore’s Total Evacuation Network Miles 59 100% 3.1%* Bridge Crossings in Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Network 31 Water Crossings in Lake Elsinore’s Evacuation Network 38 *Indicates the percentage of city of Lake Elsinore’s total network as part of the larger Western Riverside County network. Source: Resilient IE, Community Vulnerability Profiles, February 2020, Page 35 (Accessed 6.4.2021 at https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE ) §¨¦15 I-15 LAKESHO R E G R A N D SH-74 L A K E T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N RIVERSIDEMISS IONGREENWALD CORYDONHIGHWAY 74MAINLIN C O L N GRAPED E X T E RHORSETHIEF CANYONLA STRADA I-15 S B O N I- 1 5 NBO F F C A N Y O N H I L L S I-15 NBON BAXTERMISSIONI-1 5 HIGH W A Y 7 4 G R A N D I-1 5 I- 1 5LAKE CANYON HIL L S I- 1 5 I-215MURRIETA RDSH-74HIGH WAY 74 ETHANAC RD ANTELOPE RDEL TORO RD LA K E S H O R E D R HAUN RDNEWPORT RDLINDELL RDMAPES RD SHERMAN RDA STPA L O M A R S T S M A I N D I V I D E R D BUNDY CANYON RD GOETZ RDGARBANI RD WICKERD RD GRAPE STC O M O S T C A S E R D LOST RDGRAND AVESCOTT RD CRAIG AVE MCCALL BLVDENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STLUCERNE STLAKE STSUN CITY BLVDC E R E A L S T HOLLAND RD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLIN T S T MARIE STEVANS RDLA PIEDRA RDSPRING STMILL ST DAILY RDNICHOLS RDROUSE RD ORANGE STSOPHIE STHILLSI D E DR AMOROSE ST CLINTON KEITH RD VALLEY BLVDOLIVE AVE POTOMAC D R MC BOB RDTOFT D R PALM AVECARMEL RD BYERS STTHE FARM RDVISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVEA C A C I A D R G R E E R R D CANYON LAKE D R N RY A N A V EMAITRI RDTHIRD ST VISTA AVE10TH STMC PHERSON R D CHANEY STC O L L I E R A V E STONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST TYSON RD PHILLIPS STWHEAT STZEIDERS RDS U M A C R D LA ESTRELLA ST SUNSET AVENANCY LNLA G U N A AV E HOWARD RDDAWSON RDWATSON RD BARNETT RDTHEDA STVISTA RD MELVIN STTRUMBLE RDHEMLOCK STREISS RDDEBON STHILLTOP DRH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRLAZY CREEK RD ADELFA STMCELWAIN RDLA LADERA RDTATE RD MO N T E V I S T A D R MOUNTAIN AVE C ONEJ O D R COX RDGAF F O R D R DREAD STSHRIER DR FIR ST LAKE DR STEELE PEAK DR KURT ST2ND STD U N N S T LESSER LN RIDGE R D QUAIL PLLITTLE VALLEY RD CO NTINE N T A L D R PERRY RDRIVER RDPEACH STCALDERA ST EVAN D EL RDGEARY STASPEL RDPALM DRCRILLY RDBEREA RDHAMPSHIRE DREL NIGUEL RDGATEWA Y D R MILKY WAYMARGO RDALMOND STGROSSE POINT DRWILD LILAC RDCAN Y O N D R LYNX RDTUPELO RD CHERRY STSOTELO RD SHADEL RD ROSTRATA AVEI- 1 5 N B O F F EMPIRE LN WRI GHT RDSKYLARK DRB IG TEE DR ALPINE DR PLAZA AVI L A WANKI AVEULMER ST ONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RD OA KM O N T D R BILLINGS LNPENCIN RDREFA STPATTERSON STI-215 SBOFFCATT RDTOOLE RDHEIM ST HIXON STDAVID LNSHORELINE DRSUNBLAZE RDLOVE LN BLANCHE DREU R E K A S T CRABAPPLE STLUCE CTWILD V IEW R D PILE ST 4TH STOUTRIGGER STTOOKER STROCKY RDGIFHORN CTVIA MADRID HUGHES DR READ STI-215 SBOFFGOETZ RDI-215SH-74 G R A N D A V E ANTELOPE RDS H -74 I -15BYERS RDVALLEY BLVDEVANS RDMAPES RD Copyright:(c) 2014 Esri, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside ´021Miles Evacuation Routes City Boundary Sphere of Influence I-15 SHWY-74 City of Lake Elsinore Evacuation Routes Figure 3.9 Chapter 3.0 3-45 3.6.13.6.4 Secondary Seismic Hazards—Liquefaction and Ground Failure The State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore area under the mapping program mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Mapping is in progress in the Murrieta and Temecula 7.5-minute quadrangles to the south and is planned for the Lake Elsinore and Wildomar quadrangles in coming years. However, mapping has been completed for the adjacent Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles to the south and maps are planned for the Lake Elsinore and Wildomar quadrangles within the next decade. The City recognizes the importance of addressing secondary seismic hazards, and has delineated areas of known and suspected liquefaction hazard. In general, liquefaction susceptibility ranges from very low in the former lake footprint to moderate on much of the remainder of the valley floor and very high in the valley floor corridor formerly occupied by the axial riverine drainage. Liquefaction potential is also very high along the area’s principal tributary drainages and on portions of the alluvial fans on the valley’s eastern margin. Figure 3-10, Liquefaction Susceptibility in Lake Elsinore Area, presents a generalized map of liquefaction potential based on data on file with the City. 3.6.23.6.5 Landslide and Other Slope Stability Hazards As discussed in the previous section, the State of California has not yet issued seismic hazards maps for the Lake Elsinore Area; when completed, these maps will be required to delineate areas at risk from seismically induced landslides. In the meantime, as shown in Figure 3-11, Percent Slope, a substantial proportion of the City, SOI, and surrounding area are located on slopes of 25%–35% or steeper, and much of the area is at substantial risk of seismically induced slope failure. Non-seismically induced slope failure is also a hazard in these areas, as evidenced by numerous existing landslides. 3.6.33.6.6 Geologic and Seismic ActivityHazard Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 67 Minimize the rise of loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social displacement due to seismic and geological hazards resulting from earthquakes and geological constraints. Policies 67.1 Continue to make every effort to reduce earthquake-induced fire as a threat. 7.2 Encourage the pursuit of federal and state programs that assist in the seismic upgrading of buildings to meet building and safety codes. Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Liquefaction Susceptibility Figure 3.10´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Water Bodies Liquefaction Potential Very low Low Moderate High Very High LAKE STRIVERSIDE DR§¨¦15 §¨¦15 ·|}þ74 ·|}þ74 I 1 5 G R A N DLAKEEL TOROHY 74RIVERSI D E KILINDELLHEAL D C O A L ORTEGAFAYMACHADO3RDTE M E S C A L C A N Y O N RY A N B A K E RCOLT JO Y NICHOLS FMISSIONL A SH 11THRICEMILLASH CORYDONBOSLEY DIAMONDLA G U N A DE P A L M A LA K E S H O R ECHANEY RAILROAD CANYON EL CARISOPIERCEHILL TOPCENTRALRED GUMGRE E N W A L D ADELFALOSTSTONEMANSKYLARKMINTHORN2ND RIDGE10THM O U N T A I N AMOROSE H A Y S GRAPETOFT HYATT SNAKE BILLINGSEL TORO CUT OFF GATE W A Y TERRA COTTABARE ELMONTARIOHILLSI D E KILLENLA STRADA CORKTREEVISTACOW CANYON ASTRIDELLIE SHA D Y O A K L E H R U L L A EU R E K A SHORELINEANNAGINGERPILEHIDDENAUDELOJOLENE DANNYSTEELE VALLEYL I N C O L N 3RDI 1 5 I 1 5 Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside ´01.50.75 Miles City of Lake Elsinore Percent Slope Figure 3.11 Percent Slope Sphere of Influence City Boundary I-15 SHWY-74 0 - 15% 15% - 25% 25% - 35% >35% Chapter 3.0 3-50 67.23 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 accordance with the Fault Rupture Hazard Overlay District adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. The City may require site-specific remediation measures during permit review that may be implemented to minimize impacts in these areas. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with Alquist-Priolo and other guidelines where appropriate. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.7 Noise 3.7.1 Introduction Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is part of everyday life in an urban community, resulting from on- and off-road vehicle traffic, railroads, aircraft, construction vehicles and other heavy equipment, other commercial activities, and loud music. The existing background or “ambient” noise level in the community is the product of the cumulative effects of a variety of noise sources that accumulate over a period of time. Exposure to excessive noise has often been cited as a health hazard. Roadway traffic is a major source of noise within the City. Some other reported noise sources in Lake Elsinore include industrial and manufacturing facilities, Skylark Airport, schools, construction activities, and recreational activities associated with the lake, the motocross park, and Diamond Stadium. The goals and policies in this section are designed to locate new development in areas with compatible noise levels and minimize intrusive noise from existing and new development. 3.7.2 Noise Baselines Land uses in the Lake Elsinore planning area include varying densities of both clustered and non- contiguous residential development, different densities and types of businesses and commercial Activities at Lake Elsinore Chapter 3.0 3-51 developments, open space, and recreation. The locations and densities of these land uses, in conjunction with major transportation routes and other significant activities within the Lake Elsinore area, such as construction, contribute to the ambient noise conditions, or setting, of the area. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. These land uses include uses such as schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas. The City has designated noise-sensitive zones for land uses that require exceptional quiet. Table 3-5 and Table 3-6 provide regulations to ensure noise and land use compatibility and recommend noise standards. Table 3-53-2, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Residential Single, Family, Duplex, Multiple Family A A B B C D D Residential Mobile Homes A A B C C D D Commercial Regional District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Regional Village, District Special Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Commercial Industrial Institutional Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building A A A B B C D Commercial Regional Institutional Civic Center Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Commercial Recreation Children’s Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D Commercial General, Special Industrial Institutional Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Institutional General Hospital, Church, Library, Schools, Classroom A A B C C D D Chapter 3.0 3-52 Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A A A A B C C Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Interpretation Zone A Clearly Compatible Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B Normally Compatible New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed nose insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C Normally Incompatible New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D Clearly Incompatible New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Chapter 3.0 3-53 Table 3-63-3, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories Energy Average LDN Categories Uses Interior Exterior Residential Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family 45 3, 5 60 Mobile Homes – 60 4 Commercial, Institutional Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 5 – Hospital, School’s classroom 45 – Church, Library 45 – Interpretation 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, Mobile Home Park. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 5. As per California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section T25-28. Topography and Climate Noise amplitude and attenuation characteristics are key factors in the establishment of noise conditions and vary considerably according to natural climate and topographical features. Meteorological factors affecting noise characteristics within the Lake Elsinore planning area include temperature changes, Santa Ana winds, and the amount and duration of rainfall. Topographical features in the planning area include the steep Santa Ana Mountains and Elsinore Mountains to the south and west; the large centrally located, low-lying Lake Elsinore and surrounding local valley; and the rolling hills throughout much of the area. Man-made features within the planning area, such as buildings and structures, agricultural fields, and roadways, also affect noise amplitude and attenuation. Vehicular Traffic Because two highly utilized transportation corridors, I-15 and SR 74, traverse the City, roadway traffic is one of the more prevalent sources of noise within the area. Traffic noise varies in how it affects land uses depending upon the type of roadway, distance of the land use from that roadway, topographical setting, and other physical land features such as landscaping, walls, Chapter 3.0 3-54 buildings, and other structures. Some variables that affect the amount of noise emitted from a road are speed of traffic, flow of traffic, and type of traffic (e.g., tractor trailers versus cars). Another variable affecting the overall measure of noise is a perceived increase in sensitivity to vehicular noise at night. Industry Industrial and manufacturing facilities are stationary noise producers that may affect sensitive land uses. Industrial land uses have the potential to exert a relatively high level of noise impact within their immediate operating environments. The scope and degree of noise impacts generated by industrial uses is dependent upon various critical factors, including the type of industrial activity, hours of operation, and the site’s location relative to other land uses. Noise-related complaints are often aimed at facilities such as Elsinore Ready-Mix, a concrete manufacturer located in Country Club Heights. Other noise complaints usually come from neighbors who live next to land that is under-developed. Airports Skylark Airport is a privately owned airport that occupies approximately 150 acres of land located at the southern city limits on Corydon Road. In 2010, the airport housed 21 single-engine aircraft, five multi-engine aircraft, and four gliders. This airport provides glider and skydiving opportunities for the community and surrounding region. The runway surface at Skylark Airport consists of gravel and sand; as such, this surface generally does not permit optimal conditions for frequent and convenient airport operations. Skylark Airport is a private use airport with runways that are 2800 feet in length and fall under the category of Short General Aviation Runways. Schools Schools can be a source of nuisance noise for neighboring residential uses. Noise-generating activities include children at play, bells, and public address systems. High schools may include stadiums used for day and evening athletic events, and the use of public address/loudspeaker systems can also generate substantial noise levels during the day and/or evening. Chapter 3.0 3-55 Other Noise Sources Other sources of noise include recreational boating and personal watercraft on Lake Elsinore, the Motocross Park, Diamond Stadium, and construction activities. Vibration As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration impacts are much greater indoors due to the shaking of the structure. The most common sources of vibration in the Lake Elsinore planning area are transit vehicles, construction equipment, and large vehicles. Several land uses are especially sensitive to vibration and therefore have a lower vibration threshold. These uses include but are not limited to concert halls, hospitals, libraries, vibration-sensitive research operations, residential areas, schools, and offices. 3.7.3 Noise Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 78 Maintain an environment for all City residents and visitors free of unhealthy, obtrusive, or otherwise excessive noise. Policies 78.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-5) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3-6) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City. 78.2 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. 78.3 Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the I-15. 78.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3-12, Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City. 8.5 Participate and cooperate with other agencies and jurisdictions in the development of noise abatement plans for highways. Lake Elsinore Motocross Track Chapter 3.0 3-56 Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes, the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with noise standards and compatibility criteria where appropriate. Agency/Department Community Development and Engineering Departments Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Noise Contours Figure 3.12´021Miles City Boundary Sphere of Influence Airport Ballpark Elsinore Ready Mix Motocross Track 70 Idn contour pref 65 Idn contour pref 60 Idn contour pref Chapter 3.0 3-59 3.8 Community Facilities and Protection Services City development and community welfare are dependent on a network of public facilities, infrastructure and services. These availability services provide the necessary components for quality life in the community. Quality services and facilities are critical to retaining existing households and businesses and attracting future residents and new businesses. The City seeks to ensure excellent services regardless of the provider. The goals and policies in this section are designed to promote community welfare and to enhance the overall well being of the City’s residents and visitors through responsive city government, efficient and timely emergency response, academic excellence that includes access to quality school and library facilities for all residents, and effective and efficient delivery of services and utilities. 3.8.1 Fire and Police Protection Services Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Baselines Effective fire protection and law enforcement services are essential to the welfare of a community. Without adequate provision of these invaluable services, the safety of the community could be jeopardized with the rise in crime and risk of fire damage. Long-term effects could result in a decrease in immigration of new residents and a low quality of life for current residents. The following goals and policies are intended to ensure that the community that the City remains safe and protected by fire and police services. Fire Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services from the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Through a Cooperative Agreement, the City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) through its Cooperative Fire Programs Fire Protection Reimbursement Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to provide the City with fire protection, hazardous materials mitigation, technical rescue response, fire marshal, medical emergency services, and public service assists. CAL FIRE and RCFD have primary responsibility for fire protection in the City. The City itself does not have agreements for fire protection with any other agencies.Portions of the SOI are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRA), where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires, while the Lake Elsinore Fire Department, which is operated jointly by RCFD and CAL FIRE,has primary responsibility for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) within the City limit. Chapter 3.0 3-60 The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. Equipment used by the department has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD services the City of Lake Elsinore. The following stations are located within city limits: z Fire Station No. 10 (Elsinore), servicing the central area of the city, located on the northeast side of the lake at 410 W. Graham Ave;. (Not funded as of July 1, 2017.) z Fire Station No. 85, (McVicker Park Fire Station), located to the north at McVicker Park, slightly east of the lake at 29405 Grand Avenue; z Canyon Hills Fire Station No. 94 (Canyon Hills), located in the southeast section of the City, at 21775 Railroad Canyon Road, east of the I-15. z Rosetta Canyon Fire Station No. 97 (unmannedRosetta Canyon), located in the north section of the City on Rosetta Canyon Drive. The following stations are located outside city limits: z Quail Valley Station No. 5 z Lakeland Village Station No. 11,. z El Cariso Station No. 51,. z Canyon Lake Station No. 60. z Wildomar Station No. 61. z Sycamore Canyon Station No. 64 z Menifee Station No. 68 z Wildomar Station No. 74Rancho Capistrano Station No. 74, and z Canyon Lake Station No. 60. Although the fire stations are operated by RCFD, CDFCAL FIRE staffs firefighters and stores firefighting equipment at stations throughout the City, particularly during peak fire season. Both agencies respond to all types of emergencies, depending on the need and equipment available. Emergencies range from wildland fires, residential/commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid of all types, search and rescue missions, hazardous material spills, floods, earthquakes, and more. Standard response times are established by RCFD guidelines. One goal in the guidelines calls for tThe response time goal is to arrive atto any location within the City to be seven (7) minutes, with the intent to reduce that time to five (5) minutes. Since October 2003, fire paramedics are required at each station. These specially trained firefighters are equipped to respond to medical emergencies and ride on all calls. Their arrival on Chapter 3.0 3-61 the scene can ensure the timely start of emergency medical treatment until an ambulance arrives for patient transport. Each fire engine carries nearly $35,000 worth of state-of-the-art emergency medic equipment. Chapter 3.0 3-62 Police Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for police protection from the County of Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department operates in Lake Elsinore as the Lake Elsinore Police Department. The Sheriff’s Department has mutual aid agreements with all of the local law enforcement agencies within Riverside County. In addition, the Department coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to provide and receive statewide mutual aid when necessary. The Lake Elsinore Sheriff’s Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Site.The Lake Elsinore Sheriff’s Station serves an area of 241 square miles, including the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Wildomar, and the unincorporated communities of Alberhill, El Cariso, Glen Eden Hot Springs, Glen Ivy Hot Springs, Good Hope, Lakeland Village, Quail Valley, and Sedco Hills. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff’s Station is located on the northeast edge of the lake at 333 Limited Avenue. The police department has various programs in place to deter crime, such as neighborhood watch, Crime-Free Multi- Housing program, and community-oriented policing. The police and fire stations are depicted in Figure 3-13, Police and Fire Stations. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2011/20122020/2021, the total number of sworn officers serving the City iswas 43.653, which equates to a ratio of 0.850.76 sworn officer per 1,000 residents. Average response times for City police protection vary due to the differing priorities of each call received by 911 and dispatched to officers. During FY 2010/20112020, the average response times for priority one calls was 6.987.28 minutes, for priority two calls, 16.3322.42 minutes, for priority three calls, 36.9142.08 minutes, and for priority four calls, 56.7260.83 minutes. The Lake Elsinore Police Department manages the Lake Patrol with Marine Safety trained Ppolice Oofficers who patrol the lake, beaches and lake-adjacent parks.andOfficersenforce boating rules and regulations on the lake and assist stranded boaters. The Lake Patrol is also augmented by a special group of volunteers known as Lake Elsinore Marine Search and Rescue (LEMSAR). The LEMSAR volunteers who also patrol the lake and assist with boating collisions and stranded vessels on the lake and augment the Lake Patrol. LEMSAR volunteers are trained in first aid and CPR and must also complete a U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary boating and safety course. The Police Department also utilizes Reserve Police Officers. These volunteers are fully trained as police officers and offer an additional level of service and cost savings to the city of Lake Elsinore. _ _ £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 STATION #5 STATION #64 STATION #68 STATION #61 STATION #85 STATION #94 STATION #97 STATION #60 STATION #51 STATION #11 STATION #10 FUTURE STATION Sheriff Station Police Department/Sherrif Sub-Station LA KESH O REDRLAKE STBUNDY CANYON RDGRAPE ST LI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E TEMESCALCANYONRD RAIL R O A D C A NYONR D RIVERSIDE DRMISSION TR BAXTER RD NEWPORT RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E CLINTON KEITH RD CE R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMNERAVE NICHOLS RD FRANKL I N S T GOETZ RDC A SI N O D RSUMMER HILLDRGRAHAM STCENTRAL STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R Copyright:© 2014 Esri Sources: City of Lake Elsinore GIS, County of Riverside GIS City of Lake Elsinore Police and Fire Stations Figure 3.13´021Miles _Sheriff Station Fire Station City Boundary Sphere of Influence I-15 SHWY-74 Water Bodies Chapter 3.0 3-65 3.8.2 Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 89 Provide efficient and effective public safety services for the community. Policies 9.1 Continue to follow Riverside County Fire Department most current guidelines to achieve standard response times and staffing levels. 9.2 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide adequate police service and staffing levels. 9.3 Continue to provide Lake Patrol personnel who enforce boating rules and regulations, and perform rescue tactics. 9.4 This Page Left Intentionally Blank Chapter 3.0 3-66 Chapter 3.0 3-67 Figure 3.7, Police and Fire Stations Chapter 3.0 3-68 BACKSIDE OF FIGURE Chapter 3.0 3-69 8.1 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. Implementation Program The City shall annually evaluate fire and police services and staff ratios. Agency/Department City Manager Goal 10 Maintain an emergency response program consistent with State law, and coordinate with surrounding cities, Riverside County and other emergency response providers. Policies 10.1 Maintain participation in local, regional, state, and national mutual aid systems to ensure that appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. 10.2 Periodically review and test the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to address the City’s growth in population and built environment, as well as, to note any deficiencies and to incorporate new emergency response techniques. 10.3 Coordinate all emergency preparedness and response plans with neighboring cities, the County of Riverside, local health care providers and utility purveyors, and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). 10.4 Maintain a safe and secure, technologically advanced Emergency Operations Center allowing for room to expand as the City grows. 10.5 Continue to train Emergency Operations Center and general city staff in our Emergency Operations Plan and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS). 10.6 Continue coordinated training for City Emergency Response Team members, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and related response agency personnel. 10.7 Conduct public outreach to provide education programs and literature to Lake Elsinore’s residents, business people and property owners on earthquake preparedness, fire safety, flooding hazards, other emergencies and identified emergency access routes. Chapter 3.0 3-70 10.8 Incorporate the current Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into this Chapter by reference. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will maintain emergency preparedness information and handouts at City Hall, the Senior Center and the Library, and will distributed the information at community events. Additionally, the City’s website and other media resources shall be utilized to inform and educate residents and business owners on emergency preparedness matters and emergency evacuation routes. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will continue to coordinate training for city staff and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and publicize training sessions to the City’s residents and business owners. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will review and update the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) a minimum of every 5 years to update emergency response, evaluation plans and evacuation routes to reflect current conditions and community needs. Agency/Department City Manager, Public Works Department 3.8.3 Schools Baseline The Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) serves most of the City of Lake Elsinore, all of the City of Canyon Lake, all of the City of Wildomar and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside. The district covers a 140-square-mile area with a population of approximately 70,000. It is the largest employer in the Lake Elsinore Valley, with more than 1,955 full- and part- time employees. District boundaries are identified on Figure 3.8, Schools and District Boundaries. Menifee Union School District serves a portion of Canyon Hills Specific Plan area. The LEUSD is composed of 25 schools, including 12 elementary, two K-8 schools, four middle, three comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and two alternative education schools. The district also has a K-12 virtual school and an adult education program. The district also provides Head Start programs at four school sites. The District is in the process of updating its Facilities Master Plan. The District has experienced a slight growth in enrollment since 2005. The enrollment for 2010/2011 is 20,658 K-12 students. The District has recently closed two elementary schools and converted an elementary and middle school into K-8 programs. The decline in the economy and the loss of new housing construction has slowed down the need for new schools. However, there continues to be a need to expand and Chapter 3.0 3-71 modernize current facilities to accommodate changing technology and additional enrollment. According to the 2011 enrollment projections and current housing market conditions the District expects only a slight increase in enrollment district wide over the next ten years. However, it is difficult to predict the future housing market, so the assumptions are made that minimal housing development will occur over the next ten years. When the housing market picks up again, the District will be ready for the surge of growth. The District currently owns property in the Wasson Canyon area and has several school sites in various planning stages in the Alberhill and Summerly Developments. There are two portions of the City of Lake Elsinore that are not within the LEUSD. In the center of the northern part of the City, a small section falls within the Perris Elementary and Union High School District; on the eastern edge of the City, a small section falls within the Menifee Union School District. There is one portion within the northwest corner of the City’s SOI that is not in the LEUSD. This small portion of the SOI falls within the Corona-Norco Unified School District. Figure 3-14 shows the location of the school districts within the City and SOI. Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Schools and District Boundaries Figure 3.14´02.51.25 Miles nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED MENIFEE UNION &PERRIS UNION HIGH PERRIS & PERRIS UNION HIGHCORONA-NORCO UNIFIED ROMOLAND & PERRIS UNION HIGH G R A N D A V E LAKESH O R E D RLAKE STCLINTON KEITH RD NEWPORT RD B U N D Y C A NYONRDGRAPE ST LIN COLN ST SCOTT RD TEMESCALCANYONRD RAILR O A D C ANYON R D RIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TR BAXTER RD FLINT S T MACHADO STCORYDON STD E X T E R A V E SUMMERHILLDRC E R E A L S T C O L L I E R A V E SUMN E R A V E NICHOLS RD FRANK L IN STGOETZ RDSPRING STG R A N D A V E LAKESHOR E D R City Boundary Sphere of Influence nm Future Schools nm Existing Schools CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED MENIFEE UNION &PERRIS UNION HIGH MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED PERRIS & PERRIS UNION HIGH ROMOLAND & PERRIS UNION HIGH I-15 SHWY-74 Chapter 3.0 3-74 3.8.4 Schools Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 911 Encourage all school districts serving Lake Elsinore to provide school facilities that are adequate to serve all students. Policies 11.1 Encourage the establishment and development of a trade school, junior college, and/or four-year college campus within the City boundaries. 11.2 Continue cooperation between school districts and the City to provide joint use of recreational facilities. Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review and CEQA processes to inform school districts serving Lake Elsinore of new development. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.8.5 Libraries Baseline The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. Residents have access to all 29 libraries and two bookmobiles. There are two libraries within city boundaries, including the Lake Elsinore Library, located on West Graham Avenue northeast of the lake, and Lakeside Library on Riverside Drive, northwest of the lake. The Canyon Lake Library is just outside the city boundary on Railroad Canyon Drive. 3.8.6 Libraries Goal and Implementation Program Goal 102 Encourage the County of Riverside’s County/City Public Library System to provide adequate library facilities for City residents. Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review and CEQA processes to assess impacts and mitigation to the library system serving Lake Elsinore to ensure adequate facilities are provided. Agency/Department Community Development Department 3.8.7 Animal Services Baseline The City contracts with a private company called Animal Friends of the Valley (AFV) for all animal control services. AFV also provides animal services to the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. AFV humane and animal services officers respond to calls from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and respond to all emergencies to the above cities 24 hours per day. AFV is located at Chapter 3.0 3-75 33751 Mission Trail in Wildomar, and open to the public from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with evening extended hours on Wednesdays until 7 p.m. The organization is dedicated to promoting humane care of animals through education and a proactive animal services program. The organization works to prevent animal suffering and ending pet overpopulation. 3.8.8 Animal Services Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 113 Provide high quality animal control services to ensure timely response and effective control that protect both citizens and animals. Policies 13.1 Continue to foster and participate in the operation of a regional animal control facility through participation in the South Western Communities Financing Authority. 13.2 Continue to develop an educational program in conjunction with Animal Friends of the Valley regarding animal control services, including spay and neuter programs. Implementation Program The City shall coordinate efforts with the County of Riverside Office of Animal Control, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Animal Friends of the Valley to ensure effective and timely animal control in Lake Elsinore Agency/Department City Manager 3.8.9 Utilities Baseline Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) is a public nonprofit agency. It was created on December 23, 1950, under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911. EVMWD provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Canyon Lake, the City of Wildomar, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated portions of the County of Riverside. EVMWD is a special district with powers that include provision of public water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment and disposal, and recycling. Currently, the district has more than 35,000 water, wastewater, and agricultural service connections. EVMWD is a subagency of the Western Municipal Water District, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from Metropolitan, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. It has access to groundwater from Elsinore Basin, Coldwater Basin, San Bernardino Bunker Hill Basin, Rialto- Colton and Riverside-North Basin. Almost all of the groundwater production that is used for Chapter 3.0 3-76 potable use occurs in the Elsinore Basin. Imported water supply is purchased from the Metropolitan via Eastern Municipal Water District and Western Municipal Water District. EVMWD’s service area is broken into two divisions, the Elsinore Division and the Temescal Division (also known as Temescal Domestic Service Area). The division between the two valleys is approximately two miles north of Lake Elsinore, near the intersection of Love Lane and Temescal Canyon Road (where the Temescal Wash flows north). The water system currently includes 33 pressure zones. Within these zones, there are approximately 3,063,000 feet (580 miles) of pipelines ranging in diameter from 3 inches to 42 inches, 67 storage reservoirs with an approximate total storage capacity of 83 million gallons (MG) and 46 booster pump stations. The District currently obtains its water from 13 groundwater wells, the Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and imported water from Metropolitan through the Auld Valley and Temescal Valley Pipelines. EVMWD’s existing recycled water demands are supplied by tertiary-treated wastewater from the Regional WRF, Railroad Canyon WRF, and Horsethief WRF. In the effort to minimize the need for imported water, EVMWD 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. The EVMWD Water Distribution Master Plan from February 2008 has a projected need assessment based on future growth projections. Water demands for future scenarios are determined based on water duty factor (WDF) and future projected growth. If growth occurs at a different pace than expected, it is acknowledged that improvements may need to be implemented so that water will be continuously available. To meet rising future demands additional water source capacities are also required. The district is currently planning two groundwater wells in the Lake Elsinore Back Basin. Improvements to fix existing system deficiencies and accommodate future growth are being funded by three different categories, including ratepayers for existing services, future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), and developers for future development projects. The EVMWD Sewer District provides service for the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Canyon Lake, the City of Wildomar, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated portions of the County of Riverside. The “backbone” of the system consists of trunk sewers, generally 10 inches in diameter and larger, that convey the collected wastewater to EVMWD’s Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs). EVMWD’s existing wastewater collection systems consist of approximately 358 miles of sewer mains up to 54 inches in diameter, 33 lift stations and three WRFs. EVMWD’s current service area is delineated into four separate collection systems. These are the Regional, Canyon Lake, Horsethief, and Southern collection systems. The flows conveyed in the Regional, Canyon Lake, and Horsethief collection systems are treated by EVMWD’s Regional, Railroad Canyon, and Horsethief WRFs, respectively. Whereas wastewater discharged into the Southern collection system is conveyed through the Rancho California Water District’s (RCWD’s) wastewater collection system to the RCWD operated Santa Rosa WRF for treatment. It should be Chapter 3.0 3-77 noted that future wastewater flows generated within the Horsethief collection system will be routed to the planned Alberhill WRF for treatment. EVMWD also produces recycled water. Recycled water is used to irrigate parks, street medians, golf courses, and wildlife habitat and facilitate lake stabilization. It is the goal of EVMWD to build additional lines and expand recycled water services in order to free up additional water for residents. Prior to July 2011, the Elsinore Water District (EWD) provided water services for a limited area in Country Club Heights and parts of Lakeland Village. The EWD did not provide wastewater services. Water resources for the EWD included several local wells as well as purchases from EVMWD. EWD supplied water to more than 1,800 customers. However, a consolidation of EWD into EVMWD was finalized by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and took effect July 1, 2011. Additional water lines will have to be constructed if additional development is anticipated within the area formerly served by EWD. Electrical and Natural Gas Southern California Edison (SCE), a subsidiary of Edison International, provides electricity to the City of Lake Elsinore. SCE is a provider for 13 million customers, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses in 430 cities. SCE provides a significant amount of energy from alternate and renewable energy and from a variety of other sources. There are 16 utility interconnections, 4,990 transmission and distribution circuits, and 425 transmission and distribution crews. The City of Lake Elsinore receives its natural gas through the Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company). The Gas Company is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy and is the nation’s largest natural gas distribution utility, serving 19.5 million consumers through 5.5 million meters. The company's service territory encompasses 23,000 square miles in most of central and Southern California. Both Southern California Edison and The Gas Company anticipate the ability to accommodate future growth within the City of Lake Elsinore; development proposals will be required to formally request “will serve” letters on an individual basis. Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage (LEAPS) EVMWD, in conjunction with the Nevada Hydro Company, is proposing the Lake Elsinore Advance Pump Storage Project (LEAPS) and the related Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano (TE/VS) Transmission Line Project. LEAPS consist of a lower and upper reservoir and a hydroelectric plan to generate electricity. The Lake serves as the “lower reservoir.” When demand for electricity is low, water is pumped to the upper reservoir in the Cleveland National Forest where it is stored for release to generate electricity during peak demand periods. The Chapter 3.0 3-78 project is expected to generate enough electricity to power 500,000 homes. EVMWD is currently seeking the necessary regulatory entitlements. The project is dependent on adequate water supplies in the Lake. Therefore, according to EVMWD, the primary benefit of the LEAPS project to the Lake will be the stabilization of the Lake level at elevation 1240 MSL. The daily water pumping will affect Lake water quality and potentially impact habitat areas and recreational use on the Lake as the shoreline will be subject to significant variation on a day-to-day basis. 3.8.10 Utilities Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 124 Ensure that adequate electrical, natural gas and telecommunications systems are provided to meet the demand of new and existing development. Policies 14.1 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. 14.2 Encourage developers to contact Southern California Edison 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. 14.3 Encourage developers to incorporate energy efficient design measures into their projects and pursue available energy efficiency assistance programs from SCE and other utility agencies. Implementation Program Through the development review and CEQA processes, inform developers of utility agency assistance programs and encourage their early contact with such agencies. Agency/Department Engineering and Community Development Departments 3.8.11 Trash and Recycling Baseline CR&R is responsible for trash disposal in the City of Lake Elsinore as well as Temecula, Canyon Lake, and unincorporated parts of the County of Riverside. Residents are provided three separate 60-gallon containers for garbage, green waste, and recycling. Trash is taken to either a landfill within Riverside County or the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). There are no landfills within the City. Riverside County Waste Management (RCWM) manages the landfills used by the City of Lake Elsinore. According to RCWM, capacity levels of landfills within the jurisdiction of Chapter 3.0 3-79 RCWM are calculated on a system wide capacity level. That is to say that landfills within its jurisdiction adhere to state guidelines, which specify that a minimum of 15 years of system wide landfill capacity shall be provided. RCWM facilitates waste management services for Riverside County. These services are provided on a countywide basis, and each private or public entity determines which landfill or transfer station to use. Typically, this determination is made according to geographic proximity. The landfills typically used by the City of Lake Elsinore are the El Sobrante, Badlands, and Lamb Canyon Landfills. The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 70,000 tons of refuse per 7-day week, with a daily tonnage that shall not exceed 16,054 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which up to 5,000 tpd is reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 184 million tons, or 209.91 million cubic yards. As of end of 2010, the landfill had a remaining in-county disposal capacity of approximately 44.313 million tons. The landfill is expected to reach capacity by approximately 2045. The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue, which is accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tpd; it had an overall remaining disposal capacity of approximately 8,987,467 tons at the end of 2010. The Badlands Landfill is projected to reach capacity in approximately 2024. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and the City of San Jacinto. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 5,000 tpd; it had a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 6,647,603 tons at the end of 2010. The current remaining disposal capacity is estimated to last until approximately 2021. Landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site. As mandated by the State of California, 50% of Lake Elsinore’s trash had to be recycled by December 31, 2005. Due to the extensive amount of new homebuilding in the area leading to excessive construction waste, the City of Lake Elsinore has been granted an extension to comply with the law. Chapter 3.0 3-80 3.8.12 Trash and Recycling Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 135 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. Policies 15.1 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. 15.2 13.2 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. Implementation Program Through the project review and CEQA processes, the City shall condition projects to provide adequate disposal of solid waste generated by the project. Implementation Program Through the franchise renewal process, the City shall request cooperation in meeting recycling and source reduction goals. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.8.13 Telecommunications Baseline Verizon provides the local “land line” telephone service, although long distance services may also be obtained from a number of other providers. In addition, a number of companies provide wireless or cell phone services. Comcast of Los Angeles provides cable television and high-speed Internet. Many newer subdivisions are fully wired for telecommuting purposes. 3.8.14 Telecommunications Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 164 Encourage the pursuit of state of the art Information Technology. Policies 146.1 Encourage the use of information technology as a communication tool to improve personal convenience, reduce dependency on nonrenewable resources, take advantage of ecological and financial efficiencies of new technologies. 146.2 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. Chapter 3.0 3-81 Implementation Program The City shall consider opportunities to utilize state-of-the-art information technology Agency/Department City Manager 3.9 Environmental Justice Element 3.9.1 Introduction The State of California defines Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (California Government Code §65040.12.e). In 2016, the State of California passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) amended Government Code Section 65302 to require that both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities incorporate environmental justice policies into their general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently. The purpose of the legislation is to address the “unique or compounded health risks” in disadvantaged communities by decreasing pollution exposure, increasing community assets, and improving overall health. 3.9.2 Background Environmental Justice According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the “principles of environmental justice call for fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community’s natural surroundings, and the places people live, work, play and learn.” CalEPA points out that California was one of the first states in the nation to codify environmental justice in statute. Beyond the fair treatment called for in code, leaders in the environmental justice movement work to include those individuals disproportionately impacted by pollution in decision-making processes. The aim is to lift the unfair burden of pollution from those most vulnerable to its effects. Disadvantaged Communities “The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” Chapter 3.0 3-82 Section 39711(a) of the California Health and Safety Code requires the CalEPA to identify disadvantaged communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health ,and environmental hazard criteria, and may include, but are not limited to, either of the following: (1) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (2) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. “Disadvantaged communities” means an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), is a science-based tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (“OEHHA”) on behalf of CalEPA to help identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and vulnerabilities. The latest version of CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroscreen 4.0) uses existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank all census tracts in California based on 21 different indicators. The indicators are organized across four component categories: pollution exposure, environmental effects, sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors, which are then used to generate the CalEnviroScreen score. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. A summary of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators and how they relate to environmental justice is outlined in Table 3-7. CalEPA designated the top 25 percent of highest scoring census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 as “disadvantaged communities”. OEHHA periodically provides new updates to the model that further improve the science behind the model and can contain new and/or refined environmental justice indicators. The combined CalEnviroScreen map for the City of Lake Elsinore is shown in Figure 3-15. CalEnviroScreen identifies several census tracts in the City of Lake Elsinore in the top 25% of census tracts in California with the highest pollution burden and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore range in from 10.69 to 82.54. Figure 3-16 illustrates the census tracts completely or partially in Lake Elsinore that had a CalEnviroScreen score of 75% or above in 2021 and thus are considered disadvantaged by the state. Chapter 3.0 3-83 Table 3-7, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Environmental Justice Factors (Indicators) Category Indicator Pollution Burden Exposures 1. Ozone Concentrations 2. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentrations 3. Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions) 4. Pesticide Use 5. Drinking Water Contaminants 6. Children’s Lead Risk from Housing 7. Toxic Releases from Facilities 8. Traffic Density Environmental Effects 1. Cleanup Sites 2. Groundwater Threats 3. Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities 4. Impaired Water Bodies 5. Solid Waste Sites and Facilities Population Characteristics Sensitive Populations 1. Asthma Emergency Room (ER) Visits 2. Cardiovascular Disease (ER Visits for Heart Attacks) 3. Low Birth-Weight Infants Socioeconomic Factors 1. Educational Attainment 2. Housing Burdened Low-Income Households 3. Linguistic Isolation 4. Poverty 5. Unemployment Sources: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 464.01 419.11 420.07 429.02 430.08 427.15 430.01 427.31429.01 432.79 430.07 427.33 430.05 464.04 427.43 464.02 432.74 432.78 427.32 432.76 464.03 430.06 427.17 427.09 427.11 427.42 464.05 430.09 432.72 427.28 427.16 427.30 432.70 432.27 427.14 427.08 430.10 504 427.29 427.41 427.40 432.71 430.03 419.10 429.03 506 432.29 503 419.10 I -15I-215SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHWAY 74ETHANAC RD E L TOR O RD LAKESHOR E D R HAUN RDPA L O M A R S TLINDELL RD MAPES RD S M A I N DIVID E R D SHERMAN RDT E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D BUNDY CANYON RDMISS ION TRLGOETZ RDA STCLINTON KEITH RDGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T GARBANI RD G R A N D A V E WICKERD RD N E W P OR T R D C A S E R D CRAIG AVEENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STSCOTT RD RIVERSI D E D RLAKE STC E R E A L S T MCCALL BLVD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLIN T S T EVANS RDWILDOMAR TRL S U N CITY BLVD C A N Y O N H I L L S R D MILL ST DAILY RDHOLLAND RDNICHOLS RDROUSE RDMARIE STORANGE ST RIVERSIDE ST SPRING STMAURICIO ST AMOROSE ST HILLSIDE DR CORYDON STV A L L E Y B L V D OLIVE AVE WALNUT ST SOPHIE STCOLT DRPOTOMAC DR MC BOB RDTOFT DR CARMEL RD BYERS STTH E FA R M RD VISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE A C A C I A D R L A S H A V E RY AN A V E JO Y A V E THIRD STSUM N E R A V E10TH STMC PHERSON RD CHANEY STBARNETT RDSTONEMAN STLONGHORN DRWAITE ST PHILLIPS STBRYANT STZEIDERS RDSUNSET AVENANCY LNHOWARD RDLA G U N A A V E WATSON RD NUTMEG STMELVIN STTRUMBLE RDMAITRI RDS U M A C R D DEBON STH A Y S A V E DIAMOND DRADELFA STJARVIS STMOUNTAIN AVE CONEJO DRHILLTOP DRSKYLARK DRRED GUM DRDIANA LNGAFFO R D R DREAD STVINE ST CARL ST LAKE DR SUSAN DRLA BERT HA LN ENDERLEIN STLESSER LN RIDGE R D PINE AVELITTLE VALLEY RD TALLY RDVICTOR STPERRY RDRIVER RD MONUMENT PKWY CATT RD EVA N DEL R D C A M I N O D E L N O R T E GEARY STCRILLY RDGATEWAY DR CROSS HILL DRI-15 S B O N MO U NT A I N R D WILD LILAC RDVIA SCENICA LYNX RDTUPELO RD SOTELO RD AVIDA DRCALLE GRANDELUCERNE STWRI GHT RDBIG TEE DR ALPINE DR MERMACK AVE ULMER ST ONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RDBILLINGS LNPENCIN RDST CLAIR AVE DELCA LNHEIM STSHORELINE DRSAN JACINTO RD DAVID LNRIM CREEK PATH BLANCHE DRPILE STLOVE LNLUCE CTWILD VIE W R D 1ST STCERVERA RDCODY RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY RDALBA STG R A N D AV E EVANS RDI- 1 5 WATSON RD I-215GOETZ RDLAKE STSources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside Figure 3.15 City of Lake Elsinore CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map (2021)´021Miles LEGEND City Boundary Sphere of Influence Census Tracts C alEnvironScreen 4.0 Results 91 - 100% (highest scores) 81 - 90% 71 - 80% 61 - 70% 51 - 60% 41 - 50% 31 - 40% 21 - 30% 11 - 20% 1 - 10% (lowest scores) This map is for informational purposes only. The CalEnviroScreen scores shown on this figure are based upon CalEnvrioScreen 4.0 as of October 20, 2021. Future updates of this screening tool may yield different results. Always refer to the most current version of CalEnviroScreen available from California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). £¤74 £¤74 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 Census Tract 420.07 Census Tract 429.02 Census Tract 430.05 Census Tract 430.06 Census Tract 429.01 I- 1 5 I-215SH-7 4 MURRIETA RDHIGHWAY 74ETHANAC RD ANTELOPE RDE L TORO RD LAKESHOR E D R HAUN RDNEWPORT RDLINDELL RDMAPES RD PA L O M A R S T SHERMAN RDS M A I N D I V I D E R D T E M E S C A L C A N Y O N R D A STBUNDY CANYON RD GOETZ RDMISS ION TRLGARBANI RD WICKERD RDGRAPE ST C O M O S T LOST RDLI N C O L N S T G R A N D A V E SCOTT RD C A S E R D MCCALL BLVD CRAIG AVEENCANTO DRHULL STROBERT STLAKE STC E R E A L S T HOLLAND RD RAILROAD CANYON RD U N I O N S T FLINT S T EVANS RDWILDOMAR TRLMARIE STSUN CITY BLVD C A N Y O N H I L L S R DSPRING STMILL ST DAILY RDNICHOLS RD ROUSE RD ORANGE STRIVERSIDE ST POE STMAURICIO ST SOPHIE STAMOROSE ST HILLSI D E D R CORYDON STV A L L E Y B L V D OLIVE AVE COLT DRPOTOMAC DR MC BOB RDTOFT DR 11TH STPALM AVECARMEL RD BYERS STSYLVESTER S T THE FARM RDVISTA WAY BYERS RDHAMMACK AVE G RE E R R D CANYON LAKE D R N L A S H A V E JO Y A V E THIRD STASH ST10TH STMC PHERSON R D CO L L I E R A V E BARNETT RDSTONEMAN STLONGHORN DRCLINTON KE I TH RD WAITE ST PHILLIPS STBRYANT STWHEAT STZEIDERS RDS U M A C R D LA ESTR ELLA ST SUNSET AVENANCY LNHOWARD RDDAWSON RDWATSON RD MACY STTHEDA STMELVIN STTRUMBLE RDMAITRI RDHILLTOP DRDEBON STH A Y S A V E REISS RDDIAMOND DRLAZY CREEK RD LA PIEDRA RD ADELFA STJARVIS STLA LADERA RDTATE RD SCENIC VIEW DRCONE J O DR SKYLARK DRHEA L D A V E COX RDJAN AVEDIANA LNGAF FOR D RDREAD STVINE ST FRANKLIN ST SHRIER D R FIR ST STEELE PEAK DR LAKE DR KURT ST2ND STD U N N S T LA BERTHA LN LESSER L N LITTLE VALLEY RD VICTOR ST CONTI N E NTAL D R LINE STPERRY RDRIVER RDPEACH STCATT RD SAN JACINTO RDNORMA DR CALDERA ST EVA NDEL RDGEARY STASPEL RDLA STRADACRILLY RDBEREA RDEL NIGUEL RDGATEWA Y D R ALMOND STVIA SARAHI-15 S B O N MO U N T A I N R D WILD LILAC RDCAN Y O N D R LYNX RDVIA GARDA TUPELO RD CHERRY STSOTELO RD SHADEL RD I- 1 5 NBOFFEMPIRE LN PI E D M O N T D R LUCERNE STWRI GHT RDBIG T E E DR ALPINE DR PLAZA AVIL A MERMACK AVE WANKI AVEWHITE STULMER ST RALPH RDI-215 SBONONTARIO WAYTOWHEE LNMARRELLI RD OA K MO N T D RBILLINGS LNPENCIN RDREFA STI-215 SBOFFUL L A L N HEIM STSHORELINE DRHIXON STALMA ST BLANCHE DRSTAGELINE ST PILE STLOVE LN NAPA STWALT RDTRADE WINDS DREU R E K A S TLUCE CTWILD V I EW RD 4TH STJAMIESON STTOOKER STLINNEL LN LEOS TR L CODY RD R A L E Y A V E ROCKY RDPONTE RUSSOALBA STWOODLAKE STGIFHORN CTS H - 7 4 EVANS RDI-215 SBOFFTHEDA STS H-7 4 I-215I -15BYERS RDGOETZ RDMAPES RD LAKE STG R A N D A V E Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside Figure 3.16 City of Lake Elsinore SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022)´021Miles LEGEND City Boundary Sphere of Influence Census Tracts SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities This map is for informational purposes only. The SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities shown on this figure are those identified by CalEPA in May 2022. The boundaries of Disadvantaged Communities may change with future updates of CalEnviroScreen. Always refer to the most current designation of Disadvantaged Communities by CalEPA. Chapter 3.0 3-88 3.9.3 Environmental Justice Issues in the City of Lake Elsinore As discussed above in Section 3.9.2, the burden of pollution is not equally shared. Minority and low-income populations often face a greater exposure to pollution and may also experience a greater response to pollution. This section discusses the major factors related to environmental justice as they apply to the City of Lake Elsinore. Population Characteristics (Demographics) Certain population characteristics (demographics) can make an area more vulnerable to the negative effects of pollution. Within the City of Lake Elsinore, some of the population characteristics related to environmental justice include the following. Ethnicity/Race In 2018, the City of Lake Elsinore had a population of 63,365, representing 2.6% of the total population of Riverside County. The City is a majority-minority area, meaning that one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities make up a majority of the population. In 2018, Hispanic and Latino residents made up 52.1% of the population and Black residents made up 4.5% of the population. Between 2000 and 2018, the City’s share of Hispanic and Latino residents increased from 38.0% to 52.1%, while the share of Black residents decreased from 5.2% to 4.5%. Figure 3-17317 below illustrates the racial and ethnic breakdown of the City in 2018. Figure 3-17, City of Lake Elsinore Race/Ethnicity, 2018 Source: SCAG, Profile of the City of Lake Elsinore, 2019 47.8 31.3 8.3 6.7 1.4 0.6 0.1 3.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hispanic or Latino of Any Race Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Asian Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Other Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Two or more races alone, Not Hispanic or Latino Chapter 3.0 3-89 Linguistic Isolation Linguistic isolation refers to people and households who do not speak English at home and/or do not speak English very well. Linguistically isolated residents may have difficulty accessing daily activities, social services, and health care. As such, they may not get the care and services they need, which may result in poorer health outcomes. In addition, linguistically isolated households may not hear or understand emergency announcements and thus may suffer negative consequences as a result. According to the American Community Survey (2019), 12.4% of Lake Elsinore residents over age 5 speak English less than very well and are considered linguistically isolated. Income/Poverty Levels Income levels are an important socioeconomic factor related to environmental justice, because poor communities are more likely to be exposed to pollution. In addition, poor communities tend to be more susceptible to environmental pollution and suffer from greater health effects. In 2019, the median household income in the City of Lake Elsinore was $77,090, which was above the median household income of Riverside County of $73,260. However, 10% of households fell below the poverty level in 2019 (American Community Survey). The poverty level is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau and varies based on household size. For a family of four on an annual basis, the 2019 federal poverty level was $25,750. Unemployment Rates of unemployment also contribute to whether a community is disadvantaged in terms of environmental justice. According to OEHHA, adults without jobs may lack health care and insurance, and poor health can make it harder to find a job and stay employed. In addition, poor health can be a source of financial and emotional stress, which in turn can cause or worsen health conditions. On January 1, 2020, the unemployment rate in the City of Lake Elsinore was 4.3%, though by September 2020, it had increased to 10.8%. As of June 2022, the City’s unemployment had dropped to 3.8%1). Educational Attainment Educational attainment measures the highest level of education that an individual has completed. For the purposes of environmental justice, people with more educational attainment tend to have 1 California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information, accessed on July 28, 2022 at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov Chapter 3.0 3-90 better health, live longer, and live in areas that are less affected by air pollution and other environmental toxins (OEHHA). In the City of Lake Elsinore, 87.0% of the population 25 years of age or older have a high school diploma or equivalent, and 23.0% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure 4 below provides a summary of educational attainment in the City of Lake Elsinore. Figure 3-18, Educational Attainment in Lake Elsinore (2019) Source: American Community Survey, 2019 Housing Burden According to the California Department of Finance, there were 71,615 total households in the City of Lake Elsinore on January 1, 2022. Housing burden relates to households severely burdened by housing costs and is one of the factors used to identify disadvantaged communities in the City of Lake Elsinore. Households experiencing severe housing burden include low-income households earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the HUD 2 Area Median Family Income and also severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50 percent their household income on housing costs)3 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). Spending a greater amount on housing means that these households have fewer resources available for non-housing goods and may suffer from “housing- induced poverty.” According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results, households within the individual census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore experience a 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report, October 2021, accessed 11.15.2021 at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 8.9% 4.1% 31.2% 25.2% 7.6% 17.7% 5.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 9th Grade 9th to 12 grade, no diploma High School graduation or equivalent Some college, no degree Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Chapter 3.0 3-91 severe housing burden that ranges from 8.7 to 29.0 percent, which represents 9.2 to 88.9 percentile statewide. Sensitive Populations The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Sensitive Population Indicators include rates of asthma, heart disease, and low birth weight infants. Asthma increases an individual’s sensitivity to pollutants. Air pollutants, including particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and diesel exhaust, can trigger symptoms among asthmatics, and people with asthma have increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases such as pneumonia and influenza. Similarly, people with heart disease may be particularly sensitive to pollution, which may worsen cardiovascular conditions. Finally, low birth weight infants are those who weigh 5.5 pounds or less at birth. These children are at risk of increased risk of later health problems as well as infant mortality. Studies also suggest links with environmental exposures to lead, air pollution, toxic air contaminants, traffic pollution, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, low birth weight infants may be more susceptible to other health and developmental conditions later in life. Rates for asthma, heart disease, and low birth weight infants in the City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County are shown in Figure 3-19319. Figure 3-19, Sensitive Populations in Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Notes: Obesity’ is defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or higher. ‘Physical Activity’ refers to walking a minimum of 150 minutes per week. Source: SCAG, Profile Report of the City of Lake Elsinore 2019 28.0% 32.2%33.2%31.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Obesity Physical Activity Obesity/Physical Activity Rates (18 Years & Older) Lake Elsinore Riverside County 13.9% 7.0% 4.7% 14.7% 11.9% 7.2% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Asthma Diabetes Heart Disease Chronic Disease Rate (18 Years & Older) Lake Elsinore Riverside County Chapter 3.0 3-92 Pollution Exposure Air Quality Poor air quality can contribute to serious health problems including respiratory issues, worsening of asthma and cardiovascular disease, hospitalization and even premature death. Disadvantaged communities can be disproportionately exposed to air pollution due to the prevalence of pollution-emitting sources, which range from heavy industries to major roadways, and are also more likely to have underlying medical conditions that may be worsened by pollution. Noise The chief source of ambient noise in the City of Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence is vehicular traffic. Two major roadways, I-15 and SR-74, traverse the area, creating the greatest source of concentrated vehicular noise. Other major roadways within the City that produce traffic noise include Riverside Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Grand Avenue, and Railroad Canyon Road. Other sources of noise include Skylark Airport, industrial and manufacturing facilities, recreational boating and personal watercraft on Lake Elsinore, the Motocross Park, Diamond Stadium, and construction activities. Many homes in the City of Lake Elsinore are located in close proximity to I-15, SR-74, other major roadways and other noise sources, that fall within these limits and may be affected by high noise levels. Other Sources of Pollution Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the individual census tracts that are completely or partially in the City of Lake Elsinore have relatively low (good) percentile scores related to Pesticide Use, Clean- up Sites, Groundwater Threats, Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities, Impaired Water Bodies, Solid Waste Sites and Facilities and Toxic Release from Facilities. This means that these pollutants are not a major source of concern in the City of Lake Elsinore. However, the City has an average Drinking Water Contaminants percentile of 51.2, which means that it scores higher for the level of drinking water contaminants than 51.2 percent of other areas throughout California. The drinking water contaminant index is a combination of contaminant data that takes into account the relative concentrations of different contaminants and whether multiple contaminants are present. The indicator does not indicate whether water is safe to drink. The indicator results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to human health. Census tracts can encompass multiple public drinking water systems, and therefore, their scores may represent a combination of water contaminant data from several public drinking water systems and groundwater sources. As such, the drinking water contaminant score may not reflect the water that an individual resident of that census tract Chapter 3.0 3-93 is drinking. 3.9.4 Environmental Justice Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs The Environmental Justice goals, policies and implementation programs address the following topics: Public Engagement: The involvement of the public in decisions that affect their environment and quality of life is critical to any discussion of environmental justice. Residents and other stakeholders need to be aware of actions undertaken in a City that may have a lasting effect on them. The City of Lake Elsinore is committed to ensuring that all persons have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their environment, have their concerns considered in the process, and have the ability to influence decision-making. Pollution Exposure: The key to quality of life is the ability to live in a healthful environment with clean air, potable water, nutritious food, and a safe place to live. However, the urban environment often brings environmental risks that can adversely affect our health. Environmental pollution has a major effect on the healthfulness of a community. Exposure to pollution occurs when people come into contact with contaminated air, food, water and soil, as well as incompatible noise levels. While it is important to reduce pollution in the environment for all residents, disadvantaged populations have traditionally borne a greater pollution burden than other communities. Likewise, sensitive populations within and around disadvantaged communities are more vulnerable to the effect of pollution than other populations. Other issues identified included air pollution caused by motor vehicles, dust emissions from construction sites, a proliferation of trash in the neighborhoods, and light pollution from digital signs. The City seeks to reduce the pollution burden faced by disadvantaged population and all sectors of the community Mobility and Physical Activity: Mobility is a critical issue in bringing equity to disadvantaged persons and communities. These communities often lack access to needed resources, such as schools, health clinics, and healthy food outlets. Disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on public transportation than their more affluent neighbors are, but are often located in areas with limited transit service. Increased mobility options will provide critical links and opportunities for active living. Opportunities for physical activity are critical for bringing equity to disadvantaged communities. The built environment plays a large role in determining whether communities have opportunities for physical activity, which in turn have an extremely large impact on health. People can develop a range of health issues without places to walk, play, and exercise, and disadvantaged communities can be impacted by fewer public investments in such facilities and infrastructure. This means there are often less opportunities for formal and informal Chapter 3.0 3-94 recreation. A high level of physical activity in a community is directly related to the built environment through having places that encourage walking, biking and other forms of exercise such as parks, trails, open space, urban green spaces, and active transportation networks. Access to Healthy Food: To ensure the health and well-being of a community, it is essential that all community members have access to healthy food. This means having proximity and ability to travel to a food source that offers affordable, nutritionally adequate, and culturally appropriate food. Ensuring adequate food access is challenging in many communities in California. Low- income areas often lack supermarkets with a large selection of healthy foods. As a result, many residents in California do not have access to nutritional foods, which in turn exacerbates public health challenges. Safe and Sanitary Homes: A major emphasis of environmental justice is ensuring that people have a healthy home environment. According to the National Human Activity Pattern Survey, Americans spend 70% of the time in their homes. Low-income and minority populations are disproportionately affected by home health hazards, as their limited incomes reduce housing choices and their options for maintenance and repairs. Housing-related environmental hazards include exposure to indoor air pollution, lead-based paint, asbestos, mold, and mildew. These toxins can cause developmental delays, asthma, allergies, and other health risks. Ensuring that all residents have access to healthy homes is an important way to achieve environmental justice. Public Facilities: State law defines “public facilities” as public improvements, services and community amenities that benefit the community. They include facilities such as streets and roads, government buildings, schools, and public open space. Public improvements and programs also benefit the community and include amenities such as new development projects, recreation programs, and streetscape improvements. Public facilities are often directed to more affluent areas of the community where residents typically have a greater say in decisions that affect their environment. Disadvantaged communities have traditionally had fewer public investments in their neighborhoods, and also less access to public decision makers who decide where new facilities are placed. Public Engagement Goal 17 Encourage meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community. Policies 17.1 Encourage collaboration between the City, community, and community-based organizations, as well as local stakeholders, and environmental justice focus groups in promoting environmental justice. Chapter 3.0 3-95 17.2 Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process. 17.3 Initiate outreach efforts as early as possible in the decision-making process. 17.4 Ensure that affected residents have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their health. 17.5 Seek feedback on public decisions through traditional and online forms of communication, such as website, email, mobile phone apps, online forums, and podcasts. 17.6 Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. 17.7 Utilize multilingual staff personnel to assist in evacuation and short-term recovery activities and meeting general community needs. Pollution Exposure GOAL 18 Minimize the exposure of residents to pollution in the environment through sound planning and public decision-making. Policies 18.1 Ensure that zoning and other development regulations require adequate buffering between residential and industrial land uses. 18.2 Encourage new development to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce pollutant emissions. 18.3 Promote reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging expanded multi-modal facilities, linkages between such facilities, and services that provide transportation alternatives, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. 18.4 Place adequate conditions on large construction projects to ensure they do not create noise, dust or other impacts on the community to the extent feasible. 18.5 Require proposals for new sensitive land uses to incorporate setbacks, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures to minimize exposure to unhealthful air and other Chapter 3.0 3-96 toxins. 18.6 New specific plans or existing specific plans that include a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities,” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies consistent with this section. 18.7 Promote new development that emphasizes job creation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled in job-poor areas and does not otherwise contribute to onsite emissions in order to improve air quality. 18.8 Periodically review the City’s truck routes to ensure they adequately direct trucks away from residential areas and other areas with sensitive receptors. 18.9 Ensure that truck-dependent commercial and industrial uses incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. 18.10 Require new commercial and industrial development to incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. 18.11 Support traffic and highway techniques and technologies that reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic through traffic calming, noise barriers, pavement design, and other measures. 18.12 Encourage public and private development to incorporate green building techniques, such as construction waste management practices, optimization of energy efficiency measures, and avoidance of toxic chemicals. 18.13 Monitor and maintain City facilities and the City’s vehicle fleet to maximize energy efficiency and reduce emissions. Other Related General Plan Policies Air Quality Policy 2.1 Support the SCAQMD in its 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. Air Quality Policy 2.2 Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions. Air Quality Policy 2.3 Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles. Chapter 3.0 3-97 Air Quality Implementation Program The City shall coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding effective methods for improving local air quality. Growth Management Policy 7.1 Encourage mixed-use developments to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems. Land Use Policy 3.2 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. Noise Policy 8.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-5) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3-6) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City. Noise Policy 8.3 Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the I-15. Noise Policy 8.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3.12, Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City. Noise Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes, the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with noise standards and compatibility criteria where appropriate. Alberhill District Policy AH1.1 Continue to encourage proper reclamation and enhancement of areas impacted by extractive/mining activities for the public’s health, safety and welfare. Alberhill District Policy 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. Alberhill District Policy AH1.5 Encourage new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining operations to provide an adequate buffer with a buffer distance from mining operations based on an evaluation of: noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions and operating hours, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic and air quality. Chapter 3.0 3-98 Mobility and Physical Activity GOAL 19: Develop increased mobility and accessibility for all residents. Policies 19.1 Support walking and bicycling by encouraging the development of complete streets that provide safe mobility for all users (e.g. bike lanes, traffic-calming measures, sidewalks separated from the roadway with tree planted landscaping), where feasible in the right-of- way. 19.2 Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open space through infrastructure investments and improvements. 19.3 Create land use patterns and public amenities that encourage people to walk, bicycle and use public transit. 19.4 Encourage transit agencies to establish and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks, and healthcare facilities that are convenient to low-income and minority populations. 19.5 Encourage new specific plans, existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision, and development projects be designed to promote pedestrian movement through direct, safe, and pleasant routes that connect destinations inside and outside the plan or project area. 19.6 Work with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to ensure that all schools have safe and walkable routes to school. 19.7 Ensure that emergency preparedness and disaster response programs, including evacuation routes, serve all parts of the City. Other Related General Plan Policies Circulation Policy 6.4 Maintain the system of bike lanes and multi use trails throughout the City. Encourage the implementation of the network of Class I, II, and III 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. Circulation Implementation Program Through the development review and CEQA processes the City shall ensure the efficiency and safety of roadways, implement the Bike Lane Master Plan and Trails Master Plan, and consider innovative on-site circulation to Chapter 3.0 3-99 minimize conflicts with the roadway network. Land Use Policy 1.7 Encourage the use of paseos, green belts, linear parks, and trails within future developments. Land Use Policy 2.5 Encourage a pedestrian circulation route around the lake to improve public access to this amenity. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.3 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. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.6 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities within residential and mixed-use developments. Park and Recreation Policy 8.7 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. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and distribution. Parks and Recreation Policy 9.1 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. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall implement strategies for the Trails Master Plan when feasible. Schools Policy 11.2 Continue cooperation between school districts and the City to provide joint use of recreational facilities. Alberhill District Policy AH 4.5 Encourage the use of traffic-calming measures within commercial and institutional developments along Lake Street when recommended by traffic studies. Business District Policy BD 4.6 Encourage the creation of an environmentally sensitive and accessible pedestrian/bicycle trail along the Channel Walk project. Chapter 3.0 3-100 Business District Policy BD 5.2 Encourage expanded open space areas, bike lanes, and sidewalks along major corridors within the Business District. Historic District Policy HD 5.1 Consider pedestrian linkages between the Channel Walk project and the nearby Historic District, commercial businesses, recreational facilities, major corridors, the Lake Edge Parkway, and the lake. North Central Sphere District Policy NCS 3.1 Encourage the creation of pedestrian/hiking trails between the central and southern areas of the North Central Sphere District to open space areas to the north. North Central Sphere District Policy NCS 4.1 Through the project and CEQA processes develop a pedestrian/hiking trail system that connects existing and future residential communities. Open space areas within the North Central Sphere District and surrounding areas shall include trail signs, maps, and information about the vegetation of the surrounding areas. Access to Healthy Food GOAL 20: Encourage the provision of healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food that is readily available to all members of the community. Policies 20.1 Encourage the development of healthy food establishments in areas that have a high concentration of fast food establishments, convenience stores, and liquor stores. 20.2 Establish regulations that allow farmers’ markets to operate in the City, where appropriate. 20.3 Encourage and simplify the process of developing community gardens within or adjacent to neighborhoods and housing development sites. 20.4 Promote city-wide messaging about healthy eating habits and food choices through the Healthy LE program. 20.5 Assist transit providers in the review of their transit routes to provide service to grocery stores, markets, and healthy restaurants that provide healthy food options. 20.6 Promote community gardens for suitable public and private land as well as an amenity in Chapter 3.0 3-101 required open space areas of new multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects. 20.7 Educate the public on how to grow and maintain a private or community edible garden. Implementation Program Review and as required amend the Zoning Code to facilitate the access to healthy food by the City’s residents. Other Environmental Justice-Related General Plan Policies Land Use Policy 1.3 Encourage the development of sit-down restaurant establishments where appropriate and discourage the proliferation of drive-through fast food establishments. Safe and Sanitary Homes GOAL 21: Create healthy and affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Policies 21.1 Promote development that includes affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. 21.2 Provide ongoing infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods through the capital improvement program. 21.3 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. 21.4 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. 21.5 Ensure that proposed new affordable housing projects meet the same standards of health and safety as conventional market rate housing. 21. 6 In addition to the requirements of the Building Code, encourage the use of green, healthy building materials that are toxin free in residential construction. Chapter 3.0 3-102 Other Related General Plan Policies Housing Element Policy 1.2 Facilitate the removal or rehabilitation of housing units that pose serious health and safety hazards to residents and adjacent structures. Housing Element Policy 1.3 Continue programs directed at preserving the physical quality of housing and neighborhood environments and maintaining compliance with established standards Housing Element Policy 3.2 Promote a balance of housing types, including mixed-use development, to meet the needs of the community. Housing Element Policy 4.1 Periodically review residential development standards and regulations, ordinances, processing procedures, and residential fees to identify and mitigate constraints that may impede the development, improvement, and conservation of housing. Housing Element Policy 5.1 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Public Facilities GOAL 22: Provide adequate and equitably distributed public facilities throughout the community. Policies 22.1 Plan for the future public improvement and service needs of underserved communities. 22.2 Provide a park system that provides all residents with access to parks, community centers, sports fields, trails and other amenities. 22.3 Review the location and extent of community recreational facilities to ensure maximum use by children and adults and use that information to develop new recreational facilities and opportunities for the community, including indoor and outdoor facilities. 22.4 Provide for the equitable distribution of public facilities and services, and where feasible, prioritize new facilities in underserved areas. 22.5 Require that new development pay its fair share of public facilities and service costs, through the payment of all applicable development impact and Community Facilities Chapter 3.0 3-103 District (CFD) fees. 22.6 Ensure that new public facilities are well designed, energy efficient and compatible with adjacent land uses. Other Related General Plan Policies Parks and Recreation Policy 8.3 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. Parks and Recreation Policy 8.6 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities within residential and mixed-use developments. Parks and Recreation Implementation Program The City shall utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and distribution. From:Marsha Santos To:Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Assoc. Subject:[External]Housing Element 2021 - A Senior Citizen"s Opinion Date:Monday, August 16, 2021 1:46:22 PM Message from external sender. Use Caution. Dear Mr. Machott, Please allow me to introduce myself to you. My name is Marsha Santos and I am a retired, low income, 66 (soon to be 67) year old single senior citizen who resides in a very old fifth-wheel trailer in Lakeland Village. I have lived in Lake Elsinore since 1998, when I moved from Orange County. I was a hard-working single mom, who was still taking college courses to better my income possibilities. Having two sons to raise alone, with no child support, I was never able to buy a home for them, or me. It was a life of struggle on top of struggle. Sometimes I wanted to give up, but I never did. They have moved onto their own lives and paths, which I am very happy about. My dream was to retire, have a safe little home to live in, and just live out my remaining years happy and healthy. Little did I know how much rents would rise! I couldn’t afford an apartment on my limited Social Security Retirement, which is why I have lived the last 16 years in this old cracker-box at a little RV park called Playland Park on Grand Ave. I’ve been doing everything possible to get assistance to move into a safe apartment, but my name never gets called from the Housing Authority list. I’ve been applying for the last years. I have no place to go when this RV takes its last rusty breath. Literally, nowhere! I am scared that I will eventually end up on the streets, like a million other bag-ladies and hobos who have to place to go. I don’t do drugs or smoke, so I wouldn’t fit in with them anyway. I just keep praying to God that he will help find me a decent apartment that is clean, safe for me to live in, and affordable on my Social Security check. WHY is it so hard to help house the hard-working Senior Citizens of this community? We’ve paid our dues. We’ve raised our family’s. We’ve payed our taxes…yet there is more housing for indigent and homeless folk, than us Senior Citizens??? Please…just give me a reason why there any affordable apartments for Seniors here in the Lake Elsinore area? Sometimes I think that we all should just be herded off and put to pasture where nobody will have to deal with us Baby Boomers…who once made history!!! I would like you to address this with someone who cares (hopefully you) and possibly get back to me with encouraging possibilities for Senior Housing. Thank you for your time, Marsha L. Santos 9512831250 16730 Grand Avenue, #4 Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530 Sent from Mail for Windows P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL September 15, 2021 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Em: rmachott@lake-elsinore.org RE: City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update To Whom it May Concern, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or “Carpenter”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Lake Elsinore’s (“City”) Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update (“Project”). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. Commenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. Commenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected Richard MacHott City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update September 15, 2021 Page 2 of 5 to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update September 15, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update September 15, 2021 Page 4 of 5 developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update September 15, 2021 Page 5 of 5 needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Sincerely, ______________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL November 23, 2021 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Em: rmachott@lake-elsinore.org RE: City of Lake Elsinore’s 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update To Whom it May Concern, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Lake Elsinore’s (“City”) Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update (“Project”). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update November 23, 2021 Page 2 of 5 to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update November 23, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update November 23, 2021 Page 4 of 5 developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update November 23, 2021 Page 5 of 5 needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Sincerely, ______________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Location Type Location Name Rural H-W (miles) Urban H-W (miles) Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8 Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3 Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11 Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8 Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8 Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8 Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8 Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54 Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8 Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8 Air District El Dorado 16.8 10.8 Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8 Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8 Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3 Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8 Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8 Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8 Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern 16.8 10.8 Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8 Air District Sacramento 15 10 Attachment A Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13 Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3 Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8 Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8 Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8 Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8 Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10 County Alameda 10.8 10.8 County Alpine 16.8 10.8 County Amador 16.8 10.8 County Butte 12.54 12.54 County Calaveras 16.8 10.8 County Colusa 16.8 10.8 County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8 County Del Norte 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado-16.8 10.8 County Fresno 16.8 10.8 County Glenn 16.8 10.8 County Humboldt 16.8 10.8 County Imperial 10.2 7.3 County Inyo 16.8 10.8 County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8 County Kern-San 16.8 10.8 County Kings 16.8 10.8 County Lake 16.8 10.8 County Lassen 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7 County Madera 16.8 10.8 County Marin 10.8 10.8 County Mariposa 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Merced 16.8 10.8 County Modoc 16.8 10.8 County Mono 16.8 10.8 County Monterey 16.8 10.8 County Napa 10.8 10.8 County Nevada 16.8 10.8 County Orange 19.8 14.7 County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8 County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8 County Placer-16.8 10.8 County Plumas 16.8 10.8 County Riverside-16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 19.8 14.7 County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11 County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7 County Sacramento 15 10 County San Benito 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7 County San Diego 16.8 10.8 County San Francisco 10.8 10.8 County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 County San Luis Obispo 13 13 County San Mateo 10.8 10.8 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8 County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8 County Shasta 16.8 10.8 County Sierra 16.8 10.8 County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8 County Solano-15 10 County Solano-San 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8 County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8 County Sutter 16.8 10.8 County Tehama 16.8 10.8 County Trinity 16.8 10.8 County Tulare 16.8 10.8 County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 County Ventura 16.8 10.8 County Yolo 15 10 County Yuba 16.8 10.8 Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Mininum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 003 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682 6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529 5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 004 0.0325 6.4700e- 003 0.0390 8.6300e- 003 6.0400e- 003 0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e- 003 0.0000 53.1082 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682 6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 7 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 003 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682 3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529 1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 004 0.0325 6.4700e- 003 0.0390 8.6300e- 003 6.0400e- 003 0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e- 003 0.0000 53.1082 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682 3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Unmitigated Operational 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207 Highest 2.8857 2.8857 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 8.5100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e- 003 0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e- 004 6.4100e- 003 2.1000e- 004 6.6200e- 003 1.7300e- 003 2.0000e- 004 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 19.7136 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 8.5100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e- 003 0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e- 004 6.4100e- 003 2.1000e- 004 6.6200e- 003 1.7300e- 003 2.0000e- 004 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 19.7136 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e- 003 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 003 0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795 2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e- 003 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 003 0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795 2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e- 003 1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e- 003 0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 003 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 003 0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336 9 1,327.336 9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e- 003 1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e- 003 0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 003 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 003 0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336 9 1,327.336 9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797 4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52 69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 21 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398 9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797 4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52 69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 20 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398 9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- 003 170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056 8 0.0927 1,465.375 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- 003 170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056 8 0.0927 1,465.375 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685 7 0.2429 8,806.758 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23 39 0.4665 12,708.89 66 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685 7 0.2429 8,806.758 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23 39 0.4665 12,708.89 66 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440 8 0.2190 8,483.916 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31 70 0.4172 12,262.74 60 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440 8 0.2190 8,483.916 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31 70 0.4172 12,262.74 60 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493 7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34 24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91 60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417 8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493 7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34 24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91 60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417 8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- 003 160.9560 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693 2 0.0955 1,433.081 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- 003 160.9560 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693 2 0.0955 1,433.081 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901 3 0.2282 8,292.605 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97 63 0.4663 12,087.63 41 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901 3 0.2282 8,292.605 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97 63 0.4663 12,087.63 41 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731 8 0.2055 7,988.868 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13 25 0.4151 11,665.50 99 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731 8 0.2055 7,988.868 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13 25 0.4151 11,665.50 99 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e- 003 0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655 4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 5 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.441 2 1,342.441 2 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229 1 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e- 004 0.0221 6.3900e- 003 0.0285 5.8700e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0118 0.0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 44.8311 Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655 4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 5 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e- 003 0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655 0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 1 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.440 9 1,342.440 9 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228 7 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e- 004 0.0221 6.3900e- 003 0.0285 5.8700e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0118 0.0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 44.8311 Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655 0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Unmitigated Operational 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188 Highest 2.8757 2.8757 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6900e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5293 Total 2.6500e- 003 0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 004 5.8200e- 003 1.5300e- 003 1.9000e- 004 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0161 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6900e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5293 Total 2.6500e- 003 0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 004 5.8200e- 003 1.5300e- 003 1.9000e- 004 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0161 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Total 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Total 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Total 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Total 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e- 003 0.7557 6.2300e- 003 0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e- 003 0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 003 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 003 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1 1,105.977 1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e- 003 0.7557 6.2300e- 003 0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e- 003 0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 003 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 003 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1 1,105.977 1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e- 003 0.7377 5.9100e- 003 0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e- 003 0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466 Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 003 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 003 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 4 1,042.529 4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e- 003 0.7377 5.9100e- 003 0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e- 003 0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466 Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 003 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 003 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 4 1,042.529 4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Total 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Total 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Total 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Total 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Total 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Total 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416 6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48 90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180 8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 6 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416 6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48 90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180 8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 5 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- 003 117.3678 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521 2 0.0912 1,411.801 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- 003 117.3678 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521 2 0.0912 1,411.801 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558 5 0.1697 6,046.800 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106 7 0.3933 9,948.938 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558 5 0.1697 6,046.800 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106 7 0.3933 9,948.938 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402 8 0.1529 5,825.225 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279 0 0.3511 9,604.055 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402 8 0.1529 5,825.225 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279 0 0.3511 9,604.055 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337 7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40 80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051 7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337 7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40 80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051 7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- 003 110.5539 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326 2 0.0941 1,382.679 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- 003 110.5539 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326 2 0.0941 1,382.679 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935 4 0.1602 5,695.940 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010 4 0.3984 9,490.969 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935 4 0.1602 5,695.940 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010 4 0.3984 9,490.969 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797 4 0.1442 5,487.402 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198 1 0.3538 9,164.043 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797 4 0.1442 5,487.402 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198 1 0.3538 9,164.043 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623 Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024 Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% Local Hire Provision Net Change With Local Hire Provision Without Local Hire Provision Attachment C EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 General Plan Safety Element Assessment Board of Forestry and Fire Protection June 2020 RPC 2(l)(i) Contents Purpose and Background ...............................................................................................................................................1 Methodology for Review and Recommendations .........................................................................................................2 General Plan Safety Element Assessment .....................................................................................................................3 Background Information Summary ........................................................................................................................3 Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Feasible Implementation Measures ....................................................................5 Section 1 Avoiding or minimizing the wildfire hazards associated with new uses of land ................................5 Section 2 Develop adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in SRAs or VHFHSZs. ..................9 Section 3 Working cooperatively with public agencies responsible for fire protection. ................................ 10 Sample Safety Element Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 12 A. Maps, Plans and Historical Information .......................................................................................................... 12 B. Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 C. Fuel Modification............................................................................................................................................. 12 D. Access .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 E. Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Fire Hazard Planning in Other Elements of the General Plan ..................................................................................... 14 Land Use Element ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Housing Element ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Open Space and Conservation Elements............................................................................................................. 14 Circulation Element ............................................................................................................................................. 14 RPC 2(l)(i) 1 * https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf Purpose and Background Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, the safety element is required to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas and land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3).) The safety element is required to include: • Fire hazard severity zone maps available from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. • Any historical data on wildfires available from local agencies or a reference to where the data can be found. • Information about wildfire hazard areas that may be available from the United States Geological Survey. • The general location and distribution of existing and planned uses of land in very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZs) and in state responsibility areas (SRAs), including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. The location and distribution of planned uses of land shall not require defensible space compliance measures required by state law or local ordinance to occur on publicly owned lands or open space designations of homeowner associations. • The local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for fire protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)(A).) Based on that information, the safety element shall include goals, policies, and objectives that protect the community from the unreasonable risk of wildfire. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)(B).) To carry out those goals, policies, and objectives, feasible implementation measures shall be included in the safety element, which include but are not limited to: • Avoiding or minimizing the wildfire hazards associated with new uses of land. • Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of high fire risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in the SRA or VHFHSZ. • Designing adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in the SRA or VHFHSZ, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for structural fire suppression. • Working cooperatively with public agencies with responsibility for fire protection. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)(C).) The safety element shall also attach or reference any fire safety plans or other documents adopted by the city or county that fulfill the goals and objectives or contains the information required above. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)(D).) This might include Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, Unit Fire Plans, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, or other plans. There are several reference documents developed by state agencies to assist local jurisdictions in updating their safety elements to include wildfire safety. The Fire Hazard Planning, General Plan Technical Advice Series from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), referenced in Government Code section 65302, subdivision (g)(3) and available at 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 322-2318 The Technical Advice Series is also available from the OPR website (Technical Advice Series link).* The Technical Advice Series provides policy guidance, information resources, and fire hazard planning examples from around California that shall be considered by local jurisdictions when reviewing the safety element of its general plan. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) utilizes this Safety Element Assessment in the Board’s review of safety elements under Government Code section 65302.5. At least 90 days prior to the adoption or amendment of their safety element, counties that contain SRAs and cities or counties that contain VHFHSZs shall submit their safety element to the Board. (Gov. Code, § 65302.5, subd. (b).) The Board shall review the safety element and respond to the city or county with its findings regarding the uses of land and policies in SRAs or VHFHSZs that will protect life, property, and natural resources from RPC 2(l)(i) 2 unreasonable risks associated with wildfires, and the methods and strategies for wildfire risk reduction and prevention within SRAs or VHFHSZs. (Gov. Code, § 65302.5, subd. (b)(3).) The CAL FIRE Land Use Planning team provides expert fire protection assistance to local jurisdictions statewide. Fire captains are available to work with cities and counties to revise their safety elements and enhance their strategic fire protection planning. Methodology for Review and Recommendations Utilizing staff from the CAL FIRE Land Use Planning team, the Board has established a standardized method to review the safety element of general plans. The methodology includes 1) reviewing the safety element for the requirements in Government Code section 65302, subdivision (g)(3)(A), 2) examining the safety element for goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures that mitigate the wildfire risk in the planning area (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)(B) & (C)), and 3) making recommendations for methods and strategies that would reduce the risk of wildfires (Gov. Code, § 65302.5, subd. (b)(3)(B)). The safety element will be evaluated against the attached Assessment, which contains questions to determine if a safety element meets the fire safety planning requirements outlined in Government Code, section 65302. The reviewer will answer whether or not a submitted safety element addresses the required information, and will recommend changes to the safety element that will reduce the wildfire risk in the planning area. These recommended changes may come from the list of sample goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures that is included in this document after the Assessment, or may be based on the reviewer’s knowledge of the jurisdiction in question and their specific wildfire risk. By answering the questions in the Assessment, the reviewer will determine if the jurisdiction’s safety element has adequately addressed and mitigated their wildfire risk. If it hasn’t, any specific recommendations from the reviewer will assist the jurisdiction in revising the safety element so that it does. Once completed, the Assessment should provide clear guidance to a city or county regarding any areas of deficiency in the safety element as well as specific goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures the Board recommends adopting in order to mitigate or reduce the wildfire threat in the planning area. RPC 2(l)(i) 3 General Plan Safety Element Assessment Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore Notes: 2021 Formal CAL FIRE Unit: RRU Date Received: 08/16/2021 County: Riverside LUPP Reviewer: Shelley Redden UNIT CONTACT: Tyrell Davis Date Reviewed:08/18/2021 BACKGROUND INFORMATION SUMMARY /The safety element must contain specific background information about fire hazards in each jurisdiction. Instructions for this table: Indicate whether the safety element includes the specified information. If YES, indicate in the comments where that information can be found; if NO, provide recommendations to the jurisdiction regarding how best to include that information in their revised safety element. Required Information Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Are Fire Hazard Severity Zones Identified? CAL FIRE or Locally Adopted Maps Yes Chapter 3, Figure 3.3-City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility Is historical data on wildfires or a reference to where the data can be found, and information about wildfire hazard areas that may be available from the United States Geological Survey, included? Yes Chapter 3-Wildfire Hazards, Pages 3-9 to 3-12 discuss in length the historical fires that have occurred in the City of Lake Elsinore as well as a detailed map - Figure 3.2-City of Lake Elsinore Historical Fire Perimeters. Has the general location and distribution of existing and planned uses of land in very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZs) and in state responsibility areas (SRAs), including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities, been identified? Yes Chapter 3, Figure 3.4-City of Lake Elsinore Very High Fire Severity Zones and Existing Land Use (2019) as well as Figure 3.5- Very High Fire Severity Zones and Land Use Plan Have local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for fire protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services, been identified? Yes Chapter 3, Page 3-54, In section 3.8.1-Fire Protection speaks to the Cooperative Agreements and that the City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) through its Cooperative Fire Programs Fire Protection Reimbursement Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to provide the City with fire protection, hazardous materials mitigation, technical rescue response, fire marshal, medical emergency services, and public service assists. Are other fire protection plans, such as Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, CAL FIRE Unit or Contract County Fire Plans, referenced or incorporated into the Safety Element? Yes On September 11, 2018, the Lake Elsinore City Council adopted the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. (Chapter 3.6.3, Page 3-34) Chapter 3 (Page 3-60) Implementation Program: “The Emergency Services Division will review and update the Lake Elsinore Local RPC 2(l)(i) 4 Required Information Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) a minimum of every 5 years to update emergency response, evaluation plans and evacuation routes to reflect current conditions and community needs.” Are residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes identified? Yes Figure 3.9 City of Lake Elsinore Evacuation Routes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Implementation Program: “The City shall work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, La Strada and any other streets identified as needed to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development.” Have evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios been identified? Yes Figure 3.9 City of Lake Elsinore Evacuation Routes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Implementation Program: “The City shall work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, La Strada and any other streets identified as needed to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development.” Is there any other information in the Safety Element regarding fire hazards in SRAs or VHFHSZs? Yes RPC 2(l)(i) 5 GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, AND FEASIBLE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES The safety element must contain a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on the above information to protect the community from unreasonable risk of wildfire and implementation measures to accomplish those stated goals, policies, and objectives. Instructions for this table: Critically examine the submitted safety element and determine if it is adequate to address the jurisdiction’s unique fire hazard. Answer YES or NO appropriately for each question below. If the recommendation is irrelevant or unrelated to the jurisdiction’s fire hazard, answer N/A. For NO, provide information in the Comments/Recommendations section to help the jurisdiction incorporate that change into their safety element revision. This information may utilize example recommendations from Sample Safety Element Recommendations and Fire Hazard Planning in Other Elements of the General Plan below, may indicate how high of a priority this recommendation is for a jurisdiction, or may include other jurisdiction-specific information or recommendations. Section 1 Avoiding or minimizing the wildfire hazards associated with new uses of land Questions Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Does local ordinance require development standards that meet or exceed title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRAs and/or VHFHSZs? Yes As stated in Policy 5.2 (Page 3-23) The City will require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Are there goals and policies to avoid or minimize new residential development in VHFHSZs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 Discuss the goals and policies to avoid or minimize new residential development in VHFHSZs. Additionally, the LHMP is incorporated by reference on Pages 3- 35 and 3-58. Has fire safe design been incorporated into future development requirements? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) in Policy 5.2, the City sates it will require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.3 Also states that the city will establish fire resistant building techniques for new development such as non-combustible wall surfacing materials, fire-retardant treated wood, heavy timber RPC 2(l)(i) 6 Questions Yes or No Comments and Recommendations construction, glazing, enclosed materials and features, insulation without paper-facing, and automatic fire sprinklers. Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.5 Is a multi-point policy discussing how the new development in VHFSZs are required to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that will minimize risks. Are new essential public facilities located outside high fire risk areas, such as VHFHSZs, when feasible? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.9 States the City will locate new essential public facilities (e.g., health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities) outside of very high fire hazard severity zones. If new essential public facilities are located in a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard zone, the facilities shall be constructed to meet or exceed the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code requirements, as adopted by the City, to allow them to continue to serve community needs during and after disaster events. Are there plans or actions identified to mitigate existing non-conforming development to contemporary fire safe standards, in terms of road standards and vegetative hazard? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.2 Speaks to creating fuel modification zones around development within very high hazards 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-resistive material for aesthetics and erosion control. Chapter 3 (Page 3-32) Policy 5.4 States that if new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a very high fire hazard severity zone, the City will require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. Does the plan include policies to evaluate re-development after a large fire? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-24) Policy 5.7 Requires that all redevelopment of properties damaged or destroyed by a major wildfire comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Chapter 3 (Page 3-24) Policy 5.8 States that the City will perform an evaluation of fire-related development standards should a major wildfire require portions of the City be rebuilt to ensure that redevelopment standards are as fire-safe as reasonably possible. Chapter 3 (Page 3-24) Implementation Program: “The City shall condition projects to comply with Fire Department requirements.” RPC 2(l)(i) 7 Questions Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Is fuel modification around homes and subdivisions required for new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.2 States the City will require fuel modification zones are created 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 aesthetics and erosion control. Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.6 Requires new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. Are fire protection plans required for new development in VHFHSZs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.5 is a multi-point policy discussing how the new development in VHFSZs are required to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that will minimize risks. Does the plan address long term maintenance of fire hazard reduction projects, including community fire breaks and private road and public road clearance? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.6 Requires new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. Is there adequate access (ingress, egress) to new development in VHFHSZs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 53 Requires all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Are minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas in VHFHSZs defined? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 53 Requires all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.2 Requires that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. If areas exist with inadequate access/evacuation routes, are they Yes Figure 6.3 City of Lake Elsinore Evacuation Routes RPC 2(l)(i) 8 Questions Yes or No Comments and Recommendations identified? Are mitigation measures or improvement plans identified? Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.7 Speaks of identify existing developed areas within the City that have reduced or limited circulation access and develop an evacuation plan, and recommended improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Implementation Program: “The City shall work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, La Strada and any other streets identified as needed to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development”. Are there policies or programs promoting public outreach about defensible space or evacuation routes? Are there specific plans to reach at-risk populations? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.4 Speaks of encouraging 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. Chapter 3 (Page 3-60) Policy 10.7 Speaks of conducting public outreach to provide education programs and literature to Lake Elsinore’s residents, businesspeople and property owners on earthquake preparedness, fire safety, flooding hazards, other emergencies and identified emergency access routes. Does the plan identify future water supply for fire suppression needs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.5 Speaks of creating emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. Does new development have adequate fire protection? Yes Chapter 3 (Pages 3-54 to 3-55) In the section 3.8.1-Fire Protection, it is discussed in length the Cooperative agreements the City of Lake Elsinore have with the Riverside County Fire Department and CAL FIRE as well as providing a list of fire station inside and outside the City limits. As stated in Policy 5.2 (Page 3-23) The City will require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. RPC 2(l)(i) 9 Section 2 Develop adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in SRAs or VHFHSZs. Does the plan identify adequate infrastructure for new development related to: Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Water supply and fire flow? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Implementation Program: The City shall work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. Location of anticipated water supply? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.5 Speaks of creating emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. Maintenance and long-term integrity of water supplies? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Implementation Program: The City shall work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. Evacuation and emergency vehicle access? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.3 Requires all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Fuel modification and defensible space? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.1 Requires on-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary. Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.2 Speaks of creating 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 aesthetics and erosion control. Vegetation clearance maintenance on public and private roads? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.1 Requires on-going brush clearance and establish low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary. Chapter 3 (Page 3-21) Policy 4.2 Speaks of creating 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 RPC 2(l)(i) 10 Does the plan identify adequate infrastructure for new development related to: Yes or No Comments and Recommendations building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be aesthetics and erosion control. Visible home and street addressing and signage? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-23) Policy 5.4 States that if new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a very high fire hazard severity zone, require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. Community fire breaks? Is there a discussion of how those fire breaks will be maintained? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-24) Policy 5.6 Requires new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. The agreement shall specify who is responsible for maintenance of these areas and the fire safe standards that will be implemented. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. Section 3 Working cooperatively with public agencies responsible for fire protection. Question Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Is there a map or description of existing emergency service facilities and areas lacking service, specifically noting any areas in SRAs or VHFHSZs? Yes Figure 3.2 City of Lake Elsinore Historical Perimeters also shows the existing emergency service facilities and areas lacking service, specifically noting any areas in SRAs or VHFHSZs. Does the plan include an assessment and projection of future emergency service needs? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-22) Policy 4.7 Speaks to coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to reassess fire hazards and future availability of water supplies, after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, for both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. Are goals or standards for emergency services training described? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-60) Policy 10.5 Speaks of continuing to train Emergency Operations Center and general city staff in our Emergency Operations Plan and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS). Chapter 3 (Page 3-60) Policy 10.6 Speaks to continue coordinated training for City Emergency Response Team members, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and related response agency personnel. RPC 2(l)(i) 11 Question Yes or No Comments and Recommendations Does the plan outline inter-agency preparedness coordination and mutual aid multi-agency agreements? Yes Chapter 3 (Page 3-57) Policy 10.1 Speaks of maintaining participation in local, regional, state, and national mutual aid systems to ensure that appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. LHMP and EOP are included by reference. (Page 3-35) RPC 2(l)(i) 12 Sample Safety Element Recommendations These are examples of specific policies, objectives, or implementation measures that may be used to meet the intent of Government Code sections 65302, subdivision (g)(3) and 65302.5, subdivision (b). Safety element reviewers may make recommendations that are not included here. A. MAPS, PLANS AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION 1. Include or reference CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps or locally adopted wildfire hazard zones. 2. Include or reference the location of historical information on wildfires in the planning area. 3. Include a map or description of the location of existing and planned land uses in SRAs and VHFHSZs, particularly habitable structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. 4. Identify or reference a fire plan that is relevant to the geographic scope of the general plan, including the Unit/Contract County Fire Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and any applicable Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 5. Align the goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures for fire hazard mitigation in the safety element with those in existing fire plans, or make plans to update fire plans to match the safety element. 6. Create a fire plan for the planning area. B. LAND USE 1. Develop fire safe development codes to use as standards for fire protection for new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs that meet or exceed the statewide minimums in the SRA Fire Safe Regulations. 2. Adopt and have certified by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection local ordinances which meet or exceed the minimum statewide standards in the SRA Fire Safe Regulations. 3. Identify existing development that do not meet or exceed the SRA Fire Safe Regulations or certified local ordinances. 4. Develop mitigation measures for existing development that does not meet or exceed the SRA Fire Safe Regulations or certified local ordinances or identify a policy to do so. C. FUEL MODIFICATION 1. Develop a policy to communicate vegetation clearance requirements to seasonal, absent, or vacation rental owners. 2. Identify a policy for the ongoing maintenance of vegetation clearance on public and private roads. 3. Include fuel breaks in the layout/siting of subdivisions. 4. Identify a policy for the ongoing maintenance of existing or proposed fuel breaks. 5. Identify and/or map existing development that does not conform to current state and/or locally adopted fire safety standards for access, water supply and fire flow, signing, and vegetation clearance in SRAs or VHFHSZs. 6. Identify plans and actions for existing non-conforming development to be improved or mitigated to meet current state and/or locally adopted fire safety standards for access, water supply and fire flow, signing, and vegetation clearance. RPC 2(l)(i) 13 D. ACCESS 1. Develop a policy that approval of parcel maps and tentative maps in SRAs or VHFHSZs is conditional based on meeting the SRA Fire Safe Regulations and the Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations, particularly those regarding road standards for ingress, egress, and fire equipment access. (See Gov. Code, § 66474.02.) 2. Develop a policy that development will be prioritized in areas with an adequate road network and associated infrastructure. 3. Identify multi-family housing, group homes, or other community housing in SRAs or VHFHSZs and develop a policy to create evacuation or shelter in place plans. 4. Include a policy to develop pre-plans for fire risk areas that address civilian evacuation and to effectively communicate those plans. 5. Identify road networks in SRAs or VHFHSZs that do not meet title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 2 and 3 (commencing with section 1273.00) or certified local ordinance and develop a policy to examine possible mitigations. E. FIRE PROTECTION 1. Develop a policy that development will be prioritized in areas with adequate water supply infrastructure. 2. Plan for the ongoing maintenance and long-term integrity of planned and existing water supply infrastructure. 3. Map existing emergency service facilities and note any areas lacking service, especially in SRAs or VHFHSZs. 4. Project future emergency service needs for the planned land uses. 5. Include information about emergency service trainings or standards and plans to meet or maintain them. 6. Include information about inter-agency preparedness coordination or mutual aid agreements. RPC 2(l)(i) 14 Fire Hazard Planning in Other Elements of the General Plan When updating the General Plan, here are some ways to incorporate fire hazard planning into other elements. Wildfire safety is best accomplished by holistic, strategic fire planning that takes advantage of opportunities to align priorities and implementation measures within and across plans. LAND USE ELEMENT Goals and policies include mitigation of fire hazard for future development or limit development in very high fire hazard severity zones. Disclose wildland urban-interface hazards, including fire hazard severity zones, and/or other vulnerable areas as determined by CAL FIRE or local fire agency. Design and locate new development to provide adequate infrastructure for the safe ingress of emergency response vehicles and simultaneously allow citizen egress during emergencies. Describe or map any Firewise Communities or other fire safe communities as determined by the National Fire Protection Association, Fire Safe Council, or other organization. HOUSING ELEMENT Incorporation of current fire safe building codes. Identify and mitigate substandard fire safe housing and neighborhoods relative to fire hazard severity zones. Consider diverse occupancies and their effects on wildfire protection (group housing, seasonal populations, transit-dependent, etc). OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS Identify critical natural resource values relative to fire hazard severity zones. Include resource management activities to enhance protection of open space and natural resource values. Integrate open space into fire safety planning and effectiveness. Mitigation for unique pest, disease and other forest health issues leading to hazardous situations. CIRCULATION ELEMENT Provide adequate access to very high fire hazard severity zones. Develop standards for evacuation of residential areas in very high fire hazard severity zones. Incorporate a policy that provides for a fuel reduction maintenance program along roadways. RPC 2(l)(i) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 1 of 95 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-18 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-01 (Initial Study/Negative Declaration) Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 AUGUST 2021 UPDATED JULY 2022 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 2 of 95 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 4 B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ......................................................... 4 C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................. 5 D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY ........................................................................................ 5 E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 6 F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................. 6 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 9 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ............................................................................... 9 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 9 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................... 10 A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 10 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 33 C. DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................. 34 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 49 I. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................................... 49 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .............................................................. 51 III. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 52 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 55 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 57 VI. ENERGY ................................................................................................................................. 59 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ....................................................................................................... 59 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................................................................... 63 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................... 66 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................ 69 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................. 73 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 74 XIII. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................... 75 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................... 80 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................... 81 XVI. RECREATION ........................................................................................................................ 84 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................. 85 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 87 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 88 XX. WILDFIRES ............................................................................................................................ 90 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 92 VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ............................................................... 93 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 3 of 95 VII. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 93 LIST OF TABLES Table 1, Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029........................................................................ 13 Table 2, Approved Projects Affordability Distribution ......................................................................... 13 Table 3, Vacant Land Inventory .............................................................................................................. 14 Table 4, Sites Inventory Summary .......................................................................................................... 18 Table 5, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards......................................................................... 76 Table 6, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ..................................................................................... 77 Table 7, Human Response to Groundborne Vibration.......................................................................... 78 Table 8, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................... 79 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1, Regional Location ....................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2, Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 3, Sites Inventory Map .................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4, Sites Inventory Map - HDR and RMU Sites ............................................................................... 38 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 4 of 95 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of Planning Application 2021-18 (General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01) which consists of an update to the City of Lake Elsinore’s Housing Element to cover the 2021-2019 period, an update of the General Plan Safety Element contained in Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the City’s General Plan and a new Environmental Justice Element, which is being incorporated into Chapter 3.0. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the “proposed project”. B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: $ The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. $ The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. $ The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. $ The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project will not result in potentially significant environmental effects and therefore, a Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 5 of 95 This Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Negative Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed project. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 6 of 95 describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Negative Declaration. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required. F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a) the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 7 of 95 negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows: “Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR; (b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows: “Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.” Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.” For this document, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. 2. Incorporation by Reference An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 8 of 95 which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs/MND and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows: $ Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]) $ The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]) $ This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). 3. Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is/are incorporated by reference: • City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. The above-listed document is available for review at: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Closed Holidays General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 9 of 95 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Project Location Located within western Riverside County, the City of Lake Elsinore bordered by the Elsinore Mountains to the west, which is part of the Santa Ana Mountain Range. The City is surrounded by Wildomar to the southeast, unincorporated Riverside County to the west and north, and Menifee and Canyon Lake to the east. The City’s planning area (including its sphere of influence) encompasses approximately 72 square miles. Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Vicinity Map illustrate the City’s location within western Riverside County and its local context. The City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element applies to all residential and mixed-use zoning districts and all General Plan land use designations that allow residential or mixed-use development within the municipal boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. The update of the General Plan Safety Element and the new Environmental Justice Element will apply to all properties within the City of Lake Elsinore. Environmental Setting The City of Lake Elsinore is located in southwestern Riverside County. The City lies on either side of Interstate 15 and is pocketed by the surrounding hillsides, including the Cleveland National Forest to the west. Interstate 15 provides access to the regional highway network. The City has seen substantial development in the past twenty years, however large amounts of vacant areas still exist within the City. The topography of the City varies between flat areas amongst the core and downtown areas of the City north and east of Lake Elsinore and transitions to steeper terrain elsewhere in the City. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project includes the following entitlements: • City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) including updates related to the Safety Element and the addition of new Environmental Justice goals, policies and programs. (Planning Application No. 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01). The project consists of three components consisting of: 1. The adoption and implementation of the City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element, which represents an update of the City’s Housing Element. California law requires an update of the Housing Element every eight years in order to remain relevant and reflective of the community’s changing housing needs. California is now entering its sixth cycle, covering a period between 2021 and 2029. The Housing Element is an integral component of the City’s General Plan as it addresses existing and future housing needs of all types for persons in all economic segment groups within the City. The Housing Element serves as a tool for decision-makers and the public in understanding and meeting housing needs in Lake Elsinore. While the law does not require local governments to actually construct housing to meet identified needs, it does require that the community address housing needs in its discretionary planning actions such as creating opportunities for housing in the land use plan and facilitating development through policies. To meet this goal, the Housing Element identifies existing vacant or underdeveloped areas already designated by the General Plan Land Use Element to provide for the City’s projected housing needs. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 10 of 95 2. An update of the General Plan Safety Element contained in Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the City’s General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302(g)(3) which requires that upon he next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, the safety element is required to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones. 3. A new Environmental Justice Element, which is being incorporated into Chapter 3.0 pursuant to Government Code Section 65302 (h)(1) which requires upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018 that the City adopt or review the environmental justice element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) including updates related to the Safety Element and the addition of new Environmental Justice goals, policies and programs. (Planning Application No. 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager, (951) 674-3124, Extension 209 4. Project Location: Located within western Riverside County, the City of Lake Elsinore bordered by the Elsinore Mountains to the west, which is part of the Santa Ana Mountain Range. The City is surrounded by Wildomar to the southeast, unincorporated Riverside County to the west and north, and Menifee and Canyon Lake to the east. The City’s planning area (including its sphere of influence) encompasses approximately 72 square miles. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 6. General Plan Designation: The residential and mixed-use land use designations that support housing development within the City of Lake Elsinore consist of the following: Hillside Residential (0.0-1.0 DU/Acre): This category of residential use is primarily intended for low- density single-family residential development and small-scale agricultural uses in areas of steep slopes. Minimum lot size is dependent on the average slope of an individual subdivision between one-acre for under 15% slope up to ten-acre minimum for 35% slope and above. Lakeside Residential (0.0-4.0 DU/Acre): This category is primarily intended for custom single-family homes on properties that are oriented and have accessibility to Lake Elsinore. Densities are limited to 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 net square foot lot for new subdivisions. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 11 of 95 Low Density Residential (1.0-3.0 DU/Acre): This category of residential use is primarily intended to provide for the development of traditional single-family subdivisions with one dwelling permitted per lot at a density between 1 to 3 dwelling units per acre. Low-Medium Density Residential (1.0-6.0 DU/Acre): This category of residential use is also primarily intended to provide for the development of traditional single-family subdivisions with one dwelling permitted per lot, but with an increased density allowance between 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Medium Density Residential (7.0-18.0 DU/Acre): This category of residential use allows for moderate density housing either as attached or detached single-family or attached multi-family units between 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre. High Density Residential (19.0-24.0 DU/Acre): This category of residential use allows for a broad range of dwelling unit types that may be either attached single- or multi-family residential units between 19 to 24 dwelling units per acre. Commercial Mixed Use 7.0-18.0 DU/Acre): This category provides for a mix of residential and non- residential uses within a single development with an emphasis on retail, service, civic, and professional office uses. Residential uses are also allowed as subordinate to non-residential uses at a density between 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre. Residential Mixed Use (19.0-24.0 DU/Acre): This category also provides for a mix of residential and non-residential uses within a single development with an emphasis on high density residential uses. Residential uses are allowed at a density between 19 to 24 dwelling units per acre. 7. Zoning: The Lake Elsinore Zoning Code presently provides for eight primary residential zoning classifications. The densities of the zones range from 0.1 dwelling units per acre (10-acre minimum lot size) to 24 dwelling units per acre depending on development type as well as affordable and senior housing density bonuses. Each of the classifications is listed below: • Rural Mountainous Residential (R-M-R) • Rural Residential (R-R) • Estate Single-Family Residential (R-E) • Hillside Single-Family Residential (R-H) • Single-Family Residential (R-1) • Medium Density Residential (R-2) • High Density Residential (R-3) • Mobilehome Community (MC) • Residential Mixed Use (RMU) • Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 8. Description of Project: Housing Element Description Housing Element provides the City of Lake Elsinore with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all community residents. The Housing Element is a mandatory General Plan element. It identifies ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. California law requires an update of the Housing Element every eight years in order to remain relevant and reflective of the community’s changing housing needs. The General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 12 of 95 proposed project includes the Housing Element for the sixth cycle planning period covering a period between 2021 and 2029. Government Code Section 65583 requires that the housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory- built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following: (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. (b) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. (c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element. The Housing Element consists of: • An introduction of the scope and purpose of the Housing Element • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends • A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs • An evaluation of land, administrative, and financial resources available to address the housing goals • A review of past accomplishments under the previous Housing Element • A Housing Plan to address the identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs Projected Housing Need (RHNA) Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. HCD, in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), determine a projected housing need for the region covered by SCAG: the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and Imperial. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 1,341,834 new housing units for the 2021-2029 planning period throughout the SCAG region. SCAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Lake Elsinore has a RHNA of 6,681 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period. The income distribution of those housing units is shown in Table 1, Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 13 of 95 Table 1, Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021-2029 Income Group Total Housing Units Percentage of Units Extremely-/Very Low-Income (0 to 50% AMI)* 1,878 28.1% Low-Income (>50 to 80% AMI) 1,099 16.4% Moderate-Income (>80 to 120% AMI) 1,134 17.0% Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 2,570 38.5% Total 6,681 100% Notes: AMI: Area Median Income * Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low- income households (0 to 30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation (939 units). Residential Sites Inventory State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. After accounting for approved projects, the City has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units. Throughout the city, various properties zoned for residential and mixed-use use and approved Specific Plan development collectively provide sufficient capacity to meet and exceed identified housing needs for very low-income households, as well as provide an inventory buffer for all income categories. Approved residential development projects credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA can accommodate 126 units. (Table 2, Approved Projects Affordability Distribution) The City has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units to be addressed through site identification. Table 2, Approved Projects Affordability Distribution Affordability Distribution Ex./Very Low (0-50% AMI) Low (50-80% AMI) Moderate Income (80- 120% AMI) Above Moderate Income (120%+ AMI) Total Building Permits issued since 06/30/21 -- -- -- 36 36 Tessera Development -- -- 90 -- 90 Total -- -- 90 36 126 2021-2029 RHNA 1,878 1,099 1,134 2,570 6,681 Remaining RHNA: Surplus/Remaining (+/-) -1,878 -1,099 -1,044 -2,534 -6,555 Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2020 The Housing Element Sites Inventory consists of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections, remaining Specific Plan capacity, and vacant residential and mixed-use sites. Together, these sites ensure that the remaining RHNA can adequately be accommodated during the planning period. The sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 3, Vacant Land Inventory and Table 4, Sites Inventory Summary, summarize the sites inventory (see also Figure 3, Sites Inventory, and Figure 4, Sites Inventory Map - HDR and RMU Sites. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 14 of 95 ADU Projections A projection of ADU development during the planning period is included in the site inventory. In 2019, two ADUs were permitted; in 2020, six ADUs were permitted. In 2021, the City approved nine ADU applications. The previous demand for ADUs in Lake Elsinore has been minimal due to the availability of relatively affordable housing. Nonetheless with recent, favorable ADU legislation which has created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs and the City’s efforts to publicize ADU development, demand for ADU development is expected to increase. As part of Housing Element implementation, the City will work to encourage and facilitate development of ADUs (Program 19). The City projects that during the planning period (8.3 years), at least 50 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be developed (6 per year). The affordability assumptions for the ADUs are based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) ADU affordability analysis for San Bernardino/Riverside County that have been approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (SCAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs in the San Bernardino/Riverside subregion as follows: 15% extremely low-income, 8% very low-income, 35% low-income, 35% moderate-income, and 8% above moderate- income. (6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Assistance – ADU Affordability Analysis, August 27, 2020.) Vacant Sites The vacant sites inventory includes 18 HDR/R-3 sites and 10 RMU sites totaling 104.7 acres; combined, these sites yield a realistic capacity of 2,255 units. Table 3, Vacant Land Inventory, lists the sites and provides detailed descriptions of each. Table 3, Vacant Land Inventory Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-1 1.97 1 19-24 du/ac 43 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Adjacent to a commercially zoned area R3-2 1.50 6 19-24 du/ac 34 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (1.1 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-3 3.60 17 19-24 du/ac 79 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Half (1.8 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-4 0.54 3 19-24 du/ac 12 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-5 4.04 25 19-24 du/ac 85 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most of site (3 acres) owned by two owners Subject to AB 1397 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 15 of 95 Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-6 1.27 6 19-24 du/ac 29 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (1.1 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-7 1.60 7 19-24 du/ac 34 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-8 1.04 1 19-24 du/ac 23 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-9 0.79 4 19-24 du/ac 17 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 R3-10 0.56 3 19-24 du/ac 11 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership R3-11 0.59 3 19-24 du/ac 13 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability 2 owners including City of Lake Elsinore (0.21 acres) Located adjacent to a mobile home park and a new Specify Plan aimed at revitalization and intensification. Subject to AB 1397 R3-12 0.81 4 19-24 du/ac 18 units Vacant Half (0.47 acres) of site under common ownership Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial area Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-13 1.21 1 19-24 du/ac 27 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-14 4.55 4 19-24 du/ac 100 units Vacant Located adjacent to higher density residential development and future commercial area Under common ownership Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 16 of 95 Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes R3-15 4.35 1 19-24 du/ac 96 units Vacant Located adjacent to a mobile home park Located across the street from a future 146-unit condominium development. Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-16 13.16 1 19-24 du/ac 290 units Vacant Located adjacent to a mobile home park Located across the street from a future 146-unit condominium development. Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-17 3.47 1 19-24 du/ac 76 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 R3-18 14.31 1 19-24 du/ac 268 units Vacant Located along a major corridor (CA-74) for easy access Multi-family development opportunity located in a single-family residential area and near a future commercial area Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 MSHCP habitat set-aside required – 15.85 acre site, only 14.31 acres developable RMU-1 4.96 1 19-24 du/ac 109 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 RMU-2 5.03 3 19-24 du/ac 110 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-3 8.25 1 19-24 du/ac 181 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Subject to AB 1397 RMU-4 5.99 11 19-24 du/ac 132 units Vacant Located across the street from a high-density residential development, next to Eastlake Specific Plan mixed-use overlay area with capacity for 750 residential units and adjacent to the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan mixed-use area. Very low/low-income affordability Most (4.56 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 17 of 95 Site # Size (acres) # of APNs Allowed Density Realistic Capacity Notes RMU-5 3.26 25 19-24 du/ac 73 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (2.36 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-6 5.26 44 19-24 du/ac 117 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (3.91 acres) of site under common ownership Subject to AB 1397 RMU-7 1.08 9 19-24 du/ac 26 units Vacant Easily accessible from I-15 and near a future commercial development Very low/low-income affordability Most (0.59 acres) of site under common ownership Adjacent to underutilized land for potential larger site RMU-8 8.76 9 19-24 du/ac 192 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Most (5.61 acres) of site under common ownership Located next to Eastlake Specific Plan mixed-use overlay with capacity for 750 residential units and adjacent to future commercial development. RMU-9 0.56 3 19-24 du/ac 11 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Under common ownership Located in residential areas across the street from an R-3 residential area RMU-10 2.21 1 19-24 du/ac 49 units Vacant Very low/low-income affordability Located next to a mobile home park and a high- density residential area. Across the street from a commercial mixed-use area. Total 104.71 196 2,255 units Sites Inventory Summary Table 4, Sites Inventory Summary, summarizes the sites available to address the 2021-2029 RHNA for the City of Lake Elsinore. The approved projects and site inventory identify capacity for 11,875 units, 3,119 units of which are on sites suitable for development of lower-income housing. Overall, the City can adequately accommodate—and has excess capacity for—the full RHNA for 2021-2029. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 18 of 95 Table 4, Sites Inventory Summary Ex./Very Low (0-50% AMI) Low (>50- 80% AMI) Moderate Income (>80- 120% AMI) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) Total RHNA 2021-2029 Final RHNA 1,878 1,099 1,134 2,570 6,681 APPROVED PROJECTS (Specific Plans) Building Permits issued since 06/30/21 0 0 0 36 36 Tessera Condominium Project* 0 0 90 0 90 subtotal 0 4,448 9,292 4,753 18,493 SITES INVENTORY: Estimated ADU Production* 12 17 17 4 50 Specific Plan Capacity** 835 0 5,282 3,327 9,444 HDR Sites** 1,255 0 0 0 1,255 RMU Sites** 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 subtotal 3,102 17 5,299 3,3310 11,749 TOTAL APPROVED PROJECTS & SITES Total 3,102 17 5,389 3,367 11,875 REMAINING RHNA (+shortfall/-surplus) -1,224 +1,082 -4,255 -797 * SCAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 15% extremely low-income, 8% very low-income, 35% low-income, 35% moderate-income, and 8% above moderate-income. (6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Assistance – ADU Affordability Analysis, August 27, 2020.} ** Affordability based on density Housing Plan The Housing Plan is established to guide the development and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents of the City. To achieve this goal, the Housing Plan identifies long-term housing goals and shorter-term policies to address the identified housing needs. The goals and policies are then implemented through a series of housing programs. The following is a summary of the goals, policies, and implementation programs that represent the policy direction of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element. Goal 1 Preservation, maintenance, and improvement of the existing housing stock, including the affordable housing stock Policy 1.1 Continue to enforce building, land use, and property maintenance codes. Policy 1.2 Facilitate the removal or rehabilitation of housing units that pose serious health and safety hazards to residents and adjacent structures. Policy 1.3 Continue programs directed at preserving the physical quality of housing and neighborhood environments and maintaining compliance with established standards. Policy 1.4 Invest in neighborhoods that have aging and deteriorating housing and infrastructure. Policy 1.5 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 19 of 95 Policy 1.6 Encourage energy conservation and sustainable building measures in new and existing homes and the addition of energy conservation devices/practices in existing developments. Program 1 Code Enforcement - The City will continue using code enforcement to identify housing maintenance issues and to expedite rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing by offering technical assistance or assistance referrals to homeowners and occupants. As new projects, code enforcement actions, and other opportunities arise, the City will investigate ways to meet its housing needs through rehabilitation and preservation of existing units. Program 2: Substandard and Abandoned Housing - Eliminate—through demolition—unsafe and dilapidated housing units that cannot be rehabilitated. Enforce the City’s Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 8.60) and encourage owners of houses and properties that become vacant and abandoned due to foreclosure or other circumstances to maintain or rehabilitate the properties. Utilize CDBG or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Program 3: Housing Rehabilitation Programs - Utilize CDBG or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower-income residents. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. Continue using the Receivership Program to rehabilitate at-risk residential properties. Program 4: Affordable Housing at Risk of Conversion - Based on City records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation, in the next 10 years (2021-2031) no assisted units have expiring affordability covenant. However, the City will continue to monitor the status of subsidized affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes and provide technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term affordability. If affordable housing developments become at-risk of converting to market rate housing, the City will maintain contact with local organizations and housing providers who may have an interest in acquiring at-risk units. The City will keep track of and apply for funding opportunities to preserve at-risk units and assist other organizations in applying for funding to acquire at-risk units. Program 5: Energy Conservation - Encourage and facilitate energy conservation and help residents minimize energy-related expenses. Goal 2 Diverse and high-quality housing opportunities to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community Policy 2.1 Preserve and expand the City’s supply of affordable (low- and/or moderate-income) rental and ownership housing for lower- income households. Policy 2.2 Use incentives and regulatory concessions to promote the development of housing for lower- income persons and those with special needs including, but not limited to, large families, persons with physical or developmental disabilities, families with children, the elderly, and persons experiencing homelessness. Policy 2.3 Continue to actively pursue and utilize federal and State subsidies, as well as partnerships and City resources to the fullest extent possible, to assist in meeting the housing needs of lower- income residents, including extremely low-income residents. Policy 2.4 Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of lower-income housing. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 20 of 95 Policy 2.5 Support local and regional efforts to address homelessness and programs that provide emergency resources. Policy 2.6 Provide information to residents and businesses about COVID-19 pandemic tenant, homeowner, and small landlord protection programs assistance on the City website. Policy 2.7 Promote coordination and cooperation between the City, developers, and neighborhood residents early and throughout the process for affordable housing developments. Policy 2. 8 As funding allows, explore opportunities to address existing housing problems and support regional programs to assist prospective homebuyers. Program 6: Density Bonus - Maintain an affordable housing density bonus ordinance that establishes procedures for obtaining and monitoring density bonuses in compliance with state law. Update the City’s density bonus ordinance to remain in compliance with Government Code §65915 or update the City’s zoning regulations to cross reference the most recent State laws governing density bonus provision. Include a copy of the Density Bonus Ordinance with Residential Design Review Applications. Program 7: Affordable Housing Development - Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers and non-profit housing agencies a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a residential sites inventory. Update the City-owned property list regularly. Annually consult with local affordable housing developers, including offering letters of support for grant applications, advising on local zoning and code compliance, and facilitating partnerships. When appropriate (based on affordability level) and available funding, the City will provide incentives or financial assistance to residential developments that include units that are affordable to lower-income households, including extremely low-income households. Assistance can include expedited permit processing, impact fee deferrals, and funding assistance (Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Asset Funds contingent on a project meeting the location and affordability requirements). The City will promote these incentives to developers during the application process and use development agreements to obtain the inclusion of affordable housing units in new residential projects. The City has added incentives to encourage lot consolidation in the text of the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan and will considering expanding those incentives citywide. Program 8: Affordable Housing Partnerships - Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Office of Economic Development (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and Habitat for Humanity. Endeavor to facilitate at least two affordable housing project during the planning period. Participate and leverage funds form the newly created Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust, a joint powers authority, for the purposes of funding housing specifically assisting the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income within the County of Riverside. Program 9: Downtown Lake Elsinore Residential Development - Incentivize infill development in the City’s historic Downtown to establish an attractive, walkable streetscape with a mix of shopping opportunities, restaurants, and housing in both well-maintained historic buildings and high-quality new development and open spaces. redevelop tax-delinquent properties, and consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. Pursue modifications to residential development General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 21 of 95 standards to facilitate development in Downtown, and identify funding sources to invest in infrastructure and housing. Program 10: Homeowner Assistance Programs - Continue to support first-time, home buyers in Lake Elsinore by connecting interested residents and members of the public to the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) and First Time Home Buyer Down Payment Assistance Program (FTHB) run by Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and the First Time Home Buyer program, run by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA). Direct residents to national and regional mortgage assistance programs, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside’s First-Time Homebuyer workshops, Homebuyer Pre-Purchase Consulting services, and Foreclosure Prevention/Loan Modification Services. Coordinate with local service providers and other community-based organizations to publicize these housing assistance programs. Provide information on these programs on the City’s website and via social media, through flyers posted at City facilities, and via staff assistance at City Hall. Program 11: Development Process Streamlining - Continue streamlining the project review process by: • Reviewing, and if necessary, revising local review procedures to facilitate a streamlined review process • Accommodating SB 35 streamlining applications or inquiries by creating and making available to interested parties an informational packet that explains the SB 35 streamlining provisions in Lake Elsinore and provides SB 35 eligibility information Program 12: Objective Design Standards - In compliance with SB 330, adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law. Program 13: Rental Assistance - Continue to support the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program. Direct eligible households to the Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. Provide information to landlords regarding participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program. Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside to promote Housing Choice Voucher use in high resources area in the City. Expand the location of participating voucher properties by adding information for property owners and landlords to the City’s website about participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program and advertising the County’s Informational Seminars for Landlords. Program 14: Special Needs Housing – The City will encourage and facilitate housing opportunities to meet the special housing needs of special needs residents— including the seniors, disabled, developmentally disabled, large families, the homeless, farmworkers, and extremely low-income households by: • Giving priority for available funding to development projects that include a component for special needs groups in addition to other lower-income households. • Creating an online inventory of City-owned properties that are appropriate for development of affordable or special needs housing and publicize their availability to promote the use of sites for housing. Share inventory with non-profit, or special needs organizations annually. • Adopt a density bonus ordinance in compliance with Government Code Section 65915. • Adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law. • Provide technical assistance (application assistance, references) for non-profit organizations to pursue funding for the construction of elderly, disabled, or other special needs housing. • Provide referrals to federal programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. • Assist interested affordable or special needs developers pursue projects in the City by offering General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 22 of 95 expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized development and impact fees for affordable housing. • Assist in meeting the housing needs for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, by assisting developers who seek State and federal monies in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities and providing regulatory incentives, when possible, to projects targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities. Program 15: Resources to Address Homeless Need – The City will use available funding to support organizations that address the needs of at-risk and homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population. The City will annually contact service providers and share identified levels of CDBG or other available funds (including City funds) for homeless resources or housing programs. The City will continue working with non-profit organizations that address homelessness to aid residents in need and provide technical support as needed and will cultivate a close relationship with the qualified and experienced non-profits to operate a safe and secure crisis stabilization housing complex (The Anchor). The City will create an online inventory of City-owned properties that are appropriate for development of affordable or special needs housing and publicize their availability to promote the use of sites for housing. Share inventory with non-profit, or special needs organizations annually. The City will continue using the Lake Elsinore Homeless Task Force to further the City's efforts to address homelessness as a means to engage key community leaders, businesses, and residents to join the City in its efforts to reduce homelessness in our community. As part of the Homeless Task Force, the City will fund a position for homeless outreach. The City will also continue participation in the Regional Homeless Alliance for Southwest Riverside County. Goal 3 Adequate sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure Policy 3.1 Use the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, other land use and development plans, and the development process to provide housing sites that meet the identified local need. Policy 3.2 Promote a balance of housing types, including mixed-use development, to meet the needs of the community. Policy 3.3 Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized land and make available to the development community. Policy 3.4 Provide avenues for the development of housing for extremely low-income and special needs persons. Policy 3.5 Require that new development pay the cost of providing needed facilities and an equitable share of services and to mitigate negative impacts such as those to the transportation system. Program 16: Adequate Sites - The City will maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request. The City will continue to track the affordability of new housing projects and progress toward meeting the City’s RHNA. The City is not responsible for the actual construction of these units. The City can, however, create a regulatory environment that enable the private market to build these units. This includes the adoption and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning and development standards, and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. Program 17: No Net Loss - Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 23 of 95 that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city or county must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. Program 18: Consistency Zoning - When updates to the General Plan are made, complete zoning actions necessary to bring Title 17 – Zoning of the Municipal Code consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Program 19: Accessory Dwelling Units - The City has promoted the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by updating its ADU ordinance in 2021 (Ordinance No. 1448) which addresses the latest provisions in State law, including permit streamlining processes required by law (AB 68 and AB 881). The City will provide technical resources to interested property owners such as an ADU Frequently Asked Questions handout that explains where ADUs can be developed in Lake Elsinore and what development standards they must adhere to. The City will create a webpage on the City’s website with ADU resources. The City will also provide pre-approved ADU development plans within three years and provide written information at the City’s planning counter and website. Program 20: Specific Plans - While initiation of physical development of a Specific Plan is largely outside the control of the City, the City will continue to promote development within existing and future specific plans. The City will maintain a list of Specific Plans with remaining development capacity and provide entitlement information of each plan as well as necessary entitlements or actions. The City will reach to owners/developers of Specific Plans with no recent entitlements actions every other year to identify any development constraints that may be within the control of the City. The City will address any identified issues. During the outreach process, the City will also provide information to owners and developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. Program 21: Development Agreements - Work toward the incorporation of a wide range of housing types (including special needs housing), densities, and affordability levels during the negotiation or renegotiation of Development Agreements with residential developers. Encourage developers to construct a percentage of affordable housing concurrently with market rate housing in each phase of development. Goal 4 The removal of governmental and non-governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing Policy 4.1 Periodically review residential development standards and regulations, ordinances, processing procedures, and residential fees to identify and mitigate constraints that may impede the development, improvement, and conservation of housing. Policy 4.2 Review projects in as timely a manner as possible, while maintaining adequate public involvement and fulfilling the appropriate requirements of state and local laws. Policy 4.3 Monitor State and federal housing-related legislation—and update City plans, ordinances, and processes pursuant to such legislation—to remove or reduce governmental constraints. Policy 4.4 Assist applicants navigating the development approval process; facilitate building permit and development plan processing for residential construction. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 24 of 95 Program 22: Compliance with Zoning Laws Amend the City’s zoning regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with the Supportive Housing Streamlining Act (AB 2162) and AB 101 (Low-Barrier Navigation Centers). Require that employee housing, including agricultural employees, be treated like any other residential use in the same zone consistent with the Employee Housing Act. Program 23: Residential Development Standards - Review developments standards for the residential zoning districts and revise standards that are found to constrain development of housing. The City will identify residential or mixed use zones or geographic areas where an increase in residential density will facilitate development of housing. The City will establishing prototype development plans for different residential types as a tool to streamline and facilitate residential development. Prototype plans can also assist with grant funding application for affordable or special needs housing as plans can be tailored to the funding application requirements. Program 24: Non-Government Constraints - Continue to monitor and evaluate development standards and advances in housing construction methods. Although the City has limited influence over non- governmental constraints, if non-governmental constraints are identified, the City will review, and if necessary, revise, any development regulations or processes that can potentially lessen those constraints. Goal 5 Affirmatively furthering equal and fair access to sound, affordable housing for all persons Policy 5.1 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Policy 5.2 Assist in the enforcement of State and federal fair housing and anti-discrimination laws by assisting organizations that receive and investigate fair housing allegations and refer possible violations of fair housing laws to enforcing agencies. Policy 5.3 Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing options throughout the community for all persons and reduce the risk of displacement. Policy 5.4 Ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate access to housing and reasonable accommodation in zoning and land use regulations. Program 25: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing - The City promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities and promotes housing for all persons, including those protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and any other State and federal fair housing and planning laws. The City will work to address housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, strategies for preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection. Update of the General Plan Safety Element Government Code Section 65302(g)(3) requires that upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, the safety element is required to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard severity zones. For this reason, concurrent with the above-described update of the Housing Element, the City is proposing updates to the Safety Element components of Chapter 3.0 of the City’s General Plan. In addition to the Section 65302(g)(3) required revisions, other portions of Chapter 3.0 is being updated to reflect current information and to incorporate policies contained in the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi- General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 25 of 95 Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted by the Lake Elsinore City Council on September 11, 2018. The proposed Safety Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The following is a summary of the revisions proposed for the Safety Element. Section 3.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Language regarding the Inland Empire Brine Line, previously referred to as The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) is updated and a figure showing the facility’s location was added. The following policies from the LHMP are added: Policy 3.6 - Comply with the Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Program, and Health and Safety Code Sections 25280-25289 and ensure adequate leak detection, maintenance of records, and reporting of spills. Policy 3.7 - In the event of a petroleum or gas pipeline leak, the City shall ensure that all responsible parties comply with the standards set by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Section 3.4 (Wildfire Hazards) Background information regarding wildfires updated and a new table and new figure added that show fires that occurred within Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence between 1950 and 2020 and the areas burned. The High Fire Severity Zone Map (Figure 3-3) was updated and new figures showing how existing and proposed land uses relate to the High Fire Severity Zone are added. The following policies from the LHMP or to meet CAL FIRE’s content requirements are added or amended: Policy 4.5 Create emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. Policy 4.6 Identify and map the most current Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as described and mapped by CAL FIRE, on an ongoing and as-needed basis. Policy 4.7 Identify existing developed areas within the City that have reduced or limited circulation access and develop an evacuation plan, and recommended improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. Policy 4.7 Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to reassess fire hazards and future availability of water supplies, after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, for both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. Policy 4.9 To the extent feasible and appropriate, locate new essential public facilities (e.g., health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities) outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. If new essential General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 26 of 95 public facilities are located in a State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Zone, the facilities shall be constructed to meet or exceed the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code requirements, as adopted by the City, to allow them to continue to serve community needs during and after disaster events. Implementation Program - The City will coordinate with the California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Department supporting public fire education and prevention programs. Implementation Program The City will work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, and La Strada to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development. Implementation Program The City will work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. Goal 5 Minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. Policy 5.1 Require development to contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services necessary to address the fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Policy 5.2 Require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Policy 5.3 Require all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Policy 5.4 If new development is located in a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. Policy 5.5 Require new development in VHFHSZs to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by: • Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns etc.; • Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g. through fire breaks) to the extent feasible; • Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent; • Using fire-safe building materials and design features, consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards; • Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping; and • Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, defensible space, access, and water facilities. Policy 5.6 Require new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 27 of 95 for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. The agreement shall specify who is responsible for maintenance of these areas and the fire safe standards that will be implemented. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. Policy 5.7 Require that all redevelopment of properties damaged or destroyed by a major wildfire comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Policy 5.8 Perform an evaluation of fire-related development standards should a major wildfire require portions of the City be rebuilt to ensure that redevelopment standards are as fire-safe as reasonably possible. Implementation Program - The City shall condition projects to comply with Fire Department requirements. Section 3.5 (Flooding and Floodplains) A new Figure showing Floodplains is added and the following policies from the LHMP are added: Policy 6.2 Continue to encourage floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities. Policy 6.3 Reduce the risk of flooding by creating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation areas and by prohibiting development within the floodways. Policy 6.4 Encourage that new developments within the floodplain fringe shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat. Policy 6.5 Continue to require the construction of channel improvements to allow conveyance of the 100-year flow without extensive flooding. Policy 6.6 Use FEMA regulations and mapping to ensure that flooding hazards are evaluated during the Policy environmental review process, including placement of restrictions on development within designated floodplain areas. Policy 6.7 Promote drainage improvements that maintain a natural or semi-natural floodplain. Section 3.6 (Geologic and Seismic Hazards) This section was renamed from “Seismic Activity” and additional background, including new subsections regarding the regulatory setting and local plans added. This includes language concerning address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. A figure showing evacuation routes is added. The following policy from the LHMP is added: Policy 7.1 Continue to make every effort to reduce earthquake-induced fire as a threat. Section 3.8 (Community Facilities and Protection Services) Background information regarding the Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Baselines is updated. Additionally, language regarding the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage (LEAPS) has been deleted. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 28 of 95 The following policies from the LHMP or to meet CAL FIRE’s content requirements are added Goal 10 Maintain an emergency response program consistent with State law, and coordinate with surrounding cities, Riverside County and other emergency response providers. Policy 10.1 Maintain participation in local, regional, state, and national mutual aid systems to ensure that appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. Policy 10.2 Periodically review and test the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to address the City’s growth in population and built environment, as well as, to note any deficiencies and to incorporate new emergency response techniques. Policy 10.3 Coordinate all emergency preparedness and response plans with neighboring cities, the County of Riverside, local health care providers and utility purveyors, and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). Policy 10.4 Maintain a safe and secure, technologically advanced Emergency Operations Center allowing for room to expand as the City grows. Policy 10.5 Continue to train Emergency Operations Center and general city staff in our Emergency Operations Plan and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS). Policy 10.6 Continue coordinated training for City Emergency Response Team members, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and related response agency personnel. Policy 10.7 Conduct public outreach to provide education programs and literature to Lake Elsinore’s residents, business people and property owners on earthquake preparedness, fire safety, flooding hazards, other emergencies and identified emergency access routes. Policy 10.8 Incorporate the current Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into this Chapter by reference. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will maintain emergency preparedness information and handouts at City Hall, the Senior Center and the Library, and will distributed the information at community events. Additionally, the City’s website and other media resources shall be utilized to inform and educate residents and business owners on emergency preparedness matters and emergency evacuation routes. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will continue to coordinate training for city staff and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and publicize training sessions to the City’s residents and business owners. Implementation Program The Emergency Services Division will review and update the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) a minimum of every 5 years to update emergency response, evaluation plans and evacuation routes to reflect current conditions and community needs. New Environmental Justice Element General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 29 of 95 Government Code Section 65302 (h)(1) requires that both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities incorporate environmental justice policies into their general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently. According to mapping prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 modeling, several census tracts that are completely or partially within the City limits are identified as disadvantaged communities. Therefore, concurrent with the above-described Housing Element and Safety Element, the City is proposing environmental justice goals, policies and implementation programs as part of Chapter 3.0 of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Environmental Justice Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. In addition to identifying existing policies in other parts of the City’s General Plan, the following is a list of the new goals, policies and implementation programs that are being added to the General Plan to address environmental justice. Goal 17 Encourage meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community. Policy 17.1 Encourage collaboration between the City, community, and community-based organizations, as well as local stakeholders, and environmental justice focus groups in promoting environmental justice. Policy 17.2 Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process. Policy 17.3 Initiate outreach efforts as early as possible in the decision-making process. Policy 17.4 Ensure that affected residents have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their health. Policy 17.5 Seek feedback on public decisions through traditional and online forms of communication, such as website, email, mobile phone apps, online forums, and podcasts. Policy 17.6 Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. Policy 17.7 Utilize multilingual staff personnel to assist in evacuation and short-term recovery activities and meeting general community needs. GOAL 18 Minimize the exposure of residents to pollution in the environment through sound planning and public decision-making. Policy 18.1 Ensure that zoning and other development regulations require adequate buffering between residential and industrial land uses. Policy 18.2 Encourage new development to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce pollutant emissions. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 30 of 95 Policy 18.3 Promote reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging expanded multi-modal facilities, linkages between such facilities, and services that provide transportation alternatives, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. Policy 18.4 Place adequate conditions on large construction projects to ensure they do not create noise, dust or other impacts on the community to the extent feasible. Policy 18.5 Require proposals for new sensitive land uses to incorporate setbacks, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures to minimize exposure to unhealthful air and other toxins. Policy 18.6 New specific plans or existing specific plans that include a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities,” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies consistent with this section. Policy 18.7 Promote new development that emphasizes job creation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled in job-poor areas and does not otherwise contribute to onsite emissions in order to improve air quality. Policy 18.8 Periodically review the City’s truck routes to ensure they adequately direct trucks away from residential areas and other areas with sensitive receptors. Policy 18.9 Ensure that truck-dependent commercial and industrial uses incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. Policy 18.10 Require new commercial and industrial development to incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. Policy 1811 Support traffic and highway techniques and technologies that reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic through traffic calming, noise barriers, pavement design, and other measures. Policy 18.12 Encourage public and private development to incorporate green building techniques, such as construction waste management practices, optimization of energy efficiency measures, and avoidance of toxic chemicals. Policy 18.13 Monitor and maintain City facilities and the City’s vehicle fleet to maximize energy efficiency and reduce emissions. GOAL 19: Develop increased mobility and accessibility for all residents. Policy 19.1 Support walking and bicycling by encouraging the development of complete streets that provide safe mobility for all users (e.g. bike lanes, traffic-calming measures, sidewalks separated from the roadway with tree planted landscaping), where feasible in the right-of- way. Policy 19.2 Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open space through infrastructure investments and improvements. Policy 19.3 Create land use patterns and public amenities that encourage people to walk, bicycle and use public transit. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 31 of 95 Policy 19.4 Encourage transit agencies to establish and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks, and healthcare facilities that are convenient to low-income and minority populations. Policy 19.5 Encourage new specific plans, existing specific plans that includes a substantial revision, and development projects be designed to promote pedestrian movement through direct, safe, and pleasant routes that connect destinations inside and outside the plan or project area. Policy 19.6 Work with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to ensure that all schools have safe and walkable routes to school. Policy 19.7 Ensure that emergency preparedness and disaster response programs, including evacuation routes, serve all parts of the City. GOAL 20: Encourage the provision of healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food that is readily available to all members of the community. Policy 20.1 Encourage the development of healthy food establishments in areas that have a high concentration of fast food establishments, convenience stores, and liquor stores. Policy 20.2 Establish regulations that allow farmers’ markets to operate in the City, where appropriate. Policy 20.3 Encourage and simplify the process of developing community gardens within or adjacent to neighborhoods and housing development sites. Policy 20.4 Promote city-wide messaging about healthy eating habits and food choices through the Healthy LE program. Policy 20.5 Assist transit providers in the review of their transit routes to provide service to grocery stores, markets, and healthy restaurants that provide healthy food options. Policy 20.6 Promote community gardens for suitable public and private land as well as an amenity in required open space areas of new multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects. Policy 20.7 Educate the public on how to grow and maintain a private or community edible garden. Implementation Program Review and as required amend the Zoning Code to facilitate the access to healthy food by the City’s residents. GOAL 21: Create healthy and affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Policy 21.1 Promote development that includes affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. Policy 21.2 Provide ongoing infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods through the capital improvement program. Policy 21.3 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 32 of 95 Policy 21.4 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Policy 21.5 Ensure that proposed new affordable housing projects meet the same standards of health and safety as conventional market rate housing. Policy 21.6 In addition to the requirements of the Building Code, encourage the use of green, healthy building materials that are toxin free in residential construction. GOAL 22: Provide adequate and equitably distributed public facilities throughout the community. Policy 22.1 Plan for the future public improvement and service needs of underserved communities. Policy 22.2 Provide a park system that provides all residents with access to parks, community centers, sports fields, trails and other amenities. Policy 22.3 Review the location and extent of community recreational facilities to ensure maximum use by children and adults and use that information to develop new recreational facilities and opportunities for the community, including indoor and outdoor facilities. Policy 22.4 Provide for the equitable distribution of public facilities and services, and where feasible, prioritize new facilities in underserved areas. Policy 22.5 Require that new development pay its fair share of public facilities and service costs, through the payment of all applicable development impact and Community Facilities District (CFD) fees. Policy 22.6 Ensure that new public facilities are well designed, energy efficient and compatible with adjacent land uses. 9 Project Objectives For the 2021-2029 planning period, the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and programs address housing issues in Lake Elsinore and meet State law housing requirements. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure development, revitalization, and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents. In particular, the City looks to ensure that all residents have decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing regardless of income. The goals, policies, and programs provide the framework for the City’s overall housing program and aim to: • Conserve and improve the condition of the existing housing stock. • Assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households. • Identify adequate sites to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels. • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. • Promote equal opportunities for all persons. The objective of the amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 regarding the Safety Element Update is to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and to minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 33 of 95 fires. The objective of the new Environmental Justice Element provisions being added to General Plan Chapter 3.0 is to provide for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies within Lake Elsinore 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The City Council must approve General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 that incorporates the 2021-2029 Housing Element into the current General Plan and includes Safety Element amendments and new Environmental Justice Element amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the General Plan. Other agencies whose approval is required are: • Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – Reviews and approves the Housing Element. • State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection – Reviews the Safety Element and responds with comments. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?: In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code 21080.3.1, the City notified those Native American Tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to review under CEQA. These tribes were notified via certified mail. Three tribes requested consultation pursuant to AB 52. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 34 of 95 Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Richard J. MacHott Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager July 28, 2022 Date General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 35 of 95 Figure 1, Regional Location General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 36 of 95 Figure 2, Vicinity Map General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 37 of 95 Figure 3, Sites Inventory Map Figure 3 Sites Inventory Map General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 38 of 95 Figure 4, Sites Inventory Map - HDR and RMU Sites Figure 4 Sites Inventory Map - HDR and RMU Sites General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 39 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 40 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 41 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 42 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 43 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 44 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 45 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public services/facilities? XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 46 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). b) 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 47 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 48 of 95 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 49 of 95 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). The primary scenic vistas in the City of Lake Elsinore are of the surrounding hillsides and Lake Elsinore. In some cases, these views of the hillsides and in particular the lake are generally obstructed by trees, utility poles, and other buildings. The proposed project would adopt and implement housing policies that could encourage new housing production, in particular within previously approved Specific Plans, 18 lots with existing R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning and 10 lots with existing RMU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning. Development of vacant sites with potential future housing developments guided by the policies of the Housing Element update would have no significant effect on a scenic vista. The City of Lake Elsinore has identified certain scenic areas within the City and has adopted the Scenic Overlay Zone, Lakeshore Overlay Zone, and Hillside Planned Development Overlay for the purposes of preserving these individual recognized scenic vista and viewshed areas. Each of these overlays provides certain additional use and/or development standards restrictions specific to each vista or viewshed overlay area. Application of these overlay restrictions, whether as applied directly to any approved Specific Plan, or lot with existing R-3 or RMU zoning, that may be located within an overlay or to any other housing development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element, would ensure that these recognized vistas and viewsheds would continue to be preserved through the development review process and would thus result in a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. In addition, as determined by the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR, development pursuant to the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas with the implementation of existing General Plan policies requiring or encouraging the preservation of scenic vistas and viewsheds and General Plan EIR mitigation requiring the preparation of visual simulations for development located within the scenic viewshed of Interstate-15. The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. No designated state scenic highways or eligible state scenic highways, as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, are located in the City of Lake Elsinore. However, Interstate 15 and State Highway 74, both of which are located within the City are listed as eligible (but not designated) state scenic highways. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 50 of 95 Although no designated scenic highways would be impacted, the eligible state scenic highways could be designated in the future when development may occur and be impacted then. Impacts related to potentially designated state scenic highways would be analyzed on an individual project basis and would utilize the applicable Corridor Protection Program, including land use density, site planning, landscaping, and structure appearance if these were to be adopted as designated state scenic highways. With the implementation of this program to protect the local scenic resources if these were to be designated state scenic highways, a less than significant impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: (List mitigation measures. If none are required, state “No mitigation measures are required.”) (Sources: California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Map, City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site’s existing surroundings. Future housing development could change the on- and off-site visual character of the area in which it is constructed. Development of housing pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element could potentially change vacant or already developed land for residential or mixed-use development. This type of development and buildings and architecture typically associated are generally similar in visual character as what currently exists in Lake Elsinore. Implementation of General Plan’s citywide and district specific goals and policies for residential development will ensure that the visual character of the City and each Land Use District is addressed through the development review process. Adherence to these existing General Plan goals and policies will result in a less than significant impact on the visual character and quality of the City and individual Land Use Districts related to future housing constructed pursuant to the Housing Element. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development would result in new sources of lighting. Typical light sources from a single-family home would be outdoor security lighting. Multiple-family residential and mixed-use developments would generally include outdoor security lighting and parking lot lights, depending on the type of development. Review of lighting associated with future housing development will be required through the development review process. Light spillover and glare is typically prevented by requiring lights to be designed to prevent the light from shining directly onto surrounding property. Compliance with existing City practices, procedures, and policies for lighting will ensure that lighting and glare impacts associated with potential new development are less than significant. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 51 of 95 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact Housing development pursuant to the Housing Element will primarily occur on undeveloped properties. The California Department of Conservation does not identify any area within Lake Elsinore as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed Housing Element and the General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, there will be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact The Riverside County Mapping Portal shows that no Williamson Act contracts are active for any area within Lake Elsinore. The Lake Elsinore General Plan does not identify any specific designation for agricultural uses, but does note that small-scale agricultural uses may be appropriate in the Hillside Residential land use designation. The Lake Elsinore Zoning Code does not contain any agricultural zones or any zone that principally allows agricultural uses. The proposed Housing Element and General Plan Chapter 3.0 amendments do not propose any changes to uses allowed or development standards within the General Plan or Zoning Code related to agricultural uses. Therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Riverside County Mapping Portal) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. No area within Lake Elsinore is currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The USDA Forest Service vegetation maps identify most of the city as urban, herbaceous, or shrub type indicating that it is not capable of growing industrial wood tree species. Portions of the City are designated as General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 52 of 95 hardwood forest/woodland. These areas of vegetation are primarily located within drainage, hillside, and other similar areas within the City. No new development opportunities to these areas would be facilitated due to the Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element beyond that which is currently allowed. Therefore, this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning or loss of forest land. Mitigation Measures: (No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: USDA Forest Service) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? No Impact. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. No area within Lake Elsinore is currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The USDA Forest Service vegetation maps identify most of the city as urban, herbaceous, or shrub type indicating that it is not capable of growing industrial wood tree species. Portions of the City are designated as hardwood forest/woodland. These areas of vegetation are primarily located within drainage, hillside, and other similar areas within the City. No new development opportunities to these areas would be facilitated due to the Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions updates beyond that which is currently allowed. All of the identified residential sites are located entirely or primarily within areas designated as urban, herbaceous, or shrub type. Therefore, this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning or loss of forest land. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: USDA Forest Service) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. There are no agricultural operations or timberland production operations within the City. The project does not propose any changes to land use policies or zoning that protects hillside areas. No impact related to the conversion of agricultural lands or forest land could occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, USDA Forest Service) III. AIR QUALITY a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact The City of Lake Elsinore is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD and the Southern California Association General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 53 of 95 of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP is a series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long- term goals for those pollutants. The SCAB is designated as a ‘nonattainment’ area because the District does not meet Federal and/or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). To determine consistency between the project and the AQMP, the project must comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, comply with all proposed or adopted control measures, and be consistent with the growth forecasts utilized in preparation of the Plan. The Housing Element identifies previously adopted specific plan, 18 lots with existing R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning and 10 lots with existing RMU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning for future residential development. The Census indicated that the City had a population of 51,821 in 2010 and 70,265 in 2020, which would represent an approximately 24% increase. Based on a realistic estimation of density based on location and site conditions (including limitations), the potential development sites identified in the Housing Element would result in approximately 20,987 new dwelling units and 75,133 new residents (based on California Department of Finance’s January 1, 2021 Population and Housing Estimates, 64,330 people in 17,949 households for 3.58 persons per household). SCAG provides population projection estimates. According to the SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. Buildout of the General Plan would result in a total of 94,616 dwelling units for a total buildout population of 321,694 persons, which provides for a substantially higher capacity than actual estimated population by SCAG for 2045. In addition, the proposed Housing Element and previously approved Specific Plans, 18 lots with existing R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning and 10 lots with existing RMU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning are projected to meet the City’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is a function of the City’s projected long-term growth. Therefore, by complying with the RHNA, the Housing Element is contributing short-term towards consistency with long-term growth projections and the 2012 AQMP. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not propose densities higher than is already permitted in the existing General Plan that could result in a greater increase in population and households over that contemplated in the RTP and AQMP. These increases are within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and therefore would not result in a substantial conflict with or obstruction of the AQMP. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 2020) b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD has prepared an Air Quality Management Plan to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the Basin into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the Basin’s commitments toward meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards. The SCAB is currently in non-attainment for State and Federal criteria pollutants Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10). New development facilitated by the Housing Element will be required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations aimed at reducing construction-related pollutant emissions, including fugitive dust and other General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 54 of 95 particulates, as well as reactive organic compounds and other ozone precursors found in paints and a variety of coatings. Considering that the proposed Housing Element are consistent with the development projections of the Lake Elsinore General Plan and the breadth of existing standards and regulations, implementation of the proposed housing policies and implementation programs of the Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not change or otherwise interfere with the regional pollutant control strategies of the AQMP. The project’s impact on cumulative levels of regional ozone or particulates is therefore less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, SCAQMD, 2016 Final Air Quality Management Plan, US EPA, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Common sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The project promotes development of housing for single-family households as well as the elderly; however the Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not authorize construction or redevelopment of any housing units. Through its standard development review process that includes review pursuant to State CEQA statutes and guidelines, the City will ensure that any future housing projects developed pursuant to proposed Housing Element policies and programs provide adequate protection for project residents from any local air pollution sources. The project’s impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Residential land uses typically do not create objectionable odors. Objectionable odors are typically associated with agricultural and heavy-manufacturing activities. A common potential source of odor from residential development projects comes from outdoor solid waste disposal bins. In accordance with current practices, all residential waste will be disposed of in covered receptacles and routinely removed, thereby limiting the escape of odors to the open air. No new odor sources would result from adoption of the Housing Element or the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions because they do not authorize construction of any new housing project or redevelopment of existing housing. Furthermore, the updated elements would not authorize any relaxation or elimination of current requirements for proper waste storage and disposal for housing-related development projects. Therefore, the potential for the project to create objectionable odors is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 55 of 95 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Lake Elsinore has numerous sites that are vacant and undeveloped, including the identified 18 lots with existing R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning and 10 lots with existing RMU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning. The potential does exist for residential development pursuant to the proposed Housing Element policies to impact sensitive species or sensitive species habitat. As was analyzed in the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR, these impacts are potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of existing federal, State, regional, and local habitat and species protection programs as well as the policies of the General Plan and mitigation included in the EIR that would require analysis of development impact on sensitive species and habitat. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any impacts on sensitive species or habitat beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments with the implementation of these existing programs and policies, most importantly the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) which will require project-specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact A variety of drainages cross the City of Lake Elsinore originating from the surrounding hills and generally draining towards Lake Elsinore or into Temescal Wash. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory, wetlands are present within the City primarily around Lake Elsinore, but no riparian areas exist within the City. These impacts were analyzed in the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of existing Federal and State programs, in particular Sections 401 and 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Land Use Element amendments would not increase any impacts on riparian habitat or wetlands beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments with the implementation of these existing programs and policies, most importantly the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) which will require project-specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 56 of 95 (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact A variety of drainages cross the City of Lake Elsinore originating from the surrounding hills and generally draining towards Lake Elsinore or into Temescal Wash. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory, wetlands are present within the City primarily around Lake Elsinore, but no riparian areas exist within the City. These impacts were analyzed in the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of existing Federal and State programs, in particular Sections 401 and 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Land Use Element amendments would not increase any impacts on riparian habitat or wetlands beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments with the implementation of these existing programs and policies, most importantly the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) which will require project-specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. Given the location of Lake Elsinore within the City, there are a variety of birds that migrate seasonally through the City on the Pacific flyway as well as certain birds that permanently reside locally. Pursuant to the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (MBTA) any construction that occurs during breeding season (between February 15 and August 15) would require surveys for MBTA species and other special status species to determine if any such species exist on an individual development site and appropriate mitigation measures if deemed necessary. These impacts were previously analyzed by the City’s General Plan EIR and determined to be less than significant with the implementation of this program, formalized as mitigation measures in the EIR. The proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and amended Chapter 3.0 would not increase any impacts on migration beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and amended Chapter 3.0 with the implementation of these existing programs on individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 57 of 95 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Signficant Impact. The City of Lake Elsinore does have a local palm tree preservation program. However, its purpose is primarily for preservation of aesthetic and City character. The City does not have any other local policies protecting biological resources. Continued implementation of the palm tree preservation program on individual projects would ensure that future housing developed pursuant to Housing Element policy would not conflict with any local policies and less than significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.) (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 5.116) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact As previously noted, the City is located within and is a co-permittee to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The plan is intended to conserve biological resources within the western Riverside County region by establishing a network of conservation areas. This network would comprise lands already publicly owned and set aside for conservation as well as additional lands identified for conservation on individual development projects located within conservation Criteria Cells. Any development located within MSHCP conservation Criteria Cells will require review for determining if conservation is required within the project area to contribute to the conservation network. Individual development projects will require review for sensitive species and habitat in accordance with the MSHCP. The City is also located partially within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP), which is intended to preserve habitat for the federally-listed endangered species and state-listed threatened species. The plan requires development specific analysis for presence of the species or habitat and the payment of an impact mitigation fee for properties located within the SKR HCP area. No other Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan area, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan are located within the City. With the continued implementation of the MSHCP by the City through the development review process, less than significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: US Fish & Wildlife Services. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System, California Department of Fish and Game, Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), June 2021, City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. A variety of historical resources exist within the City as identified in the City’s General Plan EIR. As is analyzed in the EIR, development pursuant to the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to historical resources as well as policies included within the General Plan. The proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 58 of 95 development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any potential impacts on historical resources beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and overall General Plan with the implementation of these existing programs and policies on individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact As is noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, given the area’s previous habitation by the Luiseño people and geological conditions, there is a moderate to high likelihood for both archaeological and paleontological resources to exist within undeveloped areas within the City. The analysis in the EIR notes that less than significant impacts would occur from development pursuant to the General Plan with the implementation of existing policies and programs as well as mitigation included in the EIR and policies of the General Plan, which generally require surveying of sites for archaeological and paleontological resources and mitigation if appropriate for individual development projects. The proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any potential impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and overall General Plan, including the Chapter 3.0 amendments, with the implementation of the mitigation measures of the General Plan EIR and General Plan policies on individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. It is possible that unknown human remains could be located in undeveloped areas that could be unearthed by development. If proper care is not taken during future housing project construction completed pursuant to Housing Element policies, particularly during excavation activities, damage to or destruction of these unknown remains could occur. To ensure that any such materials or human remains, if found, are properly identified (and the resource recovered, if necessary), before grading or other earthmoving activities proceed in that immediate area, the City’s General Plan EIR provides mitigation for halting grading activities and proper notification pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would occur. With the implementation of this existing regulation and General Plan EIR mitigation measure, impacts to buried remains would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 59 of 95 VI. ENERGY a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Any future housing projects developed pursuant to proposed Housing Element policies and programs would be consume energy during construction. Potential impacts to energy resources of any would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. The proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. There will be less than significant impacts to energy resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Any future housing projects developed pursuant to proposed Housing Element policies and programs would be consume energy during construction. Potential impacts to energy resources of any would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. The proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There will be less than significant impacts to energy resources Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. Lake Elsinore is located in seismically active southern California and does contain Alquist-Priolo Earthquake General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 60 of 95 Fault Zones and other identified faults associated with the Elsinore fault system. Future housing development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy would be subject to all applicable City, State, and local building regulations, including the California Building Code (CBC) seismic standards as approved by the Lake Elsinore Building & Safety Division. Impacts will be less than significant with the implementation of the CBC. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California State Department of Conservation, City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Ground shaking can vary greatly due to the variation in earth properties. The City is subject to strong ground shaking, as is the entirety of southern California. Various strands of the Elsinore fault underlie the City as previously noted. These faults, in addition to other regional faults, are likely to produce earthquakes during the life of the project. The proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. All future projects would be susceptible to ground shaking during a seismic event and could expose persons and structure to potentially medium to strong seismic ground motion. As such, all future projects could result in a potentially significant impact with respect to strong ground shaking. Nonetheless, all future projects would be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable City and State codes and requirements, including those established in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2. The CBC regulations are designed to protect building occupants and limit the damage sustained by buildings during seismic events. Use of these requirements is further supported by policies in the General Plan. Application of these codes and policies reduce impacts to residential development due to strong ground shaking to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore-water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table. Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur. Portions of the City with high groundwater are noted as being rated very high and high for susceptibility to possible ground failure due to liquefaction hazards as noted in the City’s General Plan with other areas rated as moderate to very low. The City recognizes the potential impacts to housing and therefore Municipal Code Chapters 17.28 and 17.32 require site specific studies for liquefaction potential and analysis of site specific design measures to limit liquefaction potential to an acceptable level in accordance with the CBC. The proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. However, if analysis on a specific site determines liquefaction may be potential, appropriate measures that reduce the ground-shaking and liquefaction effects of earthquakes are identified in the CBC. The project does not itself involve new construction in any area of the City. All future developments will General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 61 of 95 be subject to the City’s standard environmental review process for evaluation of liquefaction potential and other geologic hazards. Considering implementation of existing policies and standards, impacts associated with liquefaction or other ground failure will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are susceptible to landslides since a substantial portion is located on slopes of 30 percent or greater. Landslides have historically occurred during rainstorms and earthquakes, causing steep slopes to fail. Slope failure can cause damage to structures above and below the toe of a slope. Residential development on slopes is subject to Policy 3.1 of the Land Use section and proposed Policy 7.3 of the Geology and Seismic Hazards section of General Plan Chapter 3.0 that generally require the consideration of geologic features and hazards in proposed developments. The proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development; let alone in the hillside areas where landslides are identified as a risk. Implementation of existing California Building Code and City practices and policies related to landslides during the environmental review process will assure that appropriate design measures and mitigation is incorporated where necessary. Implementation of these existing regulations and policies would reduce potential landslide impacts to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. The project does not propose or authorize any particular housing development. All future residential projects are subject to environmental and engineering review, including assessment and mitigation of soil erosion. During construction activities of housing proposed pursuant to Housing Element policy or of development in accordance with the Land Use Element, there is the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion is required to be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 62 of 95 Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above in Section VII.a. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As discussed in Section VII.a.iii, future development within the City would be subject to less than significant impacts from liquefaction and other settlement hazards due to the requirement for geotechnical engineering and soils reports for future development. The CBC includes a requirement that any City-approved recommendations contained in a development’s soil report be made conditions of the building permit. Standard engineering techniques are required, as appropriate, to guard against seismic-related hazards. Such techniques include excavation of collapsible soils and import of suitable fill material and foundation design methods that remain stable under settlement conditions. Impacts related to soil instability will be less than significant with the continued implementation of these regulations and practices. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact The CBC requires special design considerations for foundations of structures built on soils with expansion indices greater than 20. Presence of such soils, and identification of measures to eliminate this constraint such as removal and replacement with suitable engineered materials, will be determined through site-specific geotechnical evaluations to be conducted as part of the City’s routine development review procedures. Such routine procedures will apply to all future development projects including residential projects. Compliance with CBC requirements would limit hazards related to expansive soil to less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Less Than Significant Impact. Lake Elsinore has been developed with urban uses for many years, and a sewer system has been integrated into the infrastructure of much of the City. However, some more rural portions of the City are currently served by individual septic systems. Development at the intensities allowed by the General Plan would require that these projects connect to and utilize public sewer systems. Other lower density residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element may develop in areas where sewer service is not readily available and would utilize individual septic systems as appropriate. These septic systems would be required to meet City requirements for septic systems as included in Chapters 16.24, 16.34, and 16.56 of the City’s Municipal Code. Thus, less than significant impacts relative to the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems will result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 63 of 95 Municipal Code) f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. As is noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, given the area’s previous habitation by the Luiseño people and geological conditions, there is a moderate to high likelihood for both archaeological and paleontological resources to exist within undeveloped areas within the City. The analysis in the EIR notes that less than significant impacts would occur from development pursuant to the General Plan with the implementation of existing policies and programs as well as mitigation included in the EIR and policies of the General Plan, which generally require surveying of sites for archaeological and paleontological resources and mitigation if appropriate for individual development projects. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not designate any sites that are not already designated for residential development, nor increase the intensity of development in any area. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any potential impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and overall General Plan with the implementation of the mitigation measures of the General Plan EIR and General Plan policies on individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change is described as a significant and lasting change in the planet’s weather patterns over a long time period. The science of global climate change is well-established. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” Regional changes in climate, particularly temperature increases and changing precipitation patterns, are already affecting natural systems worldwide, and will have widespread impacts on water availability, food production, ecosystem biodiversity, and human health. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon whereby GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s temperature. This natural effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate, but over the last century human activities have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. This increase of human-generated GHG emissions, which has accelerated since the mid-20th century, is a primary cause of climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions now far exceed the average of the past several thousand years. Land use changes, burning of fossil fuels, and agricultural practices have all contributed to this observed increase. Greenhouse gases differ from other emissions in that they contribute to the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 64 of 95 escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature. Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. By the end of the 21st Century, GHGs in the atmosphere are expected to exceed known levels going back more than one million years. Climate models cited by the IPCC predict that global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C and is more likely than not to exceed 2°C. To address operational emissions from a typical development project, an air quality modeling analysis is typically performed to determine if a project could regionally or locally cause a violation of any air quality standard. This analysis has already been performed associated with the City’s current General Plan and its related EIR. The General Plan EIR quantifies the 2020 and 2030 operational emissions that would occur based on growth projections for the City. The analysis in the EIR is based on the baseline and forecasted emissions and emission reduction strategies included in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Based on the implementation of the Climate Action Plan and its emission reduction strategies, the EIR determined that the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact from GHG emissions. Furthermore, GHG emissions will be evaluated during the City’s standard environmental review process as required by CEQA to determine if GHG emissions from individual projects will require mitigation. Since the Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not alter any land use designations or growth projections that would alter the quantified emissions presented in the EIR, no additional impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan would occur. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts relative to GHG emissions would result from implementation of the Housing Element and the Chapter 3.0 amendments than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, WRCOG Draft Subregional Climate Action Plan) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact Significant impacts would occur if the proposed project conflicted with or interfered with implementation of any existing greenhouse gas reduction plan that is projected to achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets. The two primary reduction plans are California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) as discussed below. In addition, the City of Lake Elsinore has adopted a Climate Action Plan that determined the City’s baseline and forecasted GHG emissions and established GHG emission reduction strategies to meet the City’s proportionate share of statewide emission reduction targets. California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan (AB32) The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) of 2006 required statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the California State Legislature amended the Global Warming General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 65 of 95 Solutions Act with the adoption of SB 32, establishing a new GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. A companion bill, AB 197, includes provisions to ensure the benefits of state climate policies reach into disadvantaged communities. In response to SB 32 and the 2030 GHG reduction target, CARB developed California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update’s strategy for meeting the 2030 GHG target incorporates the full range of legislative actions and state-developed plans that have relevance to the year 2030. These include extending the state Cap- and-Trade Program through 2030; increasing the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to 18 percent; improved vehicle, truck and freight movement emissions standards; increasing renewable energy; improving energy efficiency; and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes by using it to meet the State’s energy needs. As summarized above, the proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions will not potentially conflict with Regional Transportation-Related GHG targets and would not conflict with any of the other provisions of the Scoping Plan. The existing General Plan and proposed Housing Element and proposed Chapter 3.0 amendments in fact support four of the action categories through energy efficiency, green building, recycling/waste, and sustainable environment through these proposed and current policies: Connect SoCal Plan (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) Connect SoCal, adopted in 2020, is SCAG’s latest Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Under SB 375, all of California’s MPOs must prepare an SCS as a component of their RTP. The RTP serves as a long-range transportation plan that is developed and updated by SCAG every four years. Connect SoCal provides a vision for the development of transportation facilities throughout the region based on growth forecasts and economic trends through the year 2045. Connect SoCal identifies areas within the region sufficient to house near-term and long-term growth, support a diverse economy and can reach the regional GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). The proposed Housing Element and General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would, therefore, not contribute substantially to climate change impacts if they are consistent with the regional and statewide climate change planning efforts. As assumed in the RTP/SCS, based on current City boundaries, Lake Elsinore had an estimated populatopn pf 61,500 on 2016 and is forecast to grow to a total population of 111,600 by 2045. Buildout of the General Plan would result in a total of 94,616 dwelling units for a total buildout population of 321,694 persons, which provides for a substantially higher capacity than actual estimated population by SCAG for 2045. In addition, the proposed Housing Element is projected to meet the City’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is a function of the City’s projected long-term growth. Therefore, by complying with the RHNA, the Housing Element is contributing short-term towards consistency with long-term growth projections and the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the existing General Plan and proposed Housing Element and General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions are consistent with the population growth forecasts of the RTP/SCS because they provide the capacity for residential development to accommodate the projected population growth and not direct growth elsewhere, which would interfere with implementation of the RTP/SCS. The existing General Plan and proposed Housing Element will directly support the implementation of the RTP/SCS in achieving mandated GHG reduction targets through its policies oriented towards improvements in the region’s multimodal transportation system and coordinating land use patterns around high quality transit corridors. These policies are intended to reduce reliance on automobile use and improve the jobs housing General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 66 of 95 balance in more suburban communities to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and General Plan Chapter 3.0 amendments would not conflict with and would actually support the RTP/SCS in achieving its greenhouse gas reduction targets. In addition to these state and regional plans, the Lake Elsinore General Plan contains various programs related to energy conservation, improving air quality, reducing automobile use, and reduction of greenhouse gases. The Housing Element includes a section discussing potential energy conservation opportunities. Additionally, Southern California Edison offers various rebate programs for energy efficient appliances and makes available to residents energy efficient kits at no cost. Housing implementation programs include efforts to promote energy efficiency improvements to households, as well as energy efficient housing design and practices in City ordinances. No impact will occur. Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan The City’s Climate Action Plan forecasted emissions is based on the projected growth within the City as well as the land use plan included in the General Plan. Since the proposed Housing Element and Land Use Element amendments would not alter any land use designations, no changes from the forecasted emissions would occur. In addition, implementation of the Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions, would not conflict with the reduction strategies included within the City’s Climate Action Plan relative to transportation, energy, solid waste, community education and outreach, and the state-wide reduction strategies previously discussed under CARB’s Scoping Plan. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, WRCOG Draft Subregional Climate Action Plan, SCAG Connect SoCal Plan, SCAG, Connect SoCAl Technical Report, CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan) IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact The Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element is a policy and programmatic document intended to facilitate maintenance of the existing housing stock and production of new housing to meet the targeted housing needs of the community. Residential development does not require and is not expected to require the manufacturing, use, transportation, disposal, or storage of dangerous quantities of hazardous materials. Residential uses do not generate hazardous wastes or emissions, except for very small quantities of typical household cleaning agents, automotive maintenance products, paints, pesticides, and herbicides. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not conflict with any hazardous materials regulations and would not exempt any future housing from the City’s programs to control and safely dispose of hazardous materials and wastes or to reduce the volume of wastes requiring landfill disposal. Thus, no impact will result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 67 of 95 and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Upon completion of construction, future residential development that may be facilitated by this Housing Element update would not generate hazardous air emissions, and would not involve the handling of any acutely hazardous substances or wastes. The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. With regard to construction, development pursuant to Housing Element policy may involve demolition of existing structures. SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) requires work practices that limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and disturbance of asbestos containing materials (ACM). This rule is generally designed to protect uses and persons adjacent to demolition or renovation activity from exposure to asbestos emissions. Rule 1403 requires surveys of any facility being demolished or renovated for the presence of all friable and Class I and Class II non-friable ACM. Rule 1403 also establishes notification procedures, removal procedures, handling operations, and warning label requirements, including HEPA filtration, the glovebag method, wetting, and some methods of dry removal that must be implemented when disturbing appreciable amounts of ACM (more than 100 square feet of surface area). All future developments will be subject to the City’s standard environmental review process for evaluation of hazards. Considering implementation of existing policies and standards, impacts associated with asbestos hazards will be less than significant. Exposure of construction workers to lead-based paint during demolition activities is also of concern, similar to exposure to asbestos. If lead contamination exists on future housing sites, Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1 (California Construction Safety Orders for Lead) is applicable to the demolition of all existing structures requiring exposure assessment and compliance measures to keep worker exposure below action levels. The project is also subject to Title 22 requirements for the disposal of solid waste contaminated with excessive levels of lead. Impacts due to lead exposure and contamination will be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1403, Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. There are approximately thirteen public schools located within the incorporated City boundaries, some of which are located within ¼-mile of sites identified in the Housing Element. Residential development does not require and is not expected to require the manufacturing, use, transportation, disposal, or storage of dangerous quantities of hazardous materials. As discussed in Section IX.b, existing regulations address potential off-site construction- related hazards associated with demolition of the existing onsite structures. Impact would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations listed in Section IX.b. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Lake Elsinore Unified School District, South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1403, Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 68 of 95 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the databases maintained as the ‘Cortese List’, the housing sites identified in the Housing Element update are not known to be: listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), listed as an open case leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB and CalEPA, currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB, or developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC. Any future development pursuant to the amended Housing Element policies will be subject to the City’s standard environmental review that will include identification of any contaminated site possibly not already identified and implementation of appropriate cleanup and disposal procedures; therefore, less than significant impacts related to contaminated sites will occur. This is consistent with the policies of the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions, which do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals and the Housing Element, which propose no changes to these safety measures. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: CalEPA, Cortese List Data Resources) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no public airports within two miles of Lake Elsinore. The nearest public airports are Perris Valley Airport located approximately 7 miles to the northeast and Hemet-Ryan Airport and French Valley Airport located both approximately 10 miles to the east and southeast respectively. No impact would result from any public airport. Skylark Field is a private airstrip located within the southeast portion of the City within the East Lake Specific Plan. The airstrip is located approximately 2 miles from the RMU-8 site, but not within 2 miles of any other identified Housing Element site. The area surrounding Skylark Field is primarily designated for residential, action sports, tourism, commercial and recreation uses with a Light Industrial Overlay to the northeast and industrial land uses along Mission Trail. Individual development projects would be required to analyze the potential project specific impacts related to the hazards of the private airstrip pursuant to FAA standards and guidelines for obstruction evaluation and any other pertinent standards and guidelines as is noted in the City’s General Plan EIR. With the implementation of these existing standards and guidelines, impacts from this airstrip would be less than significant to the RMU-8 site and any residential development within the vicinity of the airstrip pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 69 of 95 (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, East Lake Specific Plan and General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Housing Element update and amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not change or interfere with the emergency response plans of the City and the project components do not propose any alteration to vehicle circulation routes that could interfere with such plans. Additionally, the Safety Element update includes a new discussion and map of evacuation routes and discusses climate-related hazards that affect those routes. In accordance with City policies, including new policies being added to the Safety Element, the City will review all development proposals to determine the possible impacts of each development on emergency services. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less Than Significant Impact. A large portion of the City of Lake Elsinore is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) pursuant to the latest maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Construction of residences within Very High FHSZs will be required to comply with comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Additionally, proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update will add new policies that add to the General Plan specific requirements applicable to all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), including specifying that all new development shall have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation, These requirements will minimize injury, loss of life, and property damage resulting from wildfires. Fire protection services would also continue to be provided for residences in the City and is further discussed in Section XX. With the implementation of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore and adequate fire protection services, impacts from wildfire on future residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element and in accordance with the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Office of the State Fire Marshal, Proposed General Plan Chapter 3.0 amendments) X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a policy document that facilitates the production of housing and does not include any components that would change or conflict with water quality regulations or any waste discharge standards. All new development projects must comply with the City’s local procedures to control storm water runoff to prevent General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 70 of 95 violations of regional water quality standards, in accordance with its co-permittee obligations under the countywide municipal storm water permit program, a component of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program of the federal Clean Water Act. All future residential development must connect to sewer or adequate septic system as appropriate; direct discharges of wastewater to surface or ground waters would not be permitted. A less than significant impact will occur from development pursuant to the Housing Element and Land Use Element with the implementation of these existing requirements and procedures. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impacts If the project removed an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduced runoff that results in groundwater recharge, a potentially significant impact could occur. The proposed project is composed of policy documents that would not authorize any specific development project, nor would it install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. Future development is not anticipated to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, because the City requires that storm water run-off in excess of existing conditions be directed to retention basins where the water will percolate into the ground, thereby recharging subsurface aquifers. Impacts related to groundwater recharge and depletion will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c.i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially altered the drainage pattern of an existing stream or river so that erosion or siltation would result. Various drainages traverse the City of Lake Elsinore originating from the surrounding hillsides generally towards Lake Elsinore. The project would propose no changes to any stream, river or other drainage path. With regard to future development projects proposed pursuant to Housing Element policy, site drainage plans are required by the City of Lake Elsinore and would be reviewed by the City Engineer. The final grading and drainage plans would be approved by the City Engineer during plan check review. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be required during construction consistent with an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in order to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES permit. Development adherence to General Plan policies and NPDES and construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) will address and reduce impacts of potential erosion. With the implementation of these existing regulations and practices, impacts will be less than significant to drainage patterns and erosion. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 71 of 95 c.ii). Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact Development on vacant lands has the potential to substantially alter drainage patterns that could result in flooding on- or off-site by increasing the rate of flow from the incorporation of impervious surfaces as well as grading that may alter drainage patterns. These potential increases in runoff also have the potential to exceed the capacity of storm drain facilities. Portions of the City are located within Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFCWCD) Sedco, Lakeland Village and West Elsinore Master Drainage Plans (MDPs). These MDPs establish plans for flood control facilities that would be implemented as development occurs. Requirement for these improvements to be implemented and payment of fees by development is required by Chapters 16.34 and 16.72 of the City’s Municipal Code. These also address necessary flood control and storm drain improvements where a MDP may not be adopted. Residential development typically does not generate significant water pollutants through point discharges but does contribute to water quality impacts due to community-wide and regional urban runoff. Implementation of existing and future MDPs along with the requirements of the City’s municipal code will ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to serve future residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element and would thus result in a less than significant impact from on- or off-site flooding or exceeding the capacity of storm drains. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Riverside County Flood Control) c.iii). Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Less Than Significant Impact. Less Than Significant Impact. Development on vacant lands has the potential to substantially alter drainage patterns that could result in flooding on- or off-site by increasing the rate of flow from the incorporation of impervious surfaces as well as grading that may alter drainage patterns. These potential increases in runoff also have the potential to exceed the capacity of storm drain facilities. Portions of the City are located within Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFCWCD) Sedco and West Elsinore Master Drainage Plans (MDPs). In addition, RCFCWCD is developing a new Lakeland Village MDP. These MDPs establish plans for flood control facilities that would be implemented as development occurs. Requirement for these improvements to be implemented and payment of fees by development is required by Chapters 16.34 and 16.72 of the City’s Municipal Code. These also address necessary flood control and storm drain improvements where a MDP may not be adopted. Residential development typically does not generate significant water pollutants through point discharges but does contribute to water quality impacts due to community-wide and regional urban runoff. Implementation of existing and future MDPs along with the requirements of the City’s municipal code will ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to serve future residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element and the Land Use Element and would thus result in a less than significant impact from on- or off-site flooding or exceeding the capacity of storm drains. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 72 of 95 (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Riverside County Flood Control) c.iv) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. Development on vacant lands has the potential to substantially alter drainage patterns that could result in flooding on- or off-site by increasing the rate of flow from the incorporation of impervious surfaces as well as grading that may alter drainage patterns. These potential increases in runoff also have the potential to exceed the capacity of storm drain facilities. Portions of the City are located within Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFCWCD) Sedco and West Elsinore Master Drainage Plans (MDPs). In addition, RCFCWCD is developing a new Lakeland Village MDP. These MDPs establish plans for flood control facilities that would be implemented as development occurs. Requirement for these improvements to be implemented and payment of fees by development is required by Chapters 16.34 and 16.72 of the City’s Municipal Code. These also address necessary flood control and storm drain improvements where a MDP may not be adopted. Residential development typically does not generate significant water pollutants through point discharges but does contribute to water quality impacts due to community-wide and regional urban runoff. Implementation of existing and future MDPs along with the requirements of the City’s municipal code will ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to serve future residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element and the Land Use Element and would thus result in a less than significant impact from on- or off-site flooding or exceeding the capacity of storm drains. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Riverside County Flood Control) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. Less than Significant Impact. Tsunami is not a hazard within Lake Elsinore due to topography, and distance (over 20 miles) from the ocean. Canyon Lake is an open reservoir located to the northeast of the City. Although portions of the City may be subject to dam inundation from this reservoir, due to the distance from the reservoir and the relatively lower amount of water, impacts from potential inundation from seiche at the reservoir would likely not occur. Mudflows require a slope, water, and unconsolidated soil to occur. Portions of the City are located within or adjacent to areas of steep slopes. Standard requirements for grading design and slope stability as well as for flood protection as previously discussed above would limit any potential mudflow hazards that may be present on these areas or any other area within the City. Impacts from seiche and mudflow would thus be less than significant with the implementation of these standard requirements. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a policy document that facilitates the production of housing and does not include any components General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 73 of 95 that would change or conflict with water quality regulations or any waste discharge standards. All new development projects must comply with the City’s local procedures to control storm water runoff to prevent violations of regional water quality standards, in accordance with its co-permittee obligations under the countywide municipal storm water permit program, a component of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program of the federal Clean Water Act. All future residential development must connect to sewer or adequate septic system as appropriate; direct discharges of wastewater to surface or ground waters would not be permitted. A less than significant impact will occur from development pursuant to the Housing Element with the implementation of these existing requirements and procedures. If the project removed an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduced runoff that results in groundwater recharge, a potentially significant impact could occur. The proposed project is composed of policy documents that would not authorize any specific development project, nor would it install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. Future development is not anticipated to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, because the City requires that storm water run-off in excess of existing conditions be directed to retention basins where the water will percolate into the ground, thereby recharging subsurface aquifers. Impacts related to groundwater recharge and depletion will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way to create a physical barrier within an established community. The proposed Housing Element, which relies on existing land use designations for high density residential and mixed-use development, and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not create any sort of physical barrier within the community. Rather, the mix of uses where allowed may serve to facilitate pedestrian connections in these areas. Furthermore, project implementation would not provide for infrastructure systems such as new roadways or flood control channels that would divide or disrupt neighborhoods or any other established community elements in this previously developed and urbanized area. Therefore, no impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were inconsistent with applicable plans, policies, and zoning designations. The proposed Housing Element update and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions are consistent with existing General Plan goals and policies and the City’s adopted Land Use Plan. In general, the intent of the goals and policies remains the same from the previous housing element. As required by California Housing Element law, the update provides current data on housing in the community and General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 74 of 95 an analysis of the land available to meet the community’s anticipated housing needs, as determined by HCD and SCAG in the RHNA. The update also includes programs for providing housing assistance and facilitating housing development. All sites and intensities identified to meet the City’s RHNA are consistent with the existing Land Use Plan designations and all other pertinent policies of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. There will be no significant impact on any plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) XII. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City of Lake Elsinore and are noted within the City’s General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated as MRZ-2 pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. Areas located within MRZ-2 indicated the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. Some of these areas are currently being mined, such as the Pacific Clay Products area that is located within the Alberhill Specific Plan. Other identified resource areas have already been developed with residential land uses. The mining in this area is being phased out in accordance with approved permits and ultimate reclamation of the area and would be developed eventually pursuant to adopted specific plans. The phasing out of these mining operations and designation of alternate future land uses has already occurred through adopted specific plans, as reflected in the City’s General Plan. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not further alter these designations or plans for phasing out existing mining operations. In addition, the City’s General Plan EIR determined that impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant from implementation of the General Plan and its designated land uses with its policies for protection of mineral resources. With the implementation of these existing plans as well as General Plan policies to protect mineral resources in other areas of the City, less than significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City of Lake Elsinore and are noted within the City’s General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated as MRZ-2 pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. Areas located within MRZ-2 indicated the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. Some of these areas are currently being mined, such as the Pacific Clay General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 75 of 95 Products area that is located within the Alberhill Specific Plan and Alberhill Villages Specific Plan. Other identified resource areas have already been developed with residential land uses. The mining is being phased out in accordance with approved permits and ultimate reclamation of the area and would be developed eventually pursuant to the specific plan. The phasing out of these mining operations and designation of alternate future land uses has already occurred through the currently adopted specific plans and adopted General Plan. The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not alter these designations or plans for phasing out existing mining operations. In addition, the City’s General Plan EIR determined that impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant from implementation of the General Plan and its designated land uses with its policies for protection of mineral resources. With the implementation of these existing plans as well as General Plan policies to protect mineral resources in other areas of the City, less than significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XIII. NOISE a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary sources of noise affecting Lake Elsinore stem from various modes of transportation. Because the City is divided by Interstate 15 and various arterial streets, most areas of the City are affected by traffic noise. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves that people receive and interpret. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into ten decibels, abbreviated dB. To account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known as the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the level where humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible. Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise has been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise. LEQ (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. LEQ is typically computed over 1-, 8- , and 24-hour sample periods. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00pm to 10:00pm and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00pm to 7:00am. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 76 of 95 LDN (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm and before 7:00am. CNEL and LDN are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. LEQ is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period. The Lake Elsinore General Plan identifies standards for land uses and noise compatibility, as summarized in Table 5, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards. In addition, the General Plan establishes additional interior and exterior noise standards as shown in Table 6, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. Table 5, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Residential Single, Family, Duplex, Multiple Family A A B B C D D Residential Mobile Homes A A B C C D D Commercial Regional District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Regional Village, District Special Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Commercial, Industrial Institutional Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building A A A B B C D Commercial Regional, Institutional Civic Center Amphitheatre, Concert Hall, Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Commercial Recreation Children’s Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D Commercial General, Special Industrial Institutional Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Institutional General Hospital, Church, Library, Schools, Classroom A A B C C D D Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A A A A B C C Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Interpretation Zone A Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Clearly Compatible Zone B New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed nose insulation features in the Normally General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 77 of 95 Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Compatible design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Normally Incompatible Zone D New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Clearly Incompatible Table 6, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories Energy Average LDN Categories Uses Interior Exterior Residential Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family Mobile Homes 45 3, 5 60 Mobile Homes – 60 4 Commercial, Institutional Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 5 – Hospital, School’s classroom 45 – Church, Library 45 – Interpretation 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, Mobile Home Park. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 5. As per California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section T25-28. The primary contributor to ambient noise in the planning area is traffic, particularly from Interstate 15 and major roadways. Since the proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals, nor result in any substantial traffic or other noise sources as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the analysis included within the General Plan EIR would also apply to the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments. Future developments the City are subject to the policies of the existing General Plan designed to minimize noise impacts to residential properties. The General Plan EIR determined that existing and proposed residential land use areas may be subject to noise levels higher than the acceptable levels based on buildout conditions and projected future traffic conditions. The EIR determined that these impacts could result in significant noise impacts on existing land uses. However, policies incorporated into the General Plan and mitigation in the EIR would require new residential development to address potential noise, in particular traffic noise, impacts on new dwelling units and residents and provide adequate mitigation where necessary on a project specific basis. Since the Housing Element and the proposed Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any of the impacts as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, with the implementation of the General Plan policies and mitigation included in the EIR, impacts will be less than significant in potential exceedances of noise General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 78 of 95 standards. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement, City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, OPR General Plan Guidelines 2017) b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. As with noise, the perception of vibration is described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration impacts are much greater indoors due to structural shaking. The most common sources of vibration in the Lake Elsinore planning area are transit vehicles, construction equipment, and other large vehicles. Several land uses are especially sensitive to vibration, and therefore have a lower vibration threshold. These uses include, but are not limited to concert halls, hospitals, libraries, vibration-sensitive research operations, residential areas, schools, and offices. Because the major causes of vibration within the planning area are vehicular, the major concern for vibration impacts is along roadways; construction and mining sites can also serve as a temporary source of significant vibration impacts Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed, distance to the affected structures and soil type. The operation of construction equipment can cause ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations, with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and feelable ranges in buildings very close to the site. The construction activities that typically generate the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile- driving. Ground-borne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to velocity levels expressed in decibel notation (VdB). However, a major concern with regard to construction vibration is building damage. Consequently, construction vibration is generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 7, Human Response to Groundborne Vibration. Table 7, Human Response to Groundborne Vibration Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level annoying. 85 VdB Vibration tolerable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 5-5, September 2018 General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 79 of 95 Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity as shown in Table 8, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities. The data provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Table 8, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment EQUIPMENT PPV AT 25 FT (INCHES/SECOND) VDB AT 25 FT Pile Driver (Impact) upper range 1.518 112 typical 0.644 104 Pile Driver (sonic) upper range 0.734 105 typical 0.170 93 Large bulldozer 0.089 97 Caisson Drilling 0.089 97 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018,, Table7-4 In general, groundborne vibration associated with construction activities attenuates rapidly with distance. Vibration may be noticeable for short periods during construction, but it would be temporary and periodic and would not be excessive. Additionally, construction activity would be required to comply with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.176.080(F) which prohibits construction and demolition activities between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound from such activities creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line. Compliance with this regulatory requirement would further minimize potential impacts due to construction-related vibration. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no public airports within two miles of Lake Elsinore. The nearest public airports are Perris Valley Airport located approximately 7 miles to the northeast and Hemet-Ryan Airport and French Valley Airport located both approximately 10 miles to the east and southeast respectively. Therefore, the City is not anticipated on being affected from noise generated from any public airport. No impact would occur. Skylark Field is a private airstrip located within the southeast portion of the City within the East Lake Specific Plan. The airstrip is located approximately 2 miles from the RMU-8 site, but not within 2 miles of any other identified Housing Element site. The area surrounding Skylark Field is primarily designated for residential, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 80 of 95 action sports, tourism, commercial and recreation uses with a Light Industrial Overlay to the northeast and industrial land uses along Mission Trail. Individual development projects would be required to analyze the potential project specific impacts related to noise from the private airstrip pursuant to the City’s noise standards as noted in General Plan policies and the General Plan EIR. With the implementation of these existing standards and guidelines, impacts from this airstrip would be less than significant to the RMU-8 site and any residential development within the vicinity of the airstrip pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, East Lake Specific Plan and General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Housing Element and General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions will not directly result in population growth. Population growth is a complex interaction between immigration, emigration, birth, deaths, and economic factors. The proposed Housing Element is designed to guide and accommodate the inevitable population growth the community will face over the short- and long-term. The proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The Census indicated that the City had a population of 51,821 in 2010 and 64,037 in 2020, which would represent an approximately 24% increase. According to the SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The approved projects and sites inventory identified in the Housing Element would result in a net increase of approximately 20,987 new dwelling units and 72,119 new residents (20,987 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). This increase is adequate to accommodate the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and therefore will be adequate in accommodating future residential growth. In addition, the proposed Housing Element and previously approved Specific Plans, 18 lots with existing R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning and 10 lots with existing RMU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning are projected to meet the City’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is a function of the City’s projected long-term growth. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimate, Southern California Association of Governments. Demographics and Growth Forecast, Connect SoCal Technical Report,) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Housing Element is designed to encourage and facilitate housing development and preserve and enhance existing housing stock. The City is far from built-out and has numerous vacant properties that would likely accommodate the vast majority of development pursuant to the Housing Element. Therefore, future housing development constructed pursuant to the Housing Element update will have less than significant General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 81 of 95 impacts on the displacing a substantial number of housing units. The proposed Chapter 3.0 amendments do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element will not displace any people because the project does not authorize the demolition or conversion of any housing unit. In addition, the Housing Element does not authorize the acquisition of any existing residential dwelling unit. Furthermore, the proposed Housing Element will have a less than significant effect on economic factors that could require the construction of new housing such as the relocation of a large employment base to a different region. The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. The impact will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact The Lake Elsinore Housing Element update sets forth policies and programs to encourage housing development consistent with adopted land use polices of the existing General Plan. Residential development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy will incrementally increase the need for fire protection. SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The Housing Element’s goal to facilitate 6,681 very low to above moderate income units by 2029 would increase the local housing stock from 19,306 as of January 2021 (California Department of Finance) to 25,987 units and would increase the resident population by approximately 23,918 persons (6,681 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the land use plan would result in less than significant impacts to fire services. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the proposed Chapter 3.0 amendment related to the Safety Element update add additional policies related to wildfire hazards and intended to minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. The updated policies also relate to the review of development located in a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Future potential plans for development will be reviewed by City staff to determine any impacts of development on emergency services and are also subject to review by Lake Elsinore Fire Department for compliance with applicable standards and policies. Future potential plans for development General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 82 of 95 are also subject to the updated policies of General Plan Chapter 3.0. Property taxes and other special taxes paid by future property owners will also support the incremental expansion of public services as the population in the City grows. Impacts to fire protection services will be less than significant with the implementation of these impact fees and review of individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011 b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impacts) The Lake Elsinore Housing Element update sets forth policies and programs to encourage housing development consistent with adopted land use polices of the existing General Plan. Residential development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy will incrementally increase the need for police protection. SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The Housing Element’s goal to facilitate 6,681 very low to above moderate income units by 2029 would increase the local housing stock from 19,306 as of January 2021 (California Department of Finance) to 25,987 units and would increase the resident population by approximately 23,918 persons (6,681 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the land use plan would result in less than significant impacts to police services. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Future potential plans for development will be reviewed by City staff to determine any impacts of development on emergency services and are also subject to review by Lake Elsinore’s Police Department for compliance with applicable standards and policies. Future potential plans for development are also subject to the policies of the updated General Plan Chapter 3.0. The Public Safety and Welfare Element policies are designed to ensure adequate provision of public services in response to long-term growth. Property taxes and other special taxes paid by future property owners will also support the incremental expansion of public services as the population in the City grows. Impacts to police protection services will be less than significant with the implementation of these impact fees and review of individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impacts The Lake Elsinore Housing Element update sets forth policies and programs to encourage housing development consistent with adopted land use polices of the existing General Plan. Residential development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy will incrementally increase the need for schools. SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The Housing Element’s goal to facilitate 6,681 very low to above moderate income units by 2029 would increase the local housing stock from 19,306 as of January 2021 (California Department of Finance) to 25,987 units and would increase the resident population by approximately 23,918 persons (6,681 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 83 of 95 The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the land use plan would result in less than significant impacts schools. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. The provision of school services is completely mitigated through the payment of development impact fees pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impacts The Lake Elsinore Housing Element update sets forth policies and programs to encourage housing development consistent with adopted land use polices of the existing General Plan. Residential development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection, schools, and parks. SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The Housing Element’s goal to facilitate 6,681 very low to above moderate income units by 2029 would increase the local housing stock from 19,306 as of January 2021 (California Department of Finance) to 25,987 units and would increase the resident population by approximately 23,918 persons (6,681 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the land use plan would result in less than significant impacts to parks. The provision of parks is guided by the policies of General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) and Parks and Recreation Master Plan that promotes additional parks to support the City’s growing population that will ensure that adequate parks public services are provided. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The new Environmental Justice provisions will assure that future public improvement service the needs of underserved communities. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Property taxes and other special taxes paid by future property owners will also support the incremental expansion of public services as the population in the City grows. Impacts to public services will be less than significant with the implementation of these impact fees and review of individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) e) Other public services/facilities? Less Than Significant Impacts The Lake Elsinore Housing Element update sets forth policies and programs to encourage housing development consistent with adopted land use polices of the existing General Plan. Residential development constructed pursuant to Housing Element policy will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection, schools, and parks. SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report (2020), SCAG General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 84 of 95 estimates that the City would have a population of 111,600 in 2045. The Housing Element’s goal to facilitate 6,681 very low to above moderate income units by 2029 would increase the local housing stock from 19,306 as of January 2021 (California Department of Finance) to 25,987 units and would increase the resident population by approximately 23,918 persons (6,681 dwelling units at 3.58 persons per household). The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The new Environmental Justice provisions will assure that future public improvement service the needs of underserved communities. Therefore, these amendments will not result in any impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the City’s Municipal Code requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the fees set forth in that section shall be paid. Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states that an in-lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community and meet the County of Riverside library standards. Impacts will be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore impacts related to libraries are less than significant. Chapter 16.74 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which will benefit new development. Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal shelter facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. In addition, the proposed development projects will be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Property taxes and other special taxes paid by future property owners will also support the incremental expansion of public services as the population in the City grows. Impacts to public services will be less than significant with the implementation of these impact fees and review of individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.”) (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project has the potential to result in the indirect need for recreational facilities due to the promotion of housing development. However, Lake Elsinore requires development to either dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of dedication to offset incremental impacts of development on existing parks pursuant to Municipal Code Chapters 16.12 and 16.34. Any future housing development will be required to pay development impact fees in accordance with this existing regulation; thus deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities will be less than significant as a result of future housing development because parks and recreation facilities will be incrementally expanded to meet future residential demand. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 85 of 95 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The updated Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not result in the direct construction of any recreation facilities. Future potential construction of recreation facilities in response to incremental, long-term population increases will be subject to the City’s standard environmental review process pursuant to CEQA. The new Environmental Justice provisions will assure that future public improvement service the needs of underserved communities. Local recreation facilities typically do not result in significant impacts. Impacts related to the potential construction of future recreation facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XVII. TRANSPORTATION a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Housing Element and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions will not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure; however, future development supported by the policies of the updated Housing Element will result in additional traffic. Since the Housing Element and the proposed amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 would not alter any land use designations that would alter the traffic impacts presented in the General Plan EIR, no additional impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan would occur. The General Plan EIR found that with the recommended roadway and intersection improvements that all roadways and intersections would have an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Although, since the improvements cannot be guaranteed the EIR determined that a potentially significant impact could occur from buildout of the General Plan without all of the recommended improvements implemented and would thus also potentially conflict with the Riverside County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Plan for provision of adequate LOS. Individual residential development pursuant to the existing General Plan and proposed Housing Element will be required to analyze their individual and cumulative traffic impacts and provide for the necessary traffic improvements related to their individual project as recommended by the General Plan and mitigation in the EIR. With the implementation of these, impacts from the Housing Element and the amendments to Chapter 3.0 would not exceed those analyzed in the General Plan EIR determined to be potentially significant and would thus be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 86 of 95 b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For land use projects, OPR identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. The regulatory changes to the CEQA guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018 with an implementation date of July 1, 2020. The City of Lake Elsinore adopted its revised Traffic Impact Analysis Guide on June 23, 2020. The document outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis including screening criteria and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects based on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Implementation Pathway Study issued in March 2019. The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Through its standard development review process that includes review pursuant to State CEQA statutes and guidelines, the City will ensure that any future housing projects, developed pursuant to proposed Housing Element policies and programs, that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (e.g. population plus employment) prepare a VMT analysis for projects. Impacts related to the proposed Housing Element and General Plan Chapter 3.0 amendments will have less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, 2020) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. The project does not involve the construction of any roadway and would have no effect on the City’s street and site design standards. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact The project does not involve any road construction or any development activity and thus will not obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the City. The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update will facilitate the maintenance of emergency access by requiring all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Future housing development facilitated by implementation of Housing Element policies will be subject to site plan review. In conjunction with the review and approval of building permits, the Fire Department reviews all plans to ensure compliance with all applicable emergency access and safety requirements. With continued application of project review procedures, impacts involving emergency access will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 87 of 95 (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Proposed Chapter 3.0 amendments) XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). Less Than Significant Impact A variety of historical resources exists within the City as identified in the City’s General Plan EIR. As is analyzed in the EIR, development pursuant to the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to historical resources as well as policies included within the General Plan. The proposed Housing Element and proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not increase any potential impacts on historical resources beyond what was already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Less than significant impacts will result from the Housing Element and overall General Plan with the implementation of these existing programs and policies on individual development projects. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any applicable land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Development of housing pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource; however, General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection), which will not be modified by the proposed Housing Element or Chapter 3.0 amendments, contains goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources, including the following: 6.1 Encourage the preservation of significant archeological, historical, and other cultural resources located within the City. 6.2 The City shall consult with the appropriate Native American tribes for projects identified under SB 18 (Traditional Tribal Cultural Places). 6.3 When significant cultural/archeological sites or artifacts are discovered on a site, coordination with professional archeologists, relevant state and, if applicable, federal agencies, and the appropriate Native American tribes regarding preservation of sites or professional retrieval and preservation of artifacts or by other means of protection, prior to development of the site shall be required. Because ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs and practices, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 88 of 95 developers shall 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. 6.4 If archeological 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. 7.1 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 or Federal requirements. All new development would be required to be consistent with these policies. Additionally, future development will be required to follow the protocol pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 regarding notification and consultation with Native American Tribes. The potential impacts to tribal cultural resources of any specific future residential projects would be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact Future development will incrementally increase water demand and wastewater discharges. As determined by the City’s General Plan EIR, less than significant impacts would occur to existing water and wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed Housing Element and General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not alter any land use that could increase development intensity that could potentially create a greater impact than was already analyzed by the General Plan EIR. The City and EVMWD will continue to identify the need for expansion of water and wastewater facilities, such as water and sewer mains, as needed, on a project- by-project basis during its standard environmental review process. Any environmental impacts related to the construction or expansion of water or wastewater facilities will be analyzed and mitigated for at the time of development. Adherence to existing practices and procedures will result in impacts related to the expansion of water and wastewater facilities that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. EVMWD is responsible for the production and distribution of domestic water and maintenance of the overall water system facilities throughout the City. The City’s General Plan EIR determined that adequate existing water entitlements would be adequate to serve the land uses anticipated by the General Plan land use plan. The General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 89 of 95 proposed Housing Element and General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not alter any land use that could increase development intensity that could potentially create a greater impact than was already analyzed by the General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element and Land Use Element amendments would not result in any population growth or additional demand on water supplies but rather will guide development to accommodate anticipated growth in the community through the year 2029; therefore, the proposed Housing Element and Chapter 3.0 amendments would not result in the need for new or expanded water supplies and impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact Wastewater treatment requirements are established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City will review future housing development as part of their standard environmental review process to determine adequate capacity to serve the discharge needs in comparison to treatment plant capacity. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity are anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. Lake Elsinore is served by a number of landfills, including El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2045. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2024 and Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2021. Both Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills have the potential to expand their facilities and capacity. Solid waste disposal is managed at the regional level; therefore, generation of solid waste within the City and SOI is one part of a regional issue. Compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. Future development would increase the volume of solid waste generated in the City that is diverted to existing landfills, thus contributing to the acceleration of landfill closures or the use of more distant sites. The City will continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. Each development will be required to comply with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 90 of 95 Waste collection in Lake Elsinore is disposed of in regional landfills, as described above. All new development will be required to comply with State mandates and City regulations regarding reduction/recycling of household waste. None of the proposed housing strategies inherent in the proposed Housing Element or Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would have any effect upon or result in any conflicts with solid waste disposal regulations. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) XX. WILDFIRES a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The Safety Element update includes a new discussion and map of evacuation routes, discusses climate-related hazards that affect those routes and adds a new Goal 10 to “Maintain an emergency response program consistent with State law, and coordinate with surrounding cities, Riverside County and other emergency response providers.” There are eight proposed policies and three new implementation programs that implement the new goal. In addition, in accordance with City policies, including new policies being added to the Safety Element, the City will review all development proposals to determine the possible impacts of each development on emergency services. Therefore, the Housing Element update and amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions would not change or interfere with the emergency response plans of the City. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Proposed Amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0) b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. The Safety Element update includes an existing Goal 4 that requires the City to “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.” The Safety Element update adds a new Goal 5 to “Minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires.” There are eight proposed policies and a new implementation program that implement the new goal. Future development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element will be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would include weed abatement, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of non-combustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety. The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 91 of 95 residential projects would be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed. Project design features would be included to ensure impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. With the implementation of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore and adequate fire protection services, impacts from wildfire on future residential development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element and in accordance with the proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Proposed Amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0) c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Future development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element will be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would include weed abatement, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of non-combustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety. The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future residential projects would be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed. Project design features would be included to ensure impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Proposed Amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0) b) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant) The proposed General Plan amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. Future development pursuant to the policies of the Housing Element will be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would include weed abatement, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of non-combustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety. The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future residential projects would be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed. Project design features would be included to ensure impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011, Proposed Amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 92 of 95 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact The results of the preceding analyses and discussions of responses in the preceding analysis have determined that the proposed project would have no effect upon sensitive biological resources and would not result in significant impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Impacts related to scenic resources will be less than significant. The project is a policy document that will not have any direct environmental impacts. All residential development facilitated by Housing Element policy will occur pursuant to adopted General Plan land use policy and other General Plan policies intended to minimize environmental impacts. Impact would be less than significant with the implementation of these existing General Plan policies. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes involved in the project. Overall, the long-term development of the Housing Opportunity sites is consistent with the growth projections identified in the regional population growth forecast completed by SCAG. As such, the proposed Housing Element update would not result in new or additional cumulative impacts. The proposed Housing Element and the amendments to Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) related to the Safety Element update and the new Environmental Justice Element provisions do not change any land use designations set forth in the General Plan. With the implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation included in the General Plan EIR at the project-level, the cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the above nalysis of the project’s impacts in the responses to items I to XX, there is no indication that this project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects will at worst require implementation of existing General Plan policies and General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce to less than significant General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 93 of 95 levels. Under each environmental consideration addressed in the preceding analysis, the proposed project is considered to have little or no adverse impacts on people and the environment. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011) VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. City of Lake Elsinore (Lead Agency) Planning Division 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 951-674-3124 • Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager VII. REFERENCES The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124. California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf [Accessed August 2, 2021.)] California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1. Lead, https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1532_1.html [Accessed July 30, 2021.] California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark, https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/ [Accessed July 29, 2021. California Department of Fish and Game. Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), June 2021. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP [Accessed July 29, 2021] California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/noise-vibration/guidance-manuals [Accessed on July 30, 2021.) California Department of Transportation. State Scenic Highway Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways [Accessed July 29 2021,] California Department of Transportation. State Scenic Highway Map. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 94 of 95 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways [Accessed July 29 2021,] California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol: September 2013, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2021.] California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). General Plan Guidelines. 2017, https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html [Accessed August 3, 2021.] California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/ [Accessed August 3, 2021.] California Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire- hazard-severity-zones-maps/ [Accessed July 30, 2021] California State Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/ [Accessed July 29, 2021.] City of Lake Elsinore, East Lake Specific Plan, Adopted November 28, 2017 and Updated September 7, 2018, http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community- development/planning/adopted-specific-plans [Accessed August 3, 2021.] City of Lake Elsinore, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, www.lake-elsinore.org [Accessed July 28, 2021.] City of Lake Elsinore. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, June 23, 2020, http://www.lake- elsinore.org/city-hall/community-development/planning/traffic-impact-analysis-requirements [Accessed August 3, 2021.] City of Lake Elsinore. Climate Action Plan, December 13, 2011, http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city- hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-climate-action-plan [Accessed August 3, 2021.] City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011. http://www.lake- elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-general- plan/general-plan-certified-eir [Accessed August 3, 2021.] Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise- and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2021.], Riverside County Flood Control. Area Drainage Plan and Master Drainage Plan, http://content.rcflood.org/MDPADP/ [Accessed July 30, 2021.] Riverside County Mapping Portal, Agricultural Preserves, https://gisopendata- countyofriverside.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/agricultural-preserves/explore?location=33.717765%2C- 116.056900%2C9.54 {Accessed July 29, 2021.] South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2017, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 Page 95 of 95 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt -plan/final-2016-aqmp# [Accessed July 29, 2021.] South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. Amended October 5, 2007, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2021.] Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal Plan, September 2020, https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan [Accessed August 3, 2021.] Southern California Association of Governments. Demographics and Growth Forecast, Connect SoCal Technical Report, Adopted on September 3, 2020, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 [Accessed July 29, 2021] United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, FSGeodata Clearinghouse, ESRI geodatabase, Existing Vegetation: Region 5 - South Coast, https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php [Accessed August 5, 2021.] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). https://www.epa.gov/green-book [Accessed July 29, 2021] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html [Accessed July 29, 2021] US Fish & Wildlife Services. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/conservation-plans-type-region [Accessed July 29, 2021] Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Draft Subregional Climate Action Plan, May 2021. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Honorable Chairman Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager DATE: August 16, 2022 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021- 01: City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 Housing Element and Amendment of City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) including updates related to the Safety Element and the addition of new Environmental Justice goals, policies and programs. APPLICANT: City of Lake Elsinore Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-01) (SCH NO. 2021080295) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-18 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01); and 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01. Project Location The Project encompasses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence. The City’s planning area (including its sphere of influence) encompasses approximately 72 square miles. Background California Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580-65589) requires all cities and counties to update the Housing Element every eight years in order to remain relevant and reflective of the community’s changing housing needs. The Housing Element is one of eight State mandated components of the General Plan. California is now in its sixth cycle, covering a period between 2021 and 2029 and this update will address housing needs within this planning period. PA 2021-18 PAGE 2 OF 21 Housing Element The City Council adopted the 5th Cycle (2014-2021) Housing Element on August 27, 2013. Working together and under staff direction, the City’s consultant (MIG) prepared the draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period. In May 2021, the City proactively engaged the community through a variety of avenues including digital/social media outreach, a community survey, a community workshop, several announcements at City Council and Chamber of Commerce meetings, as well as direct email to stakeholder groups. The City sent out notifications of the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element through social media pages, the City website, and e-mails to 95 individuals who requested such notification when completing a housing survey online, to the stakeholder list (11 homeowners associations) and the Chamber of Commerce. The notification included a link to the Public Review Draft Housing Element and information on how to submit comments to the City. At its October 5, 2021 and November 2, 2021 meetings, the Planning Commission considered a draft of the sixth cycle Housing Element. The matter was continued off-calendar in order for staff and its consultant to continue working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to finalize the draft Housing Element. HCD reviews every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits written findings back to each local government. The Housing Element process is concluded when HCD’s finds that the City of Lake Elsinore’s adopted Housing Element is in compliance with the state’s Housing Element law. HCD’s review process to date has been of the original draft Housing Element and revised drafts that were prepared in response to HCD’s October 22, 2021, January 21, 2022, and June 14, 2022 comment letters. Those HCD reviews do not constitute the official determination that the City’s Housing Element is in compliance with the state’s Housing Element law. Upon City Council adoption, the Housing Element will be officially forwarded to HCD for official evaluation. In its official review, HCD could make findings requiring amendments that would require bringing a revised document back for Planning Commisison and City Council consideration. General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) The City Council adopted the Lake Elsinore General Plan on December 13, 2011. Although there have been a number of amendments to the General Plan’s Land Use Element contained in Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) since December 2011, there have been no amendments to the balance of the General Plan. The City’s Safety Element is integrated into Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the City’s General Plan. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302(g)(3), upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, the Safety Element is required to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land located within areas classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by CAL FIRE. With the Housing Element and the Safety Element update, the City is revising two General Plan elements, therefore triggering the requirement set forth in Government Code Section 65302 (h)(2) that the City adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements. In compliance with this Government Code PA 2021-18 PAGE 3 OF 21 requirement, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 includes a new Environmental Justice Element that is being added to the end of Chapter 3.0. Project Description The project consists of three components: The adoption and implementation of the City of Lake Elsinore 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element, which represents an update of the City’s Housing Element, An update of the General Plan Safety Element contained in Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) of the City’s General Plan, and A new Environmental Justice Element, which is being incorporated into Chapter 3.0. Discussion 2021-2029 Housing Element The Housing Element is an integral component of the City’s General Plan as it addresses existing and future housing needs of all types for persons in all economic segment groups within the City. The Housing Element serves as a tool for decision makers and the public in understanding and meeting housing needs in Lake Elsinore. While the law does not require local governments to construct housing to meet identified needs, it does require that the community address housing needs in its discretionary planning actions such as creating opportunities for housing in the land use plan and facilitating development through policies. To meet this goal, the Housing Element identifies existing vacant or underdeveloped areas already designated by the General Plan Land Use Element to provide for the City’s projected housing needs. For the 2021-2029 planning period, the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and programs address housing issues in Lake Elsinore and meet State law housing requirements. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure development, revitalization, and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents. In particular, the City looks to ensure that all residents have decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing regardless of income. The goals, policies, and programs provide the framework for the City’s overall housing program and aim to: • Conserve and improve the condition of the existing housing stock, • Assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households, • Identify adequate sites to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, and • Promote equal opportunities for all persons. The draft Housing Element was initially submitted to the California Department of Housing and PA 2021-18 PAGE 4 OF 21 Community Development (HCD) for review/approval on August 23, 2021. In response to HCD comments several revised drafts have been submitted to HCD for additional review and comment. The version of the draft Housing Element (Exhibits C and D) being considered by the Planning Commission is the Revised (3rd Revision) Draft dated July 29, 2022 and its appendices. The Housing Element has five main components. Four parts of the element establish existing or baseline conditions and includes information such as: Population and housing characteristics (Chapter 2, Community Profile and Housing Needs Assessment), Regulatory constraints to housing development (Chapter 3, Housing Constraints Analysis), Land resources available to meet the City’s identified housing need (Chapter 4, Housing Resources and Sites Inventory), and An evaluation of how well the city implemented the last Housing Element (Chapter 5, Review of 2014-2021 Program Accomplishments). All of these components build toward the Housing Plan (Chapter 6, Housing Plan), which includes the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementing programs. Projected Housing Need - Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Every jurisdiction in the state must plan for its fair share of the region’s projected housing needs. The RHNA is the number of projected housing units the State has determined are needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels on a regional basis which for the Southern California is region 1.34 million housing units through 2029. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determines the RHNA distribution for all individual jurisdictions within its planning area. RHNA unit counts are distributed by income categories and includes allocations within Extremely/Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate income categories. The RHNA identified for the City of Lake Elsinore is 6,681 units. This is the total number of housing units the City must plan to accommodate by 2029. State law requires the City to provide enough suitable sites with appropriate general plan densities and zoning to accommodate the housing needs for all income levels and also requires the City to address housing for special needs groups including persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, Older Adults (65+ years), large households (5+ members), farmworkers, female-headed households, and people experiencing homelessness. In the course of the preparation for the updated Housing Element, staff reviewed all parcels within the City. Chapter 4 of the proposed Housing Element identifies available sites in Lake Elsinore for future housing development and evaluates how these land resources can work toward satisfying future housing needs. The identified sites need to provide sufficient opportunities to meet state-mandated housing goals for the City. The City has surplus capacities in all income level categories to accommodate its RHNA units and, therefore, no requirements for zoning or General Plan amendment are triggered. For the 2021-2029 period, City of Lake Elsinore's RHNA allocation is 6,681 housing units, with the following income breakdown: PA 2021-18 PAGE 5 OF 21 Income Category (AMI = Area Median Income*) RHNA Allocation (Number of Units) Percent of Total Allocation Very Low Income (≤50% of AMI) 1,878 28.1% Low Income (>50% to ≤80% of AMI) 1,099 16.4% Moderate Income (>80% to ≤120% of AMI) 1,134 17.0% Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI) 2,570 38.5% Total 6,681 100% “Area Median Income (AMI)” means the median household income based on household size of a geographic area of the state, as annually updated by HCD. *On May 13, 2022, HCD identified Riverside County’s AMI (Area Median Income) for a family of four to be $87,400 New/Revised Housing Element Goals and Programs The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element includes many of the programs that are contained in the current 2014-2021 Housing Element. The following is a summary of the revisions proposed for the Housing Element’s Goals and Programs. Revised Goal 1 - Preservation, maintenance, and improvement of the existing housing stock including the affordable housing stock. Revised Program 1: Code Enforcement The City will continue using code enforcement to identify housing maintenance issues and to expedite rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing by offering technical assistance or assistance referrals to homeowners and occupants. As new projects, code enforcement actions, and other opportunities arise, the City will investigate ways to meet its housing needs through rehabilitation and preservation of existing units. New Program 4 - Affordable Housing at Risk of Conversion The City will continue to monitor the status of subsidized affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes and provide technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term affordability. This will involve contacting owner/operators of subsided projects annually to determine the status of the units and their potential to convert to market-rate. If projects are at risk, the City will maintain contact with local organizations and housing providers who may have an interest in acquiring at-risk units. The City will keep track of and apply for funding opportunities to preserve at-risk units and assist other organizations in applying for funding to acquire at-risk units. Revised Goal 2 - Diverse and high-quality housing opportunities to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. Revised Program 7: Affordable Housing Development Make available on the City website and distribute to interested developers and non-profit housing agencies a list of City-owned property suitable for affordable housing projects and the Housing Element which includes a residential sites inventory. Update the City-owned property list regularly. Annually consult with local affordable housing developers, including offering letters of support for grant applications, advising on local zoning and code compliance, and facilitating partnerships. When appropriate (based on affordability level) and available funding, the City will provide incentives or financial assistance to residential developments that include units that are affordable to lower-income households, including extremely low-income households. Assistance can include expedited permit processing, impact fee deferrals, and funding assistance (Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset PA 2021-18 PAGE 6 OF 21 Funds contingent on a project meeting the location and affordability requirements). The City will promote these incentives to developers during the application process and use development agreements to obtain the inclusion of affordable housing units in new residential projects. The City has added incentives to encourage lot consolidation in the text of the Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan and will considering expanding those incentives citywide. Revised Program 8: Affordable Housing Partnerships Work with agencies and organizations to increase affordable housing activities such as construction, rehabilitation, or financial assistance to renters and owners. Provide a link to available housing programs for residents and developers on the City website. Partnerships and programs to continue and/or pursue include but are not limited to: County of Riverside Housing Authority (City/County Mortgage Revenue Bonds), County of Riverside Office of Economic Development (First Time Home Buyer and Mortgage Certificate Program), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and Habitat for Humanity. Endeavor to facilitate at least two affordable housing project during the planning period. Participate and leverage funds from the newly created Western Riverside County Housing Finance Trust, a joint powers authority, for the purposes of funding housing specifically assisting the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low-, very low-, and low- income within the County of Riverside. New Program 9: Downtown Lake Elsinore Residential Development Incentivize infill development in the City’s historic Downtown to establish an attractive, walkable streetscape with a mix of shopping opportunities, restaurants, and housing in both well-maintained historic buildings and high-quality new development and open spaces. redevelop tax-delinquent properties, and consolidate parcels to create larger, development ready pads in/near Downtown. Pursue modifications to residential development standards to facilitate development in Downtown, and identify funding sources to invest in infrastructure and housing New Program 11: Development Process Streamlining Continue streamlining the project review process by: Reviewing, and if necessary, revising local review procedures to facilitate a streamlined review process, and Accommodating SB 35 streamlining applications or inquiries by creating and making available to interested parties an informational packet that explains the SB 35 streamlining provisions in Lake Elsinore and provides SB 35 eligibility information. New Program 12: Objective Design Standards In compliance with SB 330, adopt objective design standards to ensure that the City can provide local guidance on design and clearly articulate objective design standards for by- right projects as allowed by state law. Adoption of objective design standards will facilitate high-quality residential development and compliance with State objectives regarding streamlined project review. The objective design standards will ensure provision of adequate private open space, parking, and architectural features, consistent with state law. Part of the objective design standards creation process will include assessing how the standards can be used to encourage a variety of housing types and limit the size of residential units on multi-family zoned properties to encourage units that are affordable by design. PA 2021-18 PAGE 7 OF 21 Revised Program 13: Rental Assistance Continue to support the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program. Direct eligible households to the Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program managed by the Housing Authority of Riverside County. Provide information to landlords regarding participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program. Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside to promote Housing Choice Voucher use in high resources area in the City. Expand the location of participating voucher properties by adding information for property owners and landlords to the City’s website about participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program and advertising the County’s Informational Seminars for Landlords. Revised Program 15: Resources to Address Homeless Need The City will use available funding (CDBG) to support organizations that address the needs of at-risk and homeless individuals and families through assistance to non-profits serving the homeless population. The City will annually contact service providers and share identified levels of CDBG or other available funds (including City funds) for homeless resources or housing programs. The City will continue working with non -profit organizations that address homelessness to aid residents in need and provide technical support (such as preapplication consultation, identification of available City funding or incentives such as expedited permit processing, flexibility in development standards and reduced, waived, or subsidized development and impact fees) as needed and will cultivate a close relationship with qualified and experienced non-profits to operate a safe and secure crisis stabilization housing complex (The Anchor ). Revised Goal 3 - Adequate sites for housing development to accommodate the City's housing need a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure. New Program 16: Adequate Sites The City of Lake Elsinore has a remaining RHNA of 6,555 units for the 2021-2029 RHNA planning period after credits for approved projects are taken into consideration. Overall, the City can adequately accommodate the City’s current RHNA under existing General Plan and Zoning Code standards. The residential sites inventory to address the current RHNA consists of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections, development capacity in Specific Plan areas, and vacant residential and mixed-use sites with capacity to yield 11,749 new units. The City will maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request. The City will continue to track the affordability of new housing projects and progress toward meeting the City’s RHNA. To facilitate effective coordination between local planning and water and sewer service functions to ensure adequate water and sewer capacity is available to accommodate housing needs, following Housing Element adoption, deliver the 2021-2029 Lake Elsinore Housing Element to all providers of sewer and water service within the City of Lake Elsinore in accordance with Government Code Section65589.7. The City does not provide water and sewer services. As of June 2022, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), which provides water and sewer services to the City, indicated that it was PA 2021-18 PAGE 8 OF 21 unclear if procedures are in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households as required by Government Code Section 65589.7. The City of Lake Elsinore does not have jurisdiction over the District as such, EVMWD was alerted of the requirements under Government Code Section 65589.7 and staff at EVMWD indicated that they would take action to put a compliant procedure in place to grant priority for the provision of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households by December 2022. The City is not responsible for the actual construction of these units. The City can, however, create a regulatory environment that enable the private market to build these units. This includes the adoption and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards, and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. New Program 17: No Net Loss Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city or county must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. The City will evaluate residential development proposals for consistency with goals and policies of the General Plan and the 2021-2029 Housing Element sites inventory. The City will make written findings that the density reduction is consistent with the General Plan and that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the RHNA by income level. If a proposed reduction of residential density will result in the residential sites inventory failing to accommodate the RHNA by income level, the City will identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the its share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced density project. New Program 19: Accessory Dwelling Units Promote the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by adopting an ADU ordinance addressing the latest provisions in State law, including permit streamlining processes. Provide technical resources to interested property owners. Promote development of ADUs by providing written information at the City’s planning counter and website. Revised Program 20: Specific Plans While initiation of physical development of a Specific Plan is largely outside the control of the City, the City will continue to promote development within existing and future specific plans. The City will maintain a list of Specific Plans with remaining development capacity and provide entitlement information of each plan as well as necessary entitlements or actions. The City will reach to owners/developers of Specific Plans with no recent entitlements actions every other year to identify any development constraints that may be PA 2021-18 PAGE 9 OF 21 within the control of the City. The City will address any identified issues. During the outreach process, the City will also provide information to owners and developers about available housing funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. Revised Goal 4: The Removal of governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development, improvement, and maintenance of housing. New Program 22: Compliance with Zoning Laws • Amend the City’s zoning regulations and make changes to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), the Supportive Housing Streamlining Act (AB 2162) and AB 101 (Low-Barrier Navigation Centers): o SB 2 requires that the City treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)). o AB 2162 requires supportive housing to be considered a use by right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. The law prohibits the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within one-half mile of a public transit stop. AB 2162 also require local entities to streamline the approval of housing projects containing a minimum amount of supportive housing by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for Conditional Use Authorization or other similar discretionary entitlements. o AB 101 requires that Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) be a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed-use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses (by-right or conditionally). LBNC provide temporary room and board with limited barriers to entry while case managers work to connect homeless individuals and families to income, public benefits, health services, permanent housing, or other shelter. • Require that employee housing, including agricultural employees, be treated like any other residential use in the same zone consistent with the Employee Housing Act. • Allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households on sites identified in the Sites Inventory and Appendix B as subject to AB 1397.` New Program 23: Residential Development Standards Review developments standards for the residential zoning districts to facilitate high-quality residential development in Lake Elsinore. The City will assess the potential for residential density increases for most residential and mixed-use districts. Potential changes will ensure that the City’s planning and design goals for residential and mixed-use projects are met. Explore establishing prototype development plans for different residential types as a tool to streamline and facilitate residential development. Prototype plans can also assist with grant funding application for affordable or special needs housing as plans can be tailored to the funding application requirements PA 2021-18 PAGE 10 OF 21 New Program 24: Non-Government Constraints Continue to monitor and evaluate development standards and advances in housing construction methods. Although the City has limited influence over non-governmental constraints, if non-governmental constraints are identified, the City will review, and if necessary, revise, any development regulations or processes that can potentially lessen those constraints. Revised Goal 5: Equal access to housing for all residents. Affirmatively f urthering equal and fair access to sound, affordable housing for all persons. Revised Program 25: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The City promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities and promotes housing for all persons, including those protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and any other State and federal fair housing and planning laws. The City will continue to promote public awareness of federal, State, and local regulations regarding equal access to housing and will provide information to the public on various state and federal housing programs and fair housing law. Maintain fair housing service referral information on the City’s web site. The City will also continue to implement Government Code Section 8899.50, subdivision (b), which requires the City to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The City will work to address housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, strategies for preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection. Chapter 3 summarizes the fair housing issues and concerns in Lake Elsinore based on research conducted as part of this Housing Element update and supplemented by findings of the 2019 Riverside County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Safety Element Update The objective of the amendments to General Plan Chapter 3.0 regarding the Safety Element Update is to address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Areas and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and to minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. In addition to the Section 65302(g)(3) required revisions, other portions of Chapter 3.0 are being updated to reflect current information and to incorporate policies contained in the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted by the Lake Elsinore City Council on September 11, 2018. The proposed Safety Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. As required by Government Code Section 65302.5, the draft amendment to the Safety Element was submitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection on August 19, 2021. The State Board reviewed the draft amendment on September 21, 2021 and recommended only a correction of the term “fuel resistant building techniques” in Policy 4.2 (page 3-21) to “fire-resistant building techniques.” This correction was made. PA 2021-18 PAGE 11 OF 21 The proposed revisions related to the Safety Element are shown in the attached Exhibit F, Proposed GP Chapter 3.0 Update - with Redlined Changes. (Please note that the page format and numbering in the redlined document is off due to the redlining.) The following is a summary of those revisions. Section 3.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Language regarding the Inland Empire Brine Line, previously referred to as “The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI)” is updated and a new figure (Figure 3-1) showing the facility’s location was added. The following new policies from the LHMP are added: Policy 3.6 Comply with the Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Program, and Health and Safety Code Sections 25280-25289 and ensure adequate leak detection, maintenance of records, and reporting of spills. Policy 3.7 In the event of a petroleum or gas pipeline leak, the City shall ensure that all responsible parties comply with the standards set by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Section 3.4 (Wildfire Hazards) Title of the section changed from “Wildland Hazards” to “Wildfire Hazards”. Background information regarding wildfires updated and a new table (Table 3-1) and new figure (Figure 3-2) added that show fires that occurred within Lake Elsinore and its Sphere of Influence between 1950 and 2020 and the areas burned. The High Fire Severity Zone Map (Figure 3-3) was updated and new figures (Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5) showing how existing and proposed land uses relate to the High Fire Severity Zone are added. The following new policies from the LHMP or to meet CAL FIRE’s content requirements are added or amended: Policy 4.2 Create fuel modification zones around development within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within 100 feet of buildings and structures. The size of the fuel modification zone may be altered with the addition of fire-resistant building techniques. The fuel modification zone may be replanted with fire-resistant material for aesthetics and erosion control. Policy 4.5 Create emergency water supply procedures that identifies and maps existing and future reservoirs, tanks, and water wells for fire suppression and that allows for immediate access to those facilities when needed for fire suppression purposes. Policy 4.6 Identify and map the most current Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as described and mapped by CAL FIRE, on an ongoing and as-needed basis. Policy 4.7 Identify existing developed areas within the City that have reduced or limited circulation access and develop an evacuation plan, and recommended improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. Policy 4.8 Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers and the Elsinore PA 2021-18 PAGE 12 OF 21 Valley Municipal Water District to reassess fire hazards and future availability of water supplies, after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, for both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. Policy 4.9 To the extent feasible and appropriate, locate new essential public facilities (e.g., health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities) outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. If new essential public facilities are located in a State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Zone, the facilities shall be constructed to meet or exceed the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code requirements, as adopted by the City, to allow them to continue to serve community needs during and after disaster events. Amended Implementation Program - The City will coordinate with the California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Department supporting public fire education and prevention programs. New Implementation Program - The City will work with developers to establish a Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) or other funding mechanism to construct extensions of Summerhill Drive, and La Strada to provide secondary/emergency access to existing development. New Implementation Program - The City will work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to maintain adequate water supply and fire flow, and identify areas lacking adequate water service for firefighting, including capacity for peak load under a reasonable worst-case wildland fire scenario, to be determined by CAL FIRE. New Goal 5 Minimize injury, loss of life property damage resulting from wildland fires. Policy 5.1 Require development to contribute its fair share towards funding the provision of appropriate Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services necessary to address the fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Policy 5.2 Require that all new development located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA), as most recently mapped by CAL FIRE, comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Policy 5.3 Require all new development to have at least two access roads in order to provide for concurrent safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation. Policy 5.4 If new development is located in a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, require adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression. Policy 5.5 Require new development in VHFHSZs to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by: PA 2021-18 PAGE 13 OF 21 • Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns etc.; • Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g. through fire breaks) to the extent feasible; • Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent; • Using fire-safe building materials and design features, consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards; • Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping; and • Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, defensible space, access, and water facilities. Policy 5.6 Require new development within VHFHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction. The agreement shall specify who is responsible for maintenance of these areas and the fire safe standards that will be implemented. As a project condition of approval, a copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the City Fire Marshal and the Building and Safety Department. Policy 5.7 Require that all redevelopment of properties damaged or destroyed by a major wildfire comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore. Policy 5.8 Perform an evaluation of fire-related development standards should a major wildfire require portions of the City be rebuilt to ensure that redevelopment standards are as fire-safe as reasonably possible. Implementation Program - The City shall condition projects to comply with Fire Department requirements. Section 3.5 (Flooding and Floodplains) A new Figure 3-6 showing Floodplains is added and the following new policies from the LHMP are added: Policy 6.2 Continue to encourage floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities. Policy 6.3 Reduce the risk of flooding by creating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation areas and by prohibiting development within the floodways. Policy 6.4 Encourage that new developments within the floodplain fringe shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat. Policy 6.5 Continue to require the construction of channel improvements to allow conveyance of the 100-year flow without extensive flooding. Policy 6.6 Use FEMA regulations and mapping to ensure that flooding hazards are evaluated during the Policy environmental review process, including placement of restrictions on PA 2021-18 PAGE 14 OF 21 development within designated floodplain areas. Policy 6.7 Promote drainage improvements that maintain a natural or semi-natural floodplain. Section 3.6 (Geologic and Seismic Hazards) This section was renamed from “Seismic Activity” and additional background, including new subsections regarding the regulatory setting (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) and local plans (Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and Resilient IE) added. This includes language concerning address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. A figure showing evacuation routes (Figure 3-9) is added. The following new policy from the LHMP is added: Policy 7.1 Continue to make every effort to reduce earthquake-induced fire as a threat. Section 3.7 Noise No changes Section 3.8 (Community Facilities and Protection Services) A new heading “3.8.1 Fire and Police Protection Services” added. Background information regarding the Fire and Police/Law Enforcement Baselines is updated. Additionally, language regarding the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage (LEAPS) has been deleted. The following new goal and policies from the LHMP or to meet CAL FIRE’s content requirements are added. Goal 10 Maintain an emergency response program consistent with State law, and coordinate with surrounding cities, Riverside County and other emergency response providers. Policy 10.1 Maintain participation in local, regional, state, and national mutual aid systems to ensure that appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. Policy 10.2 Periodically review and test the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to address the City’s growth in population and built environment, as well as, to note any deficiencies and to incorporate new emergency response techniques. Policy 10.3 Coordinate all emergency preparedness and response plans with neighboring cities, the County of Riverside, local health care providers and utility purveyors, and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). Policy 10.4 Maintain a safe and secure, technologically advanced Emergency Operations Center allowing for room to expand as the City grows. Policy 10.5 Continue to train Emergency Operations Center and general city staff in our Emergency Operations Plan and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS). Policy 10.6 Continue coordinated training for City Emergency Response Team members, PA 2021-18 PAGE 15 OF 21 Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and related response agency personnel. Policy 10.7 Conduct public outreach to provide education programs and literature to Lake Elsinore’s residents, business people and property owners on earthquake preparedness, fire safety, flooding hazards, other emergencies and identified emergency access routes. Policy 10.8 Incorporate the current Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP) and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into this Chapter by reference. Implementation Program - The Emergency Services Division will maintain emergency prepared- ness information and handouts at City Hall, the Senior Center and the Library, and will distributed the information at community events. Additionally, the City’s website and other media resources shall be utilized to inform and educate residents and business owners on emergency preparedness matters and emergency evacuation routes. Implementation Program - The Emergency Services Division will continue to coordinate training for city staff and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers, and publicize training sessions to the City’s residents and business owners. Implementation Program - The Emergency Services Division will review and update the Lake Elsinore Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) a minimum of every 5 years to update emergency response, evaluation plans and evacuation routes to reflect current conditions and community needs. New Environmental Justice Element The objective of the new Environmental Justice Element provisions being added to General Plan Chapter 3.0 is to provide for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies within Lake Elsinore. Government Code Section 65302(h)(1) requires that both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities incorporate environmental justice policies into their general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently. According to mapping prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 modeling, several census tracts that are completely or partially within the City limits are identified as disadvantaged communities. Therefore, concurrent with the above-described Housing Element and Safety Element update, the City is proposing environmental justice goals, policies and implementation programs as part of Chapter 3.0 of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Environmental Justice Element-related amendments to the General Plan do not change any land use designations and do not propose or anticipate any specific development proposals. PA 2021-18 PAGE 16 OF 21 In addition to identifying existing policies and implementation programs in the Housing Element, Land Use, Circulation, Parks and Recreation, Air Quality, Growth Management, Noise, Schools, and District Plan sections of the City’s General Plan, the following is a list of the new goals, policies and implementation programs that are being added to the General Plan to address environmental justice. Goal 17 Encourage meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community. Policy 17.1 Encourage collaboration between the City, community, and community-based organizations, as well as local stakeholders, and environmental justice focus groups in promoting environmental justice. Policy 17.2 Promote efforts to educate and involve traditionally underrepresented populations in the public decision-making process. Policy 17.3 Initiate outreach efforts as early as possible in the decision-making process. Policy 17.4 Ensure that affected residents have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their health. Policy 17.5 Seek feedback on public decisions through traditional and online forms of communication, such as website, email, mobile phone apps, online forums, and podcasts. Policy 17.6 Ensure that low income and minority populations have equal access and influence in the land use decision-making process through such methods as bilingual notices, posting bilingual notices at development sites, and conducting public information meetings with interpreters. Policy 17.7 Utilize multilingual staff personnel to assist in evacuation and short-term recovery activities and meeting general community needs. Goal 18 Minimize the exposure of residents to pollution in the environment through sound planning and public decision-making. Policy 18.1 Ensure that zoning and other development regulations require adequate buffering between residential and industrial land uses. Policy 18.2 Encourage new development to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce pollutant emissions. Policy 18.3 Promote reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging expanded multi- modal facilities, linkages between such facilities, and services that provide transportation alternatives, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. Policy 18.4 Place adequate conditions on large construction projects to ensure they do not create noise, dust or other impacts on the community to the extent feasible. Policy 18.5 Require proposals for new sensitive land uses to incorporate setbacks, barriers, PA 2021-18 PAGE 17 OF 21 landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures to minimize exposure to unhealthful air and other toxins. Policy 18.6 New specific plans or existing specific plans that include a substantial revision that are within “disadvantaged communities,” as identified by CalEPA should address Environmental Justice goals and include appropriate policies consistent with this section. Policy 18.7 Promote new development that emphasizes job creation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled in job-poor areas and does not otherwise contribute to onsite emissions in order to improve air quality. Policy 18.8 Periodically review the City’s truck routes to ensure they adequately direct trucks away from residential areas and other areas with sensitive receptors. Policy 18.9 Ensure that truck-dependent commercial and industrial uses incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. Policy 18.10 Require new commercial and industrial development to incorporate the latest technologies to reduce diesel emissions. Policy 18.11 Support traffic and highway techniques and technologies that reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic through traffic calming, noise barriers, pavement design, and other measures. Policy 18.12 Encourage public and private development to incorporate green building techniques, such as construction waste management practices, optimization of energy efficiency measures, and avoidance of toxic chemicals. Policy 18.13 Monitor and maintain City facilities and the City’s vehicle fleet to maximize energy efficiency and reduce emissions. Goal 19: Develop increased mobility and accessibility for all residents. Policy 19.1 Support walking and bicycling by encouraging the development of complete streets that provide safe mobility for all users (e.g. bike lanes, traffic-calming measures, sidewalks separated from the roadway with tree planted landscaping), where feasible in the right-of-way. Policy 19.2 Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and open space through infrastructure investments and improvements. Policy 19.3 Create land use patterns and public amenities that encourage people to walk, bicycle and use public transit. Policy 19.4 Encourage transit agencies to establish and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks, and healthcare facilities that are convenient to low-income and minority populations. Policy 19.5 Encourage new specific plans, existing specific plans that includes a substantial PA 2021-18 PAGE 18 OF 21 revision, and development projects be designed to promote pedestrian movement through direct, safe, and pleasant routes that connect destinations inside and outside the plan or project area. Policy 19.6 Work with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to ensure that all schools have safe and walkable routes to school. Policy 19.7 Ensure that emergency preparedness and disaster response programs, including evacuation routes, serve all parts of the City. Goal 20: Encourage the provision of healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food that is readily available to all members of the community. Policy 20.1 Encourage the development of healthy food establishments in areas that have a high concentration of fast food establishments, convenience stores, and liquor stores. Policy 20.2 Establish regulations that allow farmers’ markets to operate in the City, where appropriate. Policy 20.3 Encourage and simplify the process of developing community gardens within or adjacent to neighborhoods and housing development sites. Policy 20.4 Promote city-wide messaging about healthy eating habits and food choices through the Healthy LE program. Policy 20.5 Assist transit providers in the review of their transit routes to provide service to grocery stores, markets, and healthy restaurants that provide healthy food options. Policy 20.6 Promote community gardens for suitable public and private land as well as an amenity in required open space areas of new multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects. Policy 20.7 Educate the public on how to grow and maintain a private or community edible garden. Implementation Program Review and as required amend the Zoning Code to facilitate the access to healthy food by the City’s residents. Goal 21: Create healthy and affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Policy 21.1 Promote development that includes affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. Policy 21.2 Provide ongoing infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods through the capital improvement program. Policy 21.3 Assist in the preservation of housing units at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rate housing. PA 2021-18 PAGE 19 OF 21 Policy 21.4 Affirmatively further fair housing related to the sale, rental, and financing of housing to avoid discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, or any other arbitrary factor. Policy 21.5 Ensure that proposed new affordable housing projects meet the same standards of health and safety as conventional market rate housing. Policy 21. 6 In addition to the requirements of the Building Code, encourage the use of green, healthy building materials that are toxin free in residential construction. Goal 22: Provide adequate and equitably distributed public facilities throughout the community. Policy 22.1 Plan for the future public improvement and service needs of underserved communities. Policy 22.2 Provide a park system that provides all residents with access to parks, community centers, sports fields, trails and other amenities. Policy 22.3 Review the location and extent of community recreational facilities to ensure maximum use by children and adults and use that information to develop new recreational facilities and opportunities for the community, including indoor and outdoor facilities. Policy 22.4 Provide for the equitable distribution of public facilities and services, and where feasible, prioritize new facilities in underserved areas. Policy 22.5 Require that new development pay its fair share of public facilities and service costs, through the payment of all applicable development impact and Community Facilities District (CFD) fees. Policy 22.6 Ensure that new public facilities are well designed, energy efficient and compatible with adjacent land uses. Comments Received The City received several comments and written correspondence regarding the proposed Housing Element and the proposed amendment of General Plan Chapter 3.0. The City’s response to these comments are described in the following table. The written correspondence is attached. Commenter Summary of Comment Response Marsha Santos (E-mail dated August 16, 2021)) Would like to know why there isn’t any affordable housing for Senior Citizens. Housing Element Program 14 (Special Needs Housing) recognizes the need to provide housing opportunities that meet the special housing needs of special needs residents including the elderly by giving priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups in addition to other PA 2021-18 PAGE 20 OF 21 lower-income households. Mitchell M. Tsai (Letters dated September 15, 2021 and November 23, 2021) Represents Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce. These letters do not request specific textual changes to the Housing Element. Therefore, staff is recommending no Housing Element changes. State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Oral comment made during September 21, 2021 Resource Protection Committee meeting.) Recommended a correction of the term “fuel resistant building techniques” in Policy 4.2 (page 3-21) to “fire-resistant building techniques.” This correction was made. SB 18 and AB 52 Tribal Consultations Pursuant to SB 18 requirements, the City requested a list from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of Native American Tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the area. Based on the list of tribes provided by the NAHC, the City provided a 90-day notification to potentially affected tribes on May 18, 2021. Staff received notification from Rincon, Soboba and Pechanga Tribes within the 90 days with requests to meet. SB 18 consultation meetings were combined with the required AB 52 consultation process. The full AB 52 consultation process is documented below. AB 52 provides for a 30-day period in which the six Tribes that asked for notification of the Project may request to consult on the project. On May 18, 2021, the City contacted the tribes and received requests from Rincon, Pechanga, and Soboba Tribes within the 30-day period, requesting to initiate consultation. The City held conference calls or video conferences with the three tribes and the following table summarizes the results of those meetings. Tribe Date of Consultation Summary of Comment Response Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians August 16, 2021 No Comments No Response Required. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians September 1, 2021 No Comments No Response Required. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians September 16, 2021 Requested that Housing Element include description of AB 168 requirement for Native American consultation whenever City receives notice of developer’s intent to submit a residential project in accordance with the requirements of SB 35. Upon receipt of any pre- application notification submitted to the City in compliance with SB 35, the City will comply with all applicable legal requirements for Native American consultation. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021-01) was prepared for Planning Application 2021-18/General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 to assess potential environmental impacts. No mitigation measures were identified PA 2021-18 PAGE 21 OF 21 and items on the environmental checklist were determined to be either “No Impact” or “Less than Significant Impact”. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2021080295) was made available for public review and comment for a 30-day review period from August 18, 2021 to September 17, 2021. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. As of September 23, 2021, no comments regarding the IS/MD had been received. Exhibits A – CEQA Resolution B – GPA Resolution C - Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 Period D - Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Appendices E – Proposed General Plan Chapter 3.0 F – Proposed GP Chapter 3.0 Update- with Redlined Changes G – Housing Element – Comments Received H – State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection/Cal Fire Review of Safety Element I – Initial Study/Negative Declaration