Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - TR 35337 Ll� })per f. - l•' C � � •1 I� Final Environmental Impact Report r ' - Specific Plan No. 2005-02 e I � p r General Plan Amendment No. 2005-06 Zone Change No. 2005-07 EIR No. 2007-1 State Clearinghouse No. 2006121069 Spyglass RanchSpecific Plan Lake Elsinore, California Prepared For. City of Lake Elsinore Applicant: Spyglass Ranch, LLC y. Prepared By: ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- fal 8690 Balboa Ave, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 "�' January 2008 Final Environmental Impact Report Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Lake Elsinore, California January 2008 Prepared for City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Applicant Spyglass Ranch, LLC 2751 West Coast Hwy., Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 ONE COMPANY Many Solutionss- f aq Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................ix SECTION 0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................................................0.1-1 SECTION 0.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS............................................................................................0.2-1 0.2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT....................................................0.2-1 0.2.2 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES................0.2-1 SECTION 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS....................................................................................................0.3-1 SECTION 0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM....................................................0.4-1 0.4.1 MITIGATION MATRIX.................................................................................0.4-1 0.4.2 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES..................................................................0.4-17 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF A DRAFT EIR...........................................................................1-1 1.3 EIR ADEQUACY...............................................................................................1-1 1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION......................................................................1-2 1.5 EIR BACKGROUND AND CONTENT............................................................1-3 1.5.1 Environmental Topics Addressed..........................................................1-3 1.6 EIR PROCESSING.............................................................................................1-3 1.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.......................1-4 1.7.1 Eliminated from Further Review in Notice of Preparation....................1-4 1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY TO BE RESOLVED ......................................1-15 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION......................................................................................2-1 2.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................2-1 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Project Objectives..................................................................................2-1 2.3.2 Discretionary Approvals........................................................................2-2 2.3.3 Proposed Land Use................................................................................2-2 2.3.4 Infrastructure Improvements................................................................2-11 2.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.....................................................................2-27 SECTION 3.0 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................3-1 3.1 JURISDICTIONAL SETTING..........................................................................3-1 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES..................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Drainages...............................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Geology/Soils ........................................................................................3-2 3.2.3 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program...................................3-2 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES............................................................3-5 3.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT.................................................................3-5 3.4.1 Surrounding Land Uses .........................................................................3-5 3.5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS..............................................................................3-6 ML Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan i City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQA1Rnal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Table of Contents SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS..................................................................................4.0-1 4.0.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................4.0-1 4.0.2 INCORPORATION OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................4.0-1 4.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................4.1-1 4.1.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.1-1 4.1.2 Project Impacts ...................................................................................4.1-2 4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................4.1-7 4.1.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation...........................................4.1-8 4.1.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.1-8 4.1.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation.............................................4.1-8 4.1.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments...................................4.1-9 4.2 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................4.2-1 4.2.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.2-1 4.2.2 Project Impacts...................................................................................4.2-6 4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.2-12 4.2.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.........................................4.2-13 4.2.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.2-13 4.2.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4.2-15 4.2.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments .................................4.2-16 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/JURISDICTIONAL WATERS......................4.3-1 4.3.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.3-1 4.3.2 Project Impacts...................................................................................4.3-9 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.3-19 4.3.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.........................................4.3-19 4.3.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.3-20 4.3.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4.3-22 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.4-1 4.4.2 Project Impacts...................................................................................4.4-3 4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................4.4-6 4.4.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation............................................4.4-6 4.4.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.4-7 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation...............................................4.4-9 4.4.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments...................................4.4-9 4.5 GEOLOGY/SOILS..........................................................................................4.5-1 4.5.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.5-1 4.5.2 Project Impacts...................................................................................4.5-7 4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.5-11 4.5.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................4.5-11 4.5.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.5-12 4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................................4.5-12 4.5.1 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.5-12 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...........................................4.6-1 4.6.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.6-1 4.6.2 Project Impacts ....................................................................................4.6-3 4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4.6-6 4.6.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation............................................4.6-6 4.6.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.6-9 T1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan ii City of Lake Elsinore jJ Final OR January 2008 X.-1010570 City_of Lake_ElsinoreW684_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass TOC.doc Table of Contents 4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................................4.6-10 4.6.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.6-10 4.7 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY..............................................................4.7-1 4.7.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................4.7-1 4.7.2 Project Impacts................................................................................. 4.7-7 4.7.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.7-17 4.7.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.........................................4.7-17 4.7.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.7-18 1 4.7.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4.7-18 4.7.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.7-18 4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................4.8-1 4.8.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................4.8-1 4.8.2 Project Impacts .................................................................................4.8-15 4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.8-35 4.8.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................4.8-35 4.8.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures 4.8-39 ................................................ r 4.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................................4.8-39 4.8.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.8-40 4.9 NOISE..............................................................................................................4.9-1 4.9.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................4.9-1 4.9.2 Project Impacts 1 4.9.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.9-19 4.9.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.........................................4.9-20 4.9.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.9-21 4.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................................4.9-23 4.9.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments .................................4.9-24 4.10 POPULATION/HOUSING...........................................................................4.10-1 1 4.10.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................4.10-1 1 4.10.2 Existing Conditions ..............................4.10-2 ............................................ 4.10.3 Project Impacts .................................................................................4.10-4 4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.10-6 4.10.5 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.............................. .......4.10-7 4.10.6 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.10-7 4.10.7 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4.10-7 4.10.8 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments .................................4.10-7 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES .....................................................................................4.11-1 4.11.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................4.11-1 4.11.2 Project Impacts.................................................................................4.11-5 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.11-7 4.11.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.........................................4.11-8 4.11.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................ ..............................4.11-9 4.11.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4.11-9 4.11.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.11-9 4.12 RECREATION..............................................................................................4.12-1 4.12.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................4.12-1 4.12.2 Project Impacts .................................................................................4.12-1 4.12.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................... .....................................4.12-2 4.12.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation..........................................4.12-2 4.12.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ................................................4.12-2 LT17 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan ill City of Lake Elsinore j j J ` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cify_of Lake Elsinore152664_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Table of Contents 4.12.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................4,12-2 4.12.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments.................................4.12-2 4.13 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..................................................................4.13-1 4.13.1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................4.13-1 4.13.2 Project Impacts.................................................................................4.13-8 4.13.3 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.13-17 4.13.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.......................................4.13-18 4.13.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ..............................................4.13-19 4.13.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation.........................................4.13-20 4.13.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments...............................4.13-20 4.14 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS................................................................4.14-1 4.14.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................4.14-1 4.14.2 Project Impacts.................................................................................4.14-3 4.14.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.14-8 4.14.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation.......................................4.14-10 4.14.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ..............................................4.14-10 4.14.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation.........................................4.14-10 4.14.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments...............................4.14-11 SECTION 5.0 ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................5-1 5.2 CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS..............................................5-1 5.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION.............................................................................................5-2 5.3.1 Existing Zoning Regulation Alternative................................................5-2 5.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................5-2 5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative.......................5-2 5.4.2 Alternative 2: Existing General Plan Designation Alternative..............5-5 5.4.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative.............5-8 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE..................................5-11 SECTION 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS..................................................................................................6-1 6.1 ELIMINATION OF OBSTACLES TO POPULATION GROWTH.................6-1 6.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................6-4 SECTION 7.0 INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.............................................................7-1 7.1 AIR QUALITY(PROJECT-AND CUMULATIVE-LEVEL)..........................7-1 7.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION(CUMULATIVE-LEVEL)..................7-1 SECTION 8.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES..................................................................................8-1 SECTION 9.0 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED......................................................................9.1 9.1 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED.......................................9-1 9.1.1 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).........................9-1 9.1.2 Persons and Organizations Consulted....................................................9-3 9.2 REFERENCES...................................................................................................9-3 9.3 ELECTRONIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................9-6 MRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan iv City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X..V10570_City_of Lake_Elsinon:152664_Spyg1ass16 CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Table of Contents _ Technical Appendices(B through J are Included on CD in pocket) Appendix A.1 Notice of Preparation Appendix A.2 Notice of Preparation Distribution List ' Appendix A.3 Comments on Notice of Preparation Appendix B Air Quality Technical Study Appendix C.l Biological Technical Report Appendix C.2 MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dry Season Protocol Level Survey Report for Vernal Pool and Fairy Shrimp Appendix CA Joint Project Review Appendix C.5 Elsinore Hills Road Impacts Appendix C.6 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report Appendix D.1 Phase I Archaeological Assessment Appendix D.2 Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix E Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Appendix F.1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F.2 Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F.3 Second Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G Conceptual Drainage Study Appendix H Noise Impact Analysis Appendix I Public Services/Utilities Response Letters Appendix J Traffic Impact Analysis i Lj J T>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan v City of Lake Elsinore j Final EIR January 2008 X1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore1526B4_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFInal EIRISpyglass MCA= Table of Contents List of Figures Figure2.1-1. Regional Map...................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2.1-2. Vicinity Map......................................................... ...........................................................2-5 Figure 2.3-1. Conceptual Land Use Plan...............................................................................................2-7 Figure 2.3-2. Proposed Street Sections........................................................................... .......... ..•••.2-17 Figure 2.3-3. Proposed Circulation Network..................................................................... .. .2-19 Figure 2.3-4. Conceptual Drainage Plan............................................................................................ .2-21 Figure 2.3-5. Conceptual Water Plan..................................................................................................2-23 Figure 2.3-6. Conceptual Sewer Plan..................................................................................... .2-25 ............ Figure 2.4-1. Conceptual Grading Plan...............................................................................................2-29 Figure2.4-2. Project Phasing..............................................................................................................2-31 Figure 3.1-1. Existing Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................... . .. ...........3-3 Figure3.4-1. Site Photographs............................................................................................... ... .3-9 ......... Figure 3.5-1. Cumulative Projects.......................................................................................................3-11 Figure 4.1-1. Scenic Resources and Cumulative Projects..................................................................4.1-5 Figure 4.3-1. Vegetation and Sensitive Resources......................................................... ............... .4.3-3 Figure 4.3-2. Wildlife Corridor............................................... Figure4.3-3. MSHCP Criteria Cell..................................................................................................4.3-17 Figure 4.5-1. Soils Mapped on the Project Site..................................................................................4.5-3 Figure 4.5-2. Project Site Topography.............................................................................. ............ .4.5-5 Figure4.5-3. Faults................................................................................................................ .4.5-9 Figure 4.6-1. Area of Project Site within 1/4 Mile of Landfill...........................................................4.6-7 Figure 4.7-1. Existing Hydrological Conditions.................................................................................4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2. Conceptual Drainage Plan........................................................................... Figure 4.7-3. Water Quality Improvement Area..............................................................................4.7-13 Figure4.8-1. Current Land Use...................................................................................................... .4.8-3 Figure4.8-2. Existing Zoning.............................................................................................................4.8-5 Figure 4.8-3. Redevelopment Plan Areas......................................................................................... .4.8-7 Figure 4.8-4. Proposed Land Uses....................................................................................................4.8-13 Figure 4.9-1. Noise Monitoring Locations.........................................................................................4.9-3 Figure 4.9-2. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels .........................................4.9-9 Figure 4.9-3. Location of Noise Walls................................................................................ .......... .4.9-13 Figure 4.11-1. Public Services................................................. Figure 4.12-1. Proposed Open Space and Recreation Plan................................................................4.12-3 Figure 4.13-1. Existing Circulation Network.......................................................................... .4.13-5 .......... Figure 4.13-2. Proposed Circulation Plan...........................................................................................4.13-9 Figure 4.13-3. On-Site Circulation Improvements...........................................................................4.13-21 jjJJFDR Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan vi City of Lake Elsinore j� Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rna1 E1MSpyg1ass_TOC.doc I Table of Contents List of Tables Table 0.4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist............................................0.4-2 Table 0.4-2. Project Design Considerations....................................................................................0.4-17 Table 1.7-1. Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................1-5 Table 1.8-1. Summary ofNOP Comment Letters..............................................................................1-16 Table 2.3-1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses....................................................................................2-9 Table 2.3-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area.......................................................2-9 Table2.3-3. Roadway Summary........................................................................................................2-11 Table 2.3-4. Project Design Considerations.......................................................................................2-12 Table 3.5-1. Cumulative Projects.........................................................................................................3-6 Table 4.2-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................4.2-2 Table 4.2-2. SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds .......................................................................4.2-4 Table 4.2-3. Air Quality Monitoring Summary Days Standards were Exceeded and Maximum Observed Concentration..............................................................................4.2-7 Table 4.2-4. Total Particulate Matter Emissions as a Result of Project Grading..............................4.2-9 Table 4.2-5. Total Daily Exhaust Emissions(lbs/day)....................................................................4.2-10 Table 4.2-6. Operational Emissions.............................................................................................. .4.2-11 Table 4.2-7. Micro-Scale Air Quality Impact Analysis ................................................................4.2-12 Table 4.2-8. Mitigated Construction Activity Emissions (pounds/day)..........................................4.2-15 f Table 4.3-1. Existing Vegetation Communities ............4.3-2 .................................................................... Table 4.3-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site......................4.3-7 Table 4.3-3. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands.............................................4.3-9 Table 4.3-4. Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts ............................................................4.3-10 Table 4.3-5. Mitigation for Riparian/Riverine Impacts...................................................................4.3-12 Table 4.7-1. Flow Summary(Existing Condition)............................................................................4.7-2 Table 4.7-2. Flow Summary for the Proposed Project....................................................................4.7-11 Table 4.8-1. Land Use Acreages.....................................................................................................4.8-10 Table 4.8-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area..................................................4.8-12 Table 4.8-3. Applicable Land Use Regulations ..............................................................................4.8-18 Table 4.8-4. Cumulative Projects....................................................................................................4.8-36 Table 4.9-1. Existing(Ambient)Noise Level Measurements...........................................................4.9-2 Table 4.9-2. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix...................................................................4.9-6 Table 4.9-3. City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance........................................................................4.9-8 Table 4.9-4. Roadway Segments Contributing to On-site Noise Impacts.......................................4.9-11 Table 4.9-5. Proposed Residential Areas with Potential for On-site Exterior Noise Impacts.........4.9-11 Table 4.9-6. Camino del Norte and 1-15 On-site Exterior Noise Contributions .............................4.9-12 Table 4.9-7. On-site Interior Noise Impacts and Required Mitigation............................................4.9-15 Table 4.9-8. Off-site Noise Level Scenarios for Proposed Project.................................................4.9-17 Table 4.9-9. Off-site Noise Level Scenarios for Proposed Project with Commercial Use .............4.9-18 Table 4.9-10. Cumulative Noise Increases at Full Buildout(2025) for Proposed Project................4.9-20 Table 4.9-11. First Floor Exterior Noise Level(dBA Ldn) ..............................................................4.9-24 Table 4.10-1. Population Estimates...................................................................................................4.10-2 Table 4.10-2. Housing Unit Estimates..............................................................................................4.10-3 Table 4.10-3. 1998-2005 Housing Needs Assessment City of Lake Elsinore ..................................4.10-3 Table 4.10-4. Current Land Use Dwelling Unit Calculations...........................................................4.10-5 Table 4.10-5. Population Estimates for Spyglass Ranch...................................................................4.10-5 Table 4.10-6. Spyglass Ranch Population Estimate Differences ......................................................4.10-6 Table 4.11-1. Capacity and Enrollment at Project-Service Schools for 2006/07 School Year.........4.11-2 FalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan vii City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Table of Contents Table 4.11-2. Proposed Project Student Generation Impacts............................................................4.11-6 Table 4.13-1. Level of Service Ranges.............................................................................................4.13-7 Table 4.13-2. Existing Intersections Summary.................................................................................4.13-7 Table 4.13-3. Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimated Trip Generation.................4.13-12 Table 4.13-4. Opening Year(2009)Without and With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................................................4.13-14 Table 4.13-5. General Plan Buildout Without and With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................................................4.13-16 Table 4.13-6. Opening Year(2009)With Mitigation.....................................................................4.13-23 Table 4.14-1a. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation.................................................................4.14-6 Table 4.14-1b. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation, Commercial Land Use..........................4-14-7 Table 4.14-2. Estimated Gas Demand..............................................................................................4-14-8 Table 4.13-3. Estimated Cumulative Solid Waste Generation..........................................................4.14-9 Table 5.4-1. Alternative Land Use Comparison...................................................................................5-5 Table 5.5-1. Comparison of Alternative Impacts to Proposed Project...............................................5-12 Table 6.0-1 Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts............................................................................6-1 Table 6.0-2 Adopted West Riverside Council of Governments Forecasts..........................................6-1 Table 6.0-3 Adopted City of Lake Elsinore Forecasts........................................................................6-2 Table 6.0-4. Population, Housing Unit and Employment Estimates....................................................6-2 Table 6.0-5. Population Estimates for Spyglass Ranch........................................................................6-2 Table 6.0-6. Current Land Use Dwelling Unit Calculations................................................................6-2 Table 6.0-7. Spyglass Ranch Population Estimate Differences...........................................................6-3 LaJ T>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan viii City of Lake Elsinore f Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRISpygless MCA= Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ADT Average daily trips ' AMSL Above mean sea level approx. Approximately AQMP Air Quality Management Plan j ARB Air Resources Board 1 ASP Approved Specific Plan ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery AST Aboveground storage tank Ave. Avenue Basin South Coast Air Basin BAT Best Available Technology BCT Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology 1 BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDE California Department of Education CDF California Department of Forestry CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CETAP Community Environmental Transportation Corridor Acceptability Process CFD Community Facilities District CFP California Fully-Protected Species cfs Cubic feet per second CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board 1 CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CUT Congestion Management Plan CMS Congestion Management System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CLAPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon monoxide CSC California Species of Concern cu-ft Cubic feet CUP Conditional Use Permit cy Cubic yard dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent and Superior Preservation DDA Disposition and Development Agreement DPR Departments of Parks and Recreation LT>`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan ix City of Lake Elsinore f jJ ` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Acronyms and Abbreviations Dr. Drive DWR Department of Water Resources E. East eb Eastbound EDR Environmental Data Resources,Inc. EIR Environmental Impact Report ELSP East Lake Specific Plan e/o East of EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act EVMWD Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District FAA Federal Aviation Administration FB Freeway Business FE Federally Endangered FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPT Federally Proposed Threatened FSC Federal Species of Concern FSP Future Specific Plan FT Federally Threatened GPA General Plan Amendment gpd Gallons per unit per day HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Program HHWE Household Hazardous Waste Element HOV High occupancy vehicle I Interstate IID Imperial Irrigation District IS Initial Study ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers kV kilovolt LD Low Density Ldn Day-night energy equivalent noise level LEMSAR Lake Elsinore Marine Search and Rescue LEPD Lake Elsinore Police Department LETM Lake Elsinore Traffic Model Leq Energy equivalent noise level LEUSD Lake Elsinore Unified School District Ln. Lane LOMR Letter of Map Revision LOS Level of Service LSSI Library Systems and Services,Inc. MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MD Medium Density mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter MLD Most Likely Descendant MM Mitigation Measure MMcf/day Million cubic feet per day falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan x City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass MCA= Acronyms and Abbreviations MMRP Mitigation,Monitoring and Reporting Program MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRF Material Transfer Facility MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSL Mean sea level f MTF Material Transfer Facility N/A Not available NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards I NAHC Native American Heritage Commission nb Northbound NC Neighborhood Commercial NCCP Natural Community Conservation Program NDFE Non-Disposal Facility Element NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants n/o North of No. Number NOA Notice of Availability NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 03 Ozone OSR Open Space Residential Pb Lead PM2.5 Ultra fine particulates PM10 Fine particulates ppm parts per million RCFD Riverside County Fire Department RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District J RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan RCLS Riverside County Library System RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCSD Riverside County Sheriff's Department RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RCWMD Riverside County Waste Management Department Rd. Road RDA Redevelopment Agency REC Recognized Environmental Condition REC 1 Water Contact Recreation REC2 Non-Contact Water Recreation ROGs Reactive organic gases ROW Right-of-Way RTA Riverside Transit Agency SAR-DAMP Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan xi City of Lake Elsinore EDFinal EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_E1s1nore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass_TOC.doc Acronyms and Abbreviations SB Senate Bill sb Southbound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCGC Southern California Gas Company SCH State Clearing House SCS Soil Conservation Service SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SE State Endangered SIP State Implementation Plan s/o South of S02 Sulfur dioxide SPA Specific Plan Amendment SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element ST State Threatened STC Sound Transmission Class St. Street TC Tourist Commercial TCM Transportation Control Measure TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TND Traditional neighborhood design TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TTM Tentative Tract Map TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UA Urban arterial UBC Uniform Building Code USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume-to-capacity WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat WILD Wildlife Habitat WMWD Western Municipal Water District WSA Water Supply Assessment VOCs Volatile organic compounds W. West wb Westbound w/o West of µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan xii City of Lake Elsinore L F D Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIRISpyglass MCA= I . 0.1 Introduction and Summary 0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I This Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)as amended(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA i Guidelines(California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Lake Elsinore CEQA procedures. According to CEQA Guidelines §15132,the Final EIR shall consist of the following: a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft; b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In accordance with these requirements,the Final Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan EIR is comprised of the following: • Draft Environmental Impact Report, Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan(May 2007) (SCH No. 2006121069) • This Final EIR document, January 2008, that incorporates the information required by §15132. Format of the Final EIR This document is organized as follows: Section 0.1 Introduction This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final EIR. Section 0.2 Corrections and Additions This section provides a list of those revisions made to the Draft EIR text and figures as a result of comments received and/or clarifications subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review. Section 0.3 Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual responses to written comments. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5,copies of the written proposed responses to public agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The responses will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EIRs. Section 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This section includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) which identifies the mitigation measures, timing and responsibility for implementation of the measures. L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.1-1 City of Lake Elsinore f aJ Final EIR January 2008 XW10570_Cily_of Lake_Elsincre152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIRIO_0_Finallnho_Spyglass doc 0.1 Introduction and Summary This page intentionally left blank. j E1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.1-2 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIO 0 Finallntro_Spygless.dac 0.2 Corrections and Additions 0.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS fThe following Sections 2.1 and 2.2 contain revisions to information included in the Draft EIR(May 2007) based upon: (1)additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; - (2)updated information required due to of the passage of time; and/or(3)typographical errors. Given the i minor changes associated with the document,the information added to the EIR does not meet the requirements for recirculation pursuant to Section 150885.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. I 0.2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT Changes to the Draft EIR were made in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Overall, the new information clarifies information and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, or revises mitigation measures that were requested by commenters on the Draft EIR. Text that has been added to the document appears in an underline format. Text that has been deleted appears with strikeout. The table below identifies the changed EIR sections and accompanying page numbers in the Final EIR. The revised Draft EIR is included following this Final EIR Introduction. Final EIR Section Page Number 1.0 Introduction and Summary 1-1,Table 1.7-1 (pg. 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13) 2.0 Project Description 2-2,Table 2.3-4(pg 2-16) 4.2 Air Quality 4.2-6 through 4.2-8,4.2-14,4.2-15 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3-5,4.3-8,4.3-11,4.3-19,4.3-22 4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 4.4-6 through 4.4-9 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6-5,4.6-9,4.6-10 4.7 Hydrology-Water Quality 4.7-1,4.7-18,4.7-19 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8-15,4.8-17,Table 4.8-3(pg.4.18,21-31,33),4.8-35, 4.8-39,4.8-40 4.10 Population Housing 4.10-6,4.10-7 4.14 Utilities Services Systems 4.14-2,4.14-3,4.14-7,4.14-9,Table 4.14-3 5.0 Alternatives 5-4,5-7,5-11,5-12,Table 5.5-1 (pg.5-13) 6.0 Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant 6-1,6-2,6-3,6-4;Tables 6.0-1 through 6.0-4 7.0 Growth Inducing Impacts 7-1 8.0 Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 8-1 I 0.2.2 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES I ` Based upon comment letters received on the Draft EIR,no new mitigation measures were added in the Final EIR. Hazards/Hazardous Materials mitigation measures were revised for clarification purposes. The ' following represent the revised mitigation measures: Final Environmental Impact Report 0.2-1 City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Subdivision January 2008 0.2 Corrections and Additions Air Quality MM 4.2-1 The following measures are required to reduce project impacts relating to ROG,NOx1 PMIO;and PM-2.5: • Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. • Terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces and unpaced haul routes at least three times daily. • Cover all stockpiles with tarps when left unattended for more than 72 hours. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads and haul routes to less than 15 mph. • Require 90-day low-NOX tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for scrapers and dozers used in grading. • Require installation of soot filters on all diesel equipment>100 horsepower. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Biological Resources MM 4.3-7 To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, including raptors,the removal of potential nesting vegetation(i.e.,trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) should be avoided during the nesting season,recognized from February 15 through August 31. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys,then the vegetation used for nesting shall be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the occupied vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer(e.g., construction fencing) around the occupied vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the type bird nesting(i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. Final Environmental Impact Report 0.2-2 City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Subdivision January 2008 0.2 Corrections and Additions Cultural Resources MM 4.4-7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer,the project archaeologist, and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director(CDD)for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe.Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law,the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. r The footnote associated with Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 was revised to state: zIt is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the"appropriate"Tribe due to its fhe4 prior and r extensive coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the project area ` Hazards/Hazardous Materials Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials { MM 4.6-2 Prior to any demolition,renovation, or any other activity that may disturb suspect l regulated asbestos containing materials, either an inspection shall be performed by an accredited Building Inspector, or the affected materials shall be handled as asbestos- containing in accordance with all federal and state requirements. If future sampling identifies any such materials as asbestos containing materials they shall be properly abated and disposed of by a state-licensed abatement contactor prior to disturbance or demolition in accordance with all federal and state requirements, including the California Code of Regulation(CCR)and the Universal Waste Rule(40 CFR Part 9) Lead Based Paint MM 4.6-3 Prior to any activity that may cause lead exposure either to workers or tenants, lead based paint sampling shall be performed in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should future renovation, repair, or demolition disturb any suspect paint, a lead based paint inspection and/or risk assessment shall be conducted by a state or federally certified lead based paint inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential tenant or worker exposure in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should any lead based paint be identified, such painted surfaces shall be properly disposed of as appropriate prior to demolition, following the requirements included in the CCR and the Universal Waste Rule. Final Environmental Impact Report 0.2-3 City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Subdivision January 2008 0.2 Corrections and Additions Landfills MM 4.6-4 Prior to issuance of the site grading permit,the applicant shall finance the installation of up to eleven multi-level landfill gas detection probes at intervals of 100 feet, along the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property to comply with CCR Title 27 and SCAOMD Rule 1150.1. The applicant shall coordinate with Riverside County Waste Management Department(RCWMD),regarding the exact location of these landfill gas detection probes. RCWMD shall be responsible for building the probes and for conducting periodic monitoring and maintenance of the permanently installed monitoring probes. Land Use MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall apply for a General Plan Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. :Pic'A Citv-approved General Plan Amendment shall result in a designation of the project site as Specific Plan land use. MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall apply for a Zoning Code Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. 44o- ning Code Amendment shall result in a designation of the project site as Specific Plan Zoning,with an allowable density of up to 6.7 du/acre Final Environmental Impact Report 0.2-4 City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Subdivision January 2008 0.3 Response to Comments 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Section 0.3 contains responses to all comment letters received on the May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). A notice from the State Clearinghouse stating they received no additional comments and eight comment letters were received during the comment period. The comment period closed July 5, 2007. A copy of each letter with bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response for each comment as indexed in the letter. The comment letters are listed in Table 0.3-1. Table 0.3-1. Comment Letters—Spyglass Ranch Letter No. Commenter Letter Date Governors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 07/06/07 (Memorandum) 2 Native American Heritage Commission 06/19/07 3 Department of Toxic Substances Control 07/03/07 4 Southern California Association of Governments 07/05/07 5 County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency 06/20/07 6 Riverside County Waste Management Department 06/29/07 7 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 06/26/07 8 Tomaras&Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 06/12/07 9 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 05/22/07 FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-1 City of Lake Elsinore • Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684 SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH .i 16 `�7FW a1d�'�F SPATE CL--ARING140USL ANNINO UNIT AND PI CYNTNIA ARYANT ArttsrrtnBpnYARZFNRn(e& LPLANNIANG DIREMA July6,2007 7 Wendy Worthey SINORE City of LakeElsinorG SION 110 S.Main Street Lakc Elsinore,CA 92530 Subject: Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan SCHM 2006121069 Dear Wendy Worthey. The State.Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on July 5,2007,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This latter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmcnrnl Quality Act. 1-1 Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445.061.3,if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above turned project,plcasc refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director,State Clearinghouse 140010th Street PiO.Box 3044 Sacramento;California 95612-3044 (916)445-0613 PAX(916)323.3018 ivsvw.opr.Ca.gov faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-2 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research July 6,2007 1-1. This letter provides a summary of the agencies to which the State Clearinghouse transmitted the DEIR. Comment letters from state agencies attached to this letter are addressed within the following response to comments. This letter confirms the public review closing date of July 5, 2007. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-3 City of Lake Elsinore I-DI♦ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Document Dataiis Report State Cisaringhouse Data Base SCH# 2006121049 Piolect 1700 Spyglass Rancid Specific Plan LoadAgency Lake Elsinore,City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project YWoctld ta,a Za acre master planned community,eonnIsting of residential find open spacefrecreaWn within the City of Lake Elsinore.The City of Lake Elsinore General Flan currantly.designates the project site as Future Spedi`rc Plan(S dwelling units per screi,Freeway Business.and Neighborhood Commercial.The project indludes a General Plan Amendment tb designate the pmjadt slte as ths,Spygtass Ranch 5peclflo Plan(S')and)ncraase•the maximum density to 4 dwellings units per acre,The.project propuses up to 1,435 residential units,in conjunction with 6.,atres.ofparks,and 68.2 acres..of open spew/conservalian.The plan alseallowsfor commercial-retall used.If multi-family rs3idenva1 units are not developed within the project site, Leah Agency Contact Name Wendy Worthey Agency Clty of Lake Elsinore phone (251�874�3124 exL 286 Face small Address 1.30 S,Main Street City LaW Elsinore State CA Zip 92M Project Location County Riverside City Lake elsinore Region Cross Streets North of 1-15 and Main Street/Camino Dal Norte intersection Parcel No. 37M50-004,007.000 010,011,014,015,016.017;377-260-QQ4,005,006 Township 6S Range 4W Section 4,5 Base SBBdM Proximity to: Highways 1,15,BR-74 Afrporfs Railways Waterways Lake Elsinore Schools 3 Elementary,1 CAmmuf*V Day,1 Middle School Land Use GPD:Future 5peOn Plan(3 dwelling units per sctce),Ffeeway Business,and Neigbbothood Commercial.Zoning.R4 Single Family Residential end 0-2 Goanerat Commarolal Project Issues AestheticiVisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Histonc:Cumulative Effects;Drainage/Absorption; GeologiciSeismic:Landuse:Minetals;Noise:PopulatlonlHousing Balance,Public Services: RacmaiionlP,srks;SchooWUniversiVes;Bower Capacity;5ot1 Efostarili ompactloniGrading:Solid Waste:Toxic/Hanrdous;Ttaf lWCirculatlon;'vegetalion,Water Quality;Water Supply: Watiand/Riparian,Wildlife Reviewing Callrans.District 8:California Highway Patrol:uepartment of Conservation.Department of Water Agendas Resources:Department of Fish and Game,Region 6;Office of Historic Preservation;Department of Housing)and Community Development;Integrated Waste Management Board;.Native American Heritage Commission:Department of Parks and Recreation:Regional Water Quality Control Hoard, Region B:Resources Agency;State Lands Commission;Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Received 05/2112007 Start of Review 0612112007 End of Review 07/0 s12007 Note: Blanks In data fields result from inauffident€nformatkul provided by lead egertay, iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-4 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRlSpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 1 (continued) Governor's Office of Planning and Research July 6,2007 FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-5 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel52684 Spygiassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments aTA OF CAI_IFdiNtA ---- ---- -- WARenoaau.4ovOrnQ( NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION els OA ffoL MAIL.ROOM 5E0 f SACRAMENTO,CA IM4 (91 G)65'S•G'l51 FepI t9781967.6SD0 Web Sit*vww.nahr.GQQOv e-man:409_=tcrowebN.net June 19,2007 Ms.Wendy Worthery,Senior Environmental planner City of Lake Elsinore 130 S.Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 02630 Re:Tribal Consultation Per Government Cnde 65352.3(SB 18)for Savalass Ranch Specific Plan:SCH#ZW6121069,City of Lake Elsinore L Riverside County California Dear Ms.Worthey: We previously responded to this project as a CEQA Notice of Preparation(NOP);we now respond to the project,as a Specific Plan,pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code 65352.3. Government Code§65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The Native American Heritage Commission is the state's Trustee Agency for Native American Cultural Resources, Attached is a consultation fist of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the Project Area of Potential Effect(APE'). As a part of consultation,the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record soarchas 2-1 through the NAHC and California Historic Resources Information System(CHRIS)to determine ff any cultural placers we located within the area(s)affected by the proposed action. NAHC Sacred Lands He requests must be made In writing. All requests must include county,USGS quad map name,township, range and section. Local governments should be aware,however,that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive,and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place, A tribe may be the only source,of information regarding the existenco of a cultural place. The Native American Heritage Commission works with Native American tribal governments regarding its identification of'Areas Of Traditional Use,'The Commission may adjust lute submitted data defining the'Area of Traditional Use'in accordance with generally acceptod ethnographic, anthropological,archeological research and oral history. Also,the Area of Traditional Use Is an issue appropriate for the govemment-to-government consultation process. If you have any questions,please contact me at(916)6W-6251 Dave Si I Program Analyst Attachment: Tribal Consultation List Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-6 City of Lake Elsinore i-ai Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinora152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc r 0.3 Response to Comments r Letter 2 Native American Heritage Commission' June 19,2007 S 2-1. As identified in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources of the DEIR, the proposed project conducted Senate Bill 18 Tribal consultation. A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a list of Native American individuals who may have knowledge of traditional lands or cultural places in the project area. Letters were then sent to the Tribes included on the NAHC response on July 11, 2005. In addition, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was conducted for the proposed project. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians requested consultation with the City and a site visit with the project applicant to survey the property. City consultation has been ongoing and the site visit occurred on January 10. During their field survey of the site, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians identified a potentially significant pre-historic resource located in the northeast corner of the project site. Therefore, a potentially significant impact was identified and mitigation measures MM 4.4-1-9 were added. These mitigation measures require that an archaeologist and Tribal monitor be present during all initial 1 disturbances and that controlled grading occur near the potentially significant resource area, to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 1 1 i faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-7 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Ciiy_of Lake—Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRlSpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Native itriltelrlcan Tribal Consultation List Riverside County June 19,2007 Soboba Band of Mission Indians RobertJ.Salgado;Sr.,Chairperson P.O.Box 487 Luiseno San Jacinto CA 92581 varmQsoboba-nsn.gov (95i)654-2766 Saar Luis Rey Band of:Mission Indians Russell Romo;Chairman. 12064 Laid Poimerado Road Luiseno Poway . Cal 92064 (858)748-1586 Pechanga:Band of Mission Indians Mark Macarro,Chairperson PLO:. Box 1477 Luiseno Tarnecuila r CA 9250 Ibrown 0 pechangamnsn.g ov (95 f)676-2768 Ti11n list Is eurrent oMy fit Of 00 date 01 ihis daauffttaltt. Distribution of this list doom not Wleve any prrson of statutory responslblltly es defined In Section 7050-5 of the HCadh40 Safety Code.Seetlon 5087.94 of the Public Resources Coda end Sertton 5097.90 of the Public Resources Code. 7f aftt Isa"Umble oillyterWmaultetfoftwittl Moil"Artllfrtoan fribee under GovernamM Ccdosadstleff 653j1Z1 EDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-8 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X1010570_City_ol Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyg1assl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglassRTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 2(continued) Native American Heritage Commission' June 19,2007 L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-9 City of Lake Elsinore �f a Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake—Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments CSC cE�V/EID —�_ JUL -9 Z007 Department of Toxic Substances�IJNJNG Ll�KE ELST , Maureen F.Gorsen,Oirector t lnda S.Admns 5796 Corporate Avenue Arnold Sctswaraenagt Secretary for Environmental Proteplion CYPrsss,California 90630 Governor July 3, 2007 Ms.Wendy Worthey City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)FOR SPYGLASS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT(SCH#2006121069) Dear Ms.Worthey: The Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC)has received your submitted EIR document for the above-mentioned project As stated in your document "The proposed project would be a 260-acre master planned community, consisting of residential and open space/recreation within the city of Lake Elsinore. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan currently designates the project site as Future Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre), Freeway Business,and Neighborhood Commercial. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan(SP)and increase the maximum density to 4 dwelling units per acre.The project proposes up to 1,035 residential units, in conjunction with 6.5 acres of parks, and 88.2 acres of open spacelconservation. The plan also allows for 3-1 commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site". Based on the review of the submitted Notice of Preparation DTSC has the following comments: 1, The draft EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastesisubstances at the Project area. 2. The draft EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all Identified sites,the draft EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies; 3-2 National Priorities List(NPL):A list is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(U.S.EPA), Printed on Recyc+ed Paper isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-10 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinel EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc f 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 3 Department of Toxic Substances Control July 3,2007 I 3-1. This comment includes an introductory project description and requests that the DEIR determine potential hazardous impacts from current or historic uses of the project site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and two addenda were prepared for the project and were included as Appendices F.1 through F.3 to the DEIR. As identified in Section 4.6.1 of the DEIR, a topographic map from 1953 and aerial photographs from 1962, 1974, 1980, 1990, and 2000 show no surficial evidence of on-site or adjacent-site improvements that represent significant potential sources of petroleum contamination and/or hazardous waste. A site visit conducted on February 2, 2004 confirmed that the site exhibited no substantial surficial staining, or other evidence of onsite hazardous materials/waste or petroleum contamination. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-2. This comment requests the DEIR identify and evaluate any known or potentially contaminated sites within the project area and provides a list of regulatory agency databases in which to identify any such contaminated sites. As identified in Section 4.6.1 of the DEIR, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) conducted a review of the database of federal, state, and local agency regulatory information and environmental data concerning the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous waste generation, or hazardous material releases within a two-mile radius of the project site. All databases identified in this comment letter were researched. The project site was not identified as being located on any hazardous material site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no listings of permitted above ground storage tanks (ASTs) or USTs on the project site. Ten risk sites were reported within the 2-mile-radius search area. However, based on the following parameters these sites have less than significant i potential for the risk sites to impact the project site: • The overall groundwater gradient in the immediate vicinity of the project site is estimated to be southwesterly. All of the risk sites are located on the west side of Interstate 15 (I-15), down groundwater gradient from the proposed project site. • The groundwater depth in the area of the project site is 40 to 125 feet. The elevation of the project site is at least 20 feet higher than the elevation of all but one of the risk sites. The one risk site, not at a lower elevation, is located more than one mile from the project site. There are no associated threats to human health or the environment as a result of these ten risk sites. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. FalL Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-11 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 CUy_of Lake_Elsinon:152684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Ms.Wendy Worthey July 3,2007 Page 2 • CalSites:A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System(RCRIS):A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLiS):A database of CERCLA sites that is 3-2 maintained by U.S.EPA. Cont. • Solid Waste Information System(SWIS):A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations, • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks(LUST)/Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups(SLIC):A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards(RWQCBs). • Local County and City maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. 3. The draft EIR should identify the,mechanism to Initiate any required investigation and/or remedlation for any site that may be contaminated,and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site,an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so,further studies should 3-3 be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination,and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to,public health or the environment. If no Immediate threat exists,the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state laws, regulations and policies. 4. If the subject property was previously used for agriculture,or if weed abatement occurred,onsite soils could contain pesticide or Herbicide residues. Proper 3-4 Investigation and remedial action may be necessary to ensure the site does not pose a risk to the future residents. 5. All environmental investigations,sampling and/or remediation should be I conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that 3-5 has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup. The findings and sampling results from the subsequent report should be clearly summarized in the EIR_ IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-12 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 Cily_of Lake Elsinome 52684 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 3 (continued) Department of Toxic Substances Control July 3,2007 3-3. This comment requests the DEIR identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigations or remediation for a contamination site. Based upon the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, no additional investigations or remediation is required for the site. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-4. This comment indicates that if the project site was previously used for agriculture, onsite soils could contain pesticide or herbicide residues, which could require further investigation and remedial action. The subject property has not been previously used for agriculture. The project site has been vacant since at least 1953. There is little associated risk of pesticide and/or herbicide residues present on the subject property. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-5. This comment indicates that all environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation should be overseen by a regulatory agency. Based upon the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, no additional investigations, sampling, or remediation is required for the site. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-13 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X.-1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Ms.Wendy Worthey July 3,2007 Page 3 6. Proper investigation,sampling and remedial actions, if necessary,should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction,and 3-6 overseen by a regulatory agency. 7. If any property adjacent to the.prvject site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals,and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site,then the proposed development may fall within the"Border Zone of a 3-7 Contaminated Property,' Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a"Border Zone Property 8. Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by 3-8 the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are,have been,or will be,any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment, 9. If it is determined that hazardous wastes are,or will be,generated by the proposed operations,the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law(California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,chapter 6.5)and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations 3-9 (California Code of Regulations,Title 22, Division 4.5). If so,the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting(800)618-6942. 10. If hazardous wastes are(a)stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days,:(b)treated onsite,or(c)disposed of onsite,then a permit from DISC may be required. if so,the facility should contact DISC at(818)551-2171 to Initiate 3-10 pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 11, Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA). Information about the 3-11 requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 12. If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain,you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional 3-12 Water Quality Control Board. 13. If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected,construction/demolition in the area should cease 1 13 and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented, it it is - determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist,the EIR should Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-14 City of Lake Elsinore I \ Final EIR January 2008 XA010570 Cify_of Lake_ElsinoreW684_Spyglassl8_CEOMFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 3 (continued) Department of Toxic Substances Control July 3, 2007 3-6. This comment indicates that all environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation should be done prior to new construction. Based upon the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, no additional investigations, sampling, or remediation is required for the site. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-7. This comment pertains to any adjacent sites with a 2,000-foot buffer zone that may be contaminated. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project included a database search to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within two miles (10,560 feet) of the project area. According to Section 4.6.1 of the DEIR, ten risk sites were reported within the 2-mile-radius search area. However, none of these sites are located within 2,000 feet of the project site; the closest site is located over one half-mile (2,640 feet) southwest of the site. No change to the EIR r was made in response to this comment. 3-8. This comment requests the DEIR address potential risks to sensitive receptors. According to Section 4.6.2.2, the proposed project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids needed for operation of construction equipment at the site and would be transported to the construction site on an as-needed basis by equipment service trucks. In addition, workers would commute to the project site via private vehicles, and would operate construction vehicles/equipment on both public and private streets. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments (including diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets) would be present during project construction of the buildings. While the potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the buildings, existing federal and state standards are in place for the handling, storage and transport of these materials. Based upon historic property use, septic tank systems exist on the property. Any septic tank systems would be removed, in accordance with established criteria, during site grading operations. Because compliance with all standards is required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, no significant impacts to sensitive receptors are expected due to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 1 The DEIR did identify that demolition of existing structures may create a potential environmental issue or hazard associated with release of asbestos and lead. Mitigation requiring inspection and proper disposal of asbestos or lead containing materials was provided in the DEIR to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. Demolition of existing structures would not pose a risk to human health or the environment. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-9. This comment pertains to hazardous wastes generated by operation of the proposed project. The project proposes residential uses, which are not uses characterized as generating hazardous emissions or materials that would pose a potential risk to sensitive receptors. In the event that hazardous materials are discovered during project grading and construction, adherence to all regulatory requirements would occur as listed in this comment and as stipulated in MM 4.6-1. T17 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-15 City of Lake Elsinore L f al Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglasslB_CEQAIFlnal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Ms.Wendy Worthey July 3,2007 Page 4 identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, 3-13 and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. Cont. 14, If structures on the Project Site contain potentially hazardous materials.such a$ asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint,and mercury-or PCB-containing material, such materials should be removed properiv prior to demolition, and 3-14 disposed of at appropriate landfills or recycled, in accordance with the regulatory guidance provided in California Code of Regulation(CCR)and following the requirements of the Universal Waste Rule(40 CFR part 9) If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact Mr.Al Shami,Project Manager,at(714)484-5472 or at"ashami c@dtsc.ca.gov". Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch-Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812-3044 Mr.Guenther W.Moskat,Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.Q. Box 806 Sacramento,Califomia 95812-0806 CEQA#1684 iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-16 City of Lake Elsinore .` Final EIR January 2008 XA010570_City_or Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc i 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 3 (continued) Department of Toxic Substances Control July 3,2007 3-10. This comment indicates that storage of hazardous wastes require a permit from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected I to occur. Therefore, a permit from DTSC would not be required. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. l 3-11. This comment indicates that certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local CUPA. The project proposes residential uses and does not propose uses that would typically create hazardous treatment processes requiring authorization from the local CUPA. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-12. This comment pertains to discharging wastewater to a storm drain. The project would not dispose wastewater into the storm drain; rather, wastewater from the project site would be served by I sewer infrastructure to be constructed by the project, as well as existing infrastructure in the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no waste discharge permit from RWQCB would be required. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. I 7 3-13. This comment indicates that if soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected during construction and/or demolition, construction should stop until appropriate procedures have been 1 implemented. According to the Phase I ESA, miscellaneous debris was observed throughout the project site. The ground surface could not be visually observed where debris was present. Therefore, the potential exists that stained soil conditions could occur beneath the miscellaneous debris. However, mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 provides that should hazardous materials be identified, disposal shall be in accordance with all federal and state regulations. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. 3-14. This comment pertains to existing structures on the site which could contain potentially hazardous materials. The project site contains an on-site residence and shed structure constructed prior to 1977 which could contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) due to their age. Demolition of these structures may create the potential for risk associated with release of asbestos and/or lead. Mitigation is provided to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. As identified in MM 4.6-2 and 4.6-3, should these materials be identified, they would be properly disposed of as appropriate in accordance with all federal and state requirements prior to demolition, including following the regulatory guidance provided in California Code of Regulation (CCR) and following the requirements of the Universal Waste Rule (40 CFR Part 9). Additionally, based on this comment letter, mitigation measures MM 4.6-2 and 4.6-3 have been revised in the FEIR as follows: MM 4.6-2 Prior to any demolition, renovation, or any other activity that may disturb suspect regulated asbestos containing materials, either an inspection shall be performed by an accredited Building Inspector, or the affected materials shall be handled as asbestos-containing in accordance with all federal and state requirements. If future sampling identifies any such materials as asbestos containing materials they shall be properly abated and disposed of by a state-licensed abatement contactor prior to disturbance or demolition in accordance with all federal and isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-17 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.-1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments state requirements.including the California Code of Regulation (CCR) and the Universal Waste Rule (40 CPR Part 9). MM 4.6-3 Prior to any activity that may cause lead exposure either to workers or tenants, lead based paint sampling shall be performed in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should future renovation, repair, or demolition disturb any suspect paint, a lead based paint inspection and/or risk assessment shall be conducted by a state or federally certified lead based paint inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential tenant or worker exposure in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should any lead based paint be identified, such painted surfaces shall be properly disposed of as appropriate prior to demolition, following the requirements included in the CCR and the Universal Waste Rule. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-18 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 Cify_of Lake Elsinore152664_Spyglessl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-19 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel526B4 Spyglasslt) CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments CAL AN;,% Or UP, RPd=vf N ; f SRU7M>=taA Gtlfflfl#IA \ July 5,2007 Ms Wendy Wodhey,Senior Envlrtxwmental Plawte t ASSOCIATION Of City of lake Elsinore GOVERNMCNTS 130 South Main Street Lelte:Elsinore,Calfolmia 92530 Main office a 15 welt ssventi,stew RE: SCAG Comments on the Draft Environmental impart Report(DEIR)for 5pygla$6 1_/1,Ploe. Ranch Spei lfic Plan-SC>A0 No_12€070317 ►os Angric,.caaMoinm Clear Ms,Vt orth6y, W017 34)S fitien yru.fnr sulirniHiny Spyglass Rarttit specific Plan O�IR In the Notithern California e(413)ii4,I IUD Association of Government++(SCAG)for review and comment. As the clondrighouso for tulJlaib,uS regionally significant projects per Executive Older 1r372, SLAG reviews the consistency of local plans. projects, and programs with regional plans. Thl$activity is wwwttopu4D," based on SCAG's respansiblitles a5 a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by Those reviews Is Iritanded to assist local agene.41 is and project sponsors to hake actions that oontribute to the rrr..t•w.itbnaer..Av1r/(ew,utt No"i 0..l,lti.. allnment Of regional goals and pvli6es. ala Mrll-,...iAY•Ib+M.yY t,ae, +.Nod( Wt t TAW q4 k— SCAG staff has reviewed:I lie project and determined that the proposed project is la+.,,,ato•i.arwi regionally significant per the California Environmental QuWjty Att (Gfzr�A Guidslirtes lal�1w r11Mty.MH.�fu•a.r a � � 1" "• `, ) ♦,4i,, r..lWout-i-0*4l (Sections 15125 and 15206). The project proposes 1,035.resitlenclai units(single and 4-1 ,am r(ii'A,,.p1 h.LVN,-1" WV,wwlu►Nir••un•,lh.ito mulil-famlly), parks and community center, open splice and major •Clrcuitnion e q w.rye„-i +•r+,•k+ improvements,If the Multi-famlly re,identlal is not developed,c ornmeipial land uses are r Mil I.NM.Y,+M.•>``NY iDi I lq 11,ariao/ v»rwa,o+<•,ll. sw, proposed in these planning areas. - 1.aW,YMwu+•Ia+War•lcM�trs WMril,gDa+/M•IntdetatlAtyn, -tl,lA,V,tR Iw ANr,t•1tN1 yAr ux„t•r,,,,tt,,,�t„�,,,,,.,,,,,,W, The Potpies of SCAt3`a Regtoraal Comprehensive. Plan and Gtiltte, Regional i•�^^�,o.U•IW M-( Transportation Plan,and Compass Growth vision may be appllrabte to your pripirset..We i►.i+l,th lla 4Nl L&4hW•tic 1►1,iit.w Moo; "Utk rNnM have evaluated this project based on these plans awe.Y,A.,is A i•1.1r well. W W•�W tl1Nnt 7eO,Vt•tYnrp.aw w,r..•u•alnye►.alyty,ln.,., The attached dotaiied comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the 11+,..•.ay,i..MFq•t,Y llym.A irtilfb.w em„t. W-1 t"w•W proposed project within the conleA of our regionmi goals and polities If you hove any ary,. Sa-�h.ainr•YH 4y•mow: questions rggetvding the attached comments,pErsase ciuntsac;t,isirriez R.Tebbelts at(213) AM,�'.,,.,.s,..,i,ftWW•I+M% 236-1016.Thatik you. .h,+Cn•CWIMa-:wtkoi.IWMMo• trn,Mrm.l.t.,tyei'.•tl•••r rtr CAW(►.,ytl.Y•MV.tY.►t lV.+q sincerely t awn a nw ti e tw» l.,.'I,,M..4.e� .O,aYt GK 4-WW04 lore Va IN-M*W- IaM•AM019M"Vline•Powi• Jac Lie 1•�Al,Tln•►���.•�,.... a, Me ger, nmenial Division IA la 1W,11N DIMN'4+ka+.kr•J.rMtNl Itt.K,l ie11r•IM I.W. M.a ,N,.I.1. ,MtV WXfi•W tpr,lit. bpx•Wq MI JUNI IR•k' 1sa►fMM11M rMilt 4n G••.4 rw Ia04.MAMM•to M%W*Wit o+..to l,y.a weairatylt.h.., wty4t,+lliM.env w,m.I,.ea W�ttllrat O.ra r,M!W,twM bw"at,Ie,i,l,{Y WeMIriM7,N,rYt•M,ulla.w a—fft !. jar„vvYw.►41a.)i Itl..•.Iel Q.MN Cf oo It mwvtil NMI" DOWN 1376990 tr,•.4U•u4lmM.r•"n1.u.y- faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-20 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel526a4_Spyglassl8 CEWIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments �1 Letter 4 Southern California Association of Governments I July 5,2007 4-1. This comment indicates that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is in receipt of the DEIR for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan project. This comment also provides a summary of the project description and notes that the Policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and Compass Growth Vision may be applicable to the project. These policies have been evaluated in relation to the project, and are stated as Applicable Plans in Section 4.8.1 of the DEIR. r faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-21 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Leke_Elsinore152684 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 6 July 2007 ! Ms Wtntdy WorUley Patin 2 COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPtyRT FOR SPYGLASS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN-SCAG NO.120070317 PROJECT DL$CRIPTION The Spyglass Rench Specific Plan consists of a planned community on 269'6 ac►bs of land The proposer! prniect would consist of realdentlel and open spacelreereation areas within the City of Lake Elsinore.Thu 4 2 Project proposes up to 1,035 residential units, in oonjunetion wilh 6.5 acres ofjpark, and 88.2 acacia of open spnewconservation. The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential Units are not developed within the project site.The project also Includes a flenerai Plait Amendment to increase the maximum density to 4 dwelling units per acre from 3 dwelling units per acre tar the project sits. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES Tha Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Rouiutial Comprehensive Plan and Gutue (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly appheaols and Sf1M)ld be all tldwsed in tna DEIR for Spyglass Ranch SpecNiof?lan, 3.01 no populafion, housing. and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAP's Ragrorial Council and that reflect local plan, and policies shall be used by SCAG In al phases of implementation and review. I i ReniooAl Growth Forecasts i The FEiR should ra W the most txtrrent iadopted SCAG forecastb,Which are Ote 1004 FtTf" (Apr4 2004) Populatiprt,Household and Empfo ant forecasts.The adoptad1braoasts for your region,subregion and city are 364dfow8: Adopted SCAG Regionwiclo Forecasts j 4-3A 2010 W-5 N2-0 2026 30 Popuation 15 208 601 !Z01191 117 21 137 51J 22 ' 416 _22 ti90 797 Haisettolda 6 072 6.865,366 7 M'519 7.t;80107 Employment 8 72g 1t�2 ' _f1�198.8J8, 9,659.847 1 10,100,T76 1 10.527.202 Adopted WRCOG Forecasts 2010 0 4 =0_ 2025 2M Populatlon 1.614 051 1,030,421 2,037 1E �230-185 7.A13467 Households 521,605 I 691 821 776.168 PiR0'-168 Employment 1 541.587 633,161 1 727,005 822,031 918;640 Adopted City of Lake Elsinore Forecasts MI-0 2015 P >Z Population 42.940 5_f1 q I BT.842 64.934 1 71.737 Households 12,7U3 1! 3 t7.388 4.707 22 pp8 Employmeent 11.231 12342 13.�87 14.648 -The 2004 RTP growth forocast at the realonal,county end subrogional level was adoptod by RC In Aprll,2004 City totals aro the sum of small area data and should bo used for advisory putp6049 only DC?t:Slii 137603v1 I Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-22 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_or Lake—Elsinorel52664 Spyglassla_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-2. This comment details the proposed project, as in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIR, and discusses that a General Plan Amendment is among the discretionary approvals required by the project. f 4-3. A. The Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide was included in the DEIR. The policies mentioned in this letter were specifically analyzed in Table 4.8-4. The FEIR reflects the most current adopted SCAG forecast, as provided in the comment letter. These forecasts have been included in the FEIR in Chapter 6, Growth Inducting Impacts. i B. This comment indicates that although the project would exceed the SCAG projects by 376 dwelling units, the additional units would be well within the City's housing forecasts and would not cause a significant unmitigated impact. Therefore, Section 4.10.3, has been updated to reflect the change as follows: "According to SCAG's letter to the City during public review, while the 376 additional dwelling units were above the base units used for the property when determining the City's housing forecasts the project's proposed housing units appear to be well within the City's total housing forecasts values and would result in a T-ke 476 aWellilig ..a-55..-,i..,,,+:.,n..„ O@d h9blS PFE�,.,.WGR . :, less than significant impact." Revisions have been made to Table 1-7.2 and Section 7.2 to reflect this change as well. C. Employment forecasts for the City of Lake Elsinore have been added to Table 6.0-5, as follows: Table 6.0-5. Population Housing Unit, and Employment Estimates % Change %Change From 2000- From 2005- 2000 2005 2005 2020 2020 Population 29,118 36,804 26% 57,842 36 % Housing Units 1 8,899 10,681 20% 17,386 39% Employment 1 8,355 1 9,455 1 13% 1 13,487 1 30% Source:Southern California Association of Governments,Growth Estimates, 2004. Additionally,the forecasted employment that might be expected from the Spyglass Ranch project at build-out, should commercial development occur instead of the multifamily residential development currently proposed has been added to section 6.1, as follows: "Alternately, the multifamily units could be removed from the project, and the 14.5 acres would be developed under a commercial land use designation consistent with the Specific Plan. The average employees per acre for commercial uses are 20.68. Therefore, approximately 300 jobs are forecast to be created if commercial development replaced the multifamily units." Since this discussion has been included in the FEIR,the most updated forecasts for the City and the project have been incorporated into the document. Therefore, the project is consistent with RCPG policy 3.01, and will not result in a significant impact. FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-23 City of Lake Elsinore Final E/R January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments R 0'SR, OF GOyEn P: 7'__`- NO. 67ah 4 1 t i 5 July 2007 Ms Wendy Worthey Page 3 6CAf3 St�t/_cofntryarrts; Table 4 8-5 (Applicable Land Use Regulauonl provAles a summary evaluation of the nnnslatency of the proposed project will)pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's RCPG. The development of the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan will result in population and housing increases in the City of Lake Elsinore and the WRCOG area ano!in meeting the expected population and household forecasts. Table 1-7.1 (Impacts and MittgauonlMeasures)and Sections 4.10,3 (Project Impacts) and 7.2 (Population and Housing (Projoct Levol)) note+ that Me. Implementation of this project would result 11111376 addibut wl dwWlii�y units,6bove the Initial expected 4-3B for the subject property.While the 376 additional owelllng units were above life base units user)rot the property when determining the City of Lake Elsinore's housing forecasts, the Specific Plan's proposed housing units appear to bo well within the City's total housing fu�uwsts values and would not cause a significant and unavoidable Impact.There is no reference to tqe expected,employment that might be expected from this project at build uut, should commercial development occur instead of die multi-family residential development currently proposed. If developed, approximately 14.5 acies of commercial area (146,000 square feet-of buildings) could be developed. Fnrecasls as to number of employment opportunities that would result from thou protect must be provided,While the WRCCIG region jobslnouaing balance will remain generally 4-3C constant between 2005 and 2026,the City of Elsinore over the next 20 years will sac a decreasing ratio as A relal«:s to jobs/housing balance,this would result In some residents traveling away irom the area to seek employment This Incre»se In travel could impact air Quality and transponation Systems,which should be addressed. The increases in population and housing ere within SCAG's foreuasls for 2005 to 2030. therefore, the proposed project would bf, within SCAG's growth projection forecasts land would be consistent with Policy 3.01 as it relates to puuulation and housing only A discussion of expected employment from this development should be inciuded in file FEIR.Based on the information provided in the DEIR,we are unable(o determine if the ProleU is cons,siamll with this core RCPG policy as it relates to employment fore-caits. .103 The lirnirry,financing.and location or pubilc facilities,utitlly systems,and trainspertation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the regions growth policies. SCAG staff comag01 ; Table 4.8-5 (Applicable Land Use Hegulatir n) provales a summary evaluaton of the consistency of the proposed project with pudirienl goals and policies of SCAG's 4-4 RCPG. Section 2 4(Construction Aulivtiies)provides information un the phasing plan for this project The project will be constructed over three phases over a 10 year period.Aiaperific start date hos not been provided Figure 2 4.2 (Proposed Project Phasing) shows the phwong plan Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG Policy 3.03, GA7C�PtJI IC�F,� RELATED TO THE RCPG (30AL Tt7 IMPROVE 7HE REGIONAL SYANDARD OF LIV114G f Tnu Gromn Managunierit goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals;to spend less income on housing cosl, that minimize public and private development costs. and that tillable firms to be more winpeHlive,strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward selnevenlont at 4-5 such goats anti does not,nfer regional Interterence with local land Use poWWS. 3,04 Encourage local jurisdictions'efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. i SCAG Sti3ft CgMnl9nl1i. Table 4.11-5 (Applicable land Use Regvlollbn) providea a summary nyati�ann e tl M Th noncistencv of the or000sed orolesl with pertinent goals and policies uf'SCAG's _ — i t r j I lao+^,riS�137698v1 } I I Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-24 City of Lake Elsinore i \ Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_or Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc �w 0.3 Response to Comments I Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-4. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 3.03. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-5. The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable r firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy were included in Table 4.8-4 of the DEIR. The Spyglass Ranch project contains a variety of housing types. The proposed project would result in either 694 single family residential dwelling units and 341 multi-family dwelling units or 694 single-family dwelling units and 14.5 acres of neighborhood commercial. The commercial alternative would allow for people to be employed and reside within the subdivision due to the variety of housing and job types. No commercial end users have been identified for the project site at this time, although it is anticipated that workers would be paid at a fair market rate and the residential units would be sold at fair market value. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy 3.04 as it relates to achieving a balance between jobs and housing. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. i Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-25 City of Lake Elsinore I—D.\ Final EIR January 2008 X1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglassRTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments ,10 `AL ASOte ` U.` .43 t{7t��tYlClili� . jIf 1 5,filly 2107 Ms.Wendv Wurihuy P8ab 4 R(-'PG.The City of lake Elsinore is(orecasl to have increases in haucing And*MpiOyment,arld this project will aid in the housing of these employees endowenliaiiy create employment opportunities for housing occupants. itwould be helpful If the FEIR included a discussion the prices of the 4-5 (urerasted residential unfla and to determine it a Celance has been achieved betwoen the jobs being created In the LaKe Eisinore area and 'rousing prices toe these units Based on the Cont. Information provided in the OEiR, we are unable to determine if the project is consistent with Policy 3.04 as it relates to achieving a balance between lops and housing prices Please addroeil ibis in the FEIR. SLOS Encourage patterns of urban davek;ipment drxl land usrr which reduclt costs on infrastructure construction and make hatter ulss of exisfinp hrcilibes 3,09, Support local Jurisdictions'GUofts to minimize the v)w of mfin.stnirrure Grid public seiv/cv dekvery. and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of servrcas �S t jf�pittRlCnts_ Table 4.8.5 (Applicable Land Use Regulatiop) provides a summary 4-6 evaluation of the consistency of thv pfopusr,d project will) pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's RCPG The proposed protect Oil be located adjacent to an urbanized prirtinn of the City,which is located to the Cast,and southeast and to the west of the Corona Freeway,where public facilities, lalifity aystettis, and transportation systems currently exist. Expansion of these services will be needed to serve the proposed project, itd pation measures have bean€€holudvd to rettufre Ilia payment of any development Impact fail. Therefore, the proposed project would he consistent with SLAG F-011010V 3.t`15 and 3.08. 3,fo Support local JunsdiekoM*aefioris W Imnimme red tape and axpad;to the perwiMng process to maintain economic Oallty and competitiveness. SCAG Staff Comm®n s: TaWe 4.8-S (Applicable Land Use RLViatl4t) provides a sumtntary evaluation of the consistency o€the proposed project with pertinent goals and policies of SCAG`s 4-7 RCPG Tattle 4.8-6 rotes that the inany phases of this Spix ifrc Plan are being evalvated at one time, and once the FEIR and Specific Plan ere approved end adppted, this will expedite the development review process of imolementin0 applications t he concurrent processing of these applibations at this tittle,reducers the ifine required to process specific development appftoatiionS In the future.Thomfore,the proposed project would be.consistoot with SCAO Policy 3,10. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPCr GQAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LiFE Mie Growth Management goals to attain mtriblltfy and clean air gloats and to develop urban fort w that gnbance quality of fit%that isocommoonta a divorsity of fife asty7es,that preservd open spow and natural rasourms, and that am seu--thetically pleasing and preserve the character of cptnmuniNes, ettharic-e the regional stratugic goal of maintaining the regional"ity of Ilfe. The evaluation bf the proposed prolccl in rotation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan Impiemeniation,and does not olludwto Miorlal trsandates, 4-8 .111 Support provisions and incentives created by local judsdictfora to attraul jnwsing gfotvth is fob-rich subregions and job growth in housing-rich subregions. I SLAG Rtatf com__y9pJ% Table 4.11•5 (Applicable Land Use Regulation) providaa .a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed pi with pertinent goal's and voliOes of SCAG's rtcPts,A review of City services indioaies Thai ihom is a l:lly itlrt7aV91�pnleni Agency is ioGaieu ( i O=V,1376930 IDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-26 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR ' January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel526B4_SpyglassW CEQAIFinel_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRlSpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4 (continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-6. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency ( with SCAG Policies 3.05 and 3.09. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-7. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 3.10. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-8. The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of ` communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life were included in the DEIR in Table 4.8-4. The DEIR evaluated the proposed project in relation to Policies 3.11-23 of the RCPG and found the project to be consistent with all policies, as discussed I If in greater detail below. This comment indicates that SCAG was unable to determine the project's consistency with i' Policy 3.11 in terms of attracting job growth in housing-rich subregions or housing in job-rich I subregions. The comment also notes the existence of a City Redevelopment Agency. As discussed in Section 4.8.2.2 of the DEIR, the City Council of Lake Elsinore has been established as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for the City. As shown in Figure 4.8-3 of the DEIR, part of the project site lies within Project Area Number 2, Area C of the adopted Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed project is not included as part of a Redevelopment Plan, as it has not been previously developed. If the project develops commercial uses instead of multi-family uses, the commercial uses would be designated neighborhood commercial. Although the specifics on job 1 creation can not be identified at this point in the Specific Plan phase of development, it is anticipated that the neighborhood commercial uses would provide a variety of economic opportunities for the local community they would serve. The commercial uses would also add to the tax increment revenue to benefit the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with the Redevelopment Plan and is consistent with Policy 3.11. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-27 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152694_SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedanDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments G 1 Fri 30 CIV AMC OF RVf.IRWENT) i�Cj July 2UD7 Ms.Wendy Womay Pape t; I wllliin the City.Based on the information provided in this QEIR,we are unaUle to determine if tho 4-8 projtrct Is conslstent withPolicy 311 as it relates to job and hW$fng attraction Please address Cont. this in the FEIR. 312 Encourage exisling at proposed local Jurisdictions'programs aimed of design/ng lana uses whtrh oncourage the ustr of tramisit and thus reduce the nwd for Medway expansion,reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled,dnd create opportunities(or residents to walk and bike. i -3.13 FneWrage ttxal itlrisdktrons'plans that maximize the use or existing umagiked arvau ac,eysible to (mrisif throcrgh ffi ll and redsvelopment 3.94 Support local plans to increase density of future development focptev at strategic paints along tho reg onal commuter rail,transit systama,snel schvify confer. 3,1B Stlppiart Inoul/urlsdiotlons.' stratcyios to estabflsh mixed-uba clusters mart purer fidnsit-odentad tiavalopttrants atrfurld transit station$ant!along ttanslf corridors. 3.76 EncDursga dev6lorirnents in and around activity canters, transportation corricors, deruilti7ari infrastructure systems,and areas needing recycling area redevelopment, $CAG glgrf twrnniq ila _ Table 4.8.6 (Applicable Land Usn Regulation) provides ,a summary ovelustton of the consistency of the proposoo protect with pertinent goals:and policies of SCAG'o 4-9 RCPG.While Policies 3,12,3.14,ano 3 15 aro ovaluated in Table 4.6-5,Policies 3.13 and 3.16 ore not. The proposed project Is locatec adjacent to the Corona Freeway. A freeway Interchange is located at Main Street and the Corona Freeway.This interchange is loctfted at approximately the center of the western edge of the project site. The protect will require roads to be constructed to provide acceag to the project from the freeway and surrounding area The project will Construct a main road tt,at will provide for a loop system to approved developments to the north.airid east.Tattle 2.3-4 (Project Design Considerations) states that bus stopsitumouts'will be required along Camino DO Norte,located along the westerly boundary of the project silty ano Elsinore filth°Road, which bl-soots the project slto,north to south. The nearest local bus routes are located within the built up portion of lne City, west of the Corona Freeway There is a Riverside Transit.Afiency (RTA) Commuter Link (Route 206) that runs on the Corona Freawa , from Temecula to tiro Corona North Main Metrolink station The bus has a transf(x point at he Lake Fisitiore.Outlet Center, approximately four(4)miles to the north,oft of the Corona Freeway.Table 4.6.5(Policy 3.12)states that there will be►falls,pathways.sidewalks and biGWe paths within the development. The project proposes a General Plan An,rndmenl to increase density fmm 3 dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling units per acre.'the project will also cluster devetopune-nl In dtees away from sensitive to ali uis. Therefore, fire proposed project would be consistent with SCAG Policies 3.12, 3.13, 3.14,3,15,and 3,16; 3,17 Suppuit and t 1wourage settlemeflf patterns whlah=fain,a mangle of urban;denallies. $CAG st3ft comments: -fable 4.8-5 (Applicable Land Use Regulatiolfa) provides a summary evaluation of the consistency of tho proposed project with pertinent goai9 and policies of SCAG's RCPG. The project proposes density ranglnq from 1A dwelling units p'jer acre upwards to 23.2 4-10 dwelling unitu per acau.Overall density is 6.7 dwelling units per acre,onjthe developed portion of the property. Should (tie mule-family development not be constructed: the prnlpm density will range from 1.1 dwelling unilft per acre upwards to 9.2 dwelling units per acre. Overall density woulo be 5.00 dwelling units per acre.on the developed portion of Ina property i nerefore, ine I DOC$#137Q93v1 IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-28 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglassla CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-9. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policies 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, and 3.16. Table 4.8-5 has been modified in the FEIR to include Policies 3.13 and 3.16 as requested in this comment. Please see Response 22 below to review the changes to the Table. As noted in the comment, the project would be consistent with both of these policies. 4-10. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 3.17. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-29 City of Lake Elsinore _\ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEWIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments 11.,'="'hn`—4ti CAI. A W, OF 60YERNMFNTS 1G 5 July 2007 Ms Wendyworthey page 6 4-10 proposed project wotikt be consistent with SCAG Policy 3.1T, J Cont. 3.18 Enuwraye planned developmeWin locations least likely to catrme adverse onvlmnmrintal impart SCAG Staff Comments: Table 4 8-5 (Applicabta land Use Regulation) pruvideS a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with pertirir:nt goalsand.policies of SCAG$ RCPG The proposed project is in an urbanizing area.The property is cunefttiy used for upon space. table 1,7-1 (impacts and Mitigation Measures) notes inat the"edl lay expected to impact the environment in the areas of err quality, biological and cultural m6ourc",11riarards anti) hazardous 4-11 niaterlats, land use and planning,noise,population and housing,and transAortatiorVtraffic.Mitigation measures are proposed,however environmental impacts are still expected to occur in areas of air quality end transponotiorlliraffic. Additional mitigation measures shouldlbe evaluated so as to reduce impacts from/to air quality and transponationitfaffic. Based on the information provided in the DER.we are unable to determine if the project It cutisiclurd with R i,cy 3.18 as it relate.to development least likely to cause adverse environmental impacts. Pleose address this in the FEIR, i 3-19 SCAG ehall support policies and actions,that proserva open space area9 iderditiiod in ilea!,StAtO, and federal Plans. 3.20 ✓Rai resources as wel/ands, groundwater tecJrafpa areas, woodlands, producliorr funds, and rand containing unique end endangered plants and:rnhna/s should be protected,� 121 Encourage the implementaNnn of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded am unrecorded cultural resources and orchaaalogical sites. SCAG St:ff CommenjA Table a 8-5 (Auplic rile Lana Use Regulation) provides a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project Win pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's 4-12 RCPG The project propos— 892 acres of open space. The project urea is not located In e MSCCP Conservation Criteria Call.Tnere are no woodlands or production lenos un thu pioperrty. Additionally the biological survey did not find any federal, slate or MSHCP listed or covered species Figure 4.3-2(Wildlife Corridor)indicates that linkages between t abltat blocks come near to the project site.Table 4.3.2(Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site) indicates a numDar of special status wildlife could 000ur on tli6 project site, mitigation measurea have been included 10 reduce impacts. The project Rita also contains approximately 0.50 acres of United States Army Corps of Engineers of California Depattlnent of Fish and Game waters or wetlands, mitigation measures have been added for the ievrrgelation of the wotland areas. Mitigation measures have been included for the projection of r6corood and unrecarded cultural resources.Therefore, the proposes project would be consistent with SCAG Policies 3.to. 3.20.and 3.21 3,22 Alsmurage development, or sncoumgo the use of special design:requirements, in Areas wRh steep scopes,high(fre;flood and seismic Itozard& 323 Encourage mllipaflon maasurns that reduce noise In c9rroln locaticjfs, measures aimed :it 4-13 prosermtron of biological and ecological resources, measures that wpuW reduce exposure to seismic hazards,minimize earthquake damage,and to develop emergency msponse and reuovery plans. DOGS#131693v9 IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-30 City of Lake Elsinore `` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 9 0.3 Response to Comments 1 Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-11. The comment requests that additional mitigation measures be evaluated so as to reduce impacts from/to air quality and transportation/traffic. All available mitigation measures were detailed in the DEIR, and are included in the FEIR and MMRP for implementation. The alternatives detailed in Section 5.0 include a Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative. This alternative would reduce impacts to twelve issue areas including air quality, which would result in significant, unmitigated impacts under the proposed project. This alternative would not reduce the significant, unmitigated impact to traffic and transportation. The Reduced Density Alternative would meet all of the objectives of the project applicant. However, the City and other responsible agencies are requiring substantial upgrades to regional traffic circulation and public utilities (sewer, water, and reclaimed water) around the project. Spyglass, LLC's share of these costs alone would exceed 15 million dollars and do not include the project's on-site infrastructure costs. This cost would add approximately$27,175 per unit to the cost of each residential unit under the Reduced Density Alternative. That represents an increase of approximately 188 percent of the total project cost. This cost would make the project cost prohibitive to market and sell (personal communication, Erik Lunde, Spyglass LLC). Therefore, the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan is located in an area least likely to cause adverse environmental impacts when compared to alternatives. The project is consistent with Policy 3.18. 4-12. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policies 3.19, 3.20, and 3.21. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-13. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policies 9.22 and 9.23. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-31 City of Lake Elsinore jj a Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 11U ?i ?i ? Lit' �0 CAI A20C W GOVF.i.;NWNT" I 5 July 2007 Mr, Wendy Worthey N^ 1n 7 ,SLAG staE�_oornrttpltts: Table 4.8-5 (Apoticabie land Use Regulotion) provides a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with pertinent goals and policies of S(:AC's RCPG. The prolm site Is located on n1isldea and development fin mess nrusides would be ht accordance with the City Hillside Ordinance. Mitigation measures have peen included to reduce 4-13 Imparts to biological and cultural resources. The site is unpacted by seismic hazards, .Wound shaking and inrligallon measures have been included for impacts this hazard.The portion of the Cont. property near the Corona Freeway may be impacted by noi6e and inilrgatiou measures nave been Included lu ruducv these impacts. Therefore. the proposed project would t>e consistent with SLAG Policies 6.22 and 9.23, _M(:C POLICIES RELATED T4 THE RCP(3 GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL,POLITICAL,AND CULTURAL E( UrrY The Grawth Ma n,%gernent Goal to develop urban forms that weld economic and nodal polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minirflWng social and geographic disparities and of(eachirlg equity among all segments of society, The evaluation of the proposed project In rulalion to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal.and duos not Infer regional mdndaley and Intortertance with local land use powers. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local/urisdlctions in file implementation of programs lhat increase foe supply 4-14 and quolrty of housing end provide a ordabla housing as evaluated in fha;RegiorrO Housing Need.,; A ssassmant, i i SLAG Staff Comments: Table 4 8-5 (Applicable Land Use Regulation) provides a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed projeut with perrlirrttrit goals and policies of SCAG's RCPG.True Spyglass R;rnch SP pioposee for a variety of residential uses'Tahlw 2:3-7(Summery of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area) Indicates lhnt proposed for construction are a range of single-family residential units end multi-family residential development.Densities range from 1.1 to .3.2 dwelling units per acre.The 1,035 housing units would provide housing that would bu available to meet the City of L.aKo Elsinore RHNA housing requirements. Therefore. the proposed project Would be,oonsistent with SCAG PbIldy 3.24. 3.25 Encourage the efforts Of local jurrsdichbris, employers and service agencies to provide adoquato training and retraining of wofkora,and prapam the labor forou to meet the suture challenges of tho replorral ernnomy. .:26 Encourage employment development in job-poor localities through,support of labor force retraining programs and other economic damopmunt measures. I SLAG Staff Comments: Table 4.8 c) (A,oplfcablo Land Use Requlati'on) provides a summary 4-15 evaluation of the consistency of the nroposed project with pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's RCPG.Tnerse policies are not noten on table 4.8.5,The proposed project is currently plannee as residential only.As currently proposed, these policies are not applicable to(his project There is a possibility of a commercial development to be accommodated.In the Western Riverside County and City amen there are a variety of resources related to employee training and retraining. If the commercial area is devo+oped,It would provide employment opportunties in a job-poor locale.If this ocrurs,the proposed project would be consistent with SLAG Policy 3.2biand 3.20. DOCSIi 1.370930 I Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-32 City of Lake Elsinore 17D.` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-14. The Growth Management goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society was included in Table 4.8-4 of the DEIR. I The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 3.24. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-15. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policies 3.25 and 3.26. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-33 City of Lake Elsinore .` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglassIB CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments ,>1t sr,7" E.41Phr"Jo CAL AS WC Of COY IkNi kkiS NO. 6:lj3 F 5.►any 2007 Ms.Wendy Wonhey Pegu 8 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providors in their @ffOHsl to devealop sustainable rommunitles and provide,equally to all nlernbers of society,accessibl»al✓d effective services such as, publk:education, housing,health care,social services, recreational f�oilkies, law"atorcenlent, sad fire protection. SLAG Slafl Comments- Table A.8-5 (Applicable land Use Regulati ill) providi+c a summary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with pertinent goats and policies of SCAG's 4-16 RCPG.Table 2.3-2(Summery of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area)kidicate:a that proposed for construction are a range of single-family and multi-family residential development,along with parks w1d open spWA.Tho residents of this development can obtain public education; health care and social SArvlM tat businOSS" and govertllTtE3fil services found currently,wtdl(n the City of Lake Elsinore, If there possible commercial area is developed on the property,these resuurwti GOWO be found nice also.Low enforcement and fire protection services will be proirided by tics City of Lake Elsinore,Therefore,the proposed project would Da constsWrit with SCAG Policy 127. AIR QUAI fM CHAPTER The Air Quality QI!lapt®r care actions related>to the proposed protect include' 8.47 Defennlne specific programs and assoClated actions nestled (e.g,y indirect source rules, eirahanted use of felecommunloo Wns.provision of community-based shuttle services,provision 01 UHmand management based programs,or vehicle-mIies-(raveled/emission fees)sv that options to COMMand arid control regulation can be assessed. 4-17 SCAQ gtatf Comments: Table 4.8.6 (Applicable Land Use Rugulalt n) provides a summary evaltxt+t m of the c onaietenoY of the proposed project With pertinent goat.", and pollefea of SCAG's RCPG. The DEIR notes that!hare and RTA bits 1011 e3 in the general pr}a}eet area and that Table 4.8•5(Policy 3.12)states that there will be trails, pathways,sldEwalks grid bicycle paths within the development,and that these shoilla eta in the reduction of air quality emissions. Energy efficiency measures f fMe 24, etc.)will bo incorporated into the project Theroforer, the proposed project would be consistent with SGAG Policy 5,07. ff,79 Through the environmental document review process, ensure ilia) plans at all levels of government (rsgrcinai; air basin, county, subregirinal, and Woo)) consider air quality, land use. Vonsportat►on,and Aennomir,relationships to unsure consistency and nwbimeie Conflicts. SLAG Staff Corn Pius- TWe 4.8 5 (Applicable Land Use Requlatipn) provides a suinnaary 4-18 evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with pwnenl goals and policies of SGAITS RCPG. Sections 4.2 (Air Quality), 4.8 (Land Use and Planning), ano 4 ha(Transportalion/Traflic) have incorporated comments from A vinery of agencies concerned with sir quaNly. land use, transportation,and economic relations.Therefore, the proposed proiectiwould beConsistent with SLAG Policy 5.11. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION CHAPTER i The Often SpaOe and Conaervptlfln Chapter goals related to the plopOsed prolett include- 4-19 9.OJf Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present arid fulufii rosidunts in the fagion and to promote tourism in the region. DOGS#137r'fe:tyt FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-34 City of Lake Elsinore _\ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570—Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglass16 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc f 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4 (continued) ESouthern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 I 4-16. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 3.27. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. f 4-17. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 5.07. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. 4-18. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policy 5.11. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. t 4-19. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG Policies 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, and 9.08. No changes were made to the EIR related to this comment. I I I 1 isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-35 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152884 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal E/RIResponsesReceivedonDE/RlSpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 4Ii 1 4 f,A 0"0 CV ll��.Wi Of OVERNMEHI +' i 5 July 2007 Ms_Wendy Worthey i9a ft A09 Increase ft arcessibl7ity,to upern sprits lands hrr Outdoor racrasahon 1 9;Q3 Pr'omoM.self-susialmny regional m—cm ttion 1 aromas end feciptius •#.04 Mafrttairl Open space for adaauote, protection to fives and properties eefatnst natural and fnenmada Jfezatds. 8.o5 Mfntmlze puttradlally hazardous duvolopments rn hillsides, canyons,areas suscopUbfo to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other Known hazards, and areas wi(h Iin+lled dccess for emergency uyuipmanis. 9.06 Minimize public expendRure thrinfsvostoWature and facilitras to support urban type utds It ara'7s 4-19 where pub#r,health and safety toul#not be guaranteed. Cont. a.07 Mafftlain adequate triable rasoum production fond$, pardctalady lands devoted IV coltvmarofal agriculture and mining oporations: i I 9,08 Develop well-manafled viable acosysterrt8 rat known habitats of rare,theivrened and endangered species,including wetlands. l SCQAG Stgff CornmenW. Taotc 4.8.5 (Applloahke Land Use RegulaUon)doe:net reference these P01008 and should be included in Ire FEIR_The Speoiffo Plan calls fo't`the development of 6,5' says of Parks and 88.2 acres of Open Space.The project one is not lorAlad In an area of high fire or Hooding. The site is Impacted by sloose and seismic hazards Miligatipn measures have been Included tar imprints associated with siopas. earthquakes and otner hazards.The tuoject site is not used for commercial egdculture or mtninca operations. Therefore,the preponed project would ue consistent with SCAG Policies 9 01,9.02,9.03,9.04,9.Ub,9.0b,9.07„and 9,08. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies hhat are pertinent to this pnopo5ed project. This RTP links the ynal of stestmninq mobility with the goMs of fostenntl oven rnic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting ttansponalion-friendly development patterns,and encu>ureping fair and equitable ucecss to residents affected by souo•economic, geographic and GommArcia l limitations The RTl'uanunues to support all applicabia federal ana state laws m implementing the proposed project Among the relevant goats and policies of Die 117 We the feliote/ng; Rauional Transnott§(,ivn Plan canals • Maximize mobility and accesstbilky for all panpla and goats In the rogior. 4.20 • Ensure travel safnty and relrab8hy for all people and goods in the region, Presarvn and ensure a susfaheable regional transportation system. a Maximize the productively al'our Imnsporfatnon system • Protect the environment,improve air qualify and promote onargy afrWency. • Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation ilvesiments. Be partal Tmnsportot�n Plan Pnllpig# • Tndrroportation hivestmenfs she Lie basod on SCAGs odoptnd Regional Poduanca Indicators • Ensuring Diifety, adequate malnQmance. and aR3ciancy of upufelfons on the exiStup rrtuifi model transputtolnon system will be RTP priorities and will be balanced against the flees for systtxrta ExPansiarr inveSfinents. 'I 1 Ar3CSR 1376930 IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-36 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinorL152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-20. The Regional Transportation Plan goals and policies that are pertinent to this project, as listed in the comment letter, were included in the EIR in Table 4.8-4. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence on the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan's consistency with SCAG RTP Goals and Policies on everything except as they relate to air quality and transportation/traffic issues. The comment requests that additional mitigation measures be evaluated so as to reduce impacts from/to air quality and transportation/traffic. Mitigation measures were detailed in the DEIR, and are included in the FEIR and MMRP for implementation. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-37 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.i010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEOAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygr,,ssRTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments E July 9+007 Ms Wendy Worthey Pagu to • RTP farld use and groolh straferl/es ftlat eriffartrom currently expected trends 'n require a coVabomfive krfA isnilefion program that Idenfif9P4 requited actions and polices by all all d alguricles dfid sub- revions. CA��tjjff Comments: 'fable 0-5 (Applicable# Land Use Requiatio(t) provides a summary evaluation of the conststericy of the propossio firojeet with pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's RC. pe.The ptsaject will lnitieta construction of transportation facililiet,on Us side of 115,at the Main S(rea t int+change,to prodded loop sys tern to existing and approvers prol*.t Is I*the east and north. The RTA is working to identlly bus facilities we planned for nm t?in or ad)acant to oho prrojat site. 4-20 The site Is located on a Commuter Bus Route(RTA Route 206)operating on 1-15.The development will pay its fair share towards a study on the 1.1WMaen Street interchange%4jdy. the development of Cont. the Specific Plan clues provide for the protection of the environment,except it i it areas of air quality and trartsportstro"affic,where unmitigated impacts occur Therefore the proposed pmlect would be curisislunt will,theses RTi'Goals and policies Hawever,additional mitlgajion measures should lx: evaluated so as to reduce impacts from/to air quality and transportailonttraffic.Though there are transit system3 that serve the City of Lake Elsinore,there is only one fix90 Soule that travels near Ih% development, but one must drive a few miles to pock it up Uonstruclion!of film straleWS&on the property will comply with the energy requirements of Title 24 CCR. There are no vIlit-modal transportation systems in the general Lake Flsenore area. Except in the areas of air quality and Icansportation/traffic, the proposed project would be consistent with ,SCAG RTP voa% and Puticies.Mitigation measures must be incorporated so as to reduce Impalas hom/lo air quality and transportatioMtraffia issues, j GROWTH VISiDNING 1 The fundamental goal of fire Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a better plaice to live,work and play for all residents regardless of race,ethnieiry,or mcuma class. us,decisions regarding growtn. Irarasfapitnllon, land use. and economic development should be made to promote and Sustain for future generations the region's mobility, livability and prosperity. The feUowing 'Rag*"' Growth Procipias•nic proposed to provide a fromtrwork for Iota'antl replonel decision making that improves the Quality of life foi all SCAG residents. Each principle is followed by a specific scl of stralepies intended to achieve this goal Ptiriciple 1 Improve mobility for all residents s + Encourage transportation investments and land use de:cisions that ate mut ally supportive Locate new housing near eztsling jobs and new.jobs near existing housing, + .Encuurapalransit-onenteddevelopment, ! 4-21 + F'Mote a variety of travel choices `I Principle 2:Foster livability in all communities It Promote infili development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. • Promote duvelopments,which provide a mix of uses • Promote"people scaled:walkable communities. • Support the presef"Oon of stable,single-family neighborhoods. Ptinciple 3 Enable prosperity for all people • Provide,in each community, a variety Of hOUS1119 I)Pes to meet VIC hosing needs of all Inrome !evels: • Support edur^-Ational opportwiliu0s that promote DalttnCOO growth. • Ensuro environmental lustim regardless a facet ethniciiy or Mire"415:,l EMS#137623A faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-38 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_or Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-21. The Compass Growth Visioning effort was included in Table 4.8-4 of the DEIR. The specific strategies, detailed in this comment, have been added after each principle in the FEIR. The City appreciates SCAG's concurrence that the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan would be generally consistent with these Growth Visioning Principles. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-39 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFina/EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments itj1. :3. 2;;':/ ? 42PM. z.O' ski- ASSOC Jt OLOV+kNANUk 6 July'2001 jille,Wendy'? orthoy Papa 11 Support Jowl and state fiscal policies that encourage baletced gro+Mh r EnG�6lfai�e�3hCtgn�e��tiaenl. Frtniriple 4:Promote sustainability for future generations ,i • Preserve rural,agricultural,recreational and environmentauy senSitrYe.ar.'e Focus development In urban cetitem and existing dues. + Develop strategies 10 accommodate growth that uses rusutaces elficientl)r, all►,hate pollution aria slgirQcarrtfyreduda waste. Utltlae"green developmeni trchtlicide,S. 4-21 aPAQ $topf Comments: Table 4.kl-5 (Appilcuble Land Use Requiatiop) providrrs a surnrvtety Cont. evaiunnon of thb eunsistency of the proposed project with pertinent goals and policies of SCAG's RCPG.The Specific Plan Is located adjacent to I-IS/Corona Freeway,on+ich there is a commutor bus route.There is planned transit related improvements on and within th9 pro►ect silo.The project proposes sic single family areas and two multi-fatuity areas,at a variety of densities. Table 4.8-5 (policy 3.12) states that there will be tralls, pathways, sloewaiks and Jbicyde pulps wiihirt the development. While a variety of nousfng types ore proposed,it ran not be�etermfned K the housing needs of all Incomes levels is being met.It is not clear from the DEIR If t project promotes greert development techniques Therefore the proposed project would he generially consistent will,Chess Growth Visltan ng Prittetptes, GENERAL COMMENTS I The NOP forwarded to the City on January 10,2007 indlctatO that there were PQ11088 in thO RCP 4 RTP and CGV that ware applicable to this pnJaet, and key polices were rioted in the attachment to the letter, 4-22 However.fhe FEIR should cite all SCAG policies and address the manner In whiO the project is oorisistanl, nol-mrisistent,or not applicable to these Mies,and provide supportive anatysiCes to why it Is consistent, not-consistent,or not applicable to these policies Missing from the C1EIR and Tegle 4.8.5(Applicable Land Use Regulation) are comments on Policies found In the RCPG Air taualliy and Open $pacce arid Conservation Chapters and Compass Growth Visioning,whush should be included In the FOR. r Table 4.8-16 (Applicable Land Use Regulation)relative to Policy 3.03.makes reference to Figure 2-4.1 for 4-23 phasing,the phasing plan is located or,Figure 2-4.2. Table 4.8.5(Applicable Land Use Regulation)relative to Policies 3.14 end 3.18,,Riveraide Transit Agency (RTA) Bus Routes are across the 1-15ICorona Freeway, within the downtown portion of Lake Elsinore, approximately 1 mrle(Route 7)and 2 mites(Route e)from the protect sae.Policy 3:18 indicates tho project is 4-24 inc;i(M on these RTA Routes, which is not correct. Route 206 does travel down Corona Freeway,and is adiecerit to the protect site. I Table 4.8.3(Preliminary Land Use Action Matrix) is no! from an adopted program. As suL i, it should be 4-25 removed from the FEIR. CONCLUSIONS 1, SC,AG commands the efforts of file City of LaRO Elsinore for inolt.1009 In itR analysis a thorough review of life policies contained1 SrAVs RWO,RTP,and rGV,ns noted. 4-26 i 2, As noted in the staff vomments,the proposed DFIR for Spyglass Ranch Specific PI.an is consistent with � d 2 7 or support many of the core and ancillary policies in the RCPG,RTP,and CGV,,except as noted; ta0C5#/737693v1 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-40 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X 1010570_Cily_or Lake_Elsinore1526B4 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpvg!ass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4 (continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-22. Policies 3.13, 3.16, 3.20, 3.25, 3.26, and Open Space and Conservation Policies have been added to Table 4.8-4 of the FEIR, as follows: Applicable Plan Regulation Regulation Description Proposed Project Conflict? SCAG Policy 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans The proposed project is located in an area Regional that maximize the use of existing of the City of Lake Elsinore that is Comprehensive urbanized areas accessible to transit experiencing growth. The project site is Plan and Guide through infill and redevelopment. bordered to the southwest by Camino Del (RCPG) Norte and Interstate 15 (I-15) and to the north,south,and east by primarily undeveloped land. There are two other proposed projects on the areas of 1 undeveloped land bordering the Spyglass Ranch project. Additionally,as stated in Section 4.13.1.2 of this document,there are three Riverside Transit Authority bus i routes near the Spyglass Ranch site.These routes include Route 7,Route 8,and Route 1 40.The project would increase the density at what is planned to be a strategic part of the Riverside Transit Authority. Therefore, the project is consistent with policy 3.13, and would not result in a significant impact. SCAG Policy 3.16 Encourage developments in and As stated in Section 4.13.1.2 of this Regional around activity centers,transportation document,there are three Riverside Transit Comprehensive corridors,underutilized infrastructure Authority bus routes near the Spyglass Plan and Guide systems, and areas needing recycling Ranch Specific Plan site.These routes (RCPG) and redevelopment. include Route 7,Route 8,and Route 40. The project would increase the density at what is planned to be a strategic part of the Riverside Transit Authority. Therefore, the project is consistent with policy 3.16, l and would not result in a significant impact. i LT>RSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-41 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEOAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRlspyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 Applicable Plan Regulation Regulation Description Proposed Project Conflict? SCAG Policy 9.06 Minimize public expenditure for Section 4.11,Public Services concludes Regional infrastructure and facilities to support that there would not be impacts to fire or Comprehensive urban type uses in areas where public police protection, and that the existing Plan and Guide health and safety could not be departments would serve the project. All (RCPG) guaranteed. infrastructure and facilities that would be created in the City due to this project would be in areas where public health and safety have been considered,and a reasonable assumption of safety is being met. Therefore, the project will not result in a conflict with Policy 9.06,which represents a less than significant impact. SCAG Policy 9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource As stated in the Notice of Preparation for Regional production lands, particularly lands the Spyglass Ranch project,the project site Comprehensive devoted to commercial agriculture is not identified as containing Prime Plan and Guide and mining operations. Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland (RCPG) of Statewide Importance,nor is the project site used for agricultural uses. Additionally, the NOP states that the project site is not known to have any mineral resource that may be of value to the region or state. Nor is the project designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan. Since the project is not developing resource production lands, is it in compliance with Policy 9.07,and will not result in a significant impact. SCAG Policy 9.08 Develop well-managed viable The project shall pay appropriate MSHCP Regional ecosystems or known habitats of rare, fees for impacts to the following animal Comprehensive threatened,and endangered species, and plant species covered by the MSHCP: Plan and Guide including wetlands. coastal California gnatcatcher,Southern (RCPG) California rufous-crowned sparrow, Belding's orange-throated whiptail, red- diamond rattlesnake,San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit,long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower. The project is in compliance with the MSHCP,and therefore supports Policy 9.08; implementation will not result in a significant impact. The Compass Growth Visioning Policies were analyzed in Table 4.8-4. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-42 City of Lake Elsinore _\ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinoml52664_Spyglassl8 CEQAWinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 r 4-23. The reference in Table 4.8-4 (Applicable Land Use Regulations), Policy 3.03 has been updated to refer to Figure 2.4-2. 4-24. The response to Policy 3.18 in Table 4.8-4 has been updated to more accurately reflect the location of the project in relation to the RTA routes, as follows: "Additionally,the project is located in the general vicinity of two bus transit routes, which will encourage public transit use." 4-25. As requested, Table 4.8-3, Preliminary Land Use Action Matrix has been removed from the FEIR, as it is not from an adopted program. The following language has been added to describe the RCPG instead: "The RCPG contains multiple chapters concerning different areas of discussion. The relevant chapters that have been included in this discussion include the Growth Management Chapter, the Air Quality Chapter, and the Open Space and Conservation Chapter. As detailed in the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan and Table 4.8-4, the proposed project does not conflict with the goals and policies of the RCPG. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to the RCPG." 4-26. The City appreciates SCAG's recognition of the thorough review effort that was undertaken in the DEIR concerning the project's consistency with the policies contained in SCAG's RCPG, RTP, and CGV. I 1 I f I FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-43 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 5;1447- 1 442 —S0 CAL M-SOC OF QOVI MMEM'-: .. 046 r: I? 5 July 2007 Me.Wendy Worthsy Page 12 3. An feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional a=assoctntsd with the 14-27 proposed project should be implemented and monitored,as required by CEaa J Cont. I I i t i 1 1 i I f i Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-44 City of Lake Elsinore I-al Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake Elsinorel52684 Spyglessl8 CEQAIFlnei EIRIResponsesReceivedonDE/RlSpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-27. All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project shall be implemented and monitored as required by CEQA and detailed I in the FEIR and MMRP. r IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-45 City of Lake Elsinore _` Final EIR ' January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments ',� _ () (AL C (? Q x )d(l f(T; BYO. 6746 1 ,July 2W7 Ms,WendyWorthey Page 13 SOUTHERN CALIFORN1AASSOCIA' ION OF GOVERNME TS Roles aad'Autltoddes THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS(SLAG)is.a Joint Powers Agency established under Cafifomla Government Code Section 6502 at seq. Under federal and stela law,SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments(COG),a Reyoona!Transportation PWnt{1tg Agency(RTPA),and::a Metropolitan Planning Organizatipn (MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and rXQn8ibd1ties irlc]ude 1171e folluw6ig: � SCAG is designated oy the federal government as the Regfolt's Metropolitan Planning Organisation and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive lranspci talioo planning process resulting in a Regional Transporlation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improverrrent Program pursuant to 23 U.S C '134,48 U.S.C.'53U1 et seq..23 C.F.R.'450,and 49 C.F.R. '613 SCAG ie also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such Is responsible for4 born preparation of the Regional Transportation Plbn (RTrl) and Regional Trencportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Coda Section 660BO and 65082 nsspecttvety. I SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic: projections and the integrated land use, housing, ernployment, and transportation programs, rnc�asures. and strategies portions l the 5outli Coast Air Quality Management Plan.pursuant to California Health and Safety Code SWIdn 40460(b}(c). SCAG Is also designated under 42 U,S.C.'7504(a)as a Co-l-ead Agency for air quality planning ftlr the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Ali Basin District $CAG is responsible under the Fatieral Cleans Air Act for ddtermining Conformity of Projects,Plans and Prrogfamss to.ft state Implementation Plan.pursuant to 42 U.S.C.75W. 4-28 Pursuant to 0011forril, Government Code Section 66089.2, SCAG is. responsible for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans(CMPs)for consistency with regional transportallon plans requiroo by Salton 6W?Ju of the Government Coda. SCAG must also evaluate tho curni:,tenuy and cwtnpal biDty of such programs within the region_ i SCAG Is the auttlorixed regional agency for(titer-Governmentiai Review of ProgFams proposed for federal fiV11cfal assistance end direct development actMlltm, pursuant to f,residential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A 05 Review), SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21047, Environmental Impacts Reports of pro)eets of regional significance for cone iglartcy With regional plans (Cslltornia Environmental Quality Au GuOnlinPa Sections 1520U and 1&t26(b)), Pursuant to.33 U,S.C.'1288(a)(2) (Sadlon 208 of the federal dater Pollution 6ritroi Ac(). SCAG %the audiorlmd Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agans y. SCAG Is responsible tof prepaMbon of thin Regional Housing Needs Assessmitint,put suent to Gatifumia eovernment cote Section 65519(a}. i SCAG is responsibfe (with the Association of Bev Area Governments. the Sa"mento Area Counoll of Governments. rind the Association of Monterey Bay Aran Governments) fog preparing the ,ScwMem California Hazardous Waste Management Mn pursuant to California I IealthIarid Safety Code Section 2SI35.3. Ftcivised July 200'1 f J I DOCSO 1378930 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-46 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X1010570_City_or Lake—Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 4(continued) Southern California Association of Governments July 5,2007 4-28. This section of the comment letter states the roles and authorities of the Southern California Association of Governments and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No change to the FEIR was made in response to this comment. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-47 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_Cify_ol Leke_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ,r co a TRANSPORTATION AND �1.2 �� LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY „% Transportation Department Di i or A. r aN prat ii�m June 20,2007 u U E CE ED JUL g 1007 C'Ty Project Planner OF LA EPLA!VNIN ELSINORE City of Lake Elsinore G DIVISION 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Subject: Notice Draft Environmental Impact Report.(EIR No.2007-1) for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan(Specific Plan No.2005-02) Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for giving the Riverside County Transportation Department the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DFIR)for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan,Specific Plan No.2005-02,in the City of Lake Elsinore. 'I'he'ITransportation Department has reviewed the traffic study prepared for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan and has the following comments. I. The ultimate cross-sections per the City of Elsinore and County of Riverside circulation elements are slightly different for Central Avenue and Camberri Avenue.Per the County,Central Avenue is designated an Urban At'tcrial with 152 5-1 feet of right-of-way.Per the City's proposed circulation element(Elsinore is currently going through a general plan update),Central is designated a Modified Urban Arterial(8 lanes)with 134 feet of right-of-way, Per the County,Cambern is designated a Collector(2 lanes)with 74 feet of right-of-way.Perthe City's proposed circulation element,Cambern is designated a Secondary(4 lanes)with 90 feet of right-of-way.There will need to be close coordination between the County and the City on the ultimate improvements along these roadways and at the intersection of Central/Cambern and at any other affected intersections. 2.' In the County of Riverside General Plan,Camino del Norte is designated Major, with aright-of-way width of I I8 ft.,whereas the proposed classification in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is Secondary,with a right-of-way width of 5-2 100 ft. If the City proceeds with downsizing Camino del None,the transition from one cross section to another will need to be coordinated with the County. 401ill Union strop,r,'iji ca orwa 91-5tll •101)455•040 RO,BoN 101)0-kiveridv,C;411omw 91502-111,A)•FAX("51)qiS.-a11F1 faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-48 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final EIR January 2008 XW10570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6 CEQMFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc f 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 5 County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency,Transportation Department June 20,2007 5-1. This comment indicates that the City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside General Plans differ in their ultimate roadway designations and right-of-way widths for Central Avenue and r Cambern Avenue. The proposed project is not located adjacent to either of these roadways and is located approximately one mile south of the Central Avenue and Cambern Avenue intersection. However, as noted in Section 4.13-2, the project would contribute to cumulative impacts on f Central Avenue and Cambern Avenue, including their intersection. As noted in Mitigation Measure 4.13-4, the project shall participate in the phased construction of the off-site improvements for Central Avenue and Cambern Avenue through payment of established City fees, participation in the Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program, payment of the project's fair share traffic contribution, assessment district and/or community facilities district financing. The comment is correct that the County and City General Plans differ in their ultimate cross-section widths. With regards to Central Avenue, although the total designated right-of way widths differ between the County and City General Plans, the curb to curb cross-section is consistent in both planning documents at 110 feet. The difference in right- of-way width is attributed to the width of the parkways on Central Avenue. These differences will not lead to transitional issues and do not affect the findings and conclusions of the Traffic Impact Study or the EIR. With regards to Cambern Avenue, the curb to curb cross-section for the City's General Plan Update is larger (90 feet versus 74 feet). Therefore, the transition from the City standard to the County standard will require dedication of additional right of way and construction of additional improvements wherever the County standard is applied. As noted in the comment, close inter jurisdictional coordination will be required. This will not affect the findings and conclusions of the traffic study report or EIR, as the mitigation requires wider (more conservative) roadway improvements. No change was made to the EIR in response to this comment. f 5-2. This comment pertains to the inconsistency between the County of Riverside General Plan and the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan, with regards to the right-of-way (ROW) width of Camino del Norte. The County of Riverside General Plan designates Camino del Norte as a Major with a 118-foot right of way (ROW) northwest of the Main Street intersection and as a Secondary with 100-foot ROW southeast of the Main Street intersection. Both the City's current General Plan and the proposed General Plan Update designate Camino del Norte as a Major with a ROW of 100 feet northwest of Main Street and as a Secondary with a 90-foot ROW southeast of Main Street. As shown in Figure 4.13-2, Proposed Circulation Network of the DEIR, the project proposes to construct Camino del Norte according to the ROW requirements in the City's General Plan, with a 100-foot ROW from the western project boundary to Main Street and with a 90-foot ROW from Main Street to the eastern project boundary. The County, City and project specific plan designations p p g require four travel lanes for Camino del Norte. The transition between ROWs is not anticipated to cause impacts to the circulation network because four travel lanes will be maintained. The City will coordinate with the County through its General Plan Update process to resolve any concerns the County may have regarding the cross section of Camino del Norte. No change has been made to the DEIR regarding this comment. IDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-49 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyg1ass18—CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments City of Lake Elsinore June 20,2007 Page 2 3. :figures 12 through 19 of the traffic study show the project trip distribution percentages for near-term(2009)and general plan buildout timeframes.For analysis purposes,the project is divided into 4 traffic analysis zones(7 AZS).The trip distribution figures indicate that only a small percentage of traffic from 2 of the TAZs is distributed to the north along Central Avenue(10%for TAZ 1 and 5%for TAZ 2).Considering that,in the future,Central Avenue would be the most direct and convenient route to I-21.5,the trip distribution percentages for buildout 5-3 conditions along:Central Avenue seem to be too low.:A portion of the trips that are shown using L»I5(30%:of project traffic is traveling•north on I-15 and 30%is traveling south on.1-15)is actually likely to use Central Avenue to travel to the north.This:change will affect the LOS at the intersection of CentrallCamhern and may require the analysis of additional intersections in the County aunty af.Riverside, along Central Avenue and Ethanac Road. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the DEIR for Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. Sincerely, A, f•arah P.E: Engineering Division.Manager cc. Herman Basmaciyan Kevin Tsang ISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-50 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 City_ol Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIF!nal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc I - 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 5(continued) County of Riverside Transportation Department June 20,2007 5-3. This comment questions the trip distribution percentages used for the near term (2009) and General Plan buildout scenarios for Central Avenue (SR-74). The commenter asks whether r additional trips should be distributed onto Central Avenue because of vehicles traveling north on Central Avenue toward Interstate 215 (I-215). To determine the traffic distributions for the proposed project, the project traffic engineer reviewed peak hour traffic counts of the existing r directional distribution of traffic for existing areas in the vicinity of the site, and for future development in the City. As noted on the proposed City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element (see Figure 8 of the traffic study), Elsinore Hills Drive is proposed to travel north of the project site to Rosetta Canyon Drive. Rosetta Canyon Drive currently intersects with Central Avenue (SR-74) close to a mile east of the Central Avenue and Cambern Avenue intersection. Therefore, the Central Avenue and Cambern Avenue intersection would not experience additional impacts beyond the cumulative impacts identified in Section 4.13-2 of the iDEIR. Figures 12 to 19 of the traffic study (Appendix J) each show a total of 10%of the project traffic using Central Avenue or Elsinore Hills Drive to travel north along Central Avenue towards the I-215 Freeway. The project traffic engineer believes the trip distribution used in the traffic study is reasonable and no additional County intersections warrant analysis. No change has been made to the DEIR regarding this comment I fSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-51 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsin=1526B4 Spygiassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments a. -- -L Riverside Oninrn ,AWaste Management Deparinrteni Ifaru-aa°kernkamp,Gent tphbluurrs:,-#4 -4l;:rtghim, June 9, �El ED ii-!" no? Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner Cam, City of l alce Fill%Hors OF ' ELSIN 130 South Main Street PLANNING pI ORE Lake Elsinore,CA 92330 VISION RE: Spyglass Ranclit Specif5e.Plan(SP No.2005-02) Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR No.2007-1) Dear Ms.Worthey: The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) has reviewed the document referenced above and prepared the following comments. 1. Section 4.6.2.2 Environmental Impacts,Solid Waste Facilities and I.atndillis, page 4.6-5; Section 4.6.6 Level of Significance Bdore Mitigation, Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills,page 4.6-9; and Section 4.6.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures, Landfills, pale 4.6-10. Under these sections the ©EIR should incorporate a reference to the, South Coast Air Quality Management 6-1 District(SCAQMD) Rule I ISO.I as the rule that, in conjunction with CCR Title 27,Subchapter 4,Article 6 regulations,requires additional perimeter probes when residential uses are located within 1,320 feet of the edge of a landfill disposal footprint,at intervals of 100 feet. 2. Section 4,14.1.3 Solid Waste,County Facilities,page 4.I4-2,first paragraph, states that the Riverside County is responsible for implementing the goals, policies and objectives associated to the components of the California Integraated Waste Management: Plan (C1WMP). The Department prepared the C1WMP document for the entire county, including cities, with the purpose of defining programs and policies to reduce waste; disposal by 25 percent in 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000, The cities, as well as the county, area independently 6-2 responsible fisr the impletentat.ion of CIWeMP goals :and objectives to comply with,Assembly Sill (AB)939, which wandates volume and toxicity reduction of solid waste. The C1WM[P document was approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in 1998, and is composed of the Countywide Summary Plan, the Countywide Siting Element, and the County's and each of its cities' Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household Hazardous Waste Elements(II14WE)and Nondisposal Facility Elements(NDF ). Please revise this section accordingly. I l.910 1,*r75tl(0cA 5,10ew•Morew)11alle.y.CA 92553•(951)486-5-10f)•Far(951)486-J 21a5+MO.%,(01517 4816-3:30 n'11+11'.1'ftt•n tt•nr.rzr . ,�{;pr•Intzrcl utd�vc,1<<lerlletipcfr falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-52 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_ol Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAWinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 6 Riverside County Waste Management Department June 29,2007 I 6-1. This comment requests that reference to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1150.1 be included in the document. Accordingly, reference to this rule has 1 been added to Sections 4.6.2.2, 4.6.4, and 4.6.5. Additionally, Table 1.7-1 has been updated to reflect updated mitigation measure MM 4.6-4,which now states: MM 4.6-4 Prior to issuance of the site grading permit, the applicant shall finance the installation of up to eleven multi-level landfill gas detection probes at intervals of 100 feet, along the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property to comply with CCR Title 27 and SCAOMD Rule 1150.1. The applicant shall coordinate with Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD), regarding the exact location of these landfill gas detection probes. RCWMD shall be responsible for building the probes and for conducting periodic monitoring 1 and maintenance of the permanently installed monitoring probes. 6-2. This comment requests revision to the description of County Facilities and responsibilities included on page 4.14-2 of the DEIR. Per this comment, the text has been revised as follows: "The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) provides solid waste disposal for cities and incorporated areas of the County, including the City of Lake Elsinore. RCWMD is responsible for: (1) implementing the goals, policies, and objectives of the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for meeting the 50 percent diversion goals; (2) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies, and objectives outlined in the County's Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for reducing household hazardous waste; (3) meeting the solid waste disposal needs of the County's residents; and (4) maintaining and updating the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) and reporting on the County's progress in complying with Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (in which the state mandates volume and toxicity reduction of solid waste). The individual cities within the County. including Lake Elsinore, are independently responsible for the implementation of CIWMP goals and objectives to comply with AB 939." faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-53 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684 Spyglass18 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Specific Platt No.2005-02 Jane 29,2007 Page 2 of 4 3. Section 4,14.1.3 Solid Waste, County Facilities, page 4.14-2, second paragraph, states that there are seven (7) active landfills within the unincorporated area of the County. Iaowever, there are only three (3) regional active landfills in the County, the Lamb Canyon Landfill, Et Sobrante Landfill, and Badlands Landfill that would potentially serve the proposed project, once developed. The remaining landfills within the County are either closed, have beta converted into transfer stations, or offer limited services to specific land uses. The following is a general description of the alternative regional landfill disposal sites in Riverside County that you may need to incorporate into the LIR: El Sobrante lgindf : The HI Sobrantc Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Cotona and Cajalco Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is owned by USA Waste and operated by Waste Management Inc.,a subsidiary of USA Waste,and encompasses 1.322 acres, of which 645 acres are penmitted for landitlling. The El Sobranle Landfill is currently permitted to receive 10,000 torts of refuse per day(tpd), of which 4,000 tpd is reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 109 million tons or 184.93 million cubic yards,of which approximately 48 million tons are reserved for in-County waste. 6-3 As of January 1, 2007, the landfill had a remaining in-County disposal capacity of approximately 37.000 million tons. During the year of 2006, the El Sobranle Landfill accepted a total of approximately 2.181 million tons of waste, of which approximately 1.100 million tons were generated within Riverside County.' The daily average for in-County waste was 3,590 tons. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in approximately 2031. Iamb Canyon t.andfrlL: The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located belwem the City of Beaumont and City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road(State Route 79).south of Interstate 10 and north of Highway 74. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The landfill properly encompasses approximately 1,109 acres, of which 353.4 acres encompass the current landfill permit area.Of the 353.4-acre landfill permit area,approximately 144.6 acres arc permitted for waste disposal. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 3,000 tons of refuse per day acid had an cstimatcd total disposal capacity of approximately 16.244 million tons, as of June 30, 2006.2 As of January 1,2007,the landfill had a total remaining capacity of approximately 11.7 10 million tons. The current landfill remaining disposal capacity is estimated to last,at a mininjurn, until approximately 2016.4 During the year of 2006, the Lamb Canyon Annual tillage figures as reported in Sitclnfo. GASB It-•2006-Engineering Estimate for total landfill capacity ' GASn 1 R•2006 Enginetmng estimate and 2006 tonnage data from Sheinfo. Based on a countywide disposal cupacity pralection prepared in March 2006 for the 2004 Annual RDVoa on the ) i+iii r" '^ ' "^^of vh_r ��u:A..Tnrne, r rl wAcre Mwna,rernent Plan."she Countywide plop.-C631)i.,a"worst-case"scenario,as it has assumed no taildfill expansions beyond what is currently pnnitml for operation. L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-54 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.'1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl8 CEQMRnal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc I 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 6(continued) I Riverside County Waste Management Department June 29,2007 i 6-3. This comment indicates that while seven landfills exist within the County, only three would potentially serve the project site. In addition, this comment provides information specific to each f of the three active landfills. In response, Section 4.14.1.3 has been revised as follows: "The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) provides solid waste disposal r for cities and incorporated areas of the County, including the City of Lake Elsinore. RCWMD is responsible for: (1) implementing the goals, policies, and objectives of the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for meeting the 50 percent diversion goals; (2) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies, and objectives outlined in the County's Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for reducing household hazardous waste; (3) meeting the solid waste disposal needs of the County's residents; and (4) maintaining and updating the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) and reporting on the County's progress in complying with Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (in which the state mandates volume and toxicity reduction of solid waste). The individual cities within the County, including Lake Elsinore, are independently responsible for the implementation of CIWMP goals and objectives to comply with AB 939." According to the RCIP General Plan EIR, the Riverside County Annual Report for 2000 (August 2001) documents that the County's disposal facilities provide more than 15 years of disposal capacity, based on projected growth in disposal with a 50 percent diversion rate. This includes sevens landfills within the unincorporated area, six of which are operated by the County and the seventh (El Sobrante), which is privately owned and operated under an agreement with the County. Of these landfills, only three are active and would potentially serve the project site: El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill. and Badlands Landfill. A description of these landfills is provided below. Waste collection for the city is provided by CR&R Incorporated, a private waste hauler in Perris. CR&R is a private company that provides refuse hauling, recycling, and I green waste disposal and is the operator of the Perris Material Recovery Facility (MRF) located at 1706 Goetz Road in the City of Perris. The landfill closest to the project site is El Sobrante Landfill, located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road in Corona. The Class III (non-hazardous municipal solid waste), permitted landfill is currently active and accepts mixed municipal waste, construction/demolition waste, and tires.' It has a total acreage of 1,322 acres and disposal acreage of 645494 acres. Permitted capacity of the landfill is approximately 109.000,000184,939,999 tons. The remaining capacity (as of Janua 2007_Qee_P^.h_er- 2_ ) is 37.000.000 -999 tons. Total dailypermitted capacity is 10,000 tons. The 2006 daily average volume disposed was 3,590 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is January 39392031. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road. The Class III permitted landfill is currently active and accepts agricultural, construction/demolition, dead animal, green ' Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number: 33-AA-0217. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-55 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684—Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC doc 0.3 Response to Comments material, industrial, inert, metal, mixed municipal, and tire waste.2 It has a total acreage of 1,109 acres and disposal acreage of 144.6 acres. Permitted capacity of the landfill is 16,244,000 tons. The remaining capacity (as of ianuary 2007) is approximately 11,710,000 tons. Total daily permitted capacity is 3,000 tons. The 2006 average volume disposed was 2,030 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is 2016. The Badlands Landfill is located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue. The Class III permitted landfill is currently active and accepts agricultural, ash, construction/demolition, dead animals, green materials, industrial, inert, metals, mixed municipal, tire, and wood waste.3 It has a total acreage of 1.168.3 acres and disposal acreage of 150 acres. Permitted capacity of the landfill is 15,237,000 tons. The remaining_capacity (as of_lanuary 2007) is approximately 8,653,000 tons. Total daily permitted capacity is 4,000 tons. The 2006 average volume disposed was 2,195 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is 2011. It should be noted that while El Sobrante Landfill is the closest landfill to the project site, it is the decision of CR&R Incorporated as to where the waste generated at the project site will be delivered. 2 Integrated Waste Management Board,Solid Waste Information System (SWIS),November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number: 33-AA-0007. 3 Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS),November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number: 33-AA-0006. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-56 City of Lake Elsinore _` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinel EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. I FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-57 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X..-1010570 Ciry_of Lake Elsinorel52664 SpyglasslB CEQAIFlnal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDE/RlSpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Wendy worthey,Principal Environmental Planner City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Specific Plan No.2005-02 June 29,2007 Page 3 of 4 Landfill accepted a daily average volume of 2,030 tons and a year total of approxamtely 637.000 tons. landfill expansion potential exists at the lamb Canyon Landfill site. Badlands landfill: The Badlands landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31 125 Ironwood Avenue and accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The existing landfill encompasses 1,168.3 acres,of which 150 acres are permitted 6-3 for refuse disposal and another 96 acres are designated for existing and planned Cont. ancillary facilities and activities. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and had an estimated total capacity of approximately 15.237 million tons,as ofJune 30,20W. As of January 1,2007,the landfill had a total remaining disposal capacity of approximately 8.653 million tons,as January 1, 2007.6 The Badlands Landfill is projected to reach capacity,at the earliest time, in 2011.7 During the year of 2006. the Badlands Landfill accepted a daily average volume of 2,195 tons and a year total of approximately 676,104 tons. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. 4. Section 4.14.1.3 Solid Waste,County Facilities,page 4.14-2,third paragraph, state that El Sobrailte is the closest landfill to the project site,however,it will be 6-4 up to the hauler that provides refuse hauling services to the project am to determine where to deliver the waste generated at the project site. 5. Section 4.14.2.4 Environmental impacts, Solid Waste, page4.14-6, first and fourth paragraphs,states that 81 percent of waste generated during construction of the proposed project could be diverted, however, it does not provide a waste recycling plan to meet that 81 perceni. The DE1R should include a discussion of how the project plans to divert 81 percent of waste generated during construction, and its a result comply with the City's and/or County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element of the Countywide 6-5A Integrated Waste Management Plan. The DE1R should identify material (i.e., wrierete, asphalt, wood, etc.) that will be generated by construction and development, the projected amounts, the measures/mathods that will be taken to recycle,reuse,and/or reduce the amount of materials,the facilities a►tdlor haulers that will be utilized, and the targeted recycling reduction rate. Materials can be taken directly to recycling facilities, or arrangements can he made through the franchise hauler and/or construction clean-up business. Moreover, the DE1R includes waste generation estimates for the Specific Plan 6-5B project at ixuld-out wid concludes that the Perris MRF, El Sobtante Landfill S G •Met! T,....:..n,a.:wn_v"I"I'M �anaii i O��cvvv—...."a:...»,.r.�,..»,....».... ° GASB 1 s-2oo6—t�.3iginccriiig L stinintc and 2OO6 umnage data fi mn Sitetnfo. ' L.a►cst Site Engineer's t aimatc, faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-58 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglessRTCdoc r 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 6(continued) Riverside County Waste Management Department June 29,2007 6-4. This comment indicates that while El Sobrante Landfill is the closest landfill to the project site, it is the decision of the hauler that provides refuse hauling services to the project area as to where the waste generated at the project site will be delivered. Please see response 3, above. Text has been included in the last paragraph of the section to indicate that the delivery location of the refuse collected from the project site would be up to the hauler that provides such services. r 6-5 A. This comment requests the DEIR include a discussion of how the project plans to divert 81 percent of waste generated during construction to comply with the City's and/or County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element of the CIWMP. At the Specific Plan level, it would be speculative to provide specific details regarding the project's specific construction debris recycling plan. However, the requirement to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and standard City conditions of approval, regarding construction debris removal is included in Table 2.3-4 Project Design Considerations of the DEIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. No change was made to the DEIR in response to this comment. 6-5 B. This comment requests analysis of the permitted daily capacity at each of the landfills that would potentially serve the project site. In response, the fourth paragraph of the solid waste discussion in Section 4.14.2.4 of the DEIR was revised as follows: "Regardless of final land use designation, project-generated solid waste would most likely be transported to the RCWMD's Perris MRF for transfer and processing. In either case, the proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the MRF's currently permitted daily capacity, which is 3,600 tons/day. Additionally, the proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the MRF's currently permitted daily throughput, which is 1,800 tons/day. Final disposal would Iy-be at the El Sobrante Landfill, the Lamb Canyon l.atidfill,and/or the Badlands Disposal Site. According to the CIWMB, El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted capacity of approximate1Z109.000,000184,4394, 1 tons with a total daily permitted capacity of 10,000 tons (4,000 of which are reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County). the Lamb Canyon Landfill has a permitted capacity of 16,244.000 tons with a total daily permitted capacity of 3,000 tons, and the Badlands Disposal Site has a permitted capacity of 15,237,000 tons with a total daily permitted capacity of 4,000 Lon . As identified in Section 4.14.1.3. the 2006 daily average volume disposed of at the El Sobrante landfill was 3,590 tons for in-County waste 2,030 tons at the Lamb Canyon landfill.and 2,195 tons at the Bandlands landfill. This represents 90 68 and 54 percent, respectively, of the daily permitted capacity that is currently being used. However, tThe facilities would be able to accommodate the amount of daily solid waste generated by future development of the proposed project because t:�he proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the remaining daily permitted capacity of the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands€aeih dacilitie , The proposed project would not substantially decrease the remaining EDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-59 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEWIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments capacity of these landfills. While the Badlands facility only has a*iffefour year life expectancy as of 2007, the life expectancy of the Lamb Canyon landfill is nine years and the life expectancy of the El Sobrante landfill is 24 years, thereby meeedsexceediw the 15-year threshold established by the CIWMB; therefore, the landfills within the project arealas have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste, including the County's SRRE, HHWE, and City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris removal. Impacts are, therefore, considered less than significant. The commenter also states that the DEIR did not provide a cumulative impact analysis. Section 4.14.3.3 of the DEIR included a qualitative analysis of cumulative impacts to solid waste facilities. In response to this comment, a quantitative analysis has been added to the cumulative discussion in Section 4.14.3.3 as follows: " T-h@ PAMOIFY facility o n they City e f i ake Rlsine re 3c they RI Seer-Ante land fl The addition of solid waste from the proposed project in conjunction with the solid waste generated from cumulative projects would result in an increase In demand for capacity at these landfills El Sobrante landfill. According to Table 4.14-3. approximately 21,836 tons of solid waste per year or 60 tons per day would be generated from all of the cumulative projects Identified in Table 3.5-1 at build out. This would result in less than one percent of the remaining_daily permitted capacity of the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon. and Badlands facilities_. The proposed project in conjunction with the cumulative projects would not substantially decrease the remaining capacity of thexe landfills. In addition,-:[the anticipated closure date for the El Sobrante landfill is 2031 !aFge : A d.,.,,,.,d 4e,.a ,nee"at the,91 Ce h-Faute land-fll Current remaining capacity at the landfill would provide 244 years of life. Additionally, the project would adhere to City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris removal. Because the proposed project in conjunction with the cumulative projects contributes less than one percent of the permitted capacity of the existing landfills and the closest landfill can accommodate City waste beyond 15 years, a less than significant cumulative impact is anticipated. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-60 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final E/R January 2008 X:1010570_Cify_o/Lake_Elsinore152664_SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. I EDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-61 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinoie1526B4 Spyglassla CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Wendy Worthev,Principal Environmental Planner City of lake Elsinore Spyglass Specific Plan No.2005-02 Jtmc 29,2007 Page 4 of 4 and/or Badlands Landf li will be able to accommodate the antount of daily solid waste generated by future development of the proposed project. However, the analysis does not account for how much of the permitted daily capacity at the MRF and the two landfill facilities is already being used. Moreover, the DEIR 6-5B dos not provide a cumulative impact analysis, one that evaluates future solid Cont. waste disposal needs for the proposed project in relation to other planned projects in the general area of the project site. The DEIR also excludes an analysis based rnt daily permitted capacity at El Sohmnte Landfill and Badlands i andfill. 6. Section 4.14.3.3 Solid Waste,and Section 4.14.4.3—Solid Waste,pages 4,14-8 and 4.14-9. Revue these paragraphs based on comments issued above, items 1 5. Alsu, the DLtIR states that El Sobranto Landfill has a permitted capacity of 6-6 184,930,000 tons, instead of 184,93 million cubic yards. Please revise accordingly. The DEIR has responded to our comment stated in our letter dated March 22, 2007, which requires compliance with CCR Title 27, Subchapter 4, Article 6 regulations and the SCAQMD Rule 1150.1,by financing the installation of up to eleven(11)multi-level LFG detection probes at intervals of 100 feet,along the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property. The exact final location and design of these gas probe will be 6-7 determined by the RCWMD—Engineering Division,in concurrence with the SCAQMD and the Local Enforcement Agency(LEA). The project proponent is required to contact the RCWMD MD--Engineering Division prior to obtaining a grading permit in order to draft the necessary agreements) for the installation of LFG probes and pttyinent or reimbursement for such installation. Thank you for the opportunity to review Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. Please contact Mirtha Liedl,Planner,at 951.486.3284,if you have any questions or comments Sincerely, 1 I t Mirtha Liedl,t ner IV CC: Charlie Tupac,SCAQMD Melyssa Sheeran,HDR Anne Ennesser,RCWMD Angola Dufresne,RCWIv1D Murk Hunt,RCWMD rnsgsaa; iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-62 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Final EIR January 2008 XMI0570 City_of Lake ElsinoreW2664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 6(continued) Riverside County Waste Management Department June 29,2007 6-6. This comment indicates the total permitted capacity noted for the El Sobrante landfill is incorrect. In response, references to 184,930,000 tons in Sections 4.14.1.3 and 4.14.2.4 were revised to approximately 109,000,000 tons. This equates roughly to 184,930,000 cubic yards. Section 4.14.3.3 was changed as indicated in response 5. 6-7. This comment acknowledges that the EIR addressed RCWMD's previous comments. As noted the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 requiring the applicant to coordinate with RCWMD regarding the financing and placement of up to eleven multi-level landfill gas detection probes. No change was made to the DEIR in response to this comment. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-63 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cify_of Lake Elsinore 152664_Spyglass16 CEOAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygiassRTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments WARRLN D.WILLIAMS � �� 1995h1ARKErs7mEk7, CcgacTef ivtaTFayot-Cf3feFCragiaecr RIVERSIDE,CA 92501 951,955,1200 951,788,9965 FAX www Ilixxfcvaanircat,ata,riu�rcid�.sa.la> � � f RIVI RSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT June 26,2007 Lsito Ms. Wendy WortheyI City of Lake Elsinore , O.130 South Main street RELake Elsinore,CA 925 W ry Dear Ms.lll.'orthey: Re: Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spyglass Rauch Specific flan This'1'btter Is w>ritl6n'in response to the Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed project would include a Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and'Tentative Tract Map for a master planned community that includes single-thmily and multi-family residences,a community center,public parks,roadways. landscaped open spaces and an option that allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family 7.1 residential units arc not developed within the project site. The proposed project site is located on approximately 260 acres of land and is bordered to the north, east, and south by primarily undeveloped land,and to the southwest by Interstate Freeway 15 and Camino Del Norte in the city of Lake Elsinore,Riverside County, The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District.) has the following; counnentslconcerns that should be addressed in the DEIR- Response to Section 4,7.7 of the DEIR states "As identifed in Section 4.7.1.1, above, RCFCWCD issues permits to control flood protection." Please be advised that the proposed project is not located within the Lake Elsinore Lake Management Project identified in Section 43.1.1 of the DEIR and the District does not issue permits to control flood protection. Please revise the DEIR accordingly. We would also like to reiterate that the District does not 7.2 normally plan check: or recommend conditions for land use cases in incorporated cities. The District gill only assume an advisory role and comment on items of specific interest to the [district, including MDP facilities or other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could he considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system., upon written request from the City. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions contenting this letter may be referred to Jason Swenson at 951.955.8082 or me at 951.955.1233. lVery truly yours, TERESA T€SIG Senior Civil l ngmeer c: TLMA Attn. David Mares JDS:mca 118\114445 � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-64 City of Lake Elsinore -\ Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684—Spyglassl8 CEOAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 7 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District June 26,2007 7-1. This comment provides opening remarks and re-states the project description. It does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No change was made to the EIR in response to this comment. l 7-2. This letter indicates that the proposed project is not located within the Lake Elsinore Lake Management Project and the District does not issue permits to control flood protection. The EIR will be modified as shown below. The following paragraph in Section 4.7.1.1 will be removed in the FEIR: Lake Elsinore Lake Management Pr-oleet island, wells,ever�'lew weir, , , i Ewe-. . eI annel, and.vellarids habitat. fier-mal apeffition. iiatur--al r-um-Aff 4EMN the Safi 4aeinte RiYeF Fe_;;r_-.he_1; 9_hP_ _181G.e type -filet and water. ba.aao..6 The sentence in Section 4.7.7, which describes the RCFCWCD as the agency that issues permits to control flood protection has been modified as follows: During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the Riverside f County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) requested that District standards be followed, fees be paid, and permits be obtained should the District be considered the responsible entity for the long-term operation and maintenance of any proposed flood control facilities. , ee-tiea. Section 4.7.2.2 identifies a project-specific water quality plan has been developed which incorporates treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on a criteria established by RCFCWCD for the discharge of urban runoff. The project would comply with all applicable RCFCWCD standards. L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-65 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglass16_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments r 2007 1.0; # P�;(X S2 TOMA RAS & OG_4S, LL.P 1075.5F Sc7t m?olvAYVnnYwtkv#2lit,&NUxno,tun wmr 92131 7a�rer,kir+F(awls sn•F.W'4Qt4(85 r)1570+W MA MMMAW com Kathryn A.Ogas kopa%*ndowlwY,com Brenda L. Inmaras btomaras@mtuwlaw,cnm June 12,2003 %'TA FA_CSTVIILK AND U.S. MAIL Ms Wendy Worthey City of Lake Elsinore 13.0 South lAdfn Streat Take Elsrriere,CA 97-530 lie: Comrnenis on DrafT EllAdronnlerital].inpact Report for the Spyglw Ranch Specific Plaits Dear Ms Wanhey' 1 Our firm represents the Pvchanga Band of Luiseho Indians. The Pechanga Band of Luisetao Indtarnls of the Peehatiga Indian Reservation,a federally irecogni7,ed Indian Tribe (hereinaftcs"Pmhang t xribe"), subtttits the fsrl Awing waiitnents On the Matt Eavirartnienral Impact Report(DETR)for the Spyglass Ranch Specific,Plant 11Je recjuest that these crir»m:°lits, as well as subsequent comments submitted by the Pechanga Tribe,be lncluded in the rcekrd for approval of the Project- REQUESTED NOTICE A140 INVOLVEI► ENZ' As noted in our response to the NOP for this D81R,the,Rfwbariga Trihs fhrrnAlly requests,pursuant to Public Resources Code§21092.2.to be notified and involved in the entire, environmental review process under CEQA for the during of this Project This includes adding 8-1 the Tribe to your dl.gWhution list(s)for pubHe ne dwas and public circulation of all r ocurnents peMiningtothisProjeot The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings And schedulod this Project THE LEA D AGENCY MLISTINrLUpF—I[YVQLVEM ENT OFANDCONSULTATION WITH THE TR1HE IN ITS REVIEVti PR&K It has bean the intent of the Federal Government'and the State ref G4lifornia2 that Indian t Se¢Exai:rttive MntuDmdtnrt of Aral 29, 1994 or Relatiom u th Nativr Ammo-Ut Triw Governments antl Exeni ive Order of November 0.2400 on ConsultaucA and Cuordtnuuun VAth IndianTtiW Govenumnis, Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-66 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW664_Spyglessl6 CEQAIFina1 EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8 Tomaras & Ogas,LLP Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians June 12,2007 8-1. This comment provides introductory remarks and explains that Tomara & Ogas, LLP is a firm representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The commenter requests that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe) be notified and involved during all stages of the environmental review process. The Tribe is included on the distribution list for public notices and public circulation of all documents pertaining to the proposed project. Additionally, pursuant to SB-18, the City contacted a number of Native American groups, including the Pechanga Band to determine if cultural resources were present in the project area. In response, the Tribe requested SB-18 consultation and a site visit with the project applicant to survey the property. The City has consulted continuously with the Tribe throughout the environmental process. The site visit with the applicant occurred on January 10, 2007 and resulted in identification of one potentially significant prehistoric resource. Following consultation with the Tribe, the City included mitigation in the DEIR to deal with the specific site of concern, as well, as potential unknown ` resources. Specifically, mitigation was included in the DEIR as MM 4.4-8 which called for development of an appropriate controlled grading plan to avoid impacts to this resource. None of the documentation identifying specific information about cultural resources has been made public I pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. C. 6254(r)). The City welcomes i additional consultation with the Tribe and is incorporating this letter in the FEIR as part of the official record. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. I 1 EDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-67 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 City of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments l.eiterto Wendy Warthey Re,Spyglass Ridge Page 2 tribes be consulted with regard to issues which iMpact,cultural and spiritual resources,as well as other geverrimental concerns. The respontijbility tv uvowlt I ilh Indian tribes stems firsatn the unique government-to-government relationship between they United'States and Indian tribes This arises whein:tribal interests are affected by the actions of governmrntal agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans and EM3. in this case,it is undisinrterd that the project lies within Peehanea Tribe's tradition l territory. There€rare,in order to comply with CLQA,and other applicable Federal and Califtimia law,it is imperative that the Lead Agency and Project applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an;adequate.basis:of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the pvcaject effects; to well as generating adequate mitigation Ineasurus Lend Agency Consultation with thePechanea Tribe Required Ptirstinnt 1Q CAL Gpv(&,0 65351.65352.65352.3.and 65352.4 (,S+tuate Hill t8-Traditional Tribal Ct att uraL-P)R IRly) As the SPYSIass Ranch Project;entails&-Specific Plan,the Lead Agency is required to consult watt the Pechanga gibe pwsua:nt to a State law entitled"Traditional Tribal Cultural 8-1 Places(also known as SB 18)(Cal, Govt. C.§:65352:3). shall be fox tits Cont. ptiq--ores of identifying any Native American sacred plavea and any geographical arena wmah could potentially yield sacred places, identifying proper means of treatment and management of such places,and to ensure the protection and preservation of such places through agreed upon mitigation(Cal hovt, C 65352 3, SB 18,Chapter 905, Section 1(4)(b)(3)). All official cesnsultatiOns shall be government-to-government,meaning they shall be directly between the Tribe and the Lead Agency,and seeking agreomant where feasible(Cal, Govt.C, §65352 4: SD 18,Chapter 905, Section 1(4)(b)(3)) Lastly,any such information conveyed to the Lead Agency concerning Native American sacred places shall he confidential in terms of the specific identity, location,character,arid use of those places and associated features,and,objects. Such information shall not be Subject to public disclosure pursuant the California Ptablic Records Act (Cal. Govt C 6254(r')) The.Pechanga Tribe has previously officially requested consultation with the City of Lake Msinare,as well as requesting that it receive offictal notices pursuant to the Tribal I radi6onal Cultural:Properties law The Tribe r,equcst to continue our consultation meetiags u,po n the City's cocclpt acid tevitw of this Voititrrl tit letter,&$well as incorporating this Itrtfer as part of the official record for$B 18 purposes. PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA The Peechanga Trifle asserts that the Project area is part otitis Peubanga Tribe's aborlginol territory,a$evidenced by the existeru a of Luisefto place names,rock art,pictographs, pe troglyphs,and an extensive Luise fro artifact record in the vicirtity of the Arojecl The 8-2 Pachanga Tribe ksiows this Project area as the,"PsayaxeW area. Hotli theDEIR rind.the'2006 Phase I Airchavolouieal Assessment of Spyglass Ranch Project by Brian U Smith&Associates Sec Califafeua Public Rssource C.vda 65099:9 el sea and Cal..GM Code try 0351, 6S352 6i357 3 amid 65310.A iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-68 City of Lake Elsinore _` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc F F 0.3 Response to Comments ^ Letter 8(continued) I Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians June 12,2007 I 8-2. This comment summarizes the Tribe's cultural affiliation to the project area. No specific requests or comments on the environmental document are a part of this comment. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. l 11 l� l LT1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-69 City of Lake Elsinore �� Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City—of Lake_Elsinore152664_SpyglessIB CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments tll:,=3t7 its:_ #5rt53a;`t i�MaRA, FaGC tia Lotter to Wendy Worthen Re:Spyglass Ridge Page 3 at lmowiedge that the Project site Alls within the`traditional boundaries of the L,uiseiio Indians," (DEK p.4.4-1) The Tribe further asserts that this aulturalI;y sonsitive area is affiliated specifically with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno.Indians because:of the Tribe's specific cultural tics tri this area t Whartga considers any resources located on this Project property to he Pca hnnga cultural resources. The Pec:h"a Tribe's knowledge of our ancestral boundaries is tensed on reliable infortnatiort passed dowry to us froth our eiders;published academic works in the areas of nnthrnpology, history,Atsrl and through recorded ethriagraphie and Linguistic. act aunts. Of the malty atnhropolugists and historians who have presented boundaries ofLuiseho traditional territory,none have excluded the Lake Elsinore area from their descriptions ('Sparkman 19U8;:Kroeber 1925;White I963;Harvey 104;Oxendine 19lt i; h tith and 1*reers 1994),and such territory dt:aictiptions correspond almost identically witb what was nnnimtrnicatecl to the Peehangn people by our elders While Itistaric accounts,anthropological anal linguistic thoutics arc iinportant in dcicirrdnlag-traditional L'alsaflo territory,the Pechanga Tribe assent that,the mast critical sources of information used to define its traditional territories are Our slangs, craiition accounts,and oral traditions. There is a wnnertian b€tt-wPen Teniecttla and the T.Ake 11tsirtore areii that steams from the beginning of time for Pcdhangit pt;ople, 1 uisefio..history originates with the orcation of all things at 'Exva T omiieku. kti wli today at thetity of Temecula, and dispersing out to all corners of creation(what is today knowrii ats.t umeno territory) In:fact,in many of the Creatton songs, Temecula and Elsinore are mentioned interchangeably,intimating a relationship between 8-2 Temecula and Risinore,including the entire area in between. 1t was at Temecula that the Cont Luiseno god IVY)Oor lived and caught the people,and here that he became sick.,filially expiring at Lake Elsinore Many of the Pechanga people's songs rolatc the tale of the people taking the dying€vy6of to the many hot itprings throughout Southern California,until they came at last to 'rtengvu Wumazwmv,the hot,spring,at Elsinore,where he died and was cremated(DuBois 190 ) Tt i9 the Lxaiscivo er"tion Account that connoets PWnore to Ticim"w1a,and thus to the Tewecaala people vho were evicted and moved to Pechanga, acid now known ark the Pechanga Band of Luisefao Assion Indians of the PechangaRescrvati€n(the Pechanga Tribe). The area known as Lake Elsinore is also the lotation for noteworthy events in 1.uisefip cailtur'e whiult WC tr idodl.:sprsuifically to the people.Of remecut$of t1aa:p+s+wJxauga pecrplc. 1t is thG place where twet of the Kdamalam(first people),Qdwga►,and Chiveental,had their first menses, which is the subject of one of the 1 irls' claming-of-age songs(DuBois 1908). Another song recounts the:travels of'the people to Elsinore after a great flood(DuBois 1908). front hart:,they again spread out to the north,south,cast,and west, Thcae songs,called Monhval,are songs of The pld&c5"d landmarks llaatt wtsrta debtiudduns of Ux Luibviku ataccstars. °T`hcy.describe the exact route of the Temecula(Pechanga)people mid the landtraft made by each to claim title to places in their uliwations f,CluBois 1908,110)- Another account involves a Temecula village leader killing cafthe avil Tiakwish(the Luiseno evil spitrlt)at Elsinore,followed by his rrernatinn in Temescal Canyon(Krueber 1906): In Wdition,Pechanga elders state:that the Temecula/Pechanga people had asage/sathering rights what anthropologists include in their definklon of a"villaste tern Cory,"to an area faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-70 City of Lake Elsinore \ Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglessl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Ltiiseno Indians June 12,2007 fI I I l 1. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-71 City of Lake Elsinore -\ Final EIR January 2008 X..,1010570 City_of Lake Elsinon:152664 Spyglessl6 CEOMFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 061:12/20,01`r' 1U1, u 8535a758 1UMAWA: FAGS r,e.t3e1 to Wendy t1ilorthty Re: Spyglass Ridge Page emending front Rawson Canyon on the east;over to Lake Mathews on the northwest,down Tomeacal Canyon,and back to the Temecula a,ca, which includes Lake Elsinore in its boundaries. Thus, the Tribe's songs and stories,as well as academic works,demonstrate that the Lttiseito people who occupied what is known today as Temecula,Lake Elsinore and the area in between►(P4kg%axu1u,Mve Wuna.Pda*A Pria kwa,Plr'w Pivma),, We'.'ever, 071na,and Terneelae)are the ancestors of the present-day Pechanga Band of Luiset;o Indians, and as such, Pechanga is the appropriate culturally affiliated tribe for prctje cts that impact this geographic area 8-2 Finally, the Pechanga Tribe also hna a long modern day history of involvement with Cont. Projects in the area known as Lake Elsinore. Not only has the Pechanga Tribe been involved, but has been given the designation of the consulting tribe or affiliated tribe on the following projects located in the Lake Elsinore vicinity: Cottonwood Hills,Liberty Seicnity, North Peal:, 'remescal Canyon,Lakeview Villas,County Sheriff's Station,Mea dowbrook,Oak Springs, Canyon Tlllls,and Glen Ivy, Mweuver,the Pechanga Tribe is the only tribe that is known to have assumed the role of MLD in the Lake Elsinore area NXHC records confirm that no other tribe has bccn named MLD in the Lake Elsinore area. Vaecessltty,the Tribe can more:fully aorilaint this position in the SB.Ia r,�,nstntlatio P120.i1rCT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The Pechanga Tribe is not opposed to this development project Tim Pechanga Tribe's pnmaty concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. The Pca;hauga Ttibt!ib concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources,such as Luisetto sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground- dinmrhing work on the project,and nn the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items,Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course ofthe work, `i ft Yochanga"Tribe contends that the Project area is likely to contain cultural resources due to the fact that there are at least two known sites within the Project area and at least three other site,;within a mile of the Project site. Furtlrermoro,the topography of the aeon in addition 8-3 to the natural plant and animal resources in the area indicate that occupation of this area by Indian people occurred Given all of this information,the Pechanga'Tribe is in agrrement with the DEHL that there is a potentially significant site on the Project and that further there is a high likelihood that more cultural resources will be discovered during the development of the Project Therefore appropriate mitigation measurer should be adoptud to addross this feet Given that cultural resources will likely be affected by the Project and that the Pechanga Tribe is the most closely affiliated with such resources,the Tribe must be allowed to be involved and participate with the Lead Agency sand die Frujact Applicant in developing all monitoring and mitigation plans for the duration of the Froject. Further,given the putcutial fur archaeological resources within the Project area,it is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that Pechanga tribal monitors should be required to be prrscnt duriutt all around-disturbing activities conducted in falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-72 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore1526B4_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians June 12,2007 8-3. This comment identifies the potential for project-related impacts to occur to cultural resources and expresses concern about mitigating such impacts. The Tribe contends that the project area likely contains cultural resources. Mitigation as identified in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources of the DEIR, has been developed in consultation with Tomaras & Ogas. These measures require retaining an archaeological monitor and Tribal monitor during site grading, developing a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement, conducting controlled grading, and include provisions for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources and human remains, in accordance with the requests from the Tribe. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-73 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Final EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinel EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments S+i., 112 k107 Ito:.;l I$QISS�:70R73 TOYOIAR►rl I.0,llesr 16 Wendy Wfarthey Re:Spyglass Ridge Page 5 C nmcctegtt with the projects including any arcltaxtlogiea]testing pertbrmOd. Further,due to the prsacn.cc of a ptstentially signifiewir site,l lore Tribe b litwes that Controlled grading ne ds to be pl rfouned in the area around the she. The CEQA Guidelines state that lead agencies should make provisions for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources(CEQA Guidelines§1 S064.S) In additiott,the NAI IC also, stated in its correspolidenuc on thisProject that if these is a likelihood of buried archacologtcal resources,provisions for ao-Adcritally discovered archaeological resources and/or human remains #tttuld t,e impltamcoitezl oletr'iteg gratlittg. As such,it is the position of'the Peachanga Tribal that an agreement Specifying appropriate treanncnt of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources be mxuted between the Project Applicatioriddeveioper and the Pechanga Tribe. Further,the Pe:changa Tribe believers that if human mmains are discovered,State law would apply and the mitiurnlion moasnres for the parmit must accoua for this. Acoording to the. 8-3 California public Resources Code, §5097.98,if Native American human remains are Cont. discovered,the Native American Heritage Cotrunission must name a"most likely deseendarn't' who shall tie consulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Peehungn territory,the Peehanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to Californis law with regard to arty remains or items disccoverad in the course of thie Projavl. Also,surveys and grading may reveal significant:archaeologic.al resources and sites wNch may be eligible for inclusion to the lustortc site register,and may contain human restrains or sacred items. Therefore,we requem that the Lead Agency commit to evaluating Project environmental impacts both w the known sites and to Qay cultural into*which are diaeovcrcd during grading,and to adopt appropriate mitigation for such sites,in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe: It appears as though all of the Tribe's above mitigation requests have been generally met by the proposed mitigation nweauos,and we thank the City of inclusion of ouch mcamac-S. We do have some minor changes to the proposed rneastri es for purpusos of clarification purpckses DRAFT ZM AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1Guuirvttatretatal,[mpotc:t Ruputto must provide adeyunte prutixtion fcta significant archaeological and cultural sites and adequately follow the provisirsns.af C QA.and its Guidelines, including Calif Pub. Res.Code§21093.2(b)(avoid apre as pre erred methad of prdsemation of archaeological resources), CEQA Guidelines§ 15126 4(b)(3)(agencies should avoid effects on historical resources of archaeological nature),and CEQA Guidelines§ 15020 (load ugenoy tcsponsible:tut "d04u=Y of a stvirururterntal doLuments). For the reasons explained trove,the Pechattga Tribe requests the fallowbig changes and 8-4 atlditinns to the proposed mitigation measures in the DE1R(deletions are nolod.by stnkethroughs and additions by underiines), AIM 4.4-1: Prior tea issuance of grading pernut(s)for the project,the project applicant shall. rY'.tatn Ftt4 !l«MhAe:.nl¢�i fnl monitor to momfor all-ground-di urtf-n act.X:tibS j DSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-74 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_o1 Lake_Elsinore152684_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) { Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians June 12,2007 I 8-4. This comment recommends modifying the proposed mitigation measures within the DEIR. The commenter requests the deletion of the term "appropriate" prior to Tribe in Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-3, MM 4.4-5, and MM 4.4- 7. The City does not believe this change is necessary and those revisions have not been made. However, a revision has been made per the commenter's request to footnote 2, as follows: I "It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to 4tek its prior and extensive coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area. In addition, in response to this comment, the following revision will be made to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7: "MM 4.4-7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore." EDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-75 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglessl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments acai�P�egn� le.�,; �.i�t�,_�:r��":� �a����;��-: t•a:� I+: l.etter to W*ndg WoTthey Re: Spyglass Ridge page 6 effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovery uultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation MM 4A-2: At least 30 days prior tit seeking a grayling permit,Site project applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe to notify the Tribe oft grading,excavation anti Ow monitoring program,and to coordinate,with the City of Lake Elsinore and tltc 'Tribe to develop a Lultural ResourcL T'teatincot and Manitoting Agreement.Tite Agrecment shall address the treatment of known cultural r:sources,the designation,responsibilities,and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during guiding,excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and developtntnt scheduling;,terms of earnpetisation,and treatment and final dispcasition of any cultural:resources,sacred sites_.and human remains ddsceivercd on the site, MM 4.4-3: pci0V to lti uatkoe Of atsy gradi1%,permit,th"ptopjoet sihag,fita a pre- grading report with the City and County(if required)to docunsent the proposed methodology for;grading activity observation laid methodology shall include the requirement for g qualified archaeological lnonitor to be present.and to have the authority to-Atop a,M redirr:rt LrrAdinpa a4c%tivities in nerxirdanee with the agreement 8-4 required in MM 4 4-2,the archaeological monitot's authority to stop and Ladirect Cont. grading will be exercised in consultation with the aptropriate Tribe in order to cvaluate tlrc significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property.Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monhor All grading,excavation and groundbreaking activities,and shall also have the authority to stop and rcdireet grading activities in consultation whiz the project archaeologist lylht 4.4-4: if human remains are etaeounttred,California Health and Safety Code'Section 7050,5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until.the Riverside County Coroner has ruade the necessary findings as to origin.Further,pursuant to California)Public Resources Code Section 507.98(b)remains shall be left in place and free front disturbance until a ftnal dea-ision as to the treatment and dispoi ition liar,been made, Ff the Riverside County Coroner determines the. remains to be Native American,the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timetsame. Subsequently,the Native,'nicrioan Heritage Commission shall identify "mast likely descendant," The most likely deseendant shall then make recommendations,and engago in ctaftsultations concerning the treatment ort1w remains as provided do Public Resources Cede 5097,99, II its"it kWiptiel Ihul dial Pecha urpi t'Um will tm Air,"appiuli ute'Tiitse duc to tl.exs tl�Lptiui aaW"wittiw vvordivation with iht GO wid proicr:t appdtswt in deteiritining latontially sisrr rwaitt impacts grid:iPPMffnaic matipmn manatitec mil duc to its dernowursucd culnrml_tft th the,Prq-et nrca, faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-76 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal_EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luisetlo Indians June 12,2007 I- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-77 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR ' January 2008 X.A010570 Cily_o/Lake Elsinoiel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRIsf,)giassRTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments €,'I 2r'�€�.7 i'S:d5*37ki37q 771.1AR 'c' r':t3C m Letter-lo Wendy Wortlwy Rcn St3yglass Ridgc .page 7 Mll1.AkS: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,including sacred itetus, burial goods and all archaeological Artifacts Chet am found on the project arcs to the eyspfoptime•Tribe for propel irtsatment and disp!�Mition. M'fV14.4-0.- All sacred sites,should they he encountered w►thut the prujext area,shall be avoided arW preserved as the preferred mitigatiou,if feasible MM 4*7a If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archatological/cyhural resources are diseovevod during grading,the Developer.the project archaeologist,and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shell meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developet and ilia Trihr r4irurot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such reeouroos,these issues will be presented to the.Community Development Director(CDD)for decision.The CDD shall make the determination based on the proxisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources 8-4 and shall take into account the religious beliefs,customs,and practices of the Cont. otW*4wiogo-Tribe.Notwithstanding any other riglets available under the law, the decision of the CAD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore, NIM 4.4-9 Pi-kir to any grading at or near the vicinity of(P-33-sVa alai)known as SRS-781- 2),the Developer shall meat and confer with the appropriate Tribe;to develop an appropriate controlled grading plan 'rhe Inirpose of the controlled grading at and around the site is to afford the opportunity to determiner whether any subsurface resources arc associated with the site and if so,the significance of any such resourcev. All such controlled grading shall be monitored according to the provisions of the Agreement required in MM 4.4-2. Further, if subsurflce resources are dix<ovared at the site the provisions of NW 4.4- sl3rsll apply-. 1MM 4,4-9 Any easememts for grayling provided to off-Mite develapersi'shall be subject to the provisions of ivlM 4.4.-2 througj14.4-8. 'A£tet Appiovzal of the South Share I(also kilown as Lake Eismort i)projeet located dirrrtl;trams of the proposed praoi srra.,it was drtorm incd that thy;South Share..t gmdieg plan may anrrowh on to the Spyglasss Ranch p)vjett site. T1Ets.wdon of the Spyglass Ranch pried site includes cultural tie ource M-33-3278 also known as gR5-78)-7), w1ii0v ix inhale i try controlled grading as outlined in 1vII><f 4A-$, IDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-78 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) Tomaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians June 12,2007 LalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-79 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglass16 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments 06/1121"0" 8S3%N879 TUAWeA'- I MSE N'i Letter to Wendy Worthey Ire. Spyglass Ridge Page.R The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Lake Elsinore, Uic t sojout Applicant and other interested agencies in protecting Me invaluable Luiseito cultural resources found in the Project area.Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me 1!tuy truly years, TOMARAS,&OCAS,LLP Brenda L. Toinaras Attorneys for the.Pechanga Band ofI.uisefft3 Indians 4?C1iti1£acsintiler :Laura Miran Deputy 41encral Counsel Paul Mncarro Cultural Analyst ISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-80 City of Lake Elsinore Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFina1 EIRIRosponsosRocelvedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc i 0.3 Response to Comments Letter 8(continued) (� Tontaras& Ogas,LLP,Representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians I June 12,2007 i [ I f f Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-81 City of Lake Elsinore .` Final EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Clty_of Lake Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpygless RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments t :Y E10YED7" 007KE ELS MOREMission: G DIVISION Educate and cornniunicate the rich heritngc ol'Sohoba peoples;Lead and assist individtals,nrgnnizations and cormmnitic;in wnderstandhig the needs and concerns of Native American monhoring of traditional cites;Advocate Nafive.American participation in stair agcncics and boards:Advocate legislation and enibrcenient of laces afTecting Nwive Amo tans peoples acid protecting historical and ardnacolopieal resources, May 22,2007 Attn: Wendy Worthy City of Lake Elsinorc 130 South Main Street bake Elsinore.CA 92530 Re-, Spy Glass Ranch Specific Plan The Soboba Band of Luisetio Indians appreciates your observance or Tribal Cultural Resources and their preservation in your project.The information provided on said project(s)has been assessed through our Cultural Resource Department,where it was concluded that although this site is outside the existing reservation,the project area does fall within the bounds of our Tribal Traditional Use.Areas. 9-1 At this time the Soboba Band does see a direct need for Native American Monitoring and Consultation. 'The"Tribe requests a Native American Monitor be present daring any and all ground disturbing activities.Soboba requests this,until deemed unnecessary.by both Archaeological and Native American Monitors.Also the Tribe requests to be involved in any and all consultation throughout the project.If you have any questions or concems,please do not hesitate to contact the Cultural Resource.Department. 1SPEC;IAI,hfO'I I:'(far projects other than Celt towers);Ifihts prooj"t is associmd with a city or County Specific plan or general plan action it is subject to the provisions ofS1118 rradtionat Tribal Cultural tilac8s(lase became effective January 1.2005)and Will MgUiFe the City ui county to pailicipau;in ferlaal,government-ta-government consultation With the`r abe. Ifthe city or county are your client,you tnuy wish to make iliem aware or this requivomera. Bylaw, they are required to contact the Tribe] Si r ra .%btiba Cultural.Resource Department Celt(951)66.",133 Phone(951)487-8268 faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-82 City of Lake Elsinore ` Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinel EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments I Letter 9 I Soboba Band of Luiset3o Indians May 22,2007 1 9-1. This comment provides introductory remarks and indicates that the project site is within the bounds of the Soboba Band's Tribal Traditional Use Areas. Further, this comment requests a Native American monitor be present during all ground disturbing activities. Mitigation as identified in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources of the DEIR has been included to address potentially significant impacts to yet unidentified cultural resources. These measures require retaining an archaeological monitor and Tribal monitor from the appropriate Tribe during site grading, developing a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement, conducting controlled grading, and include provisions for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources and human remains, in accordance. No change to the EIR was made in response to this comment. Additionally, the Soboba Band requests involvement in any future consultation for the proposed project. The Soboba Band is included on the distribution list for public notices and public circulation of all documents pertaining to the proposed project and will be notified regarding public hearings, etc. The City welcomes additional consultation if requested by the Tribe. I Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-83 City of Lake Elsinore L F D Final EIR January 2008 X.1010570_Cify_of Lake ElsinomI52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRISpyglass RTC.doc 0.3 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.3-84 City of Lake Elsinore -` Final EIR January 2008 X1010570 Cify_of Leke_Elsinore152664 Spyglessl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIResponsesReceivedonDEIRlSpygiassRTC.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I - 0.4 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that the mitigation measures and revisions identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)are implemented. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code: "...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." Pursuant to Section 21081(a)of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision maker coincidental to certification of the DEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of approval of the project). ' As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, "reporting"is suited to projects that have readily 1 measurable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review. "Monitoring"is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland restoration or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee,are expected to be implemented over a ' period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project. I The City of Lake Elsinore is the designated lead agency for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP). The City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. The City will rely on information provided by the monitors (e.g., construction j manager,biologist, etc.) as accurate and up-to-date and will field check mitigation measure status as required. 0.4.1 MITIGATION MATRIX To sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes the following components: • Mitigation measure number • Mitigation measure(text) • Implementation Action • Monitoring Method • Responsible Monitoring Party • Monitoring Phase • Verification/Approval Party • Mitigation Measure Implemented?(Y/N, and date) • Documentation Location(Monitoring Record) Mitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing increments. Of these,the most common are: 1. Incorporation of measures into plans and specifications 2. During construction The mitigation matrix is included in Table 0.4-1. FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass MMRP.doc © ■ 00 cu \ 0Z5 I \ = o o W k b w [ � � � R �/ 2 § p_ owes - � 0') - C — - c 222 � $ � • , moo 0 cmw E § s C� f � � k2 cu 16 0ti. co � § � � aCL R � E k § 0 R � � / CE -V5 < C) _CM 7 c . 2 o _ M o �J -- LU - - - - —- QO k c ■ C . ■ £ \ $ ) 5 / g o 2 2 c 2 L C.) § o k � E § / % ■ .- � 2 2 « § 02 § 2 ICL k - / \ § G - - S CD m $ c ° @ co Itsg k dbo & a If % a) _ . r > \ cc \ § k k \ � i \ $ \ a / \ \ \ K � e � § -2 k / 22 ` (D E % ® 8E Q ■ 2 ) w gE �= 0E = 6-0 2 § Q k § � k k ` ) _ � � � 2 5 � § E � �& � � = 0- 222 \ � \ \ ! s mR oo �5 0 @ - 2 £ % % ■ » o o : � . . g § E ( k k $ @E 6 $ a � ° � ) Et kk ƒ kSk § k k / 2 \ m 2o � � C" cc tm, r o � ± - % * a) = o a = « = . - » - e = tm- t Ge � .23 : ° £ ° a $ - aoi � � - e3 » 82 ° - ' o � mM �2 k � \ [ k � \ � ts� 27fE � \ ) k7 \ tttat ) \ � \ ¥ } \ \ C -DcuCL CO = o2 : aWa2LOU « + 2wE = mom CL ice ka 27C & 2 .. - - - - - - - - - - - , 6.csn (D � ) - C� a - r-1004 04 2 3 ¥ ■ � « � c C2 0) C" rn C N co C_ N C E o c d a o aoi o a- o N co O p •> p c •> in Y O 0 U p v as O C o � cr O c 0 m O V N � � C� 70 c _ — O m 0 Q ca � rn U a> S rn r CL Cl c c p E p c > Q U jR C%3 Cl co a � ULLI Ud� L _ p� > U E U E C o N N CO 'o H nD CU �a C d cc N C" N O) C L m 2 c_ O c O a 4=! cu O p C 0 o Li m .Z5 C7 cu O o 'c 'c c ma`s fo `m aca a U c a cu to) 0 0 c p'p� p c 0co , c rn 3 c a LD a 0 s m o cn m �c o :° 4 c° cm CD _c 3 cm O d U AD > > o cn m U Q' Q' elf O & n a _0O w C O _ I m O N N a C C fn CLr= N m O C1 O O O S 2.0 N w Gf Q C i C a �mO C. (A i (c� U) c-0 c6 E U c U W a0. n n f6 .0 0. a> `O cQ N ca LLOj >.yL.., ! dj O C N N O p — p> N fd C oa 2 m mS c c aD aD Eo mI m E cn - a S E :° o y rn.o C N cn E O C 5 to C N N .0. O N C c 0 0 •N O m iq O m N N a� m � c cg' � > a� � am'icco Cc o�aic°3 > a� c .E c— '00, c In a)� n.5 a m a> as ao'i E rn•c c S c ` o o f a CO N O V a n ul N N _O 0 0)Q' c > O d 0 m O y co NCM M c0 d n O O ml C > C LO c m O.O .0 fO L L) C co -0 f0 m cc e W +-' "" Q O O Q tm U 7 m c y N d h Co mO m Ea c 5� 'er � oa a) a m c0mE Ef > '3 LC !n >)NL m mO C.�0 N > � O � � �c E � o c EcW tME � m• Q>nca�i. o'pm cu o�ow'ao o� N ° a L) n0 � c a ai o c � � /7 CcO OLN Ln Ca L c » - m m Efn tmynq O LLJ•+ N a > D > O L m N o m mn EL I m0R.N •Co OU O _O "' WNO 8Wgy NF- O O Co c CO n V .m mE n _ a r 00 a Z Em N V - N O CF cn " a O ° + irn cE o o m o m m n U L macai �•c 'O ph CO Nm c o o o (D (D m o = mmco c ca m m Q a� E a) cn m a �a U) E aQ 'p YJ�oe III k Q N N C7 ►^4 N N 0 M [ J § cm -- _ - --�- - � coc / S c CD § o o E § w e 0 ] � Cl. _ 0 o # • § ( z C� � > cu eel ca) - ' E� \ moo � \ 2 $ § I g 00 � Ecu % O \ � � o - © Ec � � � (D � \ k o - - - co a § 0 0ca - # CD 0 \ u (D � d IEZm CL c \ % k/ - CD - Clk c > Ca o 1 # § = —cmEr § « k \ Er ca f e m 17g \/ \ ems$ ¢ � 0cc2 ¢ = b 0 a / a ( CD � � � � 2 t = 0) 0 �ca f2 � k § 7 § « - E § ka �R \ � » - % t5 � o 0 E ca LLI E o w m a) (D= ca 7f m b $ = �.9 � 77mra) m - 222ok t _ � _ _ e0 - = > > = I a)'EE Q2 = . § O = & - -hew b2 o £ % � 0 - ■ CL - cc2z #cu � � � m � o = G aa22 � = mac = § = E { 0 � 4Em � 2 ® � 02 M0 0— - > \ \ k \ / � $ § £ Ea -6czco 2t ` t ° 72 % � f2f ) % g _ _ a0 m U) = o $ � o o � w c 2 � ��/ kf .2 g � 2m222ccCl) � 8 % � = £= � = CDq - ") o = 2 = _ mmaaa � § � � « gym -06)C\L a - � 2 2 � sR & E : � � o $ § a8 - � R 2 � � a� < 2 � � 2 E I m > _ � kg eel _ - 2see « @ $ � $ 2 \ k � / 7 > o f � f t-- : % / � - o > � - - @E % � mf o d) ca - 0) kA / � � Sg2G & o2 \ 7 § &= 2 � c = E-0CD1 @ % w22« E (Dcc2 ° \ � cE (Dc0—M g � 22EfA\ 22 � E CO % £ 70 � ® CD -0CCme � � u = � = � _ = � o � mE :$ � � 6e 9mw@ / ° ° ncn � & K % k $ / cc a) $ - kph > 3 � ° ° � % G $ ` � ta cn & a0Oad525ca cl� ro A z � � m rn c c m m c m o c •C a0.. p C C C C C N c) m CKa .o m :.o CmL :.o m Wyy CO 0 N 0 MO O 0 .> Yco a) o C c m o A .A. m ai d c V Q _� 4D � c cu o CD � my a m =_ Q) c 0) c o) c 0) as 0 c c O c c O c c O c c C d Q 0 0 ca 0 m cc O T m O m m •L > U a U a U a U a +r m Co c E is W C c � c o -o m � � cn -0Tc m Z L O p)O m m � Mn c O Cc CL co 0) 216 m cn C d p 0 .C j 0) p > p -0 > C 0 CD O CA O o E o Q > m .C � � C�7 � � _ o N c m co a .� m [rFL a o a O m niEi m L) C7 C a) rn m m +r c E E c wm a`> m a5 c6 a`) m a`j m tm 0) a rn a•0) w CL O O c c O c c O c O c cu 0 co co U a 2 U a 2 U U 2 m rn a 0 a o s g c (D d E `n ct; m Ovo 0- Oz,= o M a) E E 3 cc p I E U n o a) E E U Cn Q U w m U o o o o . -0 c c a tm•E LL m °' y o m `0 c U) m o c� o m co m eQ. E $ aEi c o o p a o c m n Q Q CU c m a) c o ° c o c as m E `-' oL) " o °' arni `-' ai gym-' � u°'i > ESoo � w d a) Q O 0) d a) rn N a p Q j O V 7 n CD d el Q -0 cn o Q Q Q Q U Q 0- U o 0 m Q v m L a) a) m a) m a C a) C m O O c L O t•, V cu 0- O O p O a m n CO � CD 4:- >,� � � C O a) n >, U m U) a) n " = c y d m C - c �--� ' p a) fA c O N f� p 7 N O Q•p y O) n c d n O d 0 m 7 m O E m C >, > c a) �o m m c2o 0) f° c m c 'a n E E m ai c° m .o c° n p m Y •� > c m U ti - 0 c o a) w L7 a) }`� ,5 v m mn o m m a) n i CD a 0 C +L--' a) W p c O n•O co E d p >+ N C ' v E cn L 0- 2 o N O cc L c �� a) o c m � c E m a? :9 , `o U on•ti m o m a`m) -m a) m in c: i� m y a) L) c iy0 .L... C..) m p cc -2N -0 (6 al O)-- O U E) E t 0)a) o L .? m •C j a) W, y c 3 N ca. E m c ns.-. m E 0 a) n m 3 U . L E c .4 -0 n s � � o c c O c •E •u' _ a`) E �_ `o S m 3 m a) a`) pc , o m c° C m - O m Co '' U O p O U �- > >i mQ O .� •p n >� C(��O a) $ _ to m 'O-•' -O [l N U C L W- m E O O W C O 30 7 Z _ 2 O N c a c> > cmi ? v o ) N m c i�Cc m o L a o CO E a o cac3 E m m n c E c •o Cn c m :+ m V N m U d C a) 0 L p N % � p n 0 .0 c0 m to m N 2 c m m (fl v W '� a) 0 w' E a) c 3 nO c � �' m o m0 m o= CL- Co y � E " °� � L o � o o In -2cam ° m ) � E a) o a c U Q m m n ? m c 3 _ d Q ' > c0 c ' o :3 m a) N -00 = mt a0 a) _m' a> CL O c� cU o a) 'Qm � o ;o n ti > - E E� •m O m - m w v) o c s c o � ca of L O c a) O n n Q E U ED 3 o -0 Im N 3 m y a) p m N C -0 y a) 0 p a m a) Q m o ac) •� in O cn C N p a) U U U d T S m m O a) m a) > O ,O m > m uj ._ A a) O m . 7 . LL O O c C1 Sd am) $ no HQd c..) W c" o- d � 02i0cnU a) m 0 0 0 $ a n� d N INS k Ch it )A Cp [fir^�^]• c C O Q) O) O) W 00 C ACU .+ O 'C 'C C E- N cm E 0 0 d n.. O n- O W cC O VJ in Mn 0M Q_ U O Ucd o C cCD :C - � co m V O rn m °t3 d °f m z Of � � Ems, - o ee Ca mo a) a`) v7 y Q aCL c m c m L > Q U a 2 U a M }� d c m CO '� ca y p G �' t n cO m C n- O L C O a) 0 � 0 .S v, o U E rn E c c`o c c a) ca CAM > U U d O d G c O -� O m O =0. c c0 d O) CL O) V) O a O C O C 0 c0 0 m C; U U :-5; c a) C O C T d O m IC 0r O U IEL .E CD0 n o 4 N E C N j .� E .-.. .> m U N I (n N �+ O CO O N -O m m Z C- N A a d .2 o b) 0 m -0 :- f6 ui a 0 E O E -2 2 0) ,g y Q m .0 c g - 0 E ac .� - _ d.(6 c O m O)B a fn = c Q E- � c in � Q � O ti W L)) � o m — O a) c m m .� a) d m ti) ai•a ml Q N n c rn U (D c v7 •- >> cO _o n CD a�i c 0 _ N o m c rn rn O +L--' t O p 7 M •�in j E cn m >. N O >+ U CO O N .•L•' p m O m 0 N 0 0 fn as 3 in a ` o c rn o > a) a) o c �° c U U U 47 30 n -0 — cn � .its 0 u7 � 3 c O m _ o u7 u7 o� >� ai aaci a) c° Gov n °D Ea E c �° � — c w m O O m E N O j Z N C cn L Epp C "" � .V N N U t 'C C U d � 'O -0 cD N ) N N U > N N 7 U cp 0 = N > fn U N C .N N UD C O_ m = .L•.. O Cp d h L) m � 0 d �L o 0 c EWZ '� .5 c O (D m a) aco > Qccn 0m E c) cn ,E o O O 0) 0 W C E N N 7p O (C C c (n L '—` �1 0 L cu C N O H N C O) m o L O -D O N W cn d .- E 7 0 CL .T d •Y N 0 +L. v n +�-•, m 0- Z'fa C m N i� > > •--� 7 2 O C t in rmi —0O �'U d •c6 m (n .o u) > m a) o > c a) o) 3 m 0 f° Y " o W �I a-0 a) i� 0 m 0).,? E 0 07 rn o c 0 m c c m 0 U a c o N U cc O �"m, O) E O p) N U E •C O c cn -O O N 0) -0N t m N m e c0 I coi w o o n a a) m > m c � > > •in c � cca c! S m — m m c c L cO c`o rn-� m E ccpp O)O > .U.. 0 O N m .L... d 0 'O O 0 c C U L .� y -0 0) y C N U U m E 3 Op) 3 N -0 ^I c 'OO .3 > LD N LL m 0 O U f0 c� f6 .� ~ 'Q C = d d N fn 07 h o o N m 0 m > o E rn in c u'7 a c o) 0)= aa) in o) n ami. a) o o c c a u>i 0 0 m o () > o m a) o c E 0 a) a) c ^ a) a) 0 c� 0 0 s o o �° ` L o v H . c cg m > c U a) . L) > > O . c > -0 0 3 U A H c U co cn N ao Z C C E rn o� v� C % G C c c C c � p O '� 'C 'C 'C 'C O O �CU '-O o c c c c C N V m ca ca m y 0 m O p d 0 a _O a O O W fca O ci J o � p .N p .� p .N p .N ai � >` p .> p .> p .>_ p .> Ycts 0 U Cl U p U Cl U p _m o C c d o 'E w. 0V O m 0 E Q 2 Z E o cu ea c O7 `m � � 0) o� � 0CL R rn S tm c rn c C" O) Q p c c p c c p c c p c co C: as Q p m m p co m p co m p m CO •� > Ua � Ua � iUEL Ua � CtmU T U E E O ,C O C U m a) a) C j N o d CU d C L cn a O M a U) a O O - U p d Ocii m •... a s m O O O) O o C� € cu o C7 o C7 d O d Cl cm Q ca.0 O V c C C C C Vl 0 C _ C C C O � fO m m m m a) cO m a c a c a s a ca a m N O p c p C p C p C U Cl cu Cl p U 2 rn rn E to c c 0 > o 5 c m 0 o a a`ni U m QO � c l� m 0 c .O a o o Z o w Z a aci o o g a3) us d E a�'i _ E o aEi 3 a 0 2 O w O -C a) -O a) CO N m N j N a) O p) N N N c �° V5 w O' � H2Q o ;>_, E n =° y o a a) L �' E m Q m o Oc cn a E i; O en m a Ix od e0' U ui tm- W °) mc m° ° E E ° a wl o amp c am Ew (n a- a� -m n.>_ m n rn n o. m o in. c` c Q Q' 2 � Q QO '0 O a-) QC..) 2 Q O) LL 0 o a) a) wc a'�cc"Un- as y ko^ox`WNW W mcm L O O mUo�+ I� Im O o a) 0) C'D O L o a � E m o mm o � c 2 E QW c Ucn � Q E c O E CU o -o c = ECM >,� jm $ > ' � fa a) m ano m 0 � cu -0e CD m ' ' E p � oL, tcLn CU O- a) C cn OmM.N L E C -0 m `=t , o m E E E m a � c ' m QE E CLm 'm o m ' m E - ca Co o C6 m U S E o . CU N m . O O C -O -0 a n � a d C c 0 � wU - a> mw 'oE eno -5 • a I m o o -c m o i o� c c c cncr cn v o . c) 70 W ¢ 3 Q m .0 cn COc -0a) O O Z' n-0 2 O C m c OS m E m -a m () o cn .0 mvE o Uo o a E W 0- m > o > L c a on a) O E 2 —>E m X aO mc ) L CC C) CU Q X O_ O = V •� O U� o c c a� NU n6 W Do i •E 2 o � � -o cm tm ° aowa ECD cm 0).0 'mW � 0 � vy Q mZ - cn` m U m E U) n a nm -D » (n nm 03a� UQ -o o rnm cn -0 a s -0rnN m J G �) Z O O) p1 of co r+ C c � C OCD p O 'C c c N d 'a w 0 E 0 0 w d 0 W j 0 UJ � Q .V1 a1 C o �c U � 0) - Cl - - o C cO s go Z, = c C V O rneya E °d Q ar d z E� 0 o A co c rn Z5 cc OQm Ec CD) 7 o_O_ c c Q Cp co •L Ua � 0 rn O c as o = � o� C a om O CID - - - C+� :e C tm in p O 0 .2 c O c -0 V 0 A CD 0 d� � U � O a7 as Q QQH � d � CD Qr C O C C O O .0.. Z a I U � ON y :2 O !c O CD 2 0 o o .>_ Q a Z =o � Z N Mn — C y� O c 0 E O U C ca �n 2 . a m Q c - 220 O_ E c � one W n-Fain E 5c Q = c a) U CD CD C N d 12 N W CC O to 3 O y .0 U .E C -2 f0 N CD C •O a7 Z5 a) m a3 O c (D Y C o, rno a�Ui _ E ate° vo 0 � "`� � U) o o � s �'N = . E o cn a�i a�i m 3 m c� N E � voi � � aa) y = 3 E � cn d •S m °D c m y .L•. L -0 •O > 0)� o O O F- y C L V C � C C Q E c a) cd N lC L ` C p O H U c ' L Co y C Ca ` ID O p y p N _ •U d h d a7 N f0 7 O O a3 ._>'+ C U a) L O L .0 > a) O Q) a) L �, L U o "voi � � � ca novLr 'vr 0 -0 m ooa E N yam ¢ cgs n cn -0 tM a"i w o , c .E as n E o as .? o `m U o m f6 m a`Oi y E d Y m cn x U .., EF y m 0 •Occ .E, 0L•. L C N C En � .0 Z 0 C O CO CO �—> C w of L y c c o c > c U 'c6 m m a� � y E cn U O to i O o 3 as c>a '5 m E u) a`� p c U r- «(D $ m o c ;- E � m y Q cc m c y a� o t m L U = o m v> E a> o a> c y m c as o v c i� c a� Z v m c c'in E w �' aci 'E CU woof Lo a) N o .a c� a`oi CD N �.o m m o v_ c, w c m o y d y c a Y E :° c w ro Q ono >Q � > as � n EZ0 �' y � � mac ' E5 E o > —E VSpEO � 'mti a'� � f>d 'U Q O — O_.�.=' L Cc X L a) L a) fa > a) O N E Q) a7 0 E 0 0 (a D O U C E m n a) 1� k r m E 3 as rn y a) �n 2 c o U) o t U Q U z E d cg 2 N� c o cn e c m � o (u C C OE c c 'c 00 _ C N C.) E tl C y a- c f6 C (O C .y = 0 0 a. O d 0 d 0 W co Q UJ2 0 .y 0 .� 0Mn y p L O 0 .> 0 .> 0 .? Y ccd G U 0 U o U D J ca �) c` 4D - c C c O m E! +�'+ w 0 V NZ � gE o N cc Q � Z5 CD Z5 � � a cv v� a, o) E co�I Q a 0 c-co cco iD c-cu cc p m cc 'L U ELM U a 2 U a .O 4, G ` N � {p N N N a 0) C rn rn rn O c c c au 0 d7 N+r d orn m � yA2 .2` Mn o.0 C" _ re p - O p p CDc cm -0 o -0 -0 0 0) 0' � '� !E cu tm co m 0 •O. e te � . �Ea � :L � .� Um m UM m cr F- ¢ o-< 06EL ¢ o-Q � .6a- 2 0 � C S -o N -0 OR cc0 r0. Z L N C d D\ O m p 00 Q N E 0 > N N -0 N N E N > .rn (0 C N O 0 I o E N c o E Nw, • � m a m ccD _c� w h an E 0 O c* p U, m o a a = 0 N Q c m o o 0 _ c° E o � cn c�- N E O aco air E � o' co m c mi Q E ;Q Z6 U) Q E E Q M - _ o N o N v `° m o N °� •3 a�ci — � m w C L y Dp p U� L E N fC C -0- N d N U .2)-o 0 7 n U .0 N p •N p m a? � c � D �' N o� o E cc. � .� —apip aci 'rn c'� rn c _0 c6 o N o co > n H o N c N > p E o '� m U n Rr N N N (O fD N U d +L.. n co N 0 U C O N 0 (Co N �� O O f0 N N N •� L _ L �F i N O . f0 n O coo N y O N L L N Q U C > C F..• ( C U N C fc0 cz h N •� m o i> >•= E n o °� 'O N v� LtJ co m m N a C C6 n L N d" p)0 N 2 E p O .0 N L w o p o E n a -0 O > N N +L. ""� O p •V C V Y E � .L•. .N W - C N N p N d p 7 0 ((C(cppp p N �-` O d •V N •-ffi- a+p•' O n O_ �I �_ N N C N O C�i N V NL,,, C U N V .L-+ O .0 U d L U Z 7 N L W �I ` C O � N N .L.. fD C - & - O E - - N N L V C 0 16 C H ,_ O fA �p � •� C O fC 0 - N � 3 in -0 o N c cn n m aci 'rn - N co C -0 .2 C, a o 3 Co N N M c O Q U o N o o m 0 -0 a)-0o m o a� �cp C c = i� py� c� vi c cn I C f0 � n'y 0 'L' Z > N N cn E U cJ O O LN., 0 >, E 7 d m W CO H o L .". (O f6 n N y L N CC13 V '�U N W N M •2) n N •>p j 0 .LM n L N e a N 7 7 n._ N 7 cn L C N N@ n p). c0 (A )C H o a m y Q 3 n m v m cv cn H E m o E n Cl m e J - cn co v v v Z � � � c c rn rn rn o> w ao :° O Cv c c rn 00 C C C C C cm N m C V m C m C C m C O! �' ll � O O � a- o a- o _o a•O ul ca L O .? 0 Z O C .? 0 J Z c to 0 U O 00 U W 0 00 Cl. o c a CDC O ` r m Z, w+ 7 c inV M N W Ca Q E m d Z N � � E8 'p c o is co a u c rn o' rn C d O c c 0 c c 0 'p� O c c m Q O m m 0 m m O c in cc m •i 9 U a m U a 2 U W U d O o CD E o c 'E c' o aD cn .C C c co c` d N C •O Cc N'f� m o m E o � - o F6o a C�� a o afD � a o d -o m-0 n cc y rn rn U� a-+ � p) c c c Ca M N aO ` � m N U amc ct to 0Om p p 0 c 0 m U U U W U cm cn CD Di c �o oa cp c o m O c N O �0- O) �N a �•fn OpE C O Y O d' cn in� 0' (D U) 0 U S Q. Q. C O m in N� yl y w O -0 -2 Z, N $ C 4c O OCCE N U> O a D TmS y I-- Ca m me — da a. 0) o cu E m 8 D m co Eis > 2 — c m m -cc 0) O E m off � cNN wE E 0 � a v 0) ° �w > _ vaj CD a �. c, E :° a O E =° Q.� onm �S E m� Q E � Q w cpo �v O .L•. L L ,� .D M N CKS .N m 3 p cn m� m ; v_ co c 3 a ) A m� .—�`.. 'C _0 >.y L �" d O.O C -p .a ...' -0 U C V1 N O N C Q O N O �a p > C `p ?� C m c � ch o. •V N L o O cn L m cc, tm w -E m O m.D N m V N O m 0 0 0)N p of _ C O _— La-2 0 0 c N CO C N > CO'3 d O- O O L5 o- L N m C O m' p C d,�. Y R O_ y Cl Ca N N ti m C N d cn Q) y -O� .' m L O .�.. U p cn m L m N vl .. N c ac E m o'ov $ �` o o y o cn� o@ E cc c '� y E (D o m m Em cc c `mom 0 ca p o' a? m av cnv, n o c E m c p » 0' E - cn �' N io d n c� �' o m cm„�o a� v m 0) oo Q (D o c Y 'o m .S i� 3 •m cn o Ca a> m _� L cn o o .m. aD o a� a> > y c i6 m N O O N U •C N O O ~ y .a c6 N L CO >`O N C C fC0= m "" O. WI O O m C fpn L L C U 07 rL O ? ie m L�_ E Ul d)L "O vi t m � �_ m '-,C � O7 07 7 ` ... 7 .� O C — O N �'' C L •C wm-. U m c d ((,,,,)) U•C U W JI+�+ p — C C O V1 7 0 .O m `O y L L_ N C O cn E m co L 'O L U ED O a) m N cu -O S O N _ O' fn U) ��+ L wL.. — m O N 7 O N .L.. 4) w — m N C ik O OI�a H N N CO d .—Q •>-0 cuN N G L 3 O ;Q L S2 C 'N O m L.0 C E C O)O)O o �o7 C C N O` E L 4 h N "' L O C > m -0 w tm- O N .0 UI m M d•c N a) = w m S d N m N C a4 ¢ •C N-0 'o N w N (ZD m.0 N .0.. y C O' N .0 cd 0 O n o O O +N•' _O d .L.., m O Q L 'p m > o p m m cnn co c d ,� M O cn•� 7. N M2 2 N p C .Q N .mr O Cl) > O_C C O >. O c >`>m v N C O N O C U �-' C .2 C C a N dCL 0 CL m C a) N O D1 7 C N w — U N N O t N— .L.+ C U m 0 .O+ O O (n � X c� c� cam EQ o) in ¢ v o a Q Co CL_:2 �a a o m m E U cn � U N OO Q N C CD CO O C G d OD O N W ,•—O+ O � CN E V C N N C 7 0 0 d' c 0 c .0 W ca c� J � p - .� p •- co EL 0 W p p H r) Y N -- - U W p � � cr1 Cl. y C O — = c o d 0 cm d d Z U O cC co mom n m U a> U a°>> C a> a � p C,c n 'i > U W C-) ul O C r—U) � E c a> o c '' m a`> o _ CD a r m O U N O> C t 0 0 N C o 0- Tco O O 0 ca O O CJ.0 cu a o a o cm g> G o $ a`> �p a c a U c U o p 'tm �, Q U W j Cl w c Of O) c E E e -o ca � o am .- O t c � In n r d N, O ' O O 4 o O V (> N j C;E a> n > o a)t Ena> m a p O.0 O in CL CD a; C D-0 a) N O N m m a> m i+ C C U o O C fn c O o>. � 0 v> c c>m ya a> m nJ O m w O E �' $ cn o 0 mQ o E � o0. � g O U.� cOn C ,O E ° 0,01 � 'w a 2 a C ol •d..c-O d n m m cn •m ti n cn c -- — Q N .c n-0 Q C lL c N o U.' c G) Oa d p c0 .c m O C O 7 -cn. n-o m O a)-C c U N p > N C c".> cn m d� O .c 7 a N p •§ K O CL._C'c U! y U cC6 '~ N i/S N •� Q'C in O.c �— a Q' d C o as � C O C-0 O 'C a> d> U N y .0 m > O > m cNo , .2 o c�0i> c.2 -B c a Q c c U c tin a> 7 C acn c W ��.� E Nines y .c E m m °: a>— U � a� �`Q' d m� m 0� � Q) n �� W O .L,,, i CU O C O O C C y c0 0 'L" c N >+OID N m o U'O .�' X N N ccu •:m O c O)C C U c N d h id am> �� Cc o o c•Vn cm kUooWY'`c°mooE cc oa>I � nm U L C o OCUQ- Y 01 C,-0 •C ' — O m� O n a)m a -O — (> cnm .0 O O) p a) a; a> -2L c CD Z3C '6 rn- Co Co m 02 O • U0 cc CO °U O. ) O ' -o C.) aa 3 � m a 0 m o E = U) - mm �U) a aO- aZ a m c 0 lu o m E v a> m oa = m -C n 0 - > - a> c- c cn c C E w U ooc Cma -6O m a> o m o m _ a 7 > CI- a NCm ID-O co a) ca cn vC cn � (n m > � ' CM -0OUo cnE o m om a) g Crm � a ., o �E ' ` '°: ` o a o � m > a a> Nc o 0 a . Sc o> ca _ � � a0 m � �- omon - � ico-0 ' � 0 0 m m -o L) a aX>� m c nm ai n-o m ' a> m e U_ixp olx o. m E CM ►[^VI' Z � CD l J c o co cm 0) 0 0 0 00 C cc c c c c MnMno O •O •� -� O) '> 0) > 0 0 y w 0 C C C O p •C O O C N E 0c y - C - CO (DC O) O C R •N O O D! .� .0 c .� .E w ca c C U Cl 00 U w m m U w p m E cC as ! V O rn � E ^ d dz E co Z5 � o A Q- 1O c coo c m U c U c O d inc c p c c p - p - Q p m cm cu p m m p = p M U a U w U w O N y) O U N O Im O O 8 -o .D , c n. n. cu C C € iu C C ff 5O y T.O T i > j m O C •O > j m O C •O ` c m a) m a) O` in cn a O QL U E co C a '2 n V n•- C n•- U C c a o f o f m 0 5 �'E > m n o � 0) ` > m O m o °� o a: c 5 E c m E c }, c m .C .6 c0 a m •= U •s c nc) (u a a> a m a n o m c) m 0 d a O Co co.) m 0 °� Os c c' E- E E -C�— `o `o Cc CD a m am U CDc tM U c� rn c a m m c m c m M O p C p C p 'CM- C p 'tm- C 0) p m p m p c 7 o p c '7 co U U U w m M U w m M cn cn D7 O - O - m �' cnJ 7 m `Z' cn _J O OL O n m C N N 0 -0 C CD > (On m " > to m �--i •+0-+-+ +_.+ N •p C m O N p c C (n o 0 - C C U) O O -0 C In a) LC O C N c a� cc - E a a� U E a m p� ti c p N _ cn Nt O L >, N O) >, 3 tg 'N O - 'N 3 f..) 'tn O 'rn O cn 0 (D c - m c > am m T c 3 d o m >. C 3 d o E co - c m - > -o iu m o > m o o U �7QS 0) UNQS (D af m m (D -0 m m 0 -0 � CC g c c .2 -0 .2 -0 CC y O E (D E (D � m m c„CL EL rn c c a c 0 E °� E (D o'a� _ tea _ CL c" as E o o o � w e oU voi c U mQ _ _ 8 0 d C N C d C �` cc y C = m N E � m m . m -, C. wi Co am an > an > na) 0_ aD n0 o c n2 o c c Q E Q E ¢ nnm ¢ nnm CD ca o �ov - c m(D C � � m m m c m 0 o m y m 'm c O `nU cL ECq o O -v7t N f co EQQ � o o_ E co a •f° h m c Co aa) C 3 2 m y .0 o�Z o m m a-i Eo o m c o ) p Y a) C O 0 cc C C O) V "O" co `•� m 'a) , N n - h C in co U C •c n. O 7 T J -fA T N •�•C 7 d .0 m L .N U O O 0) 0 Co 'o € .O 2 f0 a � C �I Qo � 70 c—co aO10 -0N � rnco � � c � 0 o Q aci a � � � o cOii m N m Co _T o m c m > m c lL c o a"°�i a� `o coi z L E ii O c m m 'in a cc U n.5 m w U o c m o cA c m O� m • m 5 m . E o m •o � w o O N +L-' m N a N y,,, N o O m N U O N a) p E m E cn O fn t •(I W v o a� c o 2 � c a� � E � � a -0 'E ' c d o -F u> m o m n m rn c U am S4 .. _ m o -D �, o E o vi m c o ca ? L o U) ( m C� •QCDQt � 'amU m in eL o _ aoa a� Q 'c '` 0 m N .c a`� "" _ cLiW ''i Z n nEQL co m rn : E cc n:r o cu E c rn cn m m uJ c ag o aci - o m m i E ° c ¢ co u' °� ca m Z m m C o m m >'= m - c L c c U E •c� 0 0 Ln " m z aci a� ? i� m m m a? '� = L m o U c _o o m � Q v_ S o f E •co a' E 2 E '� °� o m m 0 3 c )m m •� cc m mm °> > aNi — o� c o IL a Q %� a Q rn m a> o E aci cn c a� o cn cn a� 0 m c CD .m CD .m 3 rn.c 4g •=' E a� N o co 3 c`cu c E zm m E o me 0 o E o o c v> c 0 m E m m c o - m a> a> a`ni s m a� to k Q HaUQ n HUNQ nm U) LU m o � cgw � n c� c� w $ y � O tid - w `✓ co co co m �\ z N 3 z m O O C C h d � cu O 'C 0) > tm rn 00 d 0 O Op •c c E- N E 0 C N a) C O) a) c a) O O O a) .o .5 (D a) 0 w co 0 U w p m U W p U w p J � a m o C O ` w E ' d O rncc O_ - a) dz o > Ca m c CD p U m U a) a) U a) 0) •� o_� in •m p •o) p •o) 'i > Q Uw Uw Uw O C � E » CO}r En CD 0 Cam = c _ -0o ) Co o > `�a mc CL.- F>o m m o aC 2c > cco co o0 ` U o o m c n :f>m .� O O_ UC 0 0- U c a d 0 U m O d 0 a d O U m O 0 C .�+ C •C 0 = fv U a) c o) U a) U m woa p cm- c p 'tm p .c pU w m M U w U w O c c Ca ff� O O - C N J 'C ca CL m a) Q a� V 3 3 c m c m o 'o a c c in o a) c a) co y c fn a) m a L2 I � It a) m > '� 3 d m m > mJ mm mY O U u > -O fp O O > -0 m .NQ .O � a) a a) C C tC d O C C O m O fn O L m m a) -0 m m c _0 C � m U fl: a) � C O C O � m yl O a) O Q) O O m a) CO (fpp enf�pp ELm C c m .0 C m .0 O m 4 O7— L- �— U C U C 0- in L) C d N 0' C E ; a) (O D U N � p 7 U .O O m a; y Q E � U O _y OU O C O m m d m d () Mn CDa) V1 w E U m .� w .Q a) O cu C .Q a) ,O Q dO_ m Q d ca. m QL E £ o) m w N 3 L O U C C Q) U �' f a o to o m m c O m d � L C N c E O L L O � C `p cu m — LLD U •fn a) - .c Q fn (9 d C m U.D1 a) E m y L C O Q) Lo � a) O a) -0 '(A m "n a) m = L O Q) of E w o m cn c o) a) _w c rn Y a = rn _ Q E •S y O L a) m Z N O V; N L Oi C a) � m N j � � 2 � a) _� 3 f7 N C O � A O U m C m U) O C CO Q -o d O E fn U O 'C C O c06 •C N O C m •E C -0 0 m cd N Z a) C c O U N d U c .Lm- C -O w �° o m m O O m a o a) .` 2 :a C E - a) y m m �' a`> � a o m ocn rn� - �- 2 3 c m e -0 c E m U = 0 0 co .` rn E c rn a) � oS S) Q ,fo ` •y 3 a) m w 'R C V O V d c07 J N " E O L � O V ff «� C .N fn 00 7 0 m C O 53 -0 •N d yI _rn 'E V5 m E m m et co 3 •U m o y 0 m c 0 coo r f° rai v .N CO a) c L j m p O N +0 O 0 OQ7 a`mi L _ j 0 0 N O E Q L O O .2 fn O N N w >O, N a.0 U w 1 Ucamvim_ m � cooQa) IC8u) cnO a) aso m mc�`fs � � m � m0! a)o m o o a) ¢ m o m L a p x .N Q o s c� 3 5 O m L a) 0) O - .L.+ 'O •C m EO •f0 a) a) 0) O E fn j O O m 0) O_ 0) O to y F- rn c c m c N L L rn m 0 N D C c c 0 in .� N 0 -2 N N o C O a a) N N •C C '� F- � O 0_ Cpp cu O a) 'C Q) t M m rn o N 0 U 0) N N O E d d C O .- Uri 0 U O) p C U 0 .(D cn m .� � U a) a.) a) C U a N o E o L O 0 a) a`6i o 2 m et a`Ni L o o fz m a) o a) a N E a) c o Vs .16 a) (4 z �< c m c m o -0 — rn c p o d U S a 0 — - m N M fn ► l C fT � tT Z O Of Ol as C C cm tmp) O O w C •� C C C C (V E V C 0 a) c a) c O C •a) � C U w U w p U W p �.. •0 cc 2 0 c G %• ena) ad U � N a) Z_ E� 'p c - � o m Co m c w Q M U a) U a) U a) E o E o E .2 c O y � a = .o > cu = .o > > a c .o w cc u) O).O d T O N p>,O Q >, O N p),o G >, C L Ul C i, -za C n.N C V C n.US C V C O a o � 2 > m m o -0 2 > ca cno o � 2 > cu 2 n o n 0 n `o_ m c nc�) m ,`o_ m c n � mom c n � a o coi cu o a n o co) m o a n o cam) m o ca 2 rn Q c a U c U U cn O p 'rn 'rn rn 0 U LU U w U LU rn o) m c c c Cp c c -0 � c -0 C O .0 U cn •O U N O U �Y U a) 2 E -U 2 _C Y U 2 'O U Vs : U CDin � U o V) u .� a) w C .� O cn Cp .= O U) C m U .� U m U .� 8 m U C OOOp Ir a) a) c 1 C +O- c O O o U) C c�v'oi G c E d d N d 2 w e a) > m U o O O Z O U U) a) ya C U C C a) O d a) C 4= V) = 4= V1 U) C U) -O rL E o m y cu n o o Coo o m o � � 'o E cIr Q v D a m m c c c c c co m a) a) n n m co = a a ui Z E 3 o 0 0 20 .s a a) N C 'w N d O -D a - 7 - 7 � - a�'U a) =p 1 _0 C n I - n+-+ - 0_ n c6 2 N n a7 -� n al -� o. O G m ; 3 Q - .O Q .(D � Q U)) min na m c w ccy m o cu V E o m o n uoi m °) c c "� o c a) aa) o -COD cWi o �m m � a: � Ln 1 8 "o o U � o a) � U0000 Oa) o 1O �°ME > v � �.3 �a � � o .N ca uu) o Ln cc ca .-- m 2 °' � E o 3� 2- 's (D _� _y io c _m aoi m c c= N �N, E aci a7 o = -0 c a7 O 0).2 c6 _rn- cp O)- w U a) O v)I a) c a) 5� n m -0 Co a) ca ti a) = U 2 cn ui . -o > v H c E E n .o ui N a'� "� a'� 'c T a d g m ai o ca a) ID a (yi o ate)'� m Eo 0 rn a) cc°i o rn a) c� o a m r.� f6 m a) a`) c c s a a 47 c N a N O N-o c m C C _ _ C f6 a) v! O o r2 0 0 = 0 > _O C a) 7- O U) c 5 O (n (n N 3 0 'o aJ N - O c ZU - UNVm > V3 cZ J cZ � m _ oaE = a�i 'E ? y O m 2 Q (O W Q a 'N o cn a) .0 -op a) .cnn in N W c as 09 •C•G m C C OO i5 (C �on � ¢ CC O n � N U - Q C - ' N m .= C --- a3 ` _ _Uo0i N Q Q U M -0 ffU Cl) D CUo :E; 40 - a C.)� $ Nvc `" vM 0 _ m cdm w U y o0 i CD Lo o U n c -0o oOUoda) cna)NCl) ( c E n = a) c6 () Cl)M Ca N -0o4 v a) O) uo N N 6 �Q dam a) O Cu-LO . L Zv : on E N a v 1I 1 ~ ao , 6 Q) 0) � T - o c c o CU Cw •O7E m m m m m 0 CN L O fm.1 C V '4) C '(D C 'a) C '� C 'a) C •N j O O � .0 c 0 ( .0 (D .0 (D .0 a) W m p - .� p - p - p •-cr) w e 0)0c .- p c .- p p c .- p c .- as a p U W p U W p U W p U W p U W p J Cl. d O C y O � m -E w O c G 0 EZ ca E� o A co cc c �� � � _ � - CcoU9 UC UC UC UC ` d 0 .9 p .� p ,� p ,cl � p ,� 'i > Q ULU U W U W ULU L)W 0 - 'E c°)) E o ( E E o 0 0 .cO cc c •g> c > > om Eu m•OaO m O ) O •O O a �Cn> . Zn O V ' m U� M C O m o � n m 2 CL o c° 2 > mC mov 2 > c° g � 2 > on ` co ` = o c vo m om cO ) • e m .` 0 � oc" a000 at na n c m o a o aaU m co(u o a) rn ,-+ . c c w � n c a- U c U c U c U (D U cn O p -� p p p 'rn p •rn O W U w U W U W U W tm C m N m tm f6 C C > O C c c tm c a) °�) 0 N O V1 ate.. w d C O co C fU C 2 C Y U `~ U O U o � fTm .O eT a`> •y .0 i) �t uni �L C 2 E Y E E Y C Y O O U C O U C O m n E a) <T y n E m C ' f0 C o 7 = U) p 7 L C L fn O C_ ca C f6 m U .E O m U W U -E U L.L n in LL a'A a: C f2 m W O f0 O m y n n a o uj rn pp pp m C U C U C U C U n'E m E Z O C (6 O c fa O m O � a) O 0 a n c (O E ECo cQ • E U_) 2 m U m _U 2 0 U !F > m _U _ > m w C u) _ O C - O C n" nz a16 a, C n 0 n fT n U ml nm 'j nm '� nm C m nn C ndnm G_ Q - � Q � .0 Q -0 m a Q u) .- a) Q cn .9 a) a) a) d fn _ u) Q c E a> O U O fE ' f6 O L N UI coy CO cn aU-i m � 0 - CD m rn o m o a) '� am) - o E o E 2 L. 3 o m m 3 m m o Y 3 m v c a) C rn U c 7 c m () L -O n v C m 0 ?� >+ O f6 O co c E' N E 2 E o m m e m c E z c a) a) o m 'c c » o � E m o E . L y C o � m C cyp 8 -S �, E o y y Z3 m •o CU m v) cac na) m n3 m e � p y 'c m fv c v O c m- o c a) c C � a) o y _ a) o m rn o d — N m ca c 'rnnE o E m a) m C) U O EL c U o Lb c c a) o y fn aNi aci ) c -c y w .? $ y O fv • 5 .E w E 0 .E `� y o U m cn dui a) Z Z fu m .E yy u' cu 3 5 a�i w a m m o CD m - 00 c ui iu a g o fEd E a) y cn(D = U o .S m m e Nv c Q c = ao `c cn �•c Ec� no Q o uNi c E a) � y E t � > Ccn � m (2 - _o � 'Eo > UfriE � v czom > `oza.)ic > UW i m .m>' (D c 13� c a) f° Ca - �" a) o °? 0 E m 0 o c co m o c � a E N . -` m (V N c w c O m e a) O n 'O cn n�' 0 W c o m E m m �' E a) a) o s a) a U Ca E (D w o � m p E W o E c2 y c o 2--1 E CO) o -T E c") c`' '>� E m of a) c a m fa v E E) a) ti E `o .N `o m a) Q f° n CD N _2 fn m n 2 °? o mz a cam n V U - 'E 7 O � C U -C a) m C N N C O M m cn SC T S CL a o L cn - a= 0 .E � 'o a LO o •m m 0 co '- ca m a>i co c m a>) U)Q k U) ca ti cn m m m o p E a) c m co .g -o W Z U n m cN D.-o U a n' N�O Q N ►/�� C6 U Z U- 2 M 1- o c d (D co N C w p O 0 C N L a) O O C C U C C •(A V C V a) C O C a) C O O , 0 0 (D O c •o C O o_ t = w co OL vJg 0cm 0 �.N 0 �.N E c) o do O D C .� D C .� D c .� N CO Y CO CL 0 Uwo Uwo Uwo 2 f° rn Cl. N C O c C ` �; o) a) m = CO a E � V O rnm E °� m °' Q wW eZ' - a2 g d5. N c c E d U _ � O O A Q' m U cD U CD U � a> y CY) Q-a 0 — 0 — 0 — CD > a 0 w U w U w c = L U L O •- C C C CL _ > O C .� - - Co � a) 00 CD o a o o cc :2 a E g m .o c a .� m O m a s 0 mm o o a o as v m o) U m c +r c a)CD 3 (n o = m U m Ua) U ()CL L d � U)) O a 0 � 0 p) 0 cn 3 0� O g U W U W U w n� — C (n C oa C" C N C C CL p O cD OL , Y U �+ T a>) L p cn O U c N (n ,a) N 2 u > = N O �O N f0 N fD " _ C LL d (n u1 C T U Q: a) - co C N d o p a) M c a) t «�. a) L �% = O O C U En N T-(O N cu ) U .� vn y w C C "N.' Q QO � CL a) = -O O y E �) O [ N � O -C„ O c O .�.. j U N d a CL �CQ CD T E (Cp O - E �CQ O 0 _`r _ > O U C C > `-i C L O C - O O - O c WI U � U 'm a a E 6' n O = E Q 0 C a) a) fD Q fn a) Q ate . 0Q' E ca c ¢ Cl) d V1 (n Q C _� a) a) >, d Q O w U CD a) C (D N (D U N _z d N a s � - 4° p E a) .= c J c rn a ai a�i .`' c -u`°i p o r n .r a) a" Co ) g E 2. a d �p y � C d 2G C O N j O c d C_ C O T O d C p NI L L y m— 0 3 o E a E .� c) �'w a 3 a) o c c V) (D aL-.. L9 O T E U a7 > - O d w 3 o c_ o 5 zn � (D a c co) ` - � •�� m p 3 Y o d � g n o rn� o (n E uS 0 `o c 2 m m O ,� � � m y C - •vim �,a) c Q � ,v- � v .Q d0 _ - aa)i W ca j O d O CL a) L N C O L E O) O ) �I r+ o) U a7 LL - fn Q - •Fn a3 N O) f0 j c C 0 U U (=n O U tl a g 0 •E n C uS o f w (Ln v m m c8 d af°i a"i � C U O = o H ac) -0 c c�h Y m m e a) a C.) a) c o E o p O w N C O) w w C U) a w I .0 M a) � U � J (n E V> O ..' a) w O a) L fC N w E 2 � > L O U (Ui) U •) E U "' L (A a) N c a) `O CL -2CIL CD O a) a) C _ , O •a) a) a m O) O a]CX cc d o O .E cpi S � S o OLU) i5 a m a n (Ln � .� o co ow U � k C? L9 U co 0 f°C�L u) 1�1 O Z g g 0 — � Q g g U • N 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 0.4.2 PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The project incorporates several design measures which would minimize project impacts. Specifically, design measures are provided for aesthetics, air quality,biological resources,geology and soils,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality,noise,public services,recreation,transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. A complete list of the design considerations for the project site is presented in Table 0.4-2. Table 0.4-2. Project Design Considerations Aesthetics The project would conform to the design guidelines presented in the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. Light or Glare All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts would be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto adjacent properties or streets. Low pressure sodium lighting in accordance with the Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be required. Individual lighting for residential structures for front porch and side garage entrances would also be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures that use low wattage(60 watts or less)incandescent lighting. Air Quality • As a condition of project approval,the project must adhere to SCAQMD Rules 403(Fugitive Dust Control)and 1113 (VOCs)during construction-related activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a menu of fugitive dust control measures to which the project must adhere,including,but not limited to: • Active construction areas shall be watered at least three times daily. • All haul trucks shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • All unpaved parking or staging areas shall be watered four times daily. • Site access points shall be swept or washed within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • On-site stockpiles of debris,dirt,or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily. • Operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Any cleared area that is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing shall be stabilized. Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings by providing numeric standards for VOC concentrations per volume of coating. Biological Resources Indirect Impacts All project grading would be subject to the typical restrictions,best management practices(BMPs),and requirements that address erosion and runoff,including compliance with all applicable City stormwater permitting requirements,the federal Clean Water Act,National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES),and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In addition,according to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis(Appendix C.2),the following measures would be implemented as part of project design:implement landscape controls by installing native landscaping that require minimal water application;select,design,and utilize best management practices(BMPs)including treatment control BMPs(i.e.,constructed wetlands,filter inserts,bio-swales,and catch basins),and site design BMPs(i.e.,landscaping). Geology and Soils All earthwork and grading at the project site shall be performed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements,the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration(Cal/OSHA),and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore (Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code). Ground Shaking The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed project in accordance with the 1997 UBC and 2001 CBC requirements for resistance to seismic shaking. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-17 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X1010570 My of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6 CEOMFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass_MMRP.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Erosion The fill slopes would be constructed utilizing fill material generated from the cut portions of the site,and would be tested and evaluated to meet design requirements. During construction,soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No.92-08-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No.CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with Best Available Technology(BAT)and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Compliance with all standards is required through federal,state,county,and municipal regulations,to reduce the potential for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the buildings,storage,and transport of these materials. Septic Tanks Any septic tank systems would be removed,in accordance with established criteria,during site grading operations. Wildland Fire Fuel modification and appropriate setbacks would be included along the open space edges,where they abut residential and commercial development,to transition from naturally vegetated open space areas to irrigated landscaped areas,and lower the danger of wlldland fires. In such areas,plant selection and maintenance would avoid plants of high flammability,especially in areas in proximity to structures. Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality In accordance with SAR-DAMP and NPDES requirements,an applicant for a project encompassing more than five acres is required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). In addition,the City shall ensure that construction activity is in compliance with the State's General Permit for Construction Activities administered by the California RWQCB,located in Riverside(Santa Ana,Region 8). One condition of this permit is the development and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce/eliminate erosion and sedimentation associated with construction. The objective of the SWPPP is to identify and control storm water discharges due to construction activity and to identify and implement structural(e.g.,silt fences,sandbags,spill control)and non-structural(e.g.,scheduling)BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water,both before and after construction. Discharges associated with construction activity are covered under one statewide General Permit. Coverage under the General Permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent(NOI)to the SWRCB prior to construction,and development and implementation of a defensible SWPPP prior to disturbing a site and for the duration of construction. All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook for Construction. A project-specific water quality plan has been developed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives and sets forth an integrated approach involving the utilization of BMPs designed to: (1)function with the drainage plan for the project site and offsite areas;and(2)to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff. The sizing of treatment control BMPs for the proposed project is based upon a criteria established by the RCFCWCD for the discharge of urban runoff. The project site is located within the region covered by the Watershed-wide Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with New Development within the San Jacinto Watershed(Order 01-34,NPDES CAG 618005). The order requires that all development projects tributary to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore obtain an NPDES permit,and implement best available technology(BAT)that is economically achievable and best conventional technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution,including the preparation of a SWPPP. The proposed project would include the construction of a back bone storm drain system ranging in size from 84 inches to 108 inches within Camino Del Norte along the projects southerly boundary. The project also proposes construction of a storm drain that would allow drainage off the 35 acres in area H to drain northerly into and along proposed Elsinore Hills Road,flowing into the adjoining property and then northerly to Wasson Canyon. The proposed project would feature on-site BMPs consisting of Extended Detention Basins(volume-based)and Grassed Swales (flow-based)designed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives. The Water Quality Management Plan sets forth an integrated approach to water quality involving the utilization of treatment control BMPs designed to function with the drainage plan for the project site;and to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff.Specifically,the FURSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-18 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinore152664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFina1 EIRIMMRPISpyglass_MMRP.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program following treatment BMPs would reduce storm water flow: • Three extended detention basins,designed according to criteria set forth and defined by Riverside County,would detain and slowly release the design volume of stormwater. - Extended Detention Basin No. 1 would receive surface runoff from drainage areas A, I,J,and K consisting of approximately 51 acres.The total design storage volume(VsMP)generated would be 70,380 cubic feet(cu-ft) - Extended Detention Basin No.2 would receive surface runoff from drainage area C consisting of approximately 83 acres.The total design storage volume(VBMP)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft - Extended Detention Basin No.3 would receive surface runoff from drainage area E consisting of approximately 33 acres.The total design storage volume(VsMP)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft • Grassed swales constructed according to County criteria would receive and slow nuisance flows and first flush flows. Maintenance of the above-listed BMPs is expected to be financed through a community facilities district,home owners association,or other similar organizations. The proposed system of on-site water quality basins and swales would provide appropriate levels of treatment for all on-site generated flows. However,these slopes would be landscaped per City of Lake Elsinore standards and requirements that would ensure sufficient soil stabilization. Furthermore,during construction,soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a SWPPP in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No.92-08-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No.CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with BAT and BCT to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. Land Use and Planning City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community Design Element—Hillside Development and the 1-15 View Corridor A hillside development ordinance has been established to address all hillside areas within the City. The design guidelines include design layout and siting requirements,architecture requirements,circulation requirements,parking requirements,open space and view requirements,structure placements and slope maintenance requirements,grading,and landscaping requirements. The views from the 1-15 corridor present an opportunity to project the positive image of quality development. Implementation of design guidelines in Architecture,Parking,Views, Noise Attenuation, Landscape,and Signs ensure that future public and private improvements are sensitive to public views. Noise City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance According to the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance,the maximum exterior noise levels not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes from stationary or commercial facility related noises to multi-family residential land uses are 45 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 50 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. For general commercial land uses,the exterior noise levels can not exceed 60 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 65 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. For interior noise levels,the maximum interior noise levels for all residential uses are 35 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 40 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.and shall not be exceeded for more than five minutes in any hour. Additionally,the City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts limits operation of any tools or equipment used in construction,drilling,repair,alteration,or demolition work between the weekday hours of 7 p.m.and 7 a.m. On-Site Exterior Noise Since the elevation varies along Elsinore Hills Road,an at-grade configuration was assumed to determine the appropriate mitigation. Alternatively,if residential units are setback 67 feet from the Elsinore Hills Road centerline the resulting noise exposure would be attenuated to 65 dBA Ldn and no mitigation would be required. Therefore,the 6-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm would only be required for those homes sited between 50-67 feet from the roadway centerline. Commercial Use Alternative In addition,noise impacts would be confined primarily to the project site. The General Plan buildout(post 2025)traffic noise level is projected to be 68.9 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. As such,the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment would extend approximately 88 feet from the roadway centerline. Therefore,as long as residential units are sited outside the 88-foot contour,on-site noise impacts would be less than significant. IDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-19 City of Lake Elsinore - Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass MMRP.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Public Services Fire During construction and operation of the proposed project,compliance with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements would be required and conditioned to the proposed project. The project would comply with the 2006 International Fire Code, California Building Code,and applicable RCFD Code requirements and standards for construction,access,water mains,fire flow,and fire hydrants. In addition,all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No.2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire,and Paramedic Services). Police All new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No.2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire,and Paramedic Services). Schools The proposed project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD)pursuant to the School Facilities Act(Senate Bill[SB]50,Stats. 1998,c.407)to offset these impacts on school facilities resulting from new development. Libraries The proposed project is required to participate in the Riverside County Uniform Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on new residential housing developments to support future facility development and library material purchases. Recreation Pursuant to City standards,five acres of park area are to be dedicated for each 1,000 subdivision residents,cash in-lieu fees,or a combination of both,as a condition of residential development approval. By this standard,the City of Lake Elsinore would require the proposed project to include 14.5 acres of park area to serve the projected 2,897 residents.Therefore,the project does not provide sufficient amount of park space to meet the requirements of City standards and pursuant to the Quimby Act, cash in-lieu fees would be required for the remaining 8 acres. Furthermore,adherence to the design standards outlined in the Specific Plan would ensure that the construction of the new parks would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Transportation and Traffic Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF)program evolved from the need to establish a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway improvements for western Riverside County. This program(adopted December 2002)establishes a single uniform mitigation fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system. It was adopted with the intention to avoid multiple,discrete fee programs with varying policies,fees,and improvement projects. The project proponent would contribute the required amount per dwelling unit TUMF for funding regional transportation improvements. Site Access and Circulation Major north-south access through the project site would be provided via Elsinore Hills Road. Roadway classifications within the project site have been designed in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates specific design criteria for street improvements. Implementation of the design criteria assures that all street improvements are safely designed. The proposed project would comply with all specified design criteria. A1A-.._-1...- T--_-_-1_&_- r4nr►nauvr ►►a►wpu►►auun Per communication with RTA,bus stops/turnouts would be required along Camino del Norte. In addition,RTA has indicated bus stops/turnouts could be planned along Elsinore Hills Road, La Strada Parkway,and/or the future Aventino Street within the neighboring project site. Bus stops/turnouts would be developed according to RTA standards. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-20 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass_MMRP.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Emergency Access Sight distance at each project access should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading,landscaping,and street improvement plans. Parking Capacity The proposed project would provide sufficient parking in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Utilities and Service Systems Water -- - Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and EVMWD. In addition,assurance of the provision of adequate water service is required to be provided prior to the approval of a subdivision map and/or plot plan for new residential development of 500 homes or more,in accordance with Senate Bill(SB)221.1 Reservoirs(water tanks)for the three of the four water pressure zones serving the proposed project would be constructed on the project site. Adherence to City and EVMWD regulations would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the installation of water lines and utility improvements required to serve raw and potable water to the proposed project. Wastewater The project sewer collection system would be constructed within the project's streets. Sewerage would drain to two outfalls: • EVMWD is currently constructing a 54-inch sewer line in Main Street(Lakeshore Relief Sewer)which would serve the southerly portion of the project;and • The northerly portion of the project would be served by a sewer line to be constructed as part of the adjacent development. In addition,a third off-site outfall is also proposed. Sewer-related infrastructure would be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, EVMWD,Riverside County Department of Health,and RWQCB. Solid Waste The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE),Household Hazardous Waste Element(HHWE),City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code,and standard City Conditions of Approval regarding construction debris removal. Gas Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities Commission. ' Signed into law on October 8,2001,California SB 221 established a process whereby sufficient water supply must be identified and available for new development for any residential development of 500 homes or more,or,in the case wherein a water supplier has fewer than 5,000 service connections or the proposed development would increase the number of connections by at least 10 percent,unless there is proof of adequate water over at least the next 20 years,including long periods of drought. IDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-21 City of Lake Elsinore . Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X..V10570 Cily_of Lake_ElsinorO52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass MMRP.doc 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 0.4-22 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR January 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRIMMRPISpyglass MMRP.doc Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Lake Elsinore, California May 2007- January 2008 Prepared for City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Applicant Spyglass Ranch, LLC 2751 West Coast Hwy., Suite 210 Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92123 ONE COMPANY !Many Solutions- T1� 1.0 Introduction and Summary 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION ( This Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15000 et seq.) as promulgated by the California Resources Agency and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the CEQA Implementation Guidelines of the City of Lake Elsinore. The purpose of this environmental document is to assess the potential environmental effects associated with the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan, and to propose mitigation measures,where required,to reduce f significant impacts.For the purposes of the document, the terms"proposed project"and"project"refer to the proposed actions associated with the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment,—and Zone Change affd Tetifatiye 1 for an approximate 260-acre master planned community that includes single-family and multi-family residences, a Community Center,public parks,roadways,and landscaped open spaces. The project includes an option that allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. The commercial-retail uses would be located only where the multi- family residential units are currently proposed. As currently proposed,the site would provide approximately 1,035 housing units in a variety of styles at an overall average density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre(du/ac). i Pursuant to CEQA, a Notice of Preparation(NOP)was prepared by the City of Lake Elsinore in December 2006. Based on the conclusions that implementation of the proposed project could result in significant environmental impacts, City staff directed preparation of a Draft EIR. The NOP was submitted for public review to the State Clearinghouse and the City's distribution list. The NOP, distribution list, and comments received on the NOP are included in Appendices A.1 through A.3. I 1.2 PURPOSE OF A DRAFT EIR The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a project. CEQA (Section 15002)states that the purpose of an EIR is to: (1) inform the public and decision-makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; (2)identify methods that could reduce the magnitude of a potentially significant impact of a project, and(3)identify alternatives that could reduce the magnitude of environmental impacts or propose more effective uses of the project site. 1.3 EIR ADEQUACY The principal use of this Draft EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is an informational document and is not intended to determine the merits or recommend approval or disapproval of a project. Ultimately, City decision-makers must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns. City staff would prepare,based on the EIR, a"staff report"that synthesizes pertinent environmental and planning information into a single document. The staff report would be presented to the City's Planning Commission and the City Council. Given the important role of the EIR in this planning and decision- making process, it is imperative that the information presented in the EIR be factual, adequate, and faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-1 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 28A7-Jamary 2008 X.1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6_CEOAIFinal EIRI1.0 Infro_Summarydoc 1.0 Introduction and Summary complete. The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines,are as follows: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure." 1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The content and format of this Draft EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters so the reader can easily obtain information about the proposed project and its specific issues: Section 1.0—Introduction and Summary—provides a summary of the potential impacts,mitigation measures of the proposed project and impact conclusion. This section also describes the project history, original and project components,purpose and use of the Draft EIR, and the organization of the Draft EIR. Section 2.0—Project Description—describes the project site and general environmental setting, outlines the overall objectives for the project,proposed land use summary, and provides a description of the conceptual circulation, drainage,water, sewer, and grading plans. Section 3.0—Environmental Setting—This section summarizes the environmental setting for the project site and also identifies the cumulative projects that are considered in this Draft EIR. Section 4.0—Environmental Impact Analysis—presents, for each environmental issue,the existing environmental setting or conditions before project implementation; methods and assumptions used in impact analysis; thresholds of significance; impacts that would result from the project; applicable City conditions and mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce significant impacts; and cumulative impacts. Section 5.0—Alternatives—The Alternatives section of this Draft EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the project alternatives,including the No Project/No Development Alternative,the Existing General Plan Land Use Alternative, and the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative. This chapter also identifies an environmentally superior alternative. Section 6.0—Growth-Inducing Impacts—discusses whether or not the proposed project would induce substantial population growth in the area. Section 7.0—Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts—includes a discussion of significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. Section 8.0—Significant Irreversible Changes—identifies any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. FSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-2 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 299-7January 2008 X.1010570 City of Lake Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR0.0_Intro Summary.doc F r� 1.0 Introduction and Summary Section 9.0—Persons and Organizations Consulted and References—lists the individuals involved in preparing this Draft EIR, organizations and persons consulted, and identifies the documents (printed references)and individuals (personal communications) consulted in preparing this Draft EIR. Appendices—presents data supporting the analysis or contents of this Draft EIR. All technical appendices are provided electronically on a CD at the end of this document. In addition, copies of these reports are on file at the City of Lake Elsinore City Hall, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore, California 92530 for review during normal business hours. 1.5 EIR BACKGROUND AND CONTENT Development of the proposed project is subject to the requirements of CEQA because it is an action that has the potential to result in a physical change in the environment subject to discretionary approval by a public agency(in this case,the City of Lake Elsinore). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines,the City of Lake Elsinore completed an NOP, including a project description and the preliminary site plan It (Appendix A.1). The NOP was circulated on December 18,2006, and identified that an EIR would be necessary. The NOP allowed interested local agencies to comment on the project before the Draft EIR was written(Appendix A.2). There was a 30-day review period, during which comments regarding the proposed project were received by the City. The review period closed January 18, 2007. Comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A.3. In addition, a Scoping Meeting was held on January 11, 2007 at City Hall.No environmental issues were raised at this Scoping Meeting. 1.5.1 Environmental Topics Addressed i Based on the analysis presented in the NOP and the information provided in the comments to the NOP, the following environmental topics are analyzed in this Draft EIR. • Aesthetics • Land Use/Planning ! • Air Quality • Noise • Biological Resources • Population/Housing I • Cultural Resources . Public Services • Geology/Soils • Recreation • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation/Traffic • Hydrology/Water Quality . Utilities/Service Systems f 1.6 EIR PROCESSING + This Draft EIR is being distributed to affected federal, state,regional, county, and city agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with §15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition,this Draft EIR, including supporting technical documentation, is available to the general public i for review during normal operating hours at the City of Lake Elsinore City Hall and the following locations: Lake Elsinore Library i 600 W. Graham Avenue Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Canyon Lake Library 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-3 City of Lake Elsinore I ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2QG7January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal E1RI1.0_Infro_Summary doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Mission Trail Library 34303 Mission Trail Wildomar, CA 92595 Interested parties may provide written comments on the Draft EIR before the end of the 45-day public review and comment period. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be submitted to: Ms.Wendy Worthey Principal Environmental Planner City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Upon completion of the 45-day review period,written responses to all comments on environmental issues discussed in the Draft EIR would be prepared and incorporated into the Final EIR for consideration by the City of Lake Elsinore, as well as any other public decision makers. Furthermore,written responses to comments received from any Public Agency would be made available to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing at which the Certification of the Final EIR would be considered. 1.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts, and recommended mitigation measures is included in Section 4.0,Environmental Impact Analysis. Table 1.7-1 summarizes the environmental impacts,mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation associated with the proposed project.It should be noted that two environmental issues,Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources,are not discussed in the Draft EIR. Please see Section 1.7.1 for the rationale for eliminating these issues from further analysis during preparation of the NOR 1.7.1 Eliminated from Further Review in Notice of Preparation The NOP completed by the City(Appendix A.1)determined that environmental effects to Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources would not be potentially significant. Therefore,these impacts are not addressed in this Draft EIR;however,the rationale for eliminating these issues is briefly discussed. Agricultural Resources Based upon review of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,the project site is not identified as containing Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the project site in agricultural use. However,the project site does contain 9.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance in the northwest portion of assessor parcel number: 377-350-015.According to the Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP)General Plan,Farmland of Local Importance is defined as land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each County's local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing, or has the capability of production,but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland,Farmland of Statewide Importance,or Unique Farmland.Neither the RCIP nor City General Plans include policies protecting Farmland of Local Importance. EDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-4 City of Lake Elsinore _` Revised Draft EIR May 2887January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFina1 EIR11.0 Inl%Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Table 1.7-1. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Aesthetics Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to aesthetics are required. Less Than proposed project would Significant Significant not result in any significant impacts to aesthetic resources. Air Quality - — Implementation of the Significant As a condition of project approval,the project shall adhere to SCAQMD Significant and proposed project would Rules 403(Fugitive Dust Control)and 1113(VOCs)during construction- unmitigable result in significant related activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a menu of fugitive dust emissions of ROG,NOx, control measures to which the project must adhere. Rule 1113 limits the and PM10 during the VOC content of architectural coatings by providing numeric standards for project's construction I VOC concentrations per volume of coating. phase. In addition to compliance with SCAQMD Rules,the following mitigation measure is required to reduce construction impacts to below a level of significance: MM 4.2-1 The following measures are required to reduce project impacts relating to ROG,NOx and PM1o: • Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. • Terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for scrapers and dozers used in grading. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of construction materials during j non-peak traffic hours. j • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Implementation of the Significant The following mitigation measures are required to reduce operational air Significant and proposed project would quality impacts for mobile and stationary sources: unmitigable exceed SCAQMD MM 4.2-2 As operation-related impacts result primarily from mobile thresholds for ROG,NOx, sources traveling to and from the project site,the proposed and CO during its project shall incorporate any available TCMs. Such operational phase. measures include,but are not limited to: faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-5 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2897-January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Leke_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal_EIR0.0 Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation • Providing future transit access points within the development; • Including bicycle lanes in the project design; and/or • Providing an attractive pedestrian environment. Implementation of the Significant MM 4.2-3 Upgraded filters on the ventilation system shall be installed Mitigated to proposed project has the for homes within 200 feet of the southern site boundary. below a level potential to expose of significance. sensitive receptors on- site to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM1o. Implementation of the Significant No feasible mitigation measures exist to minimize impacts to below a Significant and proposed project would level of significance. It is important to note,however,that if the unmitigable. result in conflicts with the proposed project is included in the City's General Plan update,it would AQMP. likely be consistent with the AQMP. - - --- — Biological Resources _ Implementation of the Significant Combined,the project shall mitigate for 0.51 (0.40 acres of Mitigated to project would result in Riparian/Riverine+0.11 (USACE/CDFG drainage)acres below a level impacts to RiparianlRiverine and USACE and CDFG impacts through the following of significance. RiparianlRiverine habitat measures: and jurisdictional waters. MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project i applicant shall submit a Revegetation Plan for creation of 0.51 acre of riparian or marsh habitat. The Revegetation Plan shall include but not be limited to the following to i ensure the establishment of the vegetation: qualitative and quantitative performance standards,map showing the revegetation areas,site preparation information including grading requirements,type of planting materials(e.g., species ratios,source,size material,etc.),planting program, success criteria including target functions and values,and detailed cost estimate. The cost estimate shall include all phases,including but not limited to,planting,plant materials,irrigation,maintenance,monitoring,and report preparation.The report shall be prepared by a qualified restoration ecologist/biologist and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. I MM 4.3-2 The revegetation shall occur on property known as the j "Cloverleaf'in the southern end of Lake Elsinore or other offsite mitigation parcels acceptable to the City. If the mitigation at the Cloverleaf property is not available, 0.51acre of mitigation shall be provided at an alternate site or mitigation bank(the mitigation bank must have creation credits available),shall be approved by the Community Development Director,and must meet the following criteria: • The site shall be part of a larger block of conserved habitat,or in an area that is targeted for conservation by the MSHCP. Specific locations could include Temescal Wash,Proposed Core 1 FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-6 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR A:la��A�a�.lanuary 20of3 X.,1010570_City_o/Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEWIFinal EIR11 0_Intro_Summary doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Core C of the MSHCP,or other appropriate sites surrounding Lake Elsinore. • Hydrology shall be appropriate to allow for fully functional wetland habitat for habitat restoration. • For areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore,the pre- mitigation elevations shall be above 1,260 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)for areas outside of the Back Basin levee,or above 1,246 feet AMSL within the Back Basin levee to insure that the mitigation site is not considered jurisdictional habitat prior to implementation of the mitigation program. MM-4.3-3 Habitat created pursuant to the Revegetation Plan shall be placed within an open space easement dedicated to the City or transferred to the RCA subject to a Donation Agreement prior to or immediately following the approval of the Revegetation Plan. Mli The applicant shall enter into a Secured Agreement with the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department consisting of a letter of credit,bond,or cash for implementation of the Revegetation Plan.The bond amount shall be based upon the actual estimate prepared as part of the site-specific revegetation plan. MM 4.3-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to approval of the Final Map(or Parcel Map),the applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with a copy of a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a copy of a Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Game(or evidence that no permit or agreement is required)for all project-related disturbances of any streambed. Implementation of the Significant To mitigate for impacts to sensitive species,the project shall implement Mitigated to proposed project would i the following measures: below a level result in potentially MM 4.3-6 Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the of significance. significant impacts to western burrowing owl,a qualified biologist shall conduct sensitive species and pre-construction focused species surveys within 30-days nesting migratory birds, prior to any ground-disturbing activities at the project site including raptors. where suitable habitat is present. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the project site during pre- construction surveys,CDFG shall be consulted and a passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area outside the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted protocols and would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM 4.3-7 To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, including raptors,the removal of potential nesting vegetation(i.e., trees,shrubs,ground cover,etc.)suppei:44ig raptefs should be avoided during the nesting season,recognized from i FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-7 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2288�January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_SpyglasslB_CEQATinal_EIR11.0_Intro_Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation February 15 through August 31. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season,a qualified biologist shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys,then the vegetation used for nesting shall be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the occupied vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer(e.g.,construction fencing) around the occupied vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the type bird nesting(i.e.,raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. MM 4.3-8 The project shall pay appropriate MSHCP fees for impacts to the following animal and plant species covered by the MSHCP:coastal California gnatcatcher,Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow,Belding's orange-throated whiptail, red-diamond rattlesnake,San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower. MM 4.3-8 To reduce impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat,the project shall pay Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fees of$500 per acre to reduce impacts. Cultural Resources Implementation of the Significant MM 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s)for the project,the Mitigated to proposed project may project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to below a level impact previously monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify of significance unidentified historic any unknown archaeological resources.Any newly and/or cultural resources discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a during project grading. cultural resources evaluation. MM 4.4-2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit,the project applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe'to notify the Tribe of grading,excavation and the monitoring program,and to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement.The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources,the designation, responsibilities,and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation;and treatment and final disposition I of any cultural resources,sacred sites,and human remains discovered on the site. MM 4.4-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit,the project archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City and County(if required)to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation.Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-8 City of Lake Elsinore FD ` Revised Draft EIR May 299-7January 200fl X.•1010570 City_of Lake ElsinoreW04_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR0.0_Inl%Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance i Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 4.4-2,the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property.Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading,excavation and groundbreaking activities,and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. MM 4.4.4 If human remains are encountered,California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b)remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American,the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently,the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the"most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations,and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. MM 4.4-5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,including sacred items,burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to i the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. I MM 4.4-6 All sacred sites,should they be encountered within the project area,shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation,if feasible. MM 4.4-7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading,the Developer,the project archaeologist,and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director(CDD)for decision.The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs,and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. MM 4.4-8 Prior to any grading at or near the vicinity of(P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2),the Developer shall meet and confer with the appropriate Tribe to develop an appropriate L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-9 City of Lake Elsinore I�a Revised Draft EIR May B97January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6_CEWIFinal EIRI1.0 Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation controlled grading plan. The purpose of the controlled grading at and around the site is to afford the opportunity to determine whether any subsurface resources are associated with the site and if so,the significance of any such resources. All such controlled grading shall be monitored according to the provisions of the Agreement required in MM 4.4-2. Further,if subsurface resources are discovered at the site,the provisions of MM 4.4-7 shall apply. MM 4.4-9 Any easements for grading provided to off-site developersz shall be subject to the provisions of MM 4.4-2 through 4.4-8. Geology and Soils Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to geology and soils are required. Less Than proposed project would Significant Significant not result in any significant impact to geology and soils. Hazards/Hazardous Materials The potential exists that Significant MM 4.6-1 All debris shall be disposed of off-site,in accordance with Mitigated to stained soil conditions current local,state,and federal disposal regulations. When 'below a level could occur beneath the debris is removed,care shall be taken to look for potential of significance miscellaneous debris hidden hazardous materials within the piles. Should noted on-site. hazardous materials be identified,disposal shall be in accordance with all federal and state regulations. Removal of existing Significant MM 4.6-2 Prior to any demolition,renovation,or any other activity that Mitigated to structures on-site may may disturb suspect regulated asbestos containing below a level potentially release ACMs. materials,either an inspection shall be performed by an of significance accredited Building Inspector,or the affected materials shall be handled as asbestos-containing in accordance with all federal and state requirements. If future sampling identifies any such materials as asbestos containing materials they shall be properly abated and disposed of by a state-licensed abatement contactor prior to disturbance or demolition in accordance with all federal and state requirements,including the Califomia Code of Regulation(CCR)and the Universal Waste Rule(40 CFR Part 9). Removal of existing Significant MM 4.6-3 Prior to any activity that may cause lead exposure either to Mitigated to structures on-site may workers or tenants,lead based paint sampling shall be below a level potentially release LBP. performed in accordance with all federal and state of significance requirements. Should future renovation,repair,or demolition disturb any suspect paint,a lead based paint inspection and/or risk assessment shall be conducted by a state or federally certified lead based paint inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential tenant or worker exposure in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should any lead based paint be identified, such painted surfaces shall Any LBP items shall be properly disposed of as appropriate prior to demolition,following the requirements included in the CCR and the Universal Waste Rule. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-10 City of Lake Elsinore FD ` Revised Draft EIR May29A7,January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAWinal EIR11.0 Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation There is a potential to Significant MM 4.6-4 Prior to issuance of the site grading permit,the applicant Mitigated to expose humans to shall finance the installation of up to eleven multi-level below a level hazards from the build-up landfill gas detection probes at intervals of 100 feet,along of significance of methane gas due to the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property proximity of the project to comply with CCR Title 27 arid SCAQMD Rule 1150,1.The site to the closed applicant shall coordinate with Riverside County Waste Elsinore Sanitary Landfill. Management Department,South Coast Air Quality Management District and Local Enforcement Agency. Hydrology and Water Qualify Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to hydrology and water quality are Less Than proposed project would Significant. required. Significant not result in any significant impact to hydrology and/or water quality. Land Use and Planning Implementation of the Significant MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall apply for a General Plan Mitigated to proposed project would Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. -T#e i below a level conflict with the City of A City-approved General Plan Amendment shall result in a of significance Lake Elsinore General designation of the project site as Specific Plan land use. Plan Land Use Element. Implementation of the Significant MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall apply for a Zoning Code Mitigated to proposed project would Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. The-A below a level conflict with the City of City-approved Zoning Code Amendment shall result in a of significance Lake Elsinore Zoning designation of the project site as Specific Plan Zoning,with Map. an allowable density of up to 6.7 du/acre. r Noise Implementation of the Significant MM 4.9-1 Single family residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road Mitigated to proposed project would (Planning Areas 4-6,9, 11 and 12)shall either establish a below a level cause a substantial buffer(be sited outside of the 98 foot contour),an acoustical of significance. portion of the proposed barrier(wall or berm of 6 feet in height),or a combination project site to exceed 65 thereof to meet the City Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior dBA. noise threshold for residential units. The acoustic barrier/earthen berm should be of solid construction;i.e., such as block or glass or a combination of the two,with no gaps or holes MM 4.9-2 Residential units in Planning Area 1 adjacent to 1-15 and Camino del Norte shall require a 12-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm to meet the 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold. Along the westernmost perimeter of Planning Area 1,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall be designed to taper,from 12 feet to 8 feet,to shield residential units with a direct line-of-sight to 1-15. At the southeast corner of Planning Area 1,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall also be designed to taper,from 12 feet to 6 feet,to shield those residential units nearest Camino del Norte from traffic noise. The acoustic barriers/earthen berms should be of solid construction;i.e.,such as block or glass or a combination of the two,with no gaps or holes. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-11 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2OW:January 2008 X.1010570 City of Lake_Elsinon:W04_Spyglass16 CEQAIFina1 EIR110_Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation MM 4.9-3 Residential units in Planning Areas 5 and 6 adjacent to 1-15 and Camino del Norte shall require a 10-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm to meet the 65 dBA Lan exterior noise threshold. Along the easternmost perimeter of Planning Area 6,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall be designed to taper,from 10 feet to 6 feet,to shield residential units with a direct line-of-sight to 1-15. The acoustic barrier/earthen berm should be of solid construction;i.e.,such as block or glass or a combination of the two,with no gaps or holes. MM 4.9-4 Upon completion of final grading plans,a supplemental noise assessment shall be conducted to confirm that individual or combination of barriers and setbacks have reduced exterior noise to below 65 dBA and interior noise to below 45dBA. — —... _ ------- — _.._.. ...--—-- A majority of the Significant MM 4.9-5 Residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road(Planning 'Mitigated to proposed project site Areas 4-5,9, 11 and 12)shall require upgraded acoustic below a level would exceed the interior features capable of providing up to 23 dBA Lan of mitigation of significance. noise standard of for second-story residential facades with a direct line-of-sight 45 dBA. to Elsinore Hills Road. According to the hierarchy of structural noise mitigation listed below,these units would require standard dual-paned windows in order to meet the City's interior noise standard. Exterior to Interior Reduction Desired Mitigation Measure(s)Needed 0-10 dBA None 10-20 dBA Close windows facing roadway. Provide supplemental ventilation 20-25 dBA Close standard dual-paned windows. Provide supplemental ventilation Close upgraded dual-paned windows. Baffle 25-30 dBA vents and line ducts with absorbers. Provide supplemental ventilation. >30 dBA Custom upgrades(dual layer drywall,triple- paned windows,steel doors,etc.) MM 4.9-6 Residential units in Planning Area 1 adjacent to 1-15 and Camino del Norte shall require custom acoustic upgrades capable of providing up to 34 dBA Ldn of mitigation to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA Ldn. MM 4.9-7 Residential units in Planning Area 6 adjacent to 1-15 and Camino del Norte shall also require custom acoustic upgrades capable of providing up to 32 dBA Lan of mitigation to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA Lan. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-12 City of Lake Elsinore ID-♦ Revised Draft EIR May 289-7January 200II X1010570_City_of lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR11.0 Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation MM 4.9-8 A supplemental acoustic analysis shall be submitted in conjunction with the issuance of building permits for residential units adjacent to both Elsinore Hills Road and Camino del Norte to verify that adequate structural noise projection exists in perimeter residents to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA Ldn. Since the exterior tier of development will assist in shielding interior units,the above acoustic upgrades are needed only on the outermost tier of development. MM 4.9-9 Supplemental ventilation,in conjunction with air conditioning,shall be required in any livable space where window closure to shut out roadway noise is needed to meet interior noise standards. Should commercial uses Significant MM 4.9-10 Should Planning Areas 5 and 6 be developed as Mitigated to be constructed,two commercial land uses,residential units abutting Elsinore below a level roadway segments would Hills Road shall be sited outside of the 118 foot contour. of significance. increase noise above the City's Noise Element exterior noise threshold and Community Noise Assessment Criteria. Should commercial uses Significant MM 4.9-11 Upon submittal of final engineering design of the Mitigated to be constructed,a commercial uses,the project shall incorporate all below a level potential conflict at the mitigation measures to minimize hours of operation and of significance. residential/commercial reduce exterior noise levels resulting from potential noise land use interface. source locations,such as loading docks,speakerphones, music/live entertainment,to 65 dBA Lao from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.and 60 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.These measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Population and Housing Implementation of the SigAif+saat SigAifiGaFlt ARd proposed project would Less Than unavgidable not result in anv Significant .No Less Than significant impacts to mitigation measures pertaining to population and housing are required. Si nificant population and housin21aaP18FAeatatieR Of 1148 PFE)PO68d weatd Fest�tt is as ptejesli9A6 thA we1-+ld s�staRl 4R-a sieRiGsafl4-iR�as� LTIiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-13 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2907January 2008 X.•1010570 Cify_of Lake Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR0.0 Intro_Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Public Services Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to public services are required. Less Than proposed project would Significant Significant not significantly impact fire protection,police protection,schools,or library services. Recreation Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to recreation are required. l Less Than proposed project would Significant Significant not significantly impact recreation facilities. Transportation and Traffic Implementation of the Significant MM 4.13-1 Construct Camino Del Norte from the west project Mitigated to proposed project would boundary to the east project boundary at its ultimate below a level contribute to significant cross-section width(widen from 2 lanes to four lanes) of significance on-site impacts. including sidewalk and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. MM 4.13-2 Construct Elsinore Hills Road from the north project boundary to Camino Del Norte at its ultimate cross- section width(widen from 2 lanes to four lanes)including sidewalk and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. MM 4.13-3 On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Implementation of the Significant MM 4.13-4 In addition to participating in the Western Riverside TUMF All proposed project would program for General Plan improvements,the project shall intersections contribute to significant participate in the phased construction of the off-site will be off-site impacts. intersection improvements shown in Table 4.13-6 through mitigated to payment of established City of Lake Elsinore fees, below a level payment of the project's fair share traffic contribution, of significance, assessment district and/or community facilities district with the financing,and construction of off-site facilities under exception of appropriate fee credit agreements. the 1-15/Main MM 4.13-5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project Street applicant shall participate in the fair share traffic Interchange. contribution of the Project Study Report(PSR)for the 1-15 Impacts to that Freeway/Main Street interchange. interchange will be significant and unmitigable. 1DSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-14 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 2887January 2008 X.1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664_SpyglassW CEOATinal EIR0.0_Infro_Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Significance Significance Before After Environmental Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the Less Than No mitigation measures pertaining to utilities and service systems are Less Than proposed project would Significant required. Significant not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Notes: 'It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the"appropriate"Tribe due to their prior and extensive coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. 2After approval of the South Shore I(also known as Lake Elsinore 1)project located directly north of the proposed project,it was determined that the South Shore I grading plan may encroach on to the Spyglass Ranch project site.This portion of the Spyglass Ranch project site includes cultural resource(P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2),which is subject to controlled grading as outlined in MM 4.4-8. Furthermore, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is zoned Single-Family Residential(R-1)and General Commercial(C-2). No conflicts with agriculture zoning would occur; therefore,no impact is identified for this issue.No agricultural land is present on the project site or adjacent properties. The proposed project would not involve any other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural resources. Mineral Resources The project site is not known to contain any mineral resource that may be of value to the region or state. The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan, as indicated in the City's General Plan. Therefore,there is no opportunity to adversely affect mineral resources,and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on this issue. 1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY TO BE RESOLVED Areas of Concern Section 15123(b)(2)of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. I The main comments submitted on the NOP during the public review and comment period are summarized in Table 1.8-1. This table also includes a reference to the section in which each issue is addressed. Comments received on the NOP are also included in Appendix A.3. In addition, comments and responses ` are discussed in their respective sections. Issues to be Resolved • The final determination must be made by the City of Lake Elsinore as to whether the benefits of the project outweigh the significant,unavoidable project-level impacts related to air quality and population and housing. T>`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-15 City of Lake Elsinore L F DR Revised Draft EIR X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR11.0 Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary • The final determination must be made by the City of Lake Elsinore as to whether the benefits of the project outweigh the significant,unavoidable cumulative-level impacts related to air quality, population and housing,and traffic/transportation. Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093 require the Lead Agency to balance, as applicable,the economic, legal, social, and technological, or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. Significant and unmitigated impacts have been identified for the project. If the lead agency approves a project with significant and unmitigated impacts,the lead agency shall state, in writing,the specific reasons to support its actions based upon the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This written reasoning is called a Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations. Table 1.8-1. Summary of NOP Comment Letters Issue Raised Response State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit—December 18,2006 This letter provides dates of review for the NOP. No environmental issues were raised;therefore,no additional response is required. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District—January 3,2007 RCFCWCD requests that District standards be followed,fees The project would comply with all Riverside County Flood be paid,and permits be obtained should the District be Control and Water Conservation District standards and fees. considered as the responsible entity for the long-term operation and maintenance of any proposed flood control facilities. Riverside County Waste Management Department—January 23,2007 This letter states that substantial amounts of solid waste may The project's impact to the County's solid waste landfills is be generated by the proposed project which may potentially analyzed in Section 4.14,Utilities/Service Systems. Section impact the County's solid waste landfills. The EIR should 4.14 addresses solid waste generation and identifies how address solid waste generation,particularly noting the quantity waste would be handled. As identified,the project would of construction and demolition waste,and how waste would be generate a maximum of 596.54 tons of solid waste per year. handled. Additionally,the project would adhere to City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris removal. Impacts to solid waste would be less than significant. _ Riverside County Waste Management Department—March 22,2007 Subsequent to the close of the NOP review period,Riverside Section 4.6,Hazards and Hazardous Material addresses the County Waste Management Department submitted an project's impact resulting from proximity to the landfill.As additional letter regarding the proximity of the project to the depicted in Figure 4.6-1, 10.8 acres of the project site, closed Elsinore Landfill.The letter indicates that the proposed including 4.03 acres of single-family residential units would fall project is approximately 650 feet from the edge of the landfill within 1,320 feet of the landfill disposal footprint.This is disposal footprint.Subject to California Code of Regulations considered a potentially significant impact.Mitigation Measure (CCRj I itle 27,Subchapter 4,Article 6 requires installation of 4.b-4 requires the Installation of landfill gas detection probes landfill gas perimeter probes if residences are located within as described in this letter. 1,320 feet of the edge of the landfill disposal footprint. According to this letter,the proposed project will be required to finance the installation of up to eleven multi-level landfill gas detection probes at intervals of 100 feet along the northerly j and northwesterly edge of the landfill to comply with CCR I Title 27 and SCAQMD Rule 1150.1. toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-16 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 29)7January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152604_Spyglassl6_CEOAIFinal EIR11.0_Intro_Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Issue Raised Response Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency—February 2,2007 This letter indicates that the Riverside County Planning The Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Department has reviewed the NOP for the project and has no Agency is on the distribution list to receive a copy of this Draft comments at this time.They requested a copy of the Draft EIR EIR. for review when available. Lake Elsinore Unified School District—December 18,2006 This letter indicates the Lake Elsinore Unified School District The project's impact on the School District is analyzed in would not have room to handle the elementary students that Section 4.11,Public Services. As identified,the project would would be generated by the proposed project in addition to result in 258 students over capacity at Tuscany Hills additional development projects. An elementary school is Elementary School and 115 students over capacity at Canyon requested to be located within the project site. Lake Middle School. Pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill 50),the project is required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD. In addition,the project applicant has coordinated with LEUSD regarding the placement of a new elementary school site in the proximity of the project site. It was determined that the school would be located on the project site located to the east of the proposed project site. Native American Heritage Commission—December 20 2006 This letter recommends types of supporting documentation A cultural resources technical study was prepared for the and actions required to comply with CEQA requirements and proposed project and is included in Appendix DA of this EIR. to avoid unanticipated discoveries once the project is In addition a Sacred Lands File request was conducted and underway. SB 18 Native American Consultation has occurred. The results are summarized in Section 4.4,Cultural Resources. Southern California Association of Governments—January 10,2007 SCAG has determined that the proposed project is regionally Section 4.8, Land Use and Planning,addresses the project's significant per CEQA Guidelines(Section 15206). consistency with each of the applicable general and regional SCAG has requested that the EIR discuss any inconsistencies plans. The project was found to be consistent with the between the proposed project and the applicable general following plans:City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community plans and regional plans(Section 15125[d]),stating Design Element—Hillside Development and the Interstate 15 separately how the proposed plan would or would not support View Corridor,City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Plan, each regional plan. If there are inconsistencies,an Riverside County Integrated Project,Destination 2030:2004 explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should Regional Transportation Plan,and the Western Riverside be provided. County MSHCP. The project was determined to be inconsistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Documents to be included for analysis include: Use Element,City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code,Regional • Destination 2030:2004 Regional Transportation Comprehensive Plan and Guide,and Compass Growth Vision. Plan(RTP) A significant impact to land use consistency with applicable plans has been identified and mitigation proposed to reduce • Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG)— these impacts. 1996 Version • Compass Growth Vision The letter also provides regional growth forecasts and background information on the policies to be used in the Draft EIR. South Coast Air Quality Management District—December 21,2006 The letter provides a synopsis of CEQA requirements for Air An air quality impact technical study was prepared for the Quality analysis in an EIR. project in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements.The study is included in Appendix B of this EIR and summarized in Section 4.2,Air Quality. LT17 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-17 City of Lake Elsinore jj jDR Revised Draft EIR May2A87January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_SpyglassIB_CEQAIFinal EIR11,0_Intro Summary.doc 1.0 Introduction and Summary Issue Raised Response Tomaras&Ogas,LLP—January 16,2007 and March 6,2007 Sent on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,the A cultural resources technical study was prepared for the January 16th letter requests that the Tribe be involved in the proposed project and is included in Appendix DA of this EIR. CEQA environmental review process. The Tribe requested a A Sacred Lands File request was conducted and SB 18 Native thorough walkover with Tribal participation,should be American Consultation has occurred with participation of the conducted because there are at least two archaeological sites Pechanga Band. The project applicant and Tribal located within the vicinity of the project area. After the Tribe representatives performed a walkthrough of the project site on conducted a walkover of the site, a follow-up letter was sent, January 10,2007 and determined that no additional testing or indicating the Tribe has agreed to develop an evaluation analysis is required,provided appropriate mitigation is program which will be conducted during a controlled grade included. Mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to both in and around the site. less than significant are described in Section 4.4.5. After further discussion with the project applicant,a follow-up letter was received indicating the Tribe has agreed to develop an evaluation program which will be conducted during a controlled grade both in and around the site. It is understood that additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval may be necessary depending on the types of resources encountered during the evaluation. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 1-18 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 29).7j ary 2008 X:1010570 City_o/Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEOAIFinel EIR11 0_Intro_Summery.doc r 2.0 Project Description 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project area is comprised of approximately 260 acres of land located within the City of Lake Elsinore in Riverside County(Figure 2.1-1). The project site is bordered to the southwest by Camino Del Norte and Interstate 15 (I-15)and to the north, south, and east by primarily undeveloped land (Figure 2.1-2). 2.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The topography of the project site is characterized by small valleys,rid elines, and canyons,ranging in elevation from approximately 1,290 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)in the southwest portion of the property to approximately 1,845 feet AMSL in the northeast portion of the site. Soils that underlie the project site primarily consist of sandy loam and decomposed granitic bedrock. Clusters of boulders and rock outcroppings also occur throughout the site. The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of an abandoned private residence with swimming,ranch, and equestrian facilities located in the center of the project site. The primary residential structure is intended to be preserved and occupied as a private residence with j implementation of the proposed project. An existing cell tower is located in the southern portion of the J project and is planned to be relocated within the site. There is a pump station located in the northwestern portion of the project site and would remain to provide water to the project. The project site includes a network of graded,unimproved dirt roads that provide access within the site. fNon-native introduced grasslands and sage-scrub communities are the predominant vegetation onsite. Non-native landscape,turf, and ornamental plants have been incorporated into landscaped areas around the existing private residence,ranch, and equestrian facilities. A small number of cherry trees and i California junipers grow along an ephemeral drainage near the northwestern corner of the project site. Two prominent drainage washes exist on the site: one drains the central part of the site to the south and the other drains the northwestern part of the site to the west. 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.1 Project Objectives The following objectives are identified in the Specific Plan: • Create a balanced community with integrated land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore; • Cluster neighborhoods and utilize compact building design within residential and recreational land use mixes in an effort to preserve natural open space; • Maintain the integrity of the natural environment through systematic and sensitive planning which preserves and conserves open space; ` • Foster a distinctive, attractive, and cohesive community with a strong sense of place by responding to community values and the natural features of the site; • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices with a diverse residential product mix; and Phase development to ensure adequate levels of service in a manner which does not create a financial burden to the citizens of the City. L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-1 City of Lake Elsinore F DJ Revised Draft EIR May 2997-January 208 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR12.0 Spyglass_Project Description.doc 2.0 Project Description 2.3.2 Discretionary Approvals The following discretionary approvals by Lake Elsinore have been identified for the proposed project: • General Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Specific Plan • Te Other discretionary approvals include: United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification California Department of Fish and Game Section (CDFG) • 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement 2.3.3 Proposed Land Use The project proposes a 260-acre master planned community that includes single-family and multi-family residences,a Community Center,public parks,roadways, and landscaped open spaces. The site would provide approximately 1,035 housing units in a variety of styles at an overall average density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre(du/ac). The project does allow an option for commercial-retail use if multi- family residential units are not developed within the project site. A breakdown of land use designations is shown in Table 2.3-1. The Specific Plan outlines 14 planning areas,or neighborhoods within the proposed project as depicted in Figure 2.3-1 and outlined in Table 2.3-2. Residential Uses The residential development areas consist of 1,035 dwelling units on 153.8 acres or 59 percent of the total acreage. The gross overall average density for the project is 4.0 du/ac. The residential development areas vary in density from 0-2 du/ac,4-8 du/ac, 8-15 du/ac,and 15-24 du/ac. The housing mix would range from detached single-family,estate, and courtyard homes to multi-family attached units in the form of town homes and/or apartments. Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac): consists of 8 dwelling units developed on 7.5 acres in Planning Areas 3 and 10. This land use category comprises 3 percent of the project site acreage and 1 percent of the total dwelling units. These residences would have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet.Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in areas designated Estate Residential shall be those allowed under the Single-Family Residential Zone(R-1)of the City Zoning Code(Chapter 17.23). ID� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-2 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR anus 208 X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR12 0_Spyglass_Project Description.doc + Q/ T • • h. V T aai N o W a w is c > SQ Vs ITZ IV LO c• a f��.� � '` �. � w _ c�. - '•� � ���'. ,I "'A+-'may Zil •i� N a- �«•� iFi r �-' IM f � • - 1111 � • � - \ : its. >11 t PA 8B PA 14E• Open Space Open Space 11.6 AC I-6 AC STRF�Bry PA 14D PA 10 Z' N Open Spacc N.A.P. Estate S7 12.8 A(' Courtyard Hurries (Z E�rrL [tc7.1 A(tial .. 10.4 AC PA 2 961)11, Single Family Rcsidcntial 7 DUs g Y (0.2 DUTAC) a. (8.15 DU/A(7 21.5 AC 98 DUa (4.8 DUAC) A Aa b PA 9 �� PA 8C Single Family Residential Open Space T 135_ AC 4.1 AC p 3s Du, rr (4-8 DU/AC)T i PA 14C !� A Open Space y IT PA 14B 5.5 AC ' PA 8A PA 4 Z Open Space \\\ -' Open Space Single Family Residential ^ 5.7 AC - - a a 39.7 AC 34.6 AC n PA 3 (4-8 D u AQ A \ Estate Residential `._. 0.4 AC T PA 12 �'.�� y1 f �• I DUa 1':1 Cwiurty. Homes (0.2 DU/AC) Park J 8.2 AC r ` + .v 75 DU, PA 11 l o . (8.15 DU/AC) o Single Family Residential irK T ' 28.3 AC Pie({ 8 DUa (4-e MAC) 2 1 tj Multi-Farnlly �O Residential• SjREET"D \ 6.1 AC PA 14A `• wit O� 131 DUs Open Spacc (15.24 DU/A[1 6.5 AC � STATISTICAL SUMMARY LAND USE ACRES DENSITY DU's 9J� �'�. F PA wResidential ��. Multt•P:unUy t 4M AC rstate Residential(0-2 DUTAC) 7 5 1-1 A Ruldctural• L Single-Family Residential(4-8 DUTAC) 113.2 4.5 515 210 DUa J Courivard Homes(8-75 DUTAC) 18.6 9.2 171 9� U5.241H/A(.I Mull i-Family Residential(15-24 DU/AO' 14.5 23.5 341 ir,idvwi,d:ulrtnr.ii. 153.8 6.7 1,0.35 Non-Residential f ,n 6.519 19 Ol)en Spare 80.2 � .li.ynr(irr ulaliun 11.1 - � `1�� o nun-tksmfcntrdl}ubtutals 105.8 - 2 ' •� Includes 0.7 AC Under Separate Ownership �`� Proposed Water Tank Locations � • _ �"''� • If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial � , 0 250 500 Feet mland use designation shall apply for development consistent with this Specific Plan.At o / Conceptual Land Use Plan FIGURE 2.3-1 IRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions" �l ♦ BEET"C' ,0,00,rNNOW am— rn i 0 1 i i r goo STRtiET„ cc F ' - N LEGEND N ` / Major Highway - 100' ROW � � ? / � llllllllllllllllllllllllll� lllllllllllllllllllllllllll. � � t� Seconda Hi 90' ROW ' Local Road - 60' ROW r 0 N H 0 250 500 Feet w ` 1 � Proposed Circulation Network FIGURE 2.3-3 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- � ---------^-----•--ter-- i 2.51 ACrts 3.36 AC �12.98 AC( E I n .� •�•, .f ; .� 11.34 AC \ 1 6.15 AC I I. 4.45 AC 13. 50 AC �\ 14.21 AC =,''�• 1 •\ i `� .�•,�- j / I••�.. 34.85AC !�• I �nz5i,G:r ,l.I ra lii*i,. 10.96 AC `�. 25.48 AC /� • ',•� ` f`�__ 21.10 AC 44.72 AC ON 00, 7 AC =3C== —.__-- -- = LEGEND Drainage Boundaries { o �k Proposed Storm Drains �--- �- — Proposed Flow Lines s N ' UH 1 0 250 500 Feet Conceptual Drainage Plan TT FIGURE 2.3-4 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- r r 1701 ZONE RESERVOIRS 7601 n. PPS$�"�" 000' 1 ^0��� PUMP 1701 ZONE R®Tl/ e 11p12 �� , ;V' c STATION i0 r: t �A �,aV �iy . 1001 ZONE' r I r IC[!A- 1801 ZONE l `\ _ _-i�y��� � \�• —'1 �1 , , —` RESERIVOIR r � da M ,e �o� l r�,_ 1601 ZONE RESERVOIR j �•.r I�p�zPr.��, / t IMP VA 5 vJ A AC_(- t��� ISl CLi< V 1 1701 ZONE VAr, �� PUMP STATION fdalp F arnl, 1601 ZONE mot` IjruJtn4:r I ��. '44 AC LEGEND N \ Proposed Water Line Proposed Water Zone Boundary j 2 Proposed Water Tank e e 3 I N 0 250 500 Feet Conceptual Water Supply Plan FIGURE 2.3-5 + ` Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- . � � t 1 '7 i � � `/ l i 1 � ti. - f•' T ,• ��'� ,y 1 �• � 1 r .. '�, � ��` 1 �ti Iy 1 `t- '�, f _ r., K•J���� :.,�; •� =\-�%� ;. _ ,.� ,, i - T_-7J'71`ya�,•,/.":.�/ "•v I/ ��-- 1 / / 1�� •, ��' � I w� •J11 �fl( Y,% ••(��`.��``' � ,�- ,'1{ , j '"� , 1 •„ .v Itit ( . �1` ,. :`�.��` ;\.. ��' f'.0/,'!' '• ''-;�Y �� T - •\ �t \1 //� /��� \•\ , .h - i ' .` ,'-�// t, —.__.1 1 r•r`:.`!/ `1 s ' + _ w 'h, 1�"r�lr-� I �: �� % �. 1 Z- !N r f � ., +��\�•.r/� � t ?.,-''•+� \\ �� ., '���li'r'tf '/ f� _—e::.r:`.°.o.. , ', I. � ; •r� \ / � t �� I. ,S—� I _ _y... - \ •' ,v'n ''\ 'e <..J 'r�..l `'t_ �'i( '• iElf, ' ,\ Al it '` �lr :nr>.er •�,{-_ •.j _ .� —t�1 1. �. 1 t- - � -•t I.t - � �\\\\r-�1`''``��i f (,J � A -,"y �JI -,ter • •AX �c ' �1\,- /�•; �,. .\ ♦y � •.1 .„\ �_ i =yjj—'i ! y, `.• =,r� �///,�/� �= a.\ ./At '\�� '_� r. `•� \�� -T." �--a_s� ti/� •� , _ _` _. _t._ - / � PARK I y t �L� ��y _- +r/� •,� 1Lo �� 7 � ♦\ ~' .�... .�� � •sir t - r '. , ." -• ._ _ ��.. 0. ' o � I I c 0 250 500 Feet d 1 0 N Conceptual Grading Plan FIGURE 2.4-1 j� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY IMany Solutions- r 0 f IVY'!•' III . f A 0 b s�`ti,rC• o N a 0 r m z I d II r o y Z� 5[REET"D" A N LEGEND Phase I Wy. o u Phase II s s Phase III 0 I 0 -H 0 250 500 Feet 1 Proposed Project Phasing T ^� FIGURE 2.4-2 �J Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions 2.0 Project Description Table 2.3-1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses Land Use Acres Density_ Dwelling Units Residential Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac) 7.5 1.1 8 Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac) 113.2 4.5 515 Courtyard_Homes(8-15 du/ac) _ 18.6 9.2 171 Multi-Family Residential(15-24 du/ac)* L 14.5 23.2 341 Subtotal 153.8* 6.7 1,035 Non-Residential Parks&Community Center 6.5 - - Open Space 88.2 - Major Circulation 11.1 - - Subtotal 105.8 Total 259.6 4.0 1,035 *If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial land use designation shall apply for development consistent with the Specific Plan. Table 2.3-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area Planning Area Land Use Acres Density Dwelling Units Residential 1 Courtyard Homes(8-15 du/ac) 10.4 8-15 du/ac 96 2 Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac) 21.5 4-8 du/ac 98 3 Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac) 0.4 0-2 du/ac 1 4 Single-Family Residential(4-8 dulac) 34.6 4-8 du/ac 134 5* Multi-family residential 05-24 du/ac) 6.1 15-24 du/ac 131 6* Multi-family residential(15-24 du/ac) 8.4 15-24 du/ac 210 9 Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac) 28.8 4-8 du/ac 135 10 Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac) 7.1 0-2 du/ac 7 11 Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac) 28.3 _ 4-8 du/ac 148 12 Courtyard Homes(8-15 du/ac) 8.2 8-15 du/ac 75 Residential Subtotals 153.8* 6.7* 1,035* Non-Residential 7 Community Center/Park 3.0 - - 8A Open Space 40.4 - - 8B___ Open Space 11.6 - - 8C Open Space 4.1 - - 13 Park 3.5 - _ - 14A Open Space 6.5 - - 14 B Open Space 5.7 - - 14C Open Space 5.5 - - 14D Open Space 12.8 - - 14E Open Space 1.6 - - Non-Residential Subtotals 94.7* - Major Circulation _11.1 - - Total 259.6 4.0 du/ac 1,035* *If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial land use designation shall apply for development consistent with the Specific Plan. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-9 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2997January208 X:1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal ElM2 0_Spyglass-Project Description.doc 2.0 Project Description Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac): consists of 515 dwelling units developed on 113.2 acres in Planning Areas 2,4, 9, and 11. This land use category comprises 41 percent of the project site acreage and 50 percent of the total dwelling units. These residences would have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in areas designated Single- Family Residential shall be those allowed under the Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1)of the City Zoning Code(Chapter 17.23). Courtyard Homes(8-15 du/ac): consists of 171 dwelling units developed on 18.6 acres in Planning Areas 1 and 12. This land use category comprises 7 percent of the project site acreage and 17 percent of the total dwelling units. These residences would have a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in areas designated Courtyard Homes shall be those allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone(R-2)of the City Zoning Code (Chapter 17.24). Multi-Family Residential(15-24 du/ac): consists of 341 dwelling units developed on 14.5 acres in Planning Areas 5 and 6. This land use category comprises 6 percent of the project site acreage and 33 percent of the total dwelling units. These residences would have a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in areas designated Multi- Family Homes shall be those allowed under the High Density Residential Zone(R-3)of the City Zoning Code(Chapter 17.25). If multi-family residential units are not developed in these areas, a commercial land use designation shall apply as described below. Non-Residential Uses Commercial: If multi-family residential units are not developed,up to 145,000 square feet of commercial uses would be developed on 14.5 acres in Planning Areas 5 and 6. Maximum square footage anticipated for commercial uses would be 145,000 square feet. This land use category would comprise 6 percent of the project site acreage. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in areas designated Commercial shall be those allowed under the General Commercial Zone (C-2)of the City Zoning Code(Chapter 17.48). Recreation: A total of 6.5 acres are proposed as parks,which represents 3 percent of the total project acreage. Two parks are proposed in Planning Area 7 and 13 and would provide a variety of active and passive recreational uses.A 3.5-acre park, located adjacent to Elsinore Hills Road,would offer both active and passive recreational uses and may include a large open-play turf area to be used for softball and soccer fields and other related uses. A smaller 3-acre park would be located adjacent to an open space area in the western portion of the project site. Proposed amenities for this park may include informal ball fields,open- play turf area surrounded by passive use areas. Open Space: A total of 88.2 acres are proposed as open space,which represents 34 percent of the total project acreage. The majority of the project's open space acreage would be left natural and undeveloped to preserve scenic topographic features,rock outcrops, and biological resources found in those areas. Where construction for trails,water tanks, service access roads, and grading disturbs portions of the natural open space,these disturbed areas shall be revegetated. The inclusion of open space trails may accommodate pedestrian movement throughout the site,providing connection to parks and other areas within the community. 1Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-10 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR anu r 208 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyg1assl6 CEQAIFinal E1R12.0_Spyglass_Project Description.doc r - 2.0 Project Description 2.3.4 Infrastructure Improvements Transportation and Circulation Primary access to the project site would be achieved via Camino Del Norte and Main Street.Major north- south access through the project site is provided via the proposed Elsinore Hills Road to be built by South Shore Properties, LLC pursuant to a Contribution Agreement and Amendment to Joint Development i Agreement. Table 2.3-3 provides a description of each of the street sizes including right-of-way(ROW) width. Figure 2.3-2 depicts street sections for the main roadways within the project area. Figure 2.3-3 shows the proposed circulation network. r Table 2.3-3. Roadway Summary Right-of-Way Roadway Classification (feet) Camino Del Norte(northwest of Main Street intersection) Secondary Highway 90 Camino Del Norte(southeast of Main Street intersection) Major Highway 100 Elsinore Hills Drive Secondary 90 Local Street(A,B,C,D) Local Road 60 Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Storm water runoff from the proposed project would be collected with on-site catch basins and storm i drain pipes. The on-site storm drain system would convey the majority of the flows northerly into a system now being planned for the adjacent property; southerly to a box culvert under I-15; and westerly to a box culvert under the I-15. The existing freeway culverts' capacity would be evaluated and, if required, on-site detention facilities would be constructed in accordance to City standards. In addition, several smaller areas generate minor runoff to the adjacent properties to existing drainage paths which would also be evaluated to insure the downstream properties would not be adversely impacted. Figure 2.3-4 depicts the conceptual drainage plan.A finalized Drainage Plan would be approved by the City of Lake Elsinore prior to initiating construction. Drainage and flood control infrastructure and improvements shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD). l Water/Wastewater The project proposes four water tanks, a pressure reduction station,pump station and a network of water lines to serve the project. Figure 2.3-5 presents the conceptual water supply plan. The project proposes a sewer collection system to be constructed within the project's streets system and built to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD) standards as shown in Figure 2.3-6.Additionally, the project would construct an off-site sewer outfall within existing streets/paved areas, as also shown on Figure 2.3-6. Design Considerations for the Project The project incorporates several design measures which would minimize project impacts. Specifically, design measures are provided for aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, geology and soils,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, noise,public services,recreation,transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. A complete list of the design considerations for the project site is presented in Table 2.3-4. falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-11 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft E/R X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR12.0_Spyglass_Projecl Descnption.doc 2.0 Project Description Table 2.3-4. Project Design Considerations Aesthetics The project would conform to the design guidelines presented in the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. Light or Glare All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts would be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto adjacent properties or streets. Low pressure sodium lighting in accordance with the Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be required. Individual lighting for residential structures for front porch and side garage entrances would also be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures that use low wattage(60 watts or less)incandescent lighting. Air Quality As a condition of project approval,the project must adhere to SCAQMD Rules 403(Fugitive Dust Control)and 1113(VOCs) during construction-related activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a menu of fugitive dust control measures to which the project must adhere,including,but not limited to: • Active construction areas shall be watered at least three times daily. • All haul trucks shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • All unpaved parking or staging areas shall be watered four times daily. • Site access points shall be swept or washed within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • On-site stockpiles of debris,dirt,or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily. • Operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Any cleared area that is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing shall be stabilized. Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings by providing numeric standards for VOC concentrations per volume of coating. Biological Resources Indirect Impacts All project grading would be subject to the typical restrictions,best management practices(BMPs),and requirements that address erosion and runoff,including compliance with all applicable City stormwater permitting requirements,the federal Clean Water Act,National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES),and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). In addition,according to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis(Appendix C.2),the following measures would be implemented as part of project design:implement landscape controls by installing native landscaping that require minimal water application;select,design,and utilize best management practices(BMPs)including treatment control BMPs(i.e.,constructed wetlands,filter inserts,bio-swales,and catch basins),and site design BMPs(i.e.,landscaping). Geology and Soils All earthwork and grading at the project site shall be performed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration(Cal/OSHA),and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore (Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code). Ground Shaking The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed project in accordance with the 1997 UBC and 2001 CBC requirements for resistance to seismic shaking. Erosion The fill slopes would be constructed utilizing fill material generated from the cut portions of the site,and would be tested and evaluated to meet design requirements. During construction,soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No.92-08-DWQ,NPDES General Permit No.CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with Best Available Technology(BAT)and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-12 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 29 P January 208 X.1010570_Ciiy_oL Lake Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQMFinal_EIR12.0_Spyglass_ProjectDescription.doc 2.0 Project Description 2.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES The project proposes grading on the site to include approximately 4.5 million cubic yards (cY)of cut material, and 5.5 million cy of fill material. Based on the geotechnical evaluation, a significant amount of ( bulking is expected(10-25%),which would cause the site to balance. A conceptual grading plan is 1 shown on Figure 2.4-1. The project is planned to be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year period in response to market demands and according to a logical and orderly development of uses,public utilities,and infrastructure,as depicted in Figure 2.4-2. Phase 1 of development would consist of the construction of Planning Areas 3,4, 5, 6, and 7. Phase 2 of development would consist of the construction of Planning Areas 9, 11, 12, and 13. Phase 3 would include construction of Planning Areas 1,2, and 10. The private, internal circulation system elements and mini parks or public plazas that [ would serve the planning areas shall be built concurrently with the development of each neighborhood. f 1 f 1 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-27 City of Lake Elsinore F D Revised Draft E1R May 290;,1anuary 208 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinaI EIRI2.0 Spyglass Project Description doc 2.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-28 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2AA7Janu2ry 208 X.•1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRI2.0 Spyglass_Project Description.doc 2.0 Project Description Hazards and Hazardous Materials Compliance with all standards is required through federal,state,county,and municipal regulations,to reduce the potential for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the buildings,storage,and transport of these materials. Septic Tanks Any septic tank systems would be removed,in accordance with established criteria,during site grading operations. Wildland Fire Fuel modification and appropriate setbacks would be included along the open space edges,where they abut residential and commercial development,to transition from naturally vegetated open space areas to irrigated landscaped areas,and lower the danger of wildland fires. In such areas,plant selection and maintenance would avoid plants of high flammability,especially in areas in proximity to structures. Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality In accordance with SAR-DAMP and NPDES requirements,an applicant for a project encompassing more than five acres is required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). In addition,the City shall ensure that construction activity is in compliance with the State's General Permit for Construction Activities administered by the California RWQCB,located in Riverside(Santa Ana,Region 8). One condition of this permit is the development and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce/eliminate erosion and sedimentation associated with construction. The objective of the SWPPP is to identify and control storm water discharges due to construction activity and to identify and implement structural(e.g.,silt fences,sandbags,spill control)and non-structural(e.g.,scheduling)BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water,both before and after construction. Discharges associated with construction activity are covered under one statewide General Permit. Coverage under the General Permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent(NOI)to the SWRCB prior to construction,and development and implementation of a defensible SWPPP prior to disturbing a site and for the duration of construction. All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook for Construction. A project-specific water quality plan has been developed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives and sets forth an integrated approach involving the utilization of BMPs designed to: (1)function with the drainage plan for the project site and offsite areas;and(2)to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff. The sizing of treatment control BMPs for the proposed project is based upon a criteria established by the RCFCWCD for the discharge of urban runoff. The project site is located within the region covered by the Watershed-wide Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with New Development within the San Jacinto Watershed(Order 01-34, NPDES CAG 618005). The order requires that all development projects tributary to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore obtain an NPDES permit,and implement best available technology(BAT)that is economically achievable and best conventional technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution,including the preparation of a SWPPP. The proposed project would include the construction of a back bone storm drain system ranging in size from 84 inches to 108 inches within Camino Del Norte along the projects southerly boundary. The project also proposes construction of a storm drain that would allow drainage off the 35 acres in area H to drain northerly into and along proposed Elsinore Hills Road,flowing into the adjoining property and then northerly to Wasson Canyon. The proposed project would feature on-site BMPs consisting of Extended Detention Basins(volume-based)and Grassed Swales(flow-based)designed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives. The Water Quality Management Plan sets forth an integrated approach to water quality involving the utilization of treatment control BMPs designed to function with the drainage plan for the project site;and to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff. Specifically,the following treatment BMPs would reduce storm water flow: • Three extended detention basins,designed according to criteria set forth and defined by Riverside County,would detain and slowly release the design volume of stormwater. L `� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-13 City of Lake Elsinore 1 D ` Revised Draft EIR Ntay-2087,January 208 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI2 0 Spyglass_Project Description doc 2.0 Project Description - Extended Detention Basin No. 1 would receive surface runoff from drainage areas A,I,J,and K consisting of approximately 51 acres.The total design storage volume(VBMP)generated would be 70,380 cubic feet (cu-ft) - Extended Detention Basin No.2 would receive surface runoff from drainage area C consisting of approximately 83 acres.The total design storage volume(VBMP)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft - Extended Detention Basin No.3 would receive surface runoff from drainage area E consisting of approximately 33 acres.The total design storage volume(VBMP)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft • Grassed swales constructed according to County criteria would receive and slow nuisance flows and first flush flows. Maintenance of the above-listed BMPs is expected to be financed through a community facilities district,home owners association,or other similar organizations. The proposed system of on-site water quality basins and swales would provide appropriate levels of treatment for all on-site generated flows. However,these slopes would be landscaped per City of Lake Elsinore standards and requirements that would ensure sufficient soil stabilization. Furthermore,during construction,soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a SWPPP in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No.92-08-DWQ,NPDES General Permit No.CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with BAT and BCT to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. Land Use and Planning _ City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community Design Element—Hillside Development and the 1-15 View Corridor A hillside development ordinance has been established to address all hillside areas within the City. The design guidelines include design layout and siting requirements,architecture requirements,circulation requirements,parking requirements,open space and view requirements,structure placements and slope maintenance requirements,grading,and landscaping requirements. The views from the 1-15 corridor present an opportunity to project the positive image of quality development. Implementation of design guidelines in Architecture,Parking,Views,Noise Attenuation,Landscape,and Signs ensure that future public and private improvements are sensitive to public views. Noise City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance According to the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance,the maximum exterior noise levels not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes from stationary or commercial facility related noises to multi-family residential land uses are 45 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 50 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. For general commercial land uses,the exterior noise levels can not exceed 60 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 65 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. For interior noise levels,the maximum interior noise levels for all residential uses are 35 dBA from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m.and 40 dBA from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.and shall not be exceeded for more than five minutes in any hour. Additionally,the City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts limits operation of any tools or equipment used in construction,drilling,repair,alteration,or demolition work between the weekday hours of 7 p.m.and 7 a.m. On-Site Exterior Noise Since the elevation varies along Elsinore Hills Road,an at-grade configuration was assumed to determine the appropriate mitigation. Alternatively,if residential units are setback 67 feet from the Elsinore Hills Road centerline the resulting noise exposure would be attenuated to 65 dBA Ldn and no mitigation would be required. Therefore,the 6-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm would only be required for those homes sited between 50-67 feet from the roadway centerline. Commercial Use Alternative In addition,noise impacts would be confined primarily to the project site. The General Plan buildout(post 2025)traffic noise level is projected to be 68.9 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. As such,the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment would extend approximately 88 feet from the roadway centerline. Therefore,as long as residential units are sited outside the 88-foot contour,on-site noise impacts would be less than significant. LT>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-14 City of Lake Elsinore ����JJ Revised Draft EIR May 298-7Janu2ry 208 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIM2 0_Spyglass_Project Description doc 2.0 Project Description Public Services Fire During construction and operation of the proposed project,compliance with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements would be required and conditioned to the proposed project. The project would comply with the 2006 International Fire Code, California Building Code,and applicable RCFD Code requirements and standards for construction,access,water mains,fire flow,and fire hydrants. In addition,all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No.2003-1 (Law Enforcement,Fire,and Paramedic Services). Police All new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No.2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire,and Paramedic Services). Schools The proposed project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD)pursuant to the School Facilities Act(Senate Bill[SB]50,Stats. 1998,c.407)to offset these impacts on school facilities resulting from new development. Libraries The proposed project is required to participate in the Riverside County Uniform Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on new residential housing developments to support future facility development and library material purchases. Recreation ^� Pursuant to City standards,five acres of park area are to be dedicated for each 1,000 subdivision residents,cash in-lieu fees, or a combination of both,as a condition of residential development approval. By this standard,the City of Lake Elsinore would require the proposed project to include 14.5 acres of park area to serve the projected 2,897 residents.Therefore,the project does not provide sufficient amount of park space to meet the requirements of City standards and pursuant to the Quimby Act, cash in-lieu fees would be required for the remaining 8 acres. Furthermore,adherence to the design standards outlined in the Specific Plan would ensure that the construction of the new parks would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Transportation and Traffic Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF)program evolved from the need to establish a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway improvements for western Riverside County. This program (adopted December 2002)establishes a single uniform mitigation fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system. It was adopted with the intention to avoid multiple,discrete fee programs with varying policies,fees,and improvement projects. The project proponent would contribute the required amount per dwelling unit TUMF for funding regional transportation improvements. Site Access and Circulation Major north-south access through the project site would be provided via Elsinore Hills Road. Roadway classifications within the project site have been designed in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates specific design criteria for street improvements. Implementation of the design criteria assures that all street improvements are safely designed. The proposed project would comply with all specified design criteria. Alternative Transportation Per communication with RTA,bus stops/turnouts would be required along Camino del Norte. In addition,RTA has indicated bus stops/turnouts could be planned along Elsinore Hills Road,La Strada Parkway,and/or the future Aventino Street within the neighboring project site. Bus stops/turnouts would be developed according to RTA standards. IDERSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-15 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2007-January 208 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEQA1Rna1 EIR12.0_Spyglass_Project Description.doc 2.0 Project Description Emergency Access Sight distance at each project access should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading,landscaping,and street improvement plans. Parking Capacity The proposed project would provide sufficient parking in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Utilities and Service Systems Water Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and EVMWD. In addition,assurance of the provision of adequate water service is required to be provided prior to the approval of a subdivision map and/or plot plan for new residential development of 500 homes or more,in accordance with Senate Bill(SB)221.1 Reservoirs(water tanks)for the three of the four water pressure zones serving the proposed project would be constructed on the project site. Adherence to City and EVMWD regulations would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the installation of water lines and utility improvements required to serve raw and potable water to the proposed project. Wastewater The project sewer collection system would be constructed within the project's streets. Sewerage would drain to two outfalls: EVMWD is currently constructing a 54-inch sewer line in Main Street(Lakeshore Relief Sewer)which would serve the southerly portion of the project;and The northerly portion of the project would be served by a sewer line to be constructed as part of the adjacent development. In addition,a third off-site outfall is also proposed. Sewer-related infrastructure would be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, EVMWD,Riverside County Department of Health,and RWQCB. Solid Waste The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE),Household Hazardous Waste Element(HHWE),ark City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, nd City standard Conditions of Approval,regarding construction debris removal Gas Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities Commission. 1 Signed into law on October 8,2001,California SB 221 established a process whereby sufficient water supply must be identified and available for new development for any residential development of 500 homes or more,or,in the case wherein a water supplier has fewer than 5,000 service connections or the proposed development would increase the number of connections by at least 10 percent,unless there is proof of adequate water over at least the next 20 years,including long periods of drought. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2-16 City of Lake Elsinore FD ♦ Revised Draft EIR May-P887January 2D8 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR12.0 Spyglass Project Description doc 6'SIDEWALK 6'SIDEWALK 10' 28' 14' 28' 1W 80'R.O.W. R CAMINO DEL NORTE R/W NORTHWEST OF MAIN ST INTERSECTION SECTION 8'SIDEWALK 6'SIDEWALK 10' 28' 14' so'R.0-W. R/W ELSINORE HILLS ROAD R/W SECTION vg `S I 2 y A 40' 10' 01 W 60'R.O.I. Y J O R W R LOCAL STREET u SECTION 0 0 N C C m H N U N Proposed Roadway Cross Sections FIGURE 2.3-2 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore Draft Environmental Impact Report W 3.0 General Environmental Setting 3.0 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 JURISDICTIONAL SETTING The project site lies within the boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. The City is within the western portion of Riverside County. See Section 2.0,Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2,Regional and Vicinity Maps. ` City of Lake Elsinore The City of Lake Elsinore encompasses 34 square miles within the Elsinore Valley, located at the base of the Cleveland National Forest,north of the Santa Ana Mountains. Per the California Department of Finance,January 2006,the City's estimated population is 38,340. The City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence has been extended to include Horsethief Canyon,Warm Springs,Meadowbrook,Wildomar, and Menifee. The Cityis centrally located approximately 75 miles from San Di ego and from downtown Los Angeles. Primary access to the City and the area is via State Route 74(SR-74 (Ortega Highway)from the west and Interstate 15 (I-15) from the northwest/southeast. Portions of unincorporated County of Riverside border the city in all directions. The City of Canyon Lake lies to the northeast,the City of Murrieta to the southeast,the Gavilan Hills to the north, and the Santa Ana Mountains/Cleveland National Forest to the t south. The city surrounds Lake Elsinore which is the largest natural lake in Southern California, covering ! approximately 3,000 surface—acres. Lake Elsinore is the terminus of the San Jacinto River,which is regulated by the Railroad Canyon Dam. lCity of Lake Elsinore General Plan Planning within the City is governed by the 1990 General Plan consisting of the mandatory Land Use, Circulation,Housing, Open Space,Conservation, Safety, and Noise Elements. Updates include the Circulation Element in 1995 and Housing Element in 2000. Figure 3.1-1 shows the existing land use for properties within the City's boundary. Riverside County I Riverside County encompasses 7,295 square miles (4,669,167 acres) in southern California. I Approximately 10 percent of this area lies within 24 incorporated cities. Land use authority within the incorporated cities, including the City of Lake Elsinore, rests with the cities. The large majority of the County thus lies within unincorporated territory(covering 6,564 square miles, or 4,201,120 acres). Of this unincorporated area,private landowners hold 1,324,415 acres,while approximately 2,876,705 acres within the County are either held or managed by county, state, and federal entities, or one of the Indian Nations. Riverside County General Plan/Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP) An update to all sections of the Riverside County General Plan was approved on October 7,2003 as part ` of the Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP). The RCIP is a comprehensive,three-part, integrated program to determine future conservation through a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP); 1 address traffic and circulation issues through the Community&Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP); and balance housing and economic needs by updating the County's General Plan. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-1 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_Ciry_o(Lake_Elsinom152684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRI3.0pygless S Gen Env Setting.doc May 28A�JanUarV 2008 3.0 General Environmental Setting Elsinore Area Plan Much of the Elsinore Area Plan(EAP)is situated within a valley,running from northwest to southeast, framed by the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains on the west and the Gavilan and Sedco Hills on the east. Elsinore is a gateway to the west but is also an important north/south link in the western flank of the County. The City of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake are core communities for the area. The Elsinore planning area borders on both San Diego County to the south and Orange County to the west, and is one of five area plans that maintain a major portion of development potential in Western Riverside County. City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan Update(2007) The City of Lake Elsinore is in the process of updating their General Plan. All the required sections will be included in the update. As this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is being prepared,the General Plan Update is not complete, and is not available for inclusion in this analysis. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 3.2.1 Drainages The Elsinore area consists largely of a flat valley floor dominated by the lake, and surrounded by hillside and mountain features. The major drainages consist of the San Jacinto River, Temescal Wash, and Murrieta Creek. The San Jacinto River is part of the San Jacinto watershed. Temescal Wash serves as an outlet for Lake Elsinore and runs in a generally northwest/southeast direction between the Gavilan Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, eventually draining into the Santa Ana River. Murietta Creek starts just south of Lake Elsinore and eventually drains into the Santa Margarita River. 3.2.2 Geology/Soils Mountain ranges in the vicinity of the proposed project include the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains. Locally,the proposed project area is located within the Elsinore Trough,which in turn is located within a larger structural block of land known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is a geologic formation which is made of alluvial deposits underlain with granitic bedrock. It is bound on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault, on the north by the Cucamonga fault, and on the southwest by the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Trough is a complex that has formed as a result of extensional faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone. The Elsinore fault runs north-south through the middle of the Elsinore Plan area. The proposed project site is characterized by alluvium,consisting of silty sands, clayey sands, and sands with variable amounts of gravel. Bedrock is located within the lower graded slopes on the west side of the abandoned pit, as well as underlying undocumented fill soils in the bottom of the abandoned pit. 3.2.3 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program The proposed project area is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, a program that encompasses core habitat,habitat linkage, and wildlife corridors, into a comprehensive plan for the protection of regional habitat resources. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-2 City of Lake Elsinore I-E.` Revised Draft EIR AAay 2887J2nuary 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR13.0 Spyglass Gen Env Setting doc yA+ r o W T a r CO,) Ci Q Q LJJ o- �_ z Q z a a LU r U J CD ¢ 0 d Q m U. r Z W CO U m U (/7 J � 6!= d m O en cn wo p w W LL w ¢ c� c U J G! Z = p w O z w OC w w LL Z p c CD > p }y z O o J g: cn c i c� Q j u., W = O U Q dLm) p p W W W p J n J o o 0 CD o m w o / z m a = o I.IJ p O p W = X C.7 Z z W m H w U J w F- ~ J o p O p O 2 z F- O m O O Y w CCC �_ O w J p p U U U O d J J 2 Z H C7 U M m w J O J Q IN1 d U L ®® � U J d y = un LJJ L U w � w Q J �L ■ o p _ J _ o _ a a � LNL LPL ''I J �"Y E _ a g o � C rs p Q� zQ O t 1`111 �� f 1• 4F 1 �,,�►�, � , ♦ IL uli I n �� •�i�i��j �'1 0 �•�•� W o r°Q Y Z `•� , w J � +• o W LL LO 0 3.0 General Environmental Setting 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES I-15 serves as the major transportation corridor between Riverside/Corona,Orange County, and the Temecula Valley. SR-74 provides access from coastal southern Orange County to the Elsinore Valley. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by the existing Main Street off-ramp of the 1-15 freeway and the Camino del Norte frontage road. The Riverside County Fire Department(RCFD)working in conjunction with the California Department 1 of Forestry and Fire Protection(CDF)provides fire protection services to the region. County Fire Stations Nos. 10, 94, and 85 are located within 0.7, 1, and 3 miles of the proposed project site, frespectively,and would provide primary response to the project area. I Police protection services are provided by Lake Elsinore Police Department(LEPD)under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department(RCSD). Primary response to the project area is provided by the LEPD/RCSD station in the City of Lake Elsinore. The City of Lake Elsinore is currently served by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District(LEUSD). IThe LEUSD consists of 14 elementary schools, five middle schools, and four high schools. Utilities services for the project area are provided by the following entities: I • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD)—water and sewer; • Southern California Edison(SCE)—electrical service; • Southern California Gas(SCG) Company—natural gas; and • Riverside County Waste Management Department(RCWMD)—solid waste collection. I 3.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT l 3.4.1 Surrounding Land Uses j Land uses surrounding the project area consist largely of vacant undeveloped land. The vacant parcels to the north carry the General Plan Land Use designations of Freeway Business (FB) and Low Density(LD) I Residential. The parcels to the northwest carry the designation of Approved Specific Plan(ASP) (Ramsgate). To the east,the vacant parcels are designated with the Future Specific Plan(FSP)Land Use. To the southeast,the vacant parcels carry the land use designation of Open Space and Recreation(OSR). An application has been submitted for the development of a 145-acre mixed use residential community, Village of Porto Romano, for the currently undeveloped parcels to the south of the project site. I-15 borders the site to the south and southwest. On the south side of I-15,the vacant parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR),Tourist Commercial(TC), and FB Land Uses in the General Plan. 1 See Figure 3.1-1 for existing land uses. The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of an abandoned private I' residence,cell tower,and pump station. The project site includes a network of graded unimproved dirt I roads to provide access within the site. Non-native introduced grasslands and sage-scrub communities are the predominant vegetation onsite. Photos and graphics of the site and existing vegetation are shown in Figure 3.4-1. I � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-5 City of Lake Elsinore —DRevised Draft E/R May 29WJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_ol Lake_Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal_EIR13.0 Spyglass_GenEnvSetting.doc 3.0 General Environmental Setting 3.5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines define cumulative effects as "two or more individual effects that,when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts."The CEQA Guidelines further state that the individual effects can be the various changes related to a single project or the changes involved in a number of other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects (Section 15355). The CEQA Guidelines allow for the use of two alternative methods to determine the scope of projects for the cumulative impact analysis: • List Method-A list of past,present,and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency. • Regional Growth Projections Method-A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions(CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). For the purpose of this EIR,both the List Method and the Regional Growth Projections Method have been used to assess the project's cumulative environmental effects. Where appropriate,the List Method is used and includes known specific projects located within the vicinity of the proposed project. Table 3.5-1 and Figure 3.5-1 summarize the recently approved or proposed projects in the City of Lake Elsinore. Table 3.5-1. Cumulative Projects Project Name Project Description Project Location A)TT 31345 KB Homes, A)The project is a Schedule"A"tract East of Corydon Street Related Projects:GPA map proposing to subdivide 14.9 acres 672/CZ 6836;B)TT 32785, into 50 residential lots and 3 open Related Projects:GPA space lots. B)County Description:The 7221CZ7058;and land division hereby permitted is for a C)PP 18773,Related Schedule"A"subdivision of 10.4 gross Projects:CZ 6815/CPM 1385 acres into 4 lots.Lot 1 is for residential condominium purposes.The vesting tentative map proposes to site and construct 71 two-story detached town homes,53 guest parking spaces,a 10k s.f.recreation area with several other recreational amenities and a pocket park.The project will improve a 0.8- acre flood control channel that traverses the westerly portion of the project site C)County Description:96 multi-family units,24 Buildings/950 s.f. units. Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan PA1:335,412 s.f.commercial, 1,011 Northwest of Nichols Road SFR,550 MFR;PA2:258 SFR Broadstone Riversedge 184 du MFR(apartments) North of San Jacinto River,east of Casino Drive Apartments M Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-6 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 299-7Jan2ary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQkFInaI EIR13.0 Spyglass Gen Env Setfing doc r 3.0 General Environmental Setting Project Name Project Description Project Location Canyon Hills(Multiple TM) 2,700 SFR, 1,575 MFR North of Canyon Hills Road,east of Holland Road Canyon Hills Estates 302 SFR East of Navajo Springs Road,west of Pine Avenue, (TM 34249) south of Sugarbush Lane. City Center Condos 144 du MFR(condos) Railroad Canyon Road at Grape Street Clurman(TTM 30698) 158 du SFR East of Ramsgate Drive,north of Lake Knoll Road, west of Wasson Canyon Road,south of Simard and Ramsgate Corman Leigh Residential 81 SFR on 23 acres Southwest terminus of Orange Street Des.Rev. Costco I Lowe's 418,823 s.f.Commercial North of 1-15 and SR-74,west of Cambern Avenue, east of Dexter Avenue Fairfield Apartments 325 du MFR(apartments) East of State Highway 74,north of Ardenwood Way, (Ramsgate) and west of Rosetta Canyon Drive Home Depot Shopping 1 gas station,230,997 s.f.Commercial Northeast comer of Central Avenue and Collier Center _ Avenue John Laing Homes(Phase 2- 1,955 du on 326.3 acres Residential, West of 1-15 and Mission Trail,south of Lakeshore homes;Phase 1 -Golf 11.7 acres Commercial,329 acres Drive,north of Grand Avenue;north of Back Basin SP Course) Open Space &East Lake SP La Laguna Estates 660 du SFR West of Lincoln Street La Strada(TTM 32077) 134 du SFR West of Vista Palermo Lake Elsinore Highland 101 SFR West of Avocado Way (TM 31957) Lake View Villas(Scott 155 du MFR(condos) Grape Street at Sunrise Drive Woodward) Lakeside Palms(TM 32786) 369 SFR Southeast of Nichols Road,north of Marshall Avenue Lennar(TTM 31792) 191 du SFR Northwest of Wasson Canyon Road,Southwest of Ramsgate Drive Marina Village Condos 94 du MFR(condos) Intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Spring Street (TM 33820) Merritt&Luster Property 60 du SFR Highway 74 at Riverside Drive (Centex R 2006-18& TR 32503) North Peak(TTM 35123) 480 du SFR, Golf Course, Parks West of Vista Avenue PP 18751 7,000 s.f.Restaurant North of Bundy Canyon Road,west of Orange Street, east of Angels Lane PP 19918 6 acres General Light Industrial East of Corydon Street,north of Garden Street,west of Mission Trail Ramsgate 25476,25477, 1,012 du SFR East of Ramsgate Drive,north of Lake Knoll Road, 25478,25479 west of Wasson Canyon Road,east of Simard and north of Clurman Ramsgate SPA#4 120 du MFR South of SR-74,east of Interstate 15 (TT 34231) Ramsgate SPA#5 TT 25475-132 du; West of Greenwald Avenue,south of Little Valley (TT 25475-Old Kiln& TT 33725-221 du SFR Road and SR-74 TT 33725-Little Valley) FD� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-7 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2907January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinom152664 SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIR13.0 Spyglass_GenEnvSetting.doc 3.0 General Environmental Settinq Project Name Project Description Project Location Simard(TTM 32129) 27 du SFR East of Ramsgate Drive,north of Lake Knoll Road, west of Wasson Canyon Road,west of Ramsgate and north of Clurman Taft(TM 33140) 104 SFR North of State Highway 74,south of Maria Court Target Shops 150,000 s.f.Commercial West corner of Central Avenue and Collier Avenue Tessera 90 du SFR South of 1-15,north of Lakeshore Drive,west of Railroad Canyon Road,east of Main Street The Village of Porto Romano 1,860 SFR and MFR, 100,000 s.f. North of Camino del Norte and 1-15;south of proposed neighborhood commercial project site TR 31390&Related Projects 6,188 du SFR,80 du Assisted Living, North of Railroad Canyon Road,south of Newport 168 du Senior Care,48,700 s.f.Church, i Road,east of Ladera Road,west of Murrieta Road 91,034 s.f.Commercial TR 31593(South Shore 1) 521 SFR North of Camino del Norte and 1-15 TR 32013(South Shore 11) 400 SFR(detached condos) North of Camino del Norte and 1-15 TR 35024 Condo Map 92 du MFR on 42 acres Tuscany Hills North 807 du SFR South of Greenwald Street (TR 31370-Toscano Heights) Tuscany West(TT 25473- 164 du SFR North of La Strada Parkway,west of Bella Vista and Ramsgate) Summerhill Drive Village at Lakeshore Specific 146 du MFR(condos) Northwest of Riverside Drive,northeast of Grand Plan Avenue _ Waterbury(Back Basin 1,796 du SFR,611 du SFR,4 acres West of 1-15 and Mission Trail,south of Lakeshore Specific Plan&East Lake MFR Drive,north of Grand Avenue;south of John Laing Specific Plan) Homes Phase 2 Watersedge 35.4 acres Mixed Use,30.6 acres North of San Jacinto River,east of Lake Elsinore, Residential, 10.9 acres Marina and south of Railroad Avenue,west of Lucerne Street Right of Way du=Dwelling Units SFR=Single Family Residential MDR=Medium Family Residential MFR=Multi-family Residential Comm.=Commercial s.f.=Square Feet � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 3-8 City of Lake Elsinore L j R Revised Draft EIR MR5,294�January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW664_Spyglassl6_CEQMFinal EIR0.0_Spyglass Gen Env Setting.doc _t - r +L�f�• J "r Overview of Project Area Facing West I s - �• L 4 l � - ? E - Overview of Historic House Facing West o Site Photographs FIGURE 3.4-1 ONE COMPANY Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE C Cummulative Projects 1.Waterbury 19.Broadstone Riversedge Apartments 2.City Center Condos 20.Clurman 3.Costco/Lowe's 21.Fairfield Apartments 4.Home Depot Shopping Center 22.La Laguna Estates \ I 5.John Laing Homes 23.La Strada 6a.South Shore 1 24.Lennar 61b.South Shore 11 25.Marina Village Condos \ 7.Lake View Villas 26.North Peak 8.Merritt&Luster Property 27.Simard u 9.PP 18751 28.The Village of Porto Romano -I ® 10.PP 19918 29.TR 35024 Condo Map 11.Ramsgate 30.Village At Lakeshore Specific Plan 12.Target Shops 31.Watersedge 13.Tessera 32.Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 14.Tuscany Hills North 33.Outlet Center Expansion Specific Plan 15.TR 31390 34.Canyon Hills Estates a .10 16.Tuscany West 35.Canyon Hills 17.Ramsgate SPA#5 36.Lakeside Palms - s 18a.TT 31345 37.Taft 18b.TT 32785 38.Lake Elsinore Highland 18c.PP 18773 39.Corman Leigh Residential E I m a rl H E U x Cad Z 1J Q N mI b N N _ W Y O - 4 6 o i 1 0 0 1 2 Miles Cumulative Projects FIGURE 3.5-1 �J Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY IMany Solutionsg r � 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 4.0.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides information on existing conditions, evaluates the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project, and,where applicable,recommends mitigation measures for each environmental category. This Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) addresses all environmental issue areas considered under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),with the exception of ( agricultural resources and mineral resources,which were eliminated from detailed analysis per conclusions reached in the Initial Study. The potential for cumulative impacts is also addressed. j Subchapters are organized as follows: • Environmental Setting 1 • Project Impacts (Including Thresholds of Significance) • Cumulative Impacts • Level of Significance Before Mitigation 1 • Environmental Mitigation Measures • Level of Significance After Mitigation ` • Response to Notice of Preparation Comments The focus of the environmental analysis in each of the following sections is to address the proposed actions as described in Section 2.0,Project Description. 4.0.2 INCORPORATION OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS This document incorporates by reference the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR. 1 When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference,the incorporation must comply with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: • This incorporated document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150[b]). These documents are available at the City of Lake 1 Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore,CA l 92330,ph. (951)674-3124, during normal business hours. • This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or briefly describe information that cannot be summarized. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150[c]). • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150[d]). The State Clearinghouse Number for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR is 91122065. The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150[f]). FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.0-1 City of Lake Elsinore _` Revised Draft EIR May 2007january 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAWinal EIR140 Spyglass_Env Impact Analysis.doc 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank. RFDL � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.0-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 299-7January 2008 X:1010570 City_o/Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.0 Spyglnss_Env Impact Analysis doc f- i 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1 AESTHETICS This section addresses the aesthetic resources of the proposed project area. The potential effects that the residential and commercial development may have on the visual character of the surrounding area have Ibeen examined. 4.1.1 Environmental Setting 4.1.1.1 Existing Conditions Regional Setting Western Riverside County is bound by the Santa Ana Mountains and the Cleveland National Forest to the west,and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest to the east. Topography varies dramatically in this region,ranging from low-lying valleys to rolling hillsides and steep mountainous terrain with large rock outcroppings. Major features of this area include the Santa Ana r River basin,Lake Mathews,Lake Perris, Lake Elsinore,Lake Skinner, Vail Lake,the San Jacinto River, 11 Murrieta Creek,the Santa Margarita River,the vineyard and citrus region near Temecula, and the Diamond Valley Reservoir south of Hemet(the largest reservoir in southern California). i Local Setting i The project site is located within the central portion of the City of Lake Elsinore,just northeast of I Interstate 15 (1-15) less than one mile from downtown Lake Elsinore. The majority of the project site has historically been undeveloped,with the exception of an abandoned private residence with swimming, ranch, and equestrian facilities located in the center of the project site. The majority of the primary f residential structure is intended to be preserved and integrated as a Community Center with the l implementation of the proposed project.Additionally, an existing cell tower is located in the southern portion of the project and is planned to be relocated within the site. An existing pump station is located in 1 the northwestern portion of the project site and would remain to provide water to the project. The project site includes a network of graded unimproved dirt roads to provide access within the site. Non-native introduced grasslands and sage-scrub communities are the predominant vegetation onsite. Non-native landscape,turf, and ornamental plants have been incorporated into landscaped areas around the existing private residence,ranch, and equestrian facilities. Additionally, a small number of cherry trees and California junipers grow along an ephemeral drainage near the northwestern corner of the project site. Two prominent drainage washes exist on the site: one drains the central part of the site to the south and the other drains the northwestern part of the site to the west. I The site consists of an approximately 260-acre irregularly shaped parcel of rolling hillside topography. The parcel ranges in elevation from approximately 1,290 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)at the southwestern edge of the property to approximately 1,845 feet in the northeast portion of the site. Clusters of boulders and rock outcroppings also occur throughout the site. Viewer Groups Sensitive visual land uses generally include homes,recreational areas, and designated"scenic"roads. The following description identifies sensitive viewers within the study area. Viewer responses to visual faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-1 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May-29Q;zJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6 CEQA1Rna1 EIR14.1_Spyglass Aesthetics.doc 4.1 Aesthetics changes were inferred from a variety of factors including viewer exposures,type of viewer,number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities. Viewer exposure includes distance and viewing angle. Views from Residential Areas The project site is not located adjacent to any developed residential areas. The vacant parcels to the north carry the General Plan Land Use designations of Freeway Business(FB)and Low Density (LD) Residential. The parcels to the northwest carry the designation of Approved Specific Plan(ASP) (Ramsgate). An application has been submitted for a residential development on these parcels named Southshore I. To the east, the vacant parcels are designated with the Future Specific Plan(FSP)Land Use. An application has been submitted for a residential development on these parcels named Southshore Il. To the southeast,the vacant parcels carry the land use designation of Open Space and Recreation(OSR). An application has been submitted for development of a 145-acre mixed use residential community,Village of Porto Romano, for the currently undeveloped parcels to the south of the project site. I-15 borders the site to the south and southwest. On the south side of I-15,the vacant parcels are designated as Medium Density (MD)Residential,Tourist Commercial(TC), and FB Land Uses in the General Plan. The future views of the proposed residences in the Village of Porto Romano, Southshore 1, and Southshore II need to be considered. Views from Recreational Area Users Due to the passive land use activities associated with hiking trails and recreational parks,these users are considered to be sensitive visual receptors. Recreational users of Lake Elsinore would have intermittent views of the project site, although views would be from a distance of approximately one mile at the closest point. Views from Designated Scenic Highways According to the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)the purpose of designating a highway as scenic is to protect and enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State's scenic resources. There are no officially designated state, county,or city scenic routes within the project area(Caltrans 1996 and City of Lake Elsinore 1995); however, State Route 74 (SR-74)has been designated for eligibility as a state scenic highway. SR-74 is approximately 1.5 miles from the project site at its closest location. 4.1.2 Project Impacts 4.1.2.1 Significance Thresholds Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact upon aesthetics and visual resources, as defined in Appendix G(1)of the CEQA Guidelines, if the project causes any of the following: • Substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista; • Substantial damage to scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-2 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Revised Draft EIR May 299-7January 2008 X1010570 City_of Lake_ElsinoW52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinel EIR14.1_Spyglass_Aeslhefics.doc 4.1 Aesthetics • Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area. 4.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts Evaluation of project impacts with regard to aesthetics is related to the existing visual and aesthetic characteristics of the proposed project site and changes to views from areas surrounding the project site. Proposed site topography modification has been designed to be sensitive to natural landforms. The l proposed design incorporates residential enclaves and other related uses which preserve on-site topography by clustering development in areas with fewer constraints to minimize grading. The project site is characterized by small valleys,ridgelines, and canyons and generally falls toward the south and I west. The primary objectives of the grading concept are to: (a) establish road grades that are consistent with those of the existing City streets around the site; (b)provide stable development pads for structures 1 and recreation amenities; and(c)balance the cut and fill grading quantities on-site (see Section 2.4, Figure 2.4-1). It is anticipated that the overall earthwork would balance and not require import or export of soil. In addition,the landscaping and fuel modification zones would impact near and distant views of f the project site on a temporary basis until planted vegetation become mature. The proposed project would alter the aesthetic environment and the views from that of an undeveloped, open-space area to that of a single-family residential neighborhood with parks and a Community Center, l which would be created using the existing residence. The project would conform to the design guidelines l presented in the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan and would be subject to the City's design review process. The residential architecture of Spyglass Ranch reflects the architectural themes and styles prevalent in Southern California. The design goal of Spyglass Ranch is to achieve contemporary interpretations of several historical styles rather than exact recreations. The styles are visually compatible with each other, possess general market appeal and community acceptance, are capable of interpretation and variation, and have a historical background and precedence. The acceptable styles, subject to City approval, include: i • Craftsman, { • Monterey, ` • Spanish,and j . American Farmhouse. All of these styles are represented throughout the established neighborhoods of Lake Elsinore, ensuring that the new development would blend in with the existing community. The dwelling units would vary in square footage and height; however,the ultimate height would not exceed 40 feet,or three stories, for any given style or structure. The landscape design guidelines for the Spyglass Ranch project site propose a number of drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants. These have been selected according to their forbearance of local climatic and soil conditions, as well as their maintenance needs. Additionally,the vegetation selected for the fuel modification zones,both on the perimeter and the interior,are small lush and fire-resistant plants. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-3 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 20WQlanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.1_Spyglass_Aesthetics.doc 4.1 Aesthetics Substantial Adverse Effects on a Scenic Vista The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community Design Element Aesthetic Resources Map identifies scenic vistas within the city. According to the Scenic Resources Map,no scenic vistas, major slopes, community gateways, or landmarks are located within the immediate vicinity of the project area. The majority of these resources are located near Lake Elsinore and are oriented away from the project site. No adverse impacts would occur to these aesthetic resources. Therefore,no significant adverse effects on a scenic vista would occur due to project implementation, and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to this resource. Substantial Damage to Scenic Resources The City's General Plan lists significant natural features in Lake Elsinore, including the ridgelines of the Temescal, Santa Ana, and Elsinore Mountains; San Jacinto,Wasson Canyon, and Temescal Wash open space corridors; and lake and shorelines. Other scenic resources considered include trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The project site is not located in or adjacent to any of the natural features mentioned in the General Plan, as shown on Figure 4.1-1. Additionally,the project would not remove or damage any of the aforementioned scenic resources. There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the project area; however,one highway within the project area has been designated for eligibility as a state scenic highway. SR-74 has been designated as an"eligible state scenic highway—not officially designated." SR-74 is located approximately 1.44 miles northwest of the project site and views to the project site from SR-74 are blocked by intervening topography;therefore, impacts to the eligible scenic highway are not significant. No substantial damage to scenic resources would occur,resulting in a less than significant impact. Substantial Degradation of the Existing Visual Character The project site is currently designated for FSP(Area G),FB, and Neighborhood Commercial(DC); therefore,planned development in this area is anticipated. However,the proposed project would alter the topography of the site and change the visual character. The grading plan for Spyglass Ranch has been designed to incorporate residential enclaves and other related uses which preserve on-site topography by clustering development in areas with fewer constraints to minimize grading. The amount of grading proposed for the project is dictated by the site's topography, desired land use, and the minimum and maximum grades for the streets. Buildable areas would be produced through cut and fill, creating a level ground elevation. The project proposes the cut of approximately 4.5 million cubic yards (cy)of material, and the fill of 5.5 million cy of material. Based on the geotechnical evaluation, a significant amount of bulking is expected(10-25%), which would cause the site to balance. All manufactured slopes would be constructed at a 2:1 ratio or flatter,unless otherwise specified by a geotechnical engineer. Consideration would be given to view shed, accessibility, and control of storm water runoff. The project would result in an alteration of the topography of the site, and a change in visual character of the area. Additionally,the views to the project site from I-15 would be affected by two noise walls. One would be located on the western edge of the residential area in the northwest corner of the site; the other wall would be located on the western edge of the residential area in the southwest corner of the site. These would both be offset from I-15 by an open space buffer, and would be constructed of materials that blend into the natural surrounding landscape, as prescribed in the Specific Plan. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-4 City of Lake Elsinore I-al Revised Draft EIR May,2Q@gJanuary 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinon:152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR141_Spyglass_Aesfhefics.doc 0 1 15 3 . • ��; �j • 14; � y 4 X� 10 13 � 2 i51 ., lei Aesthetic Resources IINIII Scenic Vistas Landmarks � 18b Community Cumulative Projects 1.Back Basin SP&East Lake SP 7.Lake View Villas 13.Tessera :, 2.City Center Condos 8.Merritt&Luster Property 14.TR 31370 1° • PP 18751 15.TR 31390 19.The Village of Porto Romano1 4.Home Depot Shopping •• . 0 0 6.Joint Land Owners Development , I r , 4.1 Aesthetics Additionally,the views from the proposed residential projects to the north, east, and south would have a view of the Spyglass Ranch development. Although the view would not be of pristine hillsides, the development would be aesthetically pleasing, and would blend into the hillsides as much as possible. The change would not result in substantial degradation, as Spyglass Ranch has been designed to be I aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, no significant impact would result from the implementation of the proposed project. I Creation of a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Development of the project would modify the nighttime appearance of the area to that of a lighted residential community. Street lights would provide a safe and desirable level of illumination for both motorists and pedestrians without intruding into residential areas. All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts would be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto adjacent properties or streets. Low pressure sodium lighting in accordance with the Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be required. Individual lighting for residential ( structures for front porch and side garage entrances would also be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures that use low wattage(60 watts or less)incandescent lighting. Therefore,the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area. No significant impacts would result. Commercial Scenario for Planning Areas 5 and 6 1 Develop of Planning Areas 5 and 6 with commercial uses is not expected to result in an appreciable difference in the visual appearance of the project. Therefore,the analysis presented above would also be applicable to this scenario. 4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects within the area as discussed in Section 3.5,would cumulatively add to the loss of vacant land and the conversion of undeveloped areas to developed residential communities. Within this context, cumulative regional impacts to the existing visual setting would result. Substantial Adverse Effects on a Scenic Vista The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community Design Element Aesthetic Resources Map identifies l scenic vistas within the City. As shown on Figure 4.1-1,none of the cumulative projects are in aline of sight from a scenic vista. Substantial Damage to Scenic Resources The City's General Plan lists significant natural features in Lake Elsinore, including the ridgelines of the Temescal, Santa Ana, and Elsinore Mountains; San Jacinto,Wasson Canyon, and Temescal Wash open space corridors; and lake and shorelines. Other scenic resources considered include trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The cumulative projects are not 1 located in or adjacent to any of the natural features mentioned in the General Plan. Additionally,the cumulative projects would not remove or damage any aforementioned scenic resources. There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the cumulative projects area. Therefore, less than significant impacts to scenic resources would result from the cumulative projects. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-7 City of Lake Elsinore jf a Revised Draft EIR May 2907January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreI52664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.1_Spyglass_Aesfhetics.doc 4.1 Aesthetics Substantial Degradation of the Existing Visual Character The cumulative projects are all within designated development land uses. These land uses require either the creation of a Specific Plan or the adherence to City or County design guidelines. These Specific Plans and design guidelines ensure that the development would be constructed in an aesthetically pleasing manner that does not considerably degrade the visual character of the area. Therefore,no significant impact would result from the cumulative projects. Creation of a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Implementation of the proposed project and related cumulative projects would increase the nighttime lighting levels in the area. However, City lighting requirements and Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be followed; therefore,the cumulative projects would result in a less than significant impact. Continued development and urbanization of the Lake Elsinore area over time is resulting in a more urban setting. Given the developed nature of the project locale,the combined effect on the views in the vicinity are similar to the project's impacts themselves. Therefore, cumulative impacts to aesthetics are not considered significant. 4.1.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation The project site is not located within a scenic vista;therefore,no significant adverse effects on a scenic vista would occur due to project implementation, and the project has a less than significant impact. The project site is not located in or adjacent to any of the natural features mentioned in the General Plan. Additionally,the project would not remove or damage any scenic resources such as significant trees,rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the project area. Therefore,no impacts to scenic highways would occur, and no substantial damage to scenic resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project is considered to have a less than significant impact on scenic resources or scenic highways. The project site is currently designated for FSP(Area G),1713, and NC land uses; therefore,development in this area is anticipated. This project requires the creation of a Specific Plan and the subsequent adherence to design guidelines established in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and the adherence to the design guidelines ensures that the development would be constructed in an aesthetically pleasing manner that does not considerably degrade the visual character of the area. Therefore,the project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site. Lighting provided for the project would be consistent with the existing surrounding environment and Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards; therefore,lighting impacts would be less than significant. 4.1.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to aesthetics are anticipated for the proposed project; therefore,no mitigation measures pertaining to aesthetics are required. 4.1.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts to aesthetics are anticipated for the proposed project. hi) Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-8 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2AA�gppUy 2008 X..1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal_EIR14.1_Spyglass_Aesthetics.doc F F 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),no responses were Freceived pertaining to aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. F r l 1 1 . . .I f . l Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-9 City of Lake Elsinore I—al Revised Draft EIR May-289;�January 2008 X.1010570 Cify_of Lake Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.1_Spyglass Aesfhelics.doc 4.1 Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. iaiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.1-10 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May A P January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIM4.1_Spyglass Aesthetics.doc 4.2 Air Quality 4.2 AIR QUALITY Information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in ( Appendix B of this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR): I Air Quality Analysis, Spyglass Ranch, City of Lake Elsinore, California. Prepared by Giroux and Associates. May 2, 2007. 4.2.1 Environmental Setting The proposed project is located in Riverside County,which is part of the South Coast Air Basin(Basin) and within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The climate in the Basin generally is characterized by sparse winter rainfall and hot summers tempered by cool breezes. A temperature inversion, a warm layer of air that traps the cool marine air layer underneath it and prevents vertical mixing, is the prime factor that forces airborne contaminants to accumulate in the Basin. The mild climatological pattern in the Basin is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather,winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The climate of the area is not unique but the high concentration of stationary and mobile sources of air contaminants combined with the surrounding wall of mountains, contribute to poor air quality in the region. Local air quality in the Basin is monitored by the SCAQMD which operates a network of monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The California Air ( Resources Board(GARB)operates additional monitoring stations. l 4.2.1.1 Applicable Plans and Regulations Federal and State Regulations Federal Clean Air Act(CAA) The Federal Clean Air Act(CAA)was enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA established federal air quality standards,known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS for those contaminants that are most likely to have a potential impact associated with this project are listed in Table 4.2-1.The CAA also mandates that the state submit and implement State Implementation Plans i (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures 1 that demonstrate how the standards would be met. The County of Riverside is included in the Basin, which was designated a non-attainment area for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA. 1 Through a separate state statute,the SCAQMD was established as the local air pollution control agency for the Basin. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for ozone (03), and to adopt a standard for ultra-fine particulates (PM2.5)- The 1990 Amendments to the CAA identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS,require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment,and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA that would most substantially affect the development of the proposed project are Title I(Non-attainment Provisions)and Title II(Mobile Source Provisions). MISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_City_of Leke_Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8_CEQA1Rnal__E1R14.2_Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards0) Federal Standards(2) Pollutant Time Concentration(3) Method(4) Primaryt3l.t51 Secondaryt3l,(s) MethodV) 0.09 ppm _ Ozone(03) 1 hour _ (180 pg/m3) Ultraviolet I Same as Primary Ultraviolet Photometry 0.07 ppm Photometry 0.08 ppm Standard 8 hours (137 pg/m3) (157 pg/m3) Respirable 24 Hour 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Inertial Separation Gravimetric or Beta — - Same as Primary Particulate Annual 20 /m3 Attenuation Standard and Gravimetric Matter(PM,o) Arithmetic Mean ug -- Analysis 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 uglm3 Inertial Separation Fine Particulate Same as Primary Matter(PM2.5) Annual 12 ug/m3 Gravimetric or Beta 15 ulms Standard and Gravimetric y etric Arithmetic Mean Attenuation gAnalysis 8 hours —..9 ppm 9 ppm (10 mglm3) (10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Non-Dispersive Carbon 35 ppm 20 ppm Monoxide(CO) 1 hour (23 mg/m3) Infrared Photometry (40 mg/m3) None Infrared Photometry (NDIR) (NDIR) 8 Hour 6 ppm _ (Lake Tahoe) (7 mg/m3) Annual _ Gas Phase 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Arithmetic Mean Chemiluminescence (100 pg/m3) Same as Primary Gas Phase Dioxide(NO2) 0.25 ppm Standard Chemiluminescence 1 hour (470 pg/m3) Annual _ 0.030 ppm _ Arithmetic Mean (80 pg/m3) 0.04 Spectrophotometry Sulfur Dioxide 24 hours (05 vgpm3) Ultraviolet (365 u9pm) — (Parasaniline Method) (S02) 3 hour — Fluorescence i — 1 hour 0.25 ppm — — (655 pg/m3) 30 Day Average 1.5 pg/m3 — — — Lead(Pb)(8) Calendar Atomic Absorption Same as Prima High Volume Sampler Quarter — 1.5 Nglm3 Standard Primary and Atomic Absorption j Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per milometer-visibility of 10 miles or more Visibility (0.07-30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) Reducing 8 Hour due to particles when relative humidity Particles is less than 70%. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape. No Federal Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen - 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Ultraviolet Sulfide (42 pg/m3) Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride(8) 24 Hour 0.01 ppm Gas Chromatography (26 pg/m) (1) California standards for ozone,carbon monoxide(except Lake Tahoe),sulfur dioxide(1 and 24 hour),nitrogen diuxide,suspelided particulate matter-PM 10,PM2.5,and visibility reducing particles,are values that are not to be exceeded.All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 1L`l� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-2 City of Lake Elsinore j Revised Draft EIR May- January 2n08 X:1010570 City of Lake_Elsinorel52684_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIR14.2_Spyglass_Air Quality.doc 4.2 Air Quality (2) National standards(other than ozone,particulate matter,and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean)are not to be exceeded more than once a year.The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year,averaged over three years,is equal to or less than the standard.For PM 10,the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 ppm is equal to or less than one.For PM2.5,the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S.EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. (3) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated.Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr.Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr;ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume,or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. (4) Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. (5) National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. (6) National Secondary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. (7) Reference method as described by the EPA.An"equivalent method"of measurement may be used but must have a"consistent relationship to the reference method"and must be approved by the EPA. (8) The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as'toxic air contaminants'with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Source: California Air Resources Board(CARB)November 10,2006(hftp://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aags2.pdo mglm3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppm= parts per million pglm3 = micrograms per cubic meter Non-attainment and Criteria Pollutants Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants: 03,nitrogen dioxide (NOA sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine particulates(PM10), carbon monoxide (CO),and lead(Pb). The NAAQS were amended in 1997 to include an additional standard for 03 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 4.2-1 provides the NAAQS within the basin. Mobile Sources Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require use of cleaner-burning gasoline and other cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tail pipe emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NO,,). California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act(CCAA), signed into law in 1988,requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)by the earliest practical date also shown in Table 4.2-1. Air pollution from commercial and industrial facilities is regulated by local air quality management districts,whereas mobile sources of air pollution are regulated by the California Air Resources Board(CARB)and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as"attainment"or"non-attainment"for each state air quality standard. Non-attainment designations are categorized into three levels of severity: (1)moderate; (2) serious; and(3) severe. If there are inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, districts are considered"unclassified." 1DSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-3 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May-20"January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore1526B4 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.2 Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality The current attainment designations for the Basin are as follows: Pollutant Exposure State Federal Ozone(03) 1-Hour Non-attainment Severe Non-attainment 8-Hour Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment Carbon Monoxide(CO) 8-Hour Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2)� 1-Hour or Annual y Attainment Attainment Particulate Matter(PM1o) — Annual ` Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment Particulate Matter(PM2.5) Annual Non-attainment Unclassified/Attainment Source:California Air Resources Board,Attainment Designation Fact Sheets,January 2006 Local Regulations South Coast Air Quality Management District The proposed project relates to the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)through the land use and growth assumptions used to forecast projected air pollution emissions in the Basin. The SCAQMD's AQMP provides a blueprint as to how the SCAQMD expects to bring the Basin into attainment for all NAAQS and CAAQS. The AQMP is based on the designated land use for a project site as described in the various approved General Plans throughout the Basin. When a project is consistent with the growth assumptions in a General Plan, it is also considered consistent with the SCAQMD's AQMP. Such consistency implies that a project would not create any significant regional air quality impacts because such impacts have already been anticipated within the framework of the regional air quality planning process. However, it is recommended in the AQMP that, although incompatibility with the AQMP is a source of potentially significant impact,compatibility is not a sufficient basis for a finding of less than significant impact. Therefore, impact significance is evaluated on a project-specific basis using SCAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook(1993) significance thresholds and other guidance in addition to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook(1993) states that any project in the District with daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds identified in Table 4.2-2 should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. Table 4.2-2. SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds Thresholds(lbs/day) Pollutant Construction Operational Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC) 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 100 55 Particulate Matter(PM 1o) 150 150 Particulate Matter(PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides(SOx) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide(CO) 550 550 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook,November 1993 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-4 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2997j nuary 200II X:1010570 Cily_of lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFina/EIRA2 Spyglass AirQualify.doc I 4.2 Air Quality Per SCAQMD guidelines, during construction activity, if a daily emission threshold is exceeded regardless of quarterly emissions levels,the project is determined to have a significant air quality impact. Therefore, a conservative approach is used to evaluate construction emissions based on daily emissions rather than quarterly emissions. I Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG)is the regional planning agency for Los I Angeles, Orange,Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties. SCAG serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation,the economy and community development, and the environment. SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG)for the region, which includes chapters on growth management and regional mobility. Those specific chapters form the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts. Global Warming Global warming and greenhouse gases are an emerging environmental concern being raised on statewide, national, and global levels. Regional, state, and federal agencies are developing strategies to control pollutant emissions that contribute to global warming, including the recently-adopted California Assembly Bill 32,which requires CARB to develop regulations and market mechanisms to ultimately reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EMFAC 2007 California emissions computer model, each residential project trip in southern California generates approximately six pounds I of CO2 from vehicular exhaust. This represents approximately 1.5 pounds of carbon released into the latmosphere. For almost 8,000 daily trips generated by the proposed project, daily CO2 emissions would total slightly less than 50,000 pounds per day from project-related traffic. However,neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mention or provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases, including CO2,nor do they provide any significance thresholds. This air quality analysis follows all procedures and requirements of the CEQA and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Evaluation of any potential global warming effects resulting from the project, including modeling and gauging the impacts associated i with an increase of trips or generation of new trips and the effect on global warming,would be entirely + speculative as no modeling protocol or significance criteria have been established. 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions l Existing Air Quality lExisting air quality is measured based upon ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health and welfare. Those standards currently in effect for both the state and federal levels are shown in Table 4.2-1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment if: the measured ambient air pollutant levels for 03, CO, S02 (I-hourand 24-hour),NO2,and PMIo are not exceeded and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the federal standards(other ' than 03,PMIo, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The 03 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PMIo,the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. `� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-5 City of Lake Elsinore L F D ` Revised Draft EIR "499-7,122uary 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEWIFinal EIRI4.2_Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality Regional Air Quality The SCAQMD monitors the levels of various criteria pollutants at 30 monitoring stations throughout the air district. In 2005 the federal and state standards for 03 at most monitoring locations exceeded threshold on one or more days. No areas of the Basin exceeded federal or state standards for NO2, SO2, CO,Pb, or sulfates. The SCAQMD 2003-2007 AQMP predicted the Basin would comply with the federal FA44,PM,s requirements by 2006 2015 and the federal 8-hour ozone standards by the year 24442024. Compliance with the state standards for both RA444r M�55 and ozone alFe+,egs expected ell aftef the-yeat 291 9to follow a similar schedule. plan is euFFenfly in pFepamfien. This plan wettid shift Fnest of the one heor-eze find-11FAd attamment stwegies te obe 9- hei—if sifflndAr-d UP R(40iffifJORt date would have to be pushed ffem 2010 to Local Air Quality Existing air quality data were obtained from monitoring sites maintained by the SCAQMD near the project site. Data for 03 and NO2 is collected by the Lake Elsinore monitoring station located approximately 0.2 miles from the project site, and CO has also been monitored at this station since 2002. Data for PMIo were obtained from the Perris Valley monitoring station located approximately 9.5 miles from the project site. Data for CO and ultra-fine particulate matter(PM2.5)were obtained from the Riverside County Rubidoux monitoring station located approximately 23 miles from the project site. The six years of data in Table 4.2-3 show the number of days when standards were exceeded for the study area. Ozone is the pollutant that most often exceeded previously allowable federal and state standards within the study area,with PMIo also exceeding allowable state standards within the study area on an occasional basis. The most current federal ambient air quality standards eliminate the standard for 1-hour ozone. Development such as that proposed for the project site predominantly generates emissions associated with vehicular travel. 4.2.2 Project Impacts 4.2.2.1 Thresholds of Significance The following significance thresholds were taken from the CEQA Appendix G screening criteria. A significant impact to air quality would be identified if the project was determined to: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of or exceed quantitative thresholds for 03 precursor gasses,PMIo,and/or PM2.5; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-6 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2094J4nuary 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl9_CEQAIFinal EIR14.2_Spyglass_AirQualitydoc 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-3. Air Quality Monitoring Summary Days Standards were Exceeded and Maximum Observed Concentration Air Pollutant Standard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1-Hour>0.09 ppm(S) 45 62 52 j 50 34 37 Ozone(03) 1-Hour>0.12 ppm(F) 1 12 6 7 2 4 8-Hour>0.08 ppm(F) 26 46 41 36 21—, 15 I Max. 1-Hour Concentration(ppm) 0.128 0.115 0.139 0.154 0.1301, 0.149 '� 1-Hour>20 ppm(S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carbon Monoxide(CO) 8-Hour>9 ppm(S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Max. 1-Hour Concentration(ppm) 5.3 5.2 2.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 I Max.8-Hour Concentration(ppm) 4.3 3.5 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.0 _ Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) 1-Hour>0.25 ppm(S) 0 0 _ 0 0~ 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Concentration(ppm) 0.078 0.091 0.074 0.074 0.090 0.070 Inhalable Particulates 24-Hour>50 pglm3(S) 13/59 16/60 21/61 17/58 15/59 = 19/60 (PMio)2 24-Hour>150 pg/m3(F) 0/59 0/60 0/61 0/58 0/59 0/123 _ Max.24-Hour Concentration(Ng/m3) [___87 86 95 135 79 80 Ultra-Fine Particulates 24-Hour>65 pglm3(F) 11/304 17/325 8/325 1/349 5/343 4/334 (PM2.5)1 Max.24-hr Concentration(pg/m3) 119.6 98.0 77.6 104.3 91.7 98.7 —_t Source: SCAQMD Air Monitoring Data Summaries,Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station. Notes: =Data obtained from Riverside County Rubidoux monitoring station = Data obtained from Perris Valley monitoring station (S) = State ambient standard (F) = Federal ambient standard ppm = Parts per million pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 4.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts Emissions that can adversely affect air quality occur both during a project's construction period and its operational phase. As identified above, CEQA Appendix G provides criteria indicating when a project is I� considered to have significant air quality impacts during project operation. Construction and operational l impacts relative to these criteria are discussed below. 4 It should be noted that the air quality impact analysis below assumes a scenario whereby Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be developed with commercial uses. Vehicular trips would be greater with commercial development in Planning Areas 5 and 6,and,therefore, would represent greater vehicular emissions. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan The project site is located within the SCAB,which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The ! SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 12,000 square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what used to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In Augus�June 24932007,the SCAQMD adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards that were being exceeded in most parts of the Basin. The Air Resources Board(ARB) subsequently held a hearing on June 22,2007 where it was L'-1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-7 City of Lake Elsinore ��a Revised Draft EIR May 2807January 2008 X.1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR142 Spygless_AirQualily.doc 4.2 Air Quality decided more aggressive actions should be taken to reduce emissions from mobile sources. ARB has therefore delayed adoption of its SIP and is working with SCAOMD to strengthen the AOMP. PC-4Q is The proposed project relates to the air quality planning process through the growth forecasts that were used as input for the regional transportation model. If a proposed development is consistent with those growth forecasts, and if all available emissions reduction strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project-specific basis,then the project is consistent with the AQMP. The AQMP contains a number of land use and transportation control measures(TCMs)which are divided into three categories: 1. High occupancy vehicle (HOV)measures; 2. Transit and Systems Management measures; and 3. Information-based measures. These measures cannot be implemented by any single development,but require an integration of all development and all transportation planning. AQMP consistency on a single development basis is thus more a matter of facilitating or providing the infrastructure for TCM implementation rather than being required to carry out regionally comprehensive AQMP measures. The proposed project is not consistent with the growth projections for the project area because it is not consistent with the currently adopted land use and zoning designations as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Consequently,the project is not consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would be potentially significant. Regional Emissions Construction Impacts(Short-Term) Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate onsite pollutant emissions from grading and paving activity,building construction, and finish work. Construction emissions are calculated based on the types of construction equipment required, construction schedule, and emission factors from the CARB URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Emissions from construction activities would be compared to the SCAQMD's daily construction-related emissions thresholds. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that the entire site would be graded via a single,on-going operation,during which only 51.6 acres would be disturbed at any one time.' Construction activities would conform to Rule 403 to control fugitive dust emissions and Rule 1113 to limit volatile organic compound(VOC) emissions in architectural coatings. SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a menu of fugitive dust control measures to which the project must adhere, including,but not limited to: • Active construction areas shall be watered at least three times daily. • All haul trucks shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ' The URBEMIS2002 computer model predicts 51.6 acres as the simultaneous disturbance area for a residential project of comparable size. FUSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-8 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 299IJanuary 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglessl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.2_Spyglass_AirQualiry.doc fI_ l 4.2 Air Quality • All unpaved parking or staging areas shall be watered four times daily. • Site access points shall be swept or washed within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. I . On-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily. • Operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Any cleared area that is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing shall be stabilized. Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings by providing numeric standards for VOC ' concentrations per volume of coating. Grading Activity SCAQMD identified the dust emissions factor for grading activities to be 26.4 pounds per acre of PM,o ( emissions in the absence of any dust control measure. PM2.5 emissions are estimated by the SCAQMD to I comprise 20.8 percent of PMIo. Daily construction-related PMIo and PM2.5 emissions for the proposed project are shown below in Table 4.2-4. ITable 4.2-4. Total Particulate Matter Emissions as a Result of Project Grading { Daily Simultaneous Disturbance Area 51.6 acres l Construction-Related PM10 Emissions 1,362 pounds Construction-Related PM2.5 Emissions 1,079 pounds The SCAQMD significance threshold is 150 pounds per day of PMIo and 55 pounds per day of PM2.5. As I identified, in the absence of any dust control measures, daily PMIo and PM2.5 emissions would be significant. r IEquipment Exhaust Construction equipment exhaust emissions were estimated based on the CARB URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Equipment exhaust is expected to be generated during construction activities(including site grading,building,paving, and finish work; e.g.,painting). Equipment exhaust emissions were calculated presuming that grading would be balanced on-site, and that initial demolition and heavy f grading and infrastructure development would gradually shift toward building construction and then l toward finish construction,paving, landscaping, etc. Daily exhaust emissions for the proposed project are shown below in Table 4.2-5. l Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-9 City of Lake Elsinore ID_` Revised Draft EIR May28g7January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglessl6_CEQAWinal EIR14.2_Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-5. Total Daily Exhaust Emissions (lbs/day) PMIo PMIo PM10 Activity ROG i NO. CO S02 Total Exhaust Dust PM2.5* i Grading 45.3 j 298.2 376.8 0.0 528.6 J 12.6 516.0 119.9 Construction&Paving 225.7 I 72.4 164.0 0.0 3.68 2.47 1.21 I 2.7 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 -- -- I 55 j Exceed Threshold? Yes i Yes No No Yes ! -- -- ? Yes Note:*PM2.5=(0.208 x PM10 dust)+100%Mo exhaust As identified above, impacts associated with construction equipment activities are shown to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,NO,,PMIo, and PM2.5. Once project construction activities have been completed,project-related construction emissions would cease; however,impacts would be significant for the duration of project construction activities. "Excess"NO,,is a regional concern because NOX is an ozone precursor which has been shown to cause adverse health effects. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would contribute to an increase of ozone precursor gases. Impacts are significant. Diesel Exhaust Exposure Risk Diesel exhaust has been identified as carcinogenic. The cancer risk factor for diesel exhaust is measured in terms of outdoor exposure for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year,over 70 years. Project construction would not follow this schedule. Equipment exhaust would be released for a limited time during daytime hours by mobile sources that would not expose any individual receptor for any extended period. As identified in Table 4.2-5, exhaust from site grading would generate a maximum of 12.6 pounds per day of PMIo. Diesel exposure health risk impacts from grading equipment exhaust would therefore be relatively minimal and not considered significant. Operation Impacts (Long-Term) Air pollutant emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project would be generated primarily by mobile sources traveling to and from the project site, although emissions from natural gas use, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings would also occur. Emissions modeled for the operational phase of the project were calculated based on assumptions from the CARB URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Based on the trip generation factors specified in the traffic study (Appendices J.1 and J.2) and assuming a buildout year of 2009, daily operational emissions were projected. Table 4.2-6 shows air pollutant emissions in pounds per day associated with operation of the proposed project. At project buildout,operational emissions of CO and ozone precursors ROG and NO,,would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Consequently,regional operational emissions associated with the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts. fSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-10 City of Lake Elsinore -\ Revised Draft EIR May 2947I&QuLry2098 X:1010570_Ci1y_o(Lake_Elsinore1526B4_Spyglass1e CEQAIFinal EIM4.2_Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-6. Operational Emissions Daily Emissions(lbslday) Year 2009 Buildout ROG NO. CO PM10 SO- PM2.5 All Residential Alternative Area Source Emissions 80.6 10.5 24.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 Operational Emissions 69.6 71.0 779.8 81.3 0.5 13.7 Total 150.2 81.5 804.7 81.4 0.7 13.7 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No Commercial Use Alternative Area Source Emissions 60.5 9.4 25.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 Operational Emissions u 91.4 106.8 1,137.2 120.9 0.8 20.4 Total 151.9 116.2 1,163.0 121.0 1.0 20.4 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No Source: URBEMIS2002 model Sensitive Receptors The potential impact of the proposed project on sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive l receptors include uses such as long-term health care facilities,rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools,playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. According to the air quality analysis,there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Residential land uses that can be classified as sensitive receptors are located over 550 feet south of the project site. According to the EPA,the primary zone of dust soiling nuisance is within 100 feet of the activity itself. Therefore,the closest sensitive receptors are outside the zone of impact and construction of the proposed project has little potential to affect these nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, once project construction activities have been completed,project-related construction emission would cease. However, a potential long-term effect on sensitive receptors to be located on-site may occur due to the proximity of the I-15 freeway to the project site. According to the air quality analysis, sensitive receptors such as those proposed on the project site may be exposed to substantial PM10 concentrations at a distance of less than 500 feet to a major roadway or freeway. The project proposes residential uses at approximately 300 feet from the nearest travel lanes. Therefore, sensitive receptors within this proximity have the potential to be exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollutants. Impacts are potentially significant. 1 Odors The potential for the proposed project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include: agricultural uses,wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations,refineries,landfills, dairies, and lfiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors; therefore, the project is unlikely to generate substantial odors. Any odors generated during project construction would be short-term and would terminate upon completion of the IMSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-11 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR anuary2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyg1ass18 CEQMFinal EIR14.2_Spyglass_AirQuality.doc 4.2 Air Quality construction phase of the project. The project site is located immediately adjacent to an existing landfill; however,no odor impacts to the project site are anticipated because the landfill is no longer operational and has been completely covered. Odor impacts are less than significant. CO Micro-Scale Impacts To determine whether future traffic changes would create an adverse air quality impact, a micro-scale air quality analysis was performed for the project area. Local area CO concentrations were projected using the CALINE-4 traffic pollutant dispersion model. Two traffic scenarios were evaluated to identify a worst-case impact assessment. CO was used as an indicator of any"hot spot"potential as it is directly relates to source activity immediately adjacent to the receptor. Table 4.2-7 summarizes the results of the micro-scale impact analysis. Table 4.2-7. Micro-Scale Air Quality Impact Analysis' 2009 with Build Out with Intersections Project Project AM Peak Hours Elsinore Hills Road/Camino Del Norte 0.5 0.4 La StradalElsinore Hills Road 0.2 0.3 PM Peak Hour Elsinore Hills Road/Camino Del Norte 0.8 0.6 La StradalElsinore Hills Road 0.3 0.5 Note: 1Implementation of the commercial use alternative may generate slightly higher emissions; however,it would require an additional 18 ppm of CO to exceed the one-hour threshold. This is unlikely to occur. Micro-scale emissions would remain less than significant under this alternative. Per California air quality standards for CO,the concentration of CO should not exceed 20.0 parts per million(ppm)for an averaging period of one hour. As previously identified in Table 4.2-3, existing hourly CO levels in the project area are approximately 2.0 ppm. The highest projected CO hotspot level is 0.8 ppm above existing background concentrations for the 2009 With Project scenario at the intersection of Elsinore Hills Road at Camino del Norte during the PM peak hour. Combined with existing background levels,the maximum CO concentration would be 2.8 ppm,well below the 20.0 ppm standard. Since significant impacts would not occur at intersections with the highest potential for CO hotspot formation,no existing or future CO hotspots are projected at any other locations in the project vicinity as a result of the proposed project. Impacts are less than significant. 4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts Other growth and development projects within the vicinity of the proposed project site are identified in Table 3.5-1. The project is expected to exceed the thresholds set for ROG,NO, and CO during operation,thereby contributing to an incremental impact on declining cumulative air quality conditions. The proposed project in conjunction with other related developments projected wiaiiii tlru vicinity of the project site would generate increased air emissions. Increased air emissions would result from increased mobile and stationary sources,thereby further hampering the ability to achieve conformance with the 1FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-12 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2A97January 2008 X..V10570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRA2_Spyglass AkQuality.doc �- 4.2 Air Quality i SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds. Furthermore,the SCAB is designated by CARB as a non- ( attainment area for federal and state 03 and PMIo standards as well as state PM2.5 standards. Cumulatively, development of the proposed project in conjunction with other development in the project vicinity would continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality during both the short-term construction and long- term operational phases. 4.2.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan s - The proposed project is not consistent with AQMP forecasts for the area and,therefore, conflicts with and obstructs implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. Regional Emissions As previously discussed, the Basin is classified by the EPA as a severe non-attainment area for 1-hour 03 and serious non-attainment area for 8-hour 03 and PMIo. CARB currently designates the Basin as non- attainment for 03,PMIo, and PM2.5. The proposed project would contribute to these existing air quality violations by exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,NO,,,,PMIo, and PM2.5 during project construction and ROG,NO, and CO during the project's operational phase. Cumulatively, increases in pollutant levels would result in significant impacts at the regional level. Impacts are therefore significant. Sensitive Receptors While the project is unlikely to impact sensitive receptors surrounding the site,the project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors on-site to substantial pollutant concentrations of PMIo due to proximity to the 1-15. Impacts are significant. Odors The proposed residential uses on the project site would not generate objectionable odors. Residential uses typically do not generate objectionable odors and the project site is located in an area currently surrounded by vacant parcels and future residential areas. The project site is also located immediately 1 adjacent to an existing landfill; however,no odor impacts to the project site are anticipated because the landfill is no longer operational and has been completely covered. Therefore,there are no other adjacent land uses that would generate objectionable odors that would be detected on the project site. Impacts are less than significant. CO Micro-Scale Impacts I The proposed project would not contribute to a localized CO hotspot. Impacts are less than significant. 4.2.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures l Construction-Related Mitigation Measures As a condition of all grading and building permits,the project shall adhere to SCAQMD Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust Control)and 1113 (VOCs)during construction-related activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a menu of fugitive dust control measures to which the project must adhere. Rule 1113 limits the L17 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-13 City of Lake Elsinore �F D ` Revised Draft EIR May 2097January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIR14.2_Spyglass AirQualily.doc 4.2 Air Quality VOC content of architectural coatings by providing numeric standards for VOC concentrations per volume of coating. In addition to compliance with SCAQMD Rules,the following mitigation measure is required to reduce construction impacts to below a level of significance: MM 4.2-1 The following measures are required to reduce project impacts relating to ROG,NOx, and-PMI - and PM-2.5:= • Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. • Terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces and unpaced haul routes at least three times daily. • Cover all stockpiles with tarps when left unattended for more than 72 hours. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads and haul routes to less than 15 mph. • Require 90-day low-NOX tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for scrapers and dozers used in grading. • Require installation of soot filters on all diesel equipment>100 horsepower. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Operational-Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce operational air quality impacts for mobile and stationary sources: MM 4.2-2 As operation-related impacts result primarily from mobile sources traveling to and from the project site,the proposed project shall incorporate any available TCMs. Such measures include,but are not limited to: • Providing future transit access points within the development; • Including bicycle lanes in the project design; and/or • Providing an attractive pedestrian environment. FalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-14 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May29)w-i ary 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsin=152664_Spyglassl8_CEQMHnal EIR14.2 Spyglass_AirQuality.doc I 4.2 Air Quality i Sensitive Receptors MM 4.2-3 Upgraded filters on the ventilation system shall be installed for homes within 500 feet of the nearest I-15 travel lane. 4.2.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation 1 Micro-scale emissions and odor impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. The following issue areas require mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. IConsistency with Air Quality Management Plan The proposed project conflicts with the AQMP due to inconsistencies with the growth projections for the project area as it is not consistent with the currently adopted land use designation and zoning as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. It is important to note that if the proposed project is included in the City's General Plan update, it would likely be consistent with the AQMP. Until the General Plan update is certified,however, impacts are significant and unmitigated. Regional Emissions Upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, air emissions are projected to be reduced. However, as identified in the air quality analysis, daily construction and operation-related impacts would continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2-8,the incorporation of MM 4.2-1 during construction activity would reduce projected CO, SOZ,PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, construction-related emissions of ROG and NOX f would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds. For long-term operational impacts, even with implementation of the mitigation measure MM 4.2-2,the daily operational and area source emissions cannot be reduced to less than significant levels for emissions of ROG,NOX, and CO. In addition, since the proposed project is in exceedance of the daily regional emissions thresholds set forth by SCAQMD, it is assumed that I cumulative developments would contribute to an exceedance of these thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. 1 Table 4.2-8. Mitigated Construction Activity Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Activity ROG NOx CO S02 Total Exhaust Dust PM2.5* Grading 40.8 149.3 376.8 0.0 48.4 2.5 45.9 12.0 Construction&Paving 225.7 72.4 164.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 1.2 1.5 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 -- — 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS2002 Model Note: *(0.208 x PM10 dust)+100%PM10 exhaust LT1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-15 City of Lake Elsinore ����JJ Revised Draft EIR May2A87January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal_EIRI4.2_Spyglass_Air Quality.doc 4.2 Air Quality Sensitive Receptors Implementation of MM 4.2-3 would reduce impacts to sensitive receptors to below a level of significance. In summary,project-related emissions for ROG,NO,,, and CO remain significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations would be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091 and 15093. 4.2.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)provided a synopsis of CEQA requirements for air quality analysis in an EIR. An air quality impact technical study was prepared for the proposed project in conformance with SCAQMD requirements. This study is included in Appendix B of this EIR. laSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.2-16 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 299.7January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.2 Spyglass_AirQuality.doc C - 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/JURISDICTIONAL WATERS The following documents were used in the preparation of this section and are located in Appendices C.1 pp , C.2, C.3, CA, C.5,and C.6 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR): 1 Biological Technical Report. Spyglass Ranch. Prepared by Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. August 25,2006. Lake Elsinore Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP) Consistency Analysis of the Spyglass Ranch Project(SP 2005-02, GPA 2005-06, ZC 2005-07). Prepared by Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. May 19,2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dry Season Protocol Level Survey Report for Vernal Pool and Riverside Fairy Shrimp. Prepared by Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. September 29, 2006. Joint Project Review No. 06-12-18-01 for LEAP 2006-03 (Spyglass). Prepared by Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. January 11, 2007. Elsinore Hills Road Impacts—Spyglass Ranch Project. Prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. March 2,2007. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report. Prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. April 6,2007 The Biological Technical Report identified the potential impacts on biological resources,United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)wetlands within and adjacent to the proposed 259-acre ! residential project site.An evaluation of existing conditions project impacts, and proposed mitigation p J g ,p j p p p g measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels were included. The Biological Technical Report did not include impacts associated with the construction of Elsinore Hills Road because it was anticipated that the adjacent land owner, Southshore LLC,would construct this road through the proposed project site. When it subsequently was determined that the project applicant would be responsible for addressing 1 the environmental impacts of this road,Helix prepared a supplemental letter report identifying the 1 biological resource impacts within the construction limits of the road. 4.3.1 Environmental Setting 4.3.1.1 Applicable Plans City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan(1990) The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan was adopted in 1990. The General Plan"functions as a guide for local government decision makers as well as the development community with respect to future land use and development." The Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan identifies natural and man-made resources within the City and establishes policies and implementation programs that encourage conservation,protection,and proper management of these resources. Currently,the General Plan is being updated and will carry forth the same policies and programs that encourage resource protection. toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-1 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_Cify_o/Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP) Western Riverside County is involved in a regional habitat conservation effort to provide for the long- term conservation of biological resources within defined planning areas, including the City of Lake Elsinore. The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan, focused on conserving 146 species through creation of a habitat reserve system. The MSHCP also serves to enhance maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing the fulfillment of future economic goals. The County of Riverside adopted the MSHCP on June 17,2003. The MSHCP identifies conservation [reserve] subunits and target conservation acreages within each Area Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore,including the project site, is located within the Elsinore Area Plan. Although the MSHCP provides coverage for multiple species,these are some additional requirements for site-specific focused surveys where appropriate habitat is present. The project site is not located within any designated survey area for any plant, mammal,or amphibian species; however,the site is within the survey area for burrowing owl. The current MSHCP fee is $1,801 per dwelling unit(du) for residential uses with a density of less than 8.0 du per acre, $1,153 per du for residential uses with a density between 8.1 and 14.0 du per acre, $937 per du for residential uses with a density of greater than 14.1 du per acre, and$6,131 per acre for commercial uses. When mixed uses are proposed within the same project,the-commercial fee is applied to the whole project based on the underlying classification of the property at the time of building permit issuance. Fees may be offset through on-or off-site conservation. 4.3.1.2 Existing Conditions Refer to the Biological Technical Report included in Appendix C.1 for methodology of biological surveys for the project site. Vegetation Associations and Habitats As shown in Table 4.3-1,vegetation mapped within the project site include Riversidean sage scrub,non- native grassland, emergent wetland,open water,disturbed habitat,non-native vegetation, and developed areas (Figure 4.3-1). Table 4.3-1.Existing Vegetation Communities Vegetation Community Acres Riversidean sage scrub(including disturbed) 231.15 Non-native grassland 16.80 Emergent wetland 0.02 Open water 0.34 Disturbed habitat 9.05 Non-native vegetation 0.84 Developed 0.60 Total T258.80 toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-2 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR 2 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc It- 2 CAGN OW RSS \ h BIJR RSS 2 CAGN ` - J �x �3) 2CAGN 4) 2C 2 CAGN :2CAGN RDRA 2 CAGN j o , �XX 6 � ���.r--��. '1 f•� -- ^^tea y - m Vegetation & Sensitive Resources _ Vegetation Sensitive Resources sy, NNG,Non-Native Grassland U CAGN,Coastal California Gnatcatcher,Polioptila californica californica i g NNV, Non-Native Vegetation © OTWH,Orange-throated Whiptail,Cnemidophorus hyperthyrus EW,Emergent Wetlands • BTJR,San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit,Lepus californicus bennettii 3 ' OW,Open Water � RDRA,Red Diamond Rattlesnake,Crotalus exsul RSS,Riversidean Sage Scrub ® Ls,Long-spined Spineflower,Chorizanthe polygonoides var.longispina RSS-D,Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub d ® Pi,Payson's Jewelflower,Caulanthus simulans pays DH,Disturbed Habitat ®_ _ ® Project Boundary 0 400 800 Feet Q DEV, Developed ® Elsinore Hills Road Footprint Vegetation & Sensitive Resources 1 L� FIGURE 4.3-1 1J Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY IMany Solutionsg r 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters The following is a general description of the plant associations/vegetation types that occur on the project site: Riversidean Sage Scrub—The majority of the project site is dominated by Riversidean sage scrub. Species identified onsite include California sagebrush,brittlebush,and California buckwheat. Subdominant species onsite include white sage, chaparral beard-tongue,blue larkspur, chia,baby blue- eyes, wishbone bush, deerweed,white pincushion, California poppy,wild cucumber, dwarf plantain, f holly-leafed cherry, and white fiesta flower. Non-native Grassland—The project site supports non-native grassland characterized by foxtail chess, barley, and oat, with lesser portions of dwarf plantain,rancher's fiddleneck, California aster, star thistle, i red-stem filaree tidy tips,bur-clover, goldfields, in and cheeseweed. p pink, Emergent Wetland—Three small patches of emergent wetland occur adjacent to the pond in the northwestern portion of the project site. These areas are dominated by water speedwell. Open Water—An unvegetated pond area(open water)occurs in the northwestern portion of the property. Disturbed Habitat—Several dirt roads traversing the property are mapped as disturbed habitat. They support mustard,red-stem filaree,popcorn flower, and dwarf plantain. Non-native Vegetation—Onsite,this community is represented by several small clusters of ornamental trees such as pines,chinaberry, eucalyptus, date palms, and Peruvian pepper tree. Developed—Developed areas onsite comprise a single existing occupied residence, an abandoned swimming pool, and abandoned animal pens and outbuildings. Sensitive Vegetation Associations and Habitats Vegetation communities(habitats) are generally considered"sensitive"if. (1)they are considered rare 1 within the region by various agencies including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), CDFG, and other local agencies; (2) if they are known to support sensitive animal or plant species; and/or(3)they are known to serve as important wildlife corridors. These sensitive habitats are typically depleted throughout their known ranges,or are highly localized and/or fragmented. Of the seven vegetation communities identified onsite, four sensitive vegetation communities occur within the study area: Riversidean sage scrub, emergent wetland,open water, and non-native grassland. Riversidean sage scrub has restricted distribution, supports a high diversity of plant and animal species, and provides habitat for the federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and a number of other sensitive species. Emergent wetland and open water are limited in nature and provide important island habitat for certain migrant birds as well as drinking water for mule deer and other local wildlife. Non-native grassland provides valuable foraging habitat for migratory birds, including raptors. iSpecial-Status Plant Species A list of sensitive plant species with potential to occur within the study area is provided in the Biological Technical Report(Appendix C.1). No federally- or state-listed sensitive plant species were observed onsite. In addition,no threatened or endangered plant species were observed onsite. However, the Tl`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-5 City of Lake Elsinore L F al Revised Draft EIR May 2687,January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal_EIR14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters sensitive long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower were observed in the southern and eastern portions of the project site. Special-Status Wildlife Species The USFWS and CDFG have established classifications for listing of sensitive species. These classifications,based on level of threat, are listed below: Classification Criteria Federally Endangered USFWS identifies a federally endangered species as one which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all,or a significant portion,of its range due to one or more causes,including F I loss of habitat,change in habitat,overexploitation,predation,competition,or disease. I Federally Threatened USFWS identifies a federally threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts,although not presently threatened with extinction. Federal Species of USFWS identified a federal species of concern as one under consideration by USFWS for listing, Concern for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time. State Endangered CDFG identifies a state endangered species as one which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all,or a significant portion,of its range due to one or more causes,including loss of habitat,change in habitat,overexploitation,predation,competition,or disease. State Threatened CDFG identifies a state threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts,although not presently threatened with extinction. California Species of This status applies to species not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)or the Concern California ESA but which are declining at a rate that could result in listing or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. California Fully-Protected This classification identifies protection to rare animals or those facing possible extinction. Fully- Species protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issues for their take. Most fully-protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered. A list of sensitive animal species with potential to occur within the study area is provided in Table 4.3-2. While a number of species were identified as having a high potential to occur on the project site,these species are covered by the MSHCP and the project site is not located within any designated survey area for any plant,mammal,or amphibian species. However, 11 pairs of federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher were observed onsite. In addition,the sensitive Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit,red-diamond rattlesnake, and Belding's orange- throated whiptail were observed onsite. The project site is also located within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, and focused surveys for this species were conducted. Some habitat for burrowing owl exists within the study area;however,no burrowing owls were identified during the focused survey conducted for the species. Suitable habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) also occurs within the project site,but none were observed onsite. No suitable habitat for any species that primarily inhabit riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools exists on the project site except for the fairy shrimp. Focused protocol surveys were conducted for the Riverside fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp with negative results (Appendix C.3). IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-6 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR MAY 2Q;7JAOUAM= X.1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.3_Spygless_Bio Resources_Juds Waters doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Table 4.3-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Species name Status* Potential to Occur Invertebrates Quino checkerspot butterfly FE/-- Not expected. Focused surveys were conducted with MSHCP Covered negative results. Riverside fairy shrimp FE/-- Not expected. The pond and emergent wetlands on site do MSHCP Covered not exhibit vernal pool characteristics generally preferred by Riverside fairy shrimp. Focused surveys were conducted with negative results. Vertebrates Amphibians Southwestern pond turtle -4CSC Low. Almost entirely aquatic;occurs in freshwater marshes, creeks,ponds,rivers,and streams. Western spadefoot --ICSC Moderate. Chaparral habitat,grassland habitat,and breeding MSHCP Covered pool present on site. Preferred sandy and gravelly soils --- - i present. Reptiles San Diego horned lizard --/CSC Moderate. Preferred prey species of harvester ants exist MSHCP Covered within the study area along with open sage scrub habitat. Coast patch-nosed snake --ICSC High. Preferred brushy coastal sage scrub habitat present on MSHCP Covered site. Whiptail prey items observed on site. Woodrats and burrowing mammals,which create the snake's winter refuge, present on site. Species known to occur within project vicinity. Coastal rosy boa --I-- Moderate. Open coastal sage scrub habitat present on site. MSHCP Covered Species known to occur within Lake Elsinore area. Birds - ----------... _. Least Bell's vireo FE/SE Not expected. Suitable riparian habitat with developed MSHCP Covered canopy and understory not present on site. Southwestern willow flycatcher FE/- Not expected. Species occurs in mature, riparian woodland MSHCP Covered habitat,which is not present on site. Western snowy plover FT/CSC Not expected. Small amount of wetland and pond habitat MSHCP Covered present in northwest corner of site. Cooper's hawk --ICSC Low. Woodland habitat required for breeding not present on MSHCP Covered site. Bell's sage sparrow --/CSC Moderate. Habitat(coastal sage scrub and grassland)exists MSHCP Covered on site. Burrowing owl --ICSC Not expected. Habitat(open coastal sage scrub and MSHCP Covered grassland)exists on site. Focused surveys were negative. Yellow warbler --/CSC Not expected. Occurs in riparian woodland habitat,which is MSHCP Covered not present on site. California horned lark --ICSC Low. Some grassland is present on site,but preferred open MSHCP Covered fields and agricultural areas are not present. Loggerhead shrike --ICSC High to moderate. Found in grassland,open sage scrub, MSHCP Covered chaparral,and desert scrub. FSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-7 City of Lake Elsinore _♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2AA7-January 2008 X.-1010570_City_o!Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAWinal E/R14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Species name Status* Potential to Occur White-faced ibis --/CSC Moderate. Small amount of wetland and pond habitat MSHCP Covered present in northwest corner of site. Grasshopper sparrow --I- Moderate. Some grassland habitat occurs on site,but this MSHCP Covered species prefers larger areas of grassland. White-tailed kite --I-- Low. This species nests in riparian woodlands and oak or MSHCP Covered sycamore groves adjacent to grassland. May forage on site. Mountain quail --/-- None. Found in chaparral in the high foothills and mountains MSHCP Covered of San Diego County. Tree swallow --I-- Low. Nests in tree cavities in open fields or over water. May MSHCP Covered forage in non-native grassland on site. Mammals Stephens'kangaroo rat FE/FT Moderate. Habitat(open Riversidean sage scrub)exists on MSHCP Covered site. _ Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse --/CSC Moderate. Habitat(coastal sage scrub and grassland)exists MSHCP Covered on site. Bobcat -/- Moderate. Prefers brushy areas in mountains and canyons. MSHCP Covered Limited suitable habitat found on site. Notes: CNDDB—California Natural Diversity Database Federal State CDFG FE—Federally Endangered SE—State Endangered CSC—California Species of Concern FT—Federally Threatened ST—State Threatened CFP—California Fully-Protected Species FSC—Federal Species of Concern Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Approximately 0.50 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters occurs onsite and is within both USACE and CDFG jurisdiction as defined by Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) and Section 1602 of the State Fish and Game Code. As shown in Table 4.3-3,these areas are comprised of 0.02 acre of emergent wetland,a 0.34-acre pond, and 0.14 acre of unvegetated ephemeral drainages. Raptor Habitat,Nesting, and Foraging No nesting migratory birds, including raptors such as the red-tailed hawk,red-shouldered hawk,or great- horned owl were observed onsite during the biological survey; however,potential foraging habitat(non- native grassland) and large shrubs and trees that have the potential to support nesting migratory birdFRt4O;r species are provided on the project site. Wildlife Movement According to the Biological Technical Report,no wildlife corridors or linkages were identified as occurring onsite. The project site lies adjacent to Cell Group B,whose goal is to provide a northwest- southeast connection for coastal California gnatcatcher. The project is located outside of Cell Group B and would not impact regional wildlife movement. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-8 City of Lake Elsinore FD_\ Revised Draft EIR ua�12s0W_January 2008 X:1010570 City of Lake_ElsinorW52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAWinal EIRI4.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Table 4.3-3. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands _ Acreage Jurisdictional Areas USACE CDFG Wetland Waters of the U.S./State Emergent Wetland 0.02 0.02 Subtotal 0.02 0.02 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./State Open water(pond) 0.34 0.34 Ephemeral drainage 0.14 0.14 Subtotal 0.48 0.48 Total 0.50 0.50 I 4.3.2 Project Impacts iProject-specific impacts can occur in two forms: direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss,modification, or disturbance of plant communities,which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife,which may directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations,thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability. f Indirect impacts, such as loss of foraging habitat, can occur although these areas or habitats are not I directly removed by project development. Indirect impacts can involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light,unnatural predators (i.e., domestic cats and other non-native animals), competition { with exotic plants and animals, and increased human disturbance such as hiking and dumping of green l waste on site. Indirect impacts may be associated with the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build-out, such as increased traffic use,permanent concrete barrier walls or chain-link fences, exotic ornamental plantings that provide a local source of seed, etc.,which may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as"edge effects"and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by exotics, changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife, and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in existing habitats adjacent to project sites. I 4.3.2.1 Thresholds of Significance The following impact significance thresholds were taken from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G l screening criteria. A significant impact to biological resources would be identified if the project was determined to: • 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 CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means; FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-9 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May-2A97January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEQMRnal EIR14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Walers.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters • 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; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP),Natural Community Conservation Plan(NCCP), or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts It should be noted that the biological resource impact analysis below is applicable whether Planning Areas 5 or 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses. Under both of those scenarios,the entire footprint of Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be disturbed. Most of the project site would be graded during the development of the proposed project,resulting in the loss of 245.62 acres of various habitats as shown in Table 4.3-4. Table 4.3-4. Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts On-Site Project Impacts(Including Elsinore Vegetation Community Existing Acreage Hills Road)(Acres) Preserved Riversidean sage scrub 231.15 219.73 11.42 (including disturbed Riversidean sage scrub Non-native grassland 16.80 15.57 1.23 Emergent wetland 0.02 0.02 0.00 Open water 0.34 0.34 0.00 _...___......._.................__.. ...........--..._...._.._........ _..._..._..�—--..._... .. _ _..—..._.._ _ _... Disturbed habitat 9.05 8.52 0.53 Non-native vegetation 0.84 0.84 0 Developed 0.60 0.60 Total 258.8 245.62 13.18 Note: 1 According to the Spyglass Ranch,LLC and South Shore Properties,LLC Contribution Agreement and Amendment to Joint Development Agreement,South Shore Properties,LLC is responsible for the construction of Elsinore Hills Road and the implementation of environmental mitigation required for that construction.For the purposes of this EIR,whichever applicant ultimately applies for the grading permit for Elsinore Hills Road first shall be responsible for mitigation of the impacts. Sensitive Vegetation Associations and Habitats Impacts would occur to 245.62 acres of the project site, including sensitive vegetation communities. Sensitive vegetation communities include Riversidean sage scrub, emergent wetland,open water, and non-native grassland(Table 4.3-4). This is considered a significant impact to sensitive vegetation communities requiring mitigation in the form of MSHCP local development fees as determined by the City. The fee schedule is outlined above in Section 4.3.1.1. HSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-10 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Revised Draft EIR May 29NJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City of Lake_ElsinoreW6B4 Spyglassl6_CEQMFinal EIR14.3 Spyglass_Sio Resources_Juris Waters.doc I 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Special Status Plant Species I ' Two sensitive plant species were identified onsite: long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower. However,these species are fully covered under the MSHCP. Therefore,while impacts to these species / would occur,these impacts are not significant because they are covered under the MSHCP. No significant impacts to special status plant species would occur from implementation of the proposed project. ISpecial Status Wildlife Species Five sensitive wildlife species were identified onsite: coastal California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Belding's orange-throated whiptail,red-diamond rattlesnake, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. In addition, some special-status wildlife species listed in Table 4.3-1, above, including burrowing owl, a federal species of concern and CDFG Species of Concern and SKR, a federally endangered and state threatened species,may be present on the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat. If present, implementation of the project would impact these species. These impacts would be considered significant and require mitigation. Jurisdictional Waters USACE and CDFG jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S./State would be impacted I with implementation of the proposed project(Table 4.3-5). Appropriate CWA Section 404 permits are required for the project to place fill in wetland waters of the U.S. In addition, a Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)would be required to ensure r compliance with Section 401 of the CWA. A California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from CDFG for the project's impacts to Waters of the State. However, impacts to jurisdictional waters would still exist and are considered significant. 1 Raptor Habitat,Nesting,and Foraging Implementation of the proposed project would directly impact nesting mi rg atory bird 6ncluding_raptorJ foraging habitat by developing 15.57 acres of non-native grassland. There is also the potential to directly or indirectly impact der-migratory bird nests during construction due to the presence of suitable habitat on-site. Impacts are significant. l Tree Preservation The only local policy or ordinance to protect biological resources of local concern in the City of Lake Elsinore is the Palm Tree Preservation Ordinance,No. 1044. The Palm Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes a program to protect and preserve the City's significant palms. Per communication with the project applicant, the palm trees on the project site that are located adjacent to the existing residence on- site would be preserved(Lunde 2007). As identified in Section 2.0,Project Description,the existing residence would be preserved and integrated into the project. The date palm individuals would not be removed from the project site. No other tree protection regulations are applicable to the project site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Wildlife Corridor No existing or future wildlife corridors are located on the project site. While Cell Group B is located adjacent to the project site, implementation of the project would not affect attainment of the goal of the cell group to create a connection for coastal California gnatcatcher due to the project site being located outside of the cell group (Figure 4.3-2). Impacts are less than significant. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-11 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR nua 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreM664_Spyglass16_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 0E 22 cu w . § k kCo 2 § � C> c) k / / CL 2 m0 a / $ .� � f .� �. � § � 7-2 cc � � a �I _ u a) CD rA o ACc Cc \ 2 m V, K - D UECL- oou o6 aaoo �f / � � � S .- w ® # » p - w E2E � ' . . . . �5 t CM CD k2E ■ CD e 2 ■ q g 7 « $ 8 -0 [ 0 CD o a a d d p CM w « \ e O { f ƒ o_ - - a p 2 m E § » c § < - - t / 2 \ g 2 r \ \ 2 0 6 d E # § ■ o (D a C < D^ w 0 CL QLU_� U) �� . \ 7 I _ � os § ® \ cc $ 2 7 Q 14t le } q 2 CL f ƒ 2 a c o a a 5 d /$ E - �2 D , 2 & ----- - 2 § % 3 > m \ o _ M f 2 cE CN � # o n » # $ ■ W 9 0 Cl) '14: L £ § ; f g 2 2 0 0 o a 6 0 02 CoCct \ ck ƒ q o 0 - f 2 - �\ g � ik Ell R & c § @ _ - a \ % / � ƒ J ! En% CD / g # /CC 2 U E k k a k ale m \{ / a 7 $ � 26 2k} _ a) a a § CD2 / ® 1I§ m CD (D / \ 0 k \ o #/\ I « w m 2 o w 0 2 I Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks: �6♦♦ Core 06 •-•>- •��»•-.�1-• - B Proposed Extension of Existing Cores Noncontiguous Habitat Block I ( 2- Proposed Linkages: 3 Constrained Linkage Linkage 1 % Existing Cores & Linkages: 1� 2 � Constrained Linkage ` % - Core Linkage Is�i•3 �11 Noncontiguous Habitat Block ♦i♦ 4 � ---- Existing Channel 5 3 . �' ,0'19 p l ♦�' t7 r� # f ♦� 04 not 3 '•� 14 ♦♦� ,ter• �, CD o ♦ 5 •d C '15 ♦o , 9 • 3 1 0 5 10 Miles A Wildlife Corridor FIGURE 4.3-2 i lJ Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions I 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Indirect Impacts IFor the proposed project, it is assumed that the potential indirect impacts to plant and wildlife species and water quality resulting from construction activities include dust, noise, and general human presence that f may temporarily disrupt species and habitat vitality and construction-related soil erosion and runoff. l Long-term indirect impacts may include noise, lighting,invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, effects of toxic chemicals (e.g.,fertilizers,pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials),urban runoff from developed areas, soil erosion, litter, fire,hydrological changes, increased predation of native 1 species, and an increase in general human presence. All project grading would be subject to the typical restrictions,best management practices(BMPs), and requirements that address erosion and runoff, including compliance with all applicable City stormwater permitting requirements,the federal Clean Water Act;National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). In addition, according to l the MSHCP Consistency Analysis (Appendix C.2),the following measures would be implemented as part l of project design: implement landscape controls by installing native landscaping that require minimal water application; select, design, and utilize best management practices(BMPs)including treatment control BMPs (i.e., constructed wetlands, filter inserts,bio-swales, and catch basins), and site design BMPs (i.e., landscaping). Indirect impacts would be less than significant. j Off-Site Impacts The project proposes the construction of off-site wastewater infrastructure improvements. These { improvements would occur within existing streets/paved areas. Therefore, impacts to biological resources I are not expected and a less than significant impact is identified for off-site impacts. Consistency with Applicable Plans t City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan (1995) The General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element has policies and implementation programs to provide a framework for the preservation and enhancement of natural and created open space which provides wildlife habitat, including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitat areas. It is expected f that continued population growth and subsequent development in Lake Elsinore due to buildout of the General Plan, including development of the proposed project, would intensify the rate of resource use and regional environmental degradation. However, this development is planned for in the General Plan. In l addition,the proposed project incorporates design features and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The project is, therefore, consistent with the City's General Plan. 1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan i A portion of the project site occurs within Subunit 5 (Ramsgate) of the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan. A small portion of the project site (0.71 acre) also occurs within the MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group B (Cell Number 4459) (Figure 4.3-3). Cell Group B calls for conservation ranging from 70 to 80 percent of the Cell Group, focusing in its eastern portion. The project site lies in the very western edge of Cell Group B;however,the Joint Project Review prepared for the proposed project identifies that there was a mapping error and the project site is actually not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area(Appendix C.4). Nevertheless,the project is still subject to MSHCP requirements as listed in Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Because the emergent wetlands and open water on site do not support LTIRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-15 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR Ma298�lanuary 2008 X:1010570_Ciy_of Lake_Elsinorn152664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.3 Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juds Waters doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Riparian/Riverine covered species, and it is believed that the project site within a Criteria Cell is a mapping error,avoidance is not required. The MSHCP Consistency Analysis performed for the project site determined the project is not located within Cell Group B. Therefore,no conservation onsite is required. In addition,the project was determined to be consistent with the following sections of the MSHCP: Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine—Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP- covered species. In order to determine if a project is consistent with Section 6.1.2, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP) analysis must be conducted if there are impacts to Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool resources. No vernal pools exist on the project site;therefore, due to the lack of suitable habitat,there is a very low potential for vernal pool species to occur. However, the unvegetated ephemeral drainages on-site could be considered Riparian/Riverine areas under the meaning of the MSHCP. . The DBESP (Appendix C)has documented the impacts and the mitigation measures for Riparian/Riverine impacts.No outstanding issues were identified; thus,the proposed project does not conflict with the policies of Section 6.1.2. Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species— Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP focuses on the preservation of Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Specific species and study areas are identified which require focused surveys to be conducted. The site is outside of any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Study Area(NEPSSA). Based on its location outside of any NEPSSA and the lack of any NEPSSA species being observed during surveys,the project is consistent with Section 6.1.3. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface—Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP provides guidelines to address indirect effects associated with the location of existing and future development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Development is anticipated to the north and east of the project site.' Currently the project does not abut any MSHCP Reserve lands; however, a final determination has not been made regarding lands to the east and north and these lands may be identified as future conservation areas. Should conservation areas be proposed abutting the project site,the project may need to implement urban wildlands interface and fuel management guidelines depending on what future adjacent land owners do. However, implementation of measures identified as part of project design such as implementation of landscape controls by installing native landscaping that require minimal water application; selection, design, and utilization of best management practices (BMPs) including treatment control BMPs (i.e., constructed wetlands, filter inserts,bio-swales,and catch basins), and incorporation of site design BMPs (i.e.,landscaping)would reduce potential inconsistencies with Section 6.1.4 to less than significant. Section 6.3.2 Additional Surveys—Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP discusses additional survey needs and procedures required for Criteria Area Species. The site is outside of any Criteria Area Species Survey Area(CASSA)for plants, amphibians, and mammals, and no CASSA plant species were observed during surveys of the project site. The site does occur within the burrowing owl survey area and required surveys were conducted with negative results. As no burrowing owls were observed during any of these surveys,the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. ' Cell Group B of the Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 5:Ramsgate lies to the east of the project site. Development may be permitted within a cell group,depending on the identified criteria. Cell Group B calls for conservation of 70- 80%of the cell group,focusing on the eastern portion of the cell group. This means that the western 20-30%of the cell group can be developed. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-16 City of Lake Elsinore I-D-\ Revised Draft EIR May 2947-J nuary 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.3_Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Welers.doc '� , 1, -. I '• s .,. V. r ,�°" �[o -.t � _. 3966 3977 Q.A" I I (• � a `4079 Jt r a' ^ i7 y - `p r'' 4071 418pr 4178 4176 41 4 4171 r `i= t,4 �• " 1 © 4272 4270, _. 4268 Y k s 4273 ; L. 4367 4365 Ile 4459 ITS y k44 4548 �b3 r'h 'i 15 4549 t" Ifs i A - ,•,, taq.14 Ma Lake Elsinore y 4'7i�?x ` C ��, r •_� A. 4759 4740 t i :. . :{ 07¢.5 4741 Legend Project Site Q MSHCP Cell 4 43 4844 4845 4 -' .r• A 8 48 t MSHCP Cell Group _ _ 4940 49#91 437 ;, 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters In summary,the project would be consistent with the applicable guidelines and policies of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Because no CASSA,NEPSSA,riparian/riverine areas, or vernal pool species exist, 1 no further vegetation mapping is required. ( 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects within the area would cumulatively add to the loss of open space,vegetation communities, and common plant and wildlife species. However, as identified above,the proposed project would be consistent with Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. The MSHCP is a long-range conservation effort with which all ( future development projects must be consistent. Since the proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP,no cumulative impact to biological resources is identified. Other projects in the area would also be required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP, CEQA, and state and federal regulations 1 protecting biological resources such that cumulative impacts are less than significant. 4.3.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation Vegetation Communities Impacts would occur to 219.73acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 0.02 acre of emergent wetland, 0.34 acre of open water, and 15.57 acres of non-native grassland. This represents a significant impact. Special-Status Plant Species Two sensitive plant species were identified onsite (long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower); therefore, significant impacts to special status plant species would occur from implementation of the proposed project. Special Status Wildlife Species i Five sensitive wildlife species were observed on the project site(coastal California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow,Belding's orange-throated whiptail,red-diamond rattlesnake,and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit). Impacts to these and other listed or sensitive wildlife species that maybe present on the project site due to suitable habitat would be considered significant and require mitigation. I In addition,potential habitat for burrowing owl may be present on the project site. Although no burrowing owls were noted, the potential exists for this species to utilize the project site. If present, implementation of the project would impact these species. This impact is potentially significant. 1 Jurisdictional Waters Approximately 0.47 acre of USACE and CDFG jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland Waters of the U.S./State would be impacted with implementation of the proposed project. Impacts to jurisdictional waters would be significant unless mitigated. Raptor Habitat,Nesting, and Foraging Implementation of the proposed project would directly impact nesting mi rgratory-bird(including raptor) foraging habitat(non-native grassland).There is also potential to directly impact mpfeF migratory bird nests during construction. Impacts are,therefore,potentially significant. isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-19 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 20WAnuary 2008 X1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinore1526B4__SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIR14 3 Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters Tree Preservation The date palm individuals located on the project site would not be removed through implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on locally protected biological resources. Wildlife Corridor No existing or future wildlife corridors are located on the project site. Impacts are less than significant. Indirect Impacts No significant indirect impacts to plant and wildlife species would occur from increased noise, fugitive dust, and lighting associated with construction or operation of the proposed project through incorporation of BUTs and site design features as identified above. Off-Site Impacts The project proposes the construction of off-site wastewater infrastructure improvements.Because these improvements would occur within existing streets/paved area,no impacts to biological resources are expected and a less than significant impact is identified for off-site impacts. 4.3.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures Project effects to Riparian/Riverine areas total 0.36 acre,which is comprised of 0.02 acre of emergent wetland and 0.34 acre of open water. Table 4.3-5 below identifies the mitigation ratio required for these impacts. Table 4.3-5. Mitigation for Riparian/Riverine Impacts Mitigation Habitat Impacts Ratio Acreage Wetland Emergent wetland 0.02 3:1 0.06 Subtotal 0.02 - 0.06 Non-Wetland Open water(pond) _ 0.34 1:1 0.34 Subtotal 0.34 — 0.34 TOTAL 0.36 In addition,the project will result in 0.11 acres of ephemeral drainage. Combined,the project shall mitigate for 0.51 (0.40 acres of Riparian/Riverine+0.11 (USACE/CDFG drainage)acres Riparian/Riverine and USACE and CDFG impacts through the following measures: MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall submit a Revegetation Plan for creation of 0.51 acre of riparian or marsh habitat. The Revegetation Plan shall include but not be limited to the following to ensure the tSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-20 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 29)-7January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEOAIFinal EIR14.3 Spyglass_Bio Resources Juds Weters.doc f ' r 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters establishment of the vegetation: qualitative and quantitative performance standards,map showing the revegetation areas, site preparation information including grading requirements,type of planting materials(e.g., species ratios, source, size material, etc.), planting program, success criteria including target functions and values, and detailed cost estimate. The cost estimate shall include all phases, including but not limited to, planting,plant materials, irrigation,maintenance,monitoring, and report preparation. The report shall be prepared by a qualified restoration ecologist/biologist and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. MM 4.3-2 The revegetation shall occur on property known as the"Cloverleaf'in the southern end of Lake Elsinore or other offsite mitigation parcels acceptable to the City. If the mitigation at the Cloverleaf property is not available, 0.51 acre of mitigation shall be provided at an alternate site or mitigation bank(the mitigation bank must have creation credits available), shall be approved by the Community Development Director, and must meet the following criteria: • The site shall be part of a larger block of conserved habitat, or in an area that is targeted for conservation by the MSHCP. Specific locations could include Temescal Wash,Proposed Core 1 and Core C of the MSHCP, or other appropriate sites surrounding Lake Elsinore. • Hydrology shall be appropriate to allow for fully functional wetland habitat for habitat restoration. • For areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore,the pre-mitigation elevations shall be above 1,260 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)for areas outside of the Back Basin levee, or above 1,246 feet AMSL within the Back Basin levee to insure that the mitigation site is not considered jurisdictional habitat prior to implementation of the mitigation program. MM-4.3-3 Habitat created pursuant to the Revegetation Plan shall be placed within an open space easement dedicated to the City or transferred to the RCA subject to a Donation Agreement prior to or immediately following the approval of the Revegetation Plan. MM-4.3-4 The applicant shall enter into a Secured Agreement with the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department consisting of a letter of credit,bond, or cash for implementation of the Revegetation Plan. The bond amount shall be based upon the actual estimate prepared as part of the site-specific revegetation plan. MM 4.3-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to approval of the Final Map(or Parcel Map), the applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with a copy of a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a copy of a Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Game(or evidence that no permit or agreement is required) for all project-related disturbances of any streambed. To mitigate for impacts to sensitive species,the project shall implement the following measures: MM 4.3-6 Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the western burrowing owl, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction focused species surveys within 30-days prior to any ground-disturbing activities at the project site where suitable habitat is present. If FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-21 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2007January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinor9152684_Spyglassl6_CEQMFinal EIR14.3_Spyglass Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.3 Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Waters burrowing owls are determined to occupy the project site during pre-construction surveys, CDFG shall be consulted and a passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area outside the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted protocols and would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM 4.3-7 To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, including raptors,the removal of potential nesting vegetation(i.e., trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) hould be avoided during the nesting season,recognized from February 15 through August 31. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season,a qualified biologist shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys,then the vegetation used for nesting shall be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the occupied vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer(e.g., construction fencing)around the occupied vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the type bird nesting(i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. MM 4.3-S The project shall pay appropriate MSHCP fees for impacts to the following animal and plant species covered by the MSHCP: coastal California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Belding's orange-throated whiptail,red-diamond rattlesnake, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit,long-spined spineflower and Payson's jewelflower. MM 4.3-9 To reduce impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat,the project shall pay Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fees of$500 per acre to reduce impacts. 4.3.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation Significant impacts to Riparian/Riverine habitat and jurisdictional waters would be mitigated through incorporation of MM 4.3-1-5. In the event that any owls move onto the site since the time of 2006 surveys,potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls would be mitigated through incorporation of MM 4.3-6. Incorporation of MM 4.3-7 would mitigate potential impacts to migratory nesting birds. With implementation of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures as identified above, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.As identified above, impacts to vegetation communities, special status plant and wildlife species, and wildlife corridors would be less than significant with incorporation of applicable mitigation fees. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.3-22 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May289W-Janggry 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.3 Spyglass_Bio Resources_Juris Waters.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following documents were used in the preparation of this section and are included in their entirety in Appendices D.1 and D.2,respectively: Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Spyglass Ranch Project, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California. Prepared by Brian F. Smith&Associates. September 13, 2006. Paleontological Resources and Monitoring Assessment, Spyglass Ranch, Lake Elsinore, { Riverside County, California. Prepared by Brian F. Smith&Associates. September 12, 2006. 4.4.1 Environmental Setting { Cultural resources are places, structures, or objects that are important for scientific, historic, and/or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Cultural resources include historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, architectural remains, engineering structures, and artifacts that provide i evidence of past human activity. They also include places,resources, or items of importance in the traditions of societies and religions. r Paleontological resources are any remains,traces,or imprints of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth's crust since some past geologic time. Paleontological resources include invertebrate fossils,microfossils,petrified wood,plants,tract, and vertebrate fossils. 4.4.1.1 Cultural Setting Ethnography The project site is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Luiseno Indians, a Takic-speaking people whose territory extended along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek to the south,Aliso Creek to the northwest, and the Elsinore Valley and Palomar Mountain to the east prior to Spanish occupation of California. These territorial boundaries were somewhat fluid and changed through time. They encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys and foothills, and mountain groves of oaks and evergreens. I Luiseno villages generally were located in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near I mountains ranges sheltered in coves or canyons,near a water source, and in a location that was easily defended. The Luiseno lived in small communities,which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village. Luiseno villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief,who inherited his position from his father. Luiseflo subsistence was based primarily on seeds and game animals. In addition,the Luiseflo conducted elaborate rituals related to the god Chinigchinich including the taking of datura,a hallucinogenic, and painting with sand. LT1�lSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2007january 2008 X1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal_EIR14.4_Spyglass Cultural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources History The Native American historic period in Riverside County is divided into four periods,beginning with the first Spanish land expedition through the region in 1769. Mission Period The Mission, or Spanish,period,which occurred approximately from the 1770s-1830s, is represented by exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. Spanish influence continued through the 1930s due to the mission system. Rancho Period The Rancho,or Mexican,period, lasting from the 1830s-1850s,began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican-American War. The Secularization Act resulted in the transfer,through land grants(called ranchos), of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. One of 16 ranchos granted in Riverside County,Rancho La Laguna(approximately 13,339 acres,which included the project area), was transferred to Agustin Machado. At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated the economics of California. American Period The American period, 1850s-present,began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850,California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American period; however,beginning about 1855,the demand for beef began to decline. When the beef market collapsed,many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861-1862, followed by two years of extreme drought,which continued to some extent until 1876, altered ranching forever in the Southern California area. Lake Elsinore Known as Paiakche to the Luiseno and Laguna Grande to the Spanish and Mexicans,the lake was renamed to Lake Elsinore by Franklin H. Heald after he,Donald M. Graham,and William Collier acquired Rancho La Laguna in 1883. The community of Elsinore was established in the early 1880s around hot springs which resulted in rapid development of the community as a resort town. It was incorporated in 1888 and the name of the community was changed to Lake Elsinore in 1972. 4.4.1.2 Methodology Records Search An historical/archaeological resources records search was conducted by the Eastern Information Center (EIC),University of California,Riverside. Previous historical/archaeological investigations were reviewed to determine if any known archaeological sites,historic structure locations, or other cultural resources are present on or adjacent to the project site. taiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May PJAMMOLM X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinon:152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.4_Spyglass_Cultural-Resources.doc r r . 4.4 Cultural Resources r Field Survey � An intensive-level field survey of the project site took place the week of 28,surface examination was conducted by using a mixed-reconnaissance strategy.gust which deep Aground ended t steepness of the terrain. In general,the site was surveyed using 5 meter tranct widths. Visibility wme the excellent due to the sparse vegetation; however,portions of the site were difficult to survey due to the rugged terrain. The more accessible areas of the property, such as the ridges, drainages and canyons were closely examined for any indications of previous use. Tribal Consultation The proposed project is not located on Native American reservation land. Additionally, the Sacred Lands Files of the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) indicated that no Native of American cultural resources are located on the project site. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment resulting in the need for Senate Bill 18 Tribal consultation. A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)requesting a list of Native American individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Letters were then sent to the Tribes included on the NAHC response on July 11 2005 In addition,a Sacred Lands File(SLF)search was conducted for the proposed project. The Pechan a Band of Luiseno Indians requested a site visit with the project applicant to survey the property. This site visit occurred on January 10. 4.4.2 Project Impacts 4.4.2.1 Thresholds of Significance Based on CEQA State Guidelines Appendix G, a significant cultural resources impact would be identified if the project is determined to: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in + ` §15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature or; I • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. CEQA requires that historic and archaeological resources be evaluated for local significance and for the ` California Register of Historical Resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources, based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for Nomination of Properties to the California Register of Historic Resources,and determining archaeological or historical significance are summarized below. Under CEQA,an archaeological or historical resource is important if it: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-3 Revised Draft EIR City of Lake Elsinore X"1010570 City_of Lake Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal E/R14.4 Spyglass Cultural-Resources.doc MaY-�anUBN 2Q---008 4.4 Cultural Resources • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region,or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual,or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history [PRC 5024.1(c)]. 4.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts The historical/archaeological resources record search conducted by Brian F. Smith osed&Associates Baled project site, and three previously identified cult soources lthin eshwithin oneles of the P mile of the site. Additionally,the record identified 193 previously recorded cultural resources search revealed one previous archaeologicalit dy within the project site, and an additional 40 studies previously conducted within one mile of the s It should be noted that the cultural resources analysis blothble whether Planning Areas 5 of those scenarios,the entire or 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses.Under footprint of Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be disturbed. Historical Resources The historical/archaeological resources record�search Accordin togte field survey a historic structures evaluationation conducted one previously recorded historic site location on the protect st gand by Pat Meredith of the Riverside County Historical o' signated a h ssion in 19storical re surclel(P-33-t7 28)and associated buildings located in the center pr tect site is de is listed with the Office of Historic Preservation Directorystatus Histode oric Properties under the criteria that it is eligible for the NRHP as a separate property The residence consists of a 6,500-square-foot, 1928 Spanish hacienda-style residence with an enclosed courtyard,an Olympic-sized swimming pool,a cabana,and a gazebo/cistern. Several outbuildings(sheds and corrals)were also observed as part of the residence. The residence and associated structures are unique to the Lake Elsinore area(Meredith 1982)cons considered art of the residence.s are not dered The residence significant tothe integrity of the historic site even though they are P undergoing minor renovations,primarily to the interior of the building;however,the renovations do not appear to be altering the integrity of these ucture to cabana hashbeen modified and is being ut where the historic sed architectural slta cell phone significance would be compromised. T relay station;the pool is deteriorating and is generally in poor condition;and the gazebo,which houses a cistern,does not appear to be from the same time period as the residence. ne mile of the project site consist of A majority of the previously recorded archaeological bison Topeka,and Santa Fe Railroad lines which ran historic sites associated with the remains of the through Temescal Valley into Lake Elsinore. The closest the recorded d histsite. The house was desiric archaeological gnated dsa all bungalow located just west of Interstate 15,due project historical resource(P-33-7193)in 1982 by Theresa Borchard for the Riverside County Historical Commission(Borchard 1982). The proposed project includes keeping the soleoric site(P-33-7228)fully intacro' evelopment Thereforet nodpo ential indirect kept as a private residence. The residence will be prior to occupied p project d impacts may occur to this structure due to futured fractures are not architecturalnt activities. ly or given existing conditions of the surrounding outbuildings, 4.4-4 City of Lake Elsinore Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan k4ay_2t)WJanua_ r_v 2�08 1-` Revised Draft EIR X..'1010570_Cily_o' Lake_Elsino2152684_Spyglassle CEQAIFinal EIR14.4_Spyglass_Culfural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources significant. Thus,removing these structures, along with the dilapidated sheds and corrals,will not compromise the historic significance of the residence. Due to the absence of significant historic resources on-site, with the exception of the previously recorded ' historic residence(P-33-7228),no further historical assessments would be required for future development projects within the project site. Furthermore, since no additional historic resources were located during the records search and field survey of the project site; it is unlikely that undiscovered historic resources exist on-site. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to historic resources. Prehistoric Resources { The historical/archaeological resources records search and on-site field survey identified two previously recorded prehistoric site locations on the project site. The first prehistoric site, designated P-33-3277, is located on a ridge near the southern boundary of the property. The site is characterized as a lithic scatter of unfinished percussion-flaked tools' resulting from the quarrying of raw materials (Carbone 1987). However, field observations concluded that the flakes are a result of the decomposition of the naturally ( occurring shale and slate rocks, which blanket the surrounding ridge top. Furthermore, additional cultural material was not observed,which would have confirmed the presence of a prehistoric cultural site. Therefore, cursory observations would seem to conclude that this site does not contain significant ( prehistoric resources. l The second previously recorded prehistoric site, designated P-33-3278, is located on a ridge within the I northeast corner of the property. The site is also characterized as a lithic scatter consisting of a sparse scatter of flakes and one possible tool(Carbone 1987);however,this site also appears to be a result of naturally decomposing slate. At this site the slate debris is more or less concentrated in one particular l area, and therefore appears to have been produced by human activity. However, field observations found the slate very brittle, and susceptible to breakage under moderate pressure. Thus,this type of material would be less than ideal for tool production. Additionally,naturally flaked and broken slate was observed in numerous locations throughout the project site,resembling the slate concentrations at this particular site. During their field survey of the site,the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians identified a potentially significant pre-historic resource: the ridge located in the northeast corner of the project site. Therefore, a potentially significant impact is identified and mitigation is required. No evidence of human remains was observed within the project site. If human remains are encountered, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a i qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric,the NAHC must be contacted by the Coroner so that a"Most Likely Descendant"can be designated. { Paleontological Resources According to the Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment(Appendix D.2)prepared for the proposed project,the project site is underlain primarily by Cretaceous Granodiorite, Cretaceous Gabbro, and Mesozoic Phyllite bedrock units. The Cretaceous formations are overlain by a Holocene(recent) layer of alluvium. These geological units are not identified in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element as containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. 1 Lithic reduction involves the use of a hard hammer,such as a hammerstone,a soft hammer fabricator(made of wood,bone or antler),or a wood or antler punch to detach lithic flakes from a lump of tool stone called a lithic core. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-5 City of Lake Elsinore jF D Revised Draft EIR May P007-January 2008 X1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal_EIRI4.4_Spyglass_Cultural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources Additionally,the Riverside County General Plan indicates the project site is located in an area of low paleontologic sensitivity. The Mesozoic bedrock units within the site are overlain by a thin sedimentary layer of fan deposits laid down during the Pleistocene Epoch,but considering the depositional context of these sediments, they are also considered unlikely to contain significant paleontologic resources. A collections and records search by the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands(Scott 2006)did not reveal any recorded fossil localities within the boundaries of the project site,nor within a one mile radius of the site. Furthermore,the field survey confirmed that the boulder outcrops located on-site showed no evidence of past Native American use. The results of the literature review and field survey indicate that development of the proposed project has a low potential to adversely impact undiscovered significant fossil resources;therefore, a less than significant impart has been identified for this issue area and mitigation is not required. Off-site Impacts The project proposes the construction of off-site wastewater infrastructure improvements. These improvements will occur within existing streets/paved areas. Therefore,impacts to cultural or paleontological resources are not expected and a less than significant impact is identified for off-site impacts. 4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative total of all related project development in the City of Lake Elsinore and in surrounding towns as identified in Table 3.5-1 and shown in Figure 3.5-1, creates the potential for additional impacts to historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. In addition to the project's potential impacts to previously unidentified historic and/or cultural resources, a records search identified 193 archaeological resources sites within a one mile radius of the project site. With more development in the City and surrounding areas, there is an increased possibility of encountering historical,archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. However,mitigation measures would be implemented for the proposed project and other projects subject to CEQA. Through recordation and curation of resources to provide the public and historians the opportunity to review these resources,the proposed project and other development in the area would not result in a cumulatively significant impact. 4.4.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Historic and Prehistoric Resources The proposed project would not significantly impact the sole historic resource (P-33-7228) on the project site. The surrounding outbuildings are not considered to be architecturally or historically significant; therefore,removing these structures, along with the sheds and corrals,would not compromise the historic significance of the residence. The historical/archaeological resources records search identified two previously recorded prehistoric site locations within the project site;however, field observations concluded that the site in the southern boundary of the project site does not contain significant prehistoric resources. The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians identified a potentially significant site on the northeast corner of the site(P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2), and the possibility remains that previously unidentified rLe-historic and/or cultural resources could be significantly impacted during project grading. No evidence of human remains was FalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-6 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 29 NJanu 2 X:1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEOAIFinal EIR14.4_Spyglass_Cuttural-Resources.doc r - ' r 4.4 Cultural Resources observed within the project site. Implementation of mitigation measures would be required to minimize any potential impacts to cultural resources. Paleontological Resources r 1 No paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site. Moreover,there is little potential for discovery of previously unidentified resources during construction activities due to the geology of the r site. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated to be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Off-site Impacts The project proposes the construction of off-site wastewater infrastructure improvements. Because these improvements will occur within existing streets/paved area,no impacts to cultural or paleontological resources are expected and a less than significant impact is identified for off-site impacts. 4.4.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures 1 MM 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the project,the project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. 1 MM 4.4-2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit,the project applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural 1 Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources,the designation,responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. MM 4.4-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City and County(if required)to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 4.4-2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading,excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the 1 authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project 1 archaeologist. 2 It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the"appropriate"Tribe due to its4he4 prior and extensive coordination with the City and project applicant in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the project area. taiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-7 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Drdft EIR May2A87January 2008 X:1010570 Ciiy_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.4_Spyglass_Cullural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources MM 4.4-4 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin.Further,pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b)remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American,the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently,the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the"most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. MM 4.4-5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items,burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. A C All sacred h 1 L .] 1 1_ 1 11 .7 .] �.qM 4.4-v r�u�a�ie sites, SuuuL they uc ciicuuiltcreu within tiLc project area, SL1a1L c avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. MM 4.4-7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading,the Developer,the project archaeologist, and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director(CDD)for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe.Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law,the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. MM 4.4-8 Prior to any grading at or near the vicinity of(P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2),the Developer shall meet and confer with the appropriate Tribe to develop an appropriate controlled grading plan. The purpose of the controlled grading at and around the site is to afford the opportunity to determine whether any subsurface resources are associated with the site and if so,the significance of any such resources. All such controlled grading shall be monitored according to the provisions of the Agreement required in MM 4.4-2. Further,if subsurface resources are discovered at the site,the provisions of MM 4.4-7 shall apply. MM 4.4-9 Any easements for grading provided to off-site developers3 shall be subject to the provisions of MM 4.4-2 through 4.4-8. 3 After approval of the South Shore I(also known as Lake Elsinore 1)project located directly north of the proposed project,it was determined that the South Shore I grading plan may encroach on to the Spyglass Ranch project site. This portion of the Spyglass Ranch project site includes cultural resource(P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2), which is subject to controlled grading as outlined in MM 4.4-8. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-8 City of Lake Elsinore f alRevised Draft EIR May 29PJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.4 Spyglass_Cultural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project would not significantly impact the sole historic resource on the project site. A records search and subsequent field survey determined that one of the two previously recorded prehistoric { site locations within the project site do not represent significant prehistoric resources. However, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians identified a significant impact for impacts to the ridge located in the northeast corner of the site (P-33-3278). Field observations found no evidence of human remains or paleontological resources within the project site. The possibility remains,however, that previously unidentified pre-historic and/or cultural resources could be significantly impacted during project grading. Therefore,the above mitigation measures would be incorporated into the development of the proposed project to reduce impacts to potential pre-historic and/or pr-ehiste}ie-cultural resources, including Native American cultural resources,to a level that would be less than significant. 4.4.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments i During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP), issues regarding t cultural resources were brought up by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) and Tomaras &Ogas,LLP. NAHC recommended types of supporting documentation and actions required to comply with CEQA requirements and to avoid unanticipated discoveries once the project is underway. A cultural resources technical study,which incorporates all points identified by NAHC,was prepared for the `I proposed project. The results of this study are identified within this section. Tomaras &Ogas, LLP, a l law firm representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,requested that the Tribe be involved in the environmental review process. The project applicant and Tribal representatives performed a walkthrough of the project site on January 10,2007 and determined that no additional testing or analysis is required, 1 provided appropriate mitigation is included. Mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to less than significant are described in Section 4.4.5. After further discussion with the project applicant, a follow-up letter was received indicating the Tribe has agreed to develop an evaluation program which will be conducted during a controlled grade both in and around the site (P-33-3278 also known as SRS-781-2). It is understood that additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval may be necessary depending on the types of resources encountered during the evaluation. Fa� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-9 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2007January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRI4 4_Spyglass Cultural-Resources.doc 4.4 Cultural Resources This page intentionally left blank. LTI� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.4-10 City of Lake Elsinore jI ��JJ Revised Draft EIR May 29�7,lanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglassIB CEQAIFinal EIRI4.4 Spyglass Cultural-Resources.doc 4.5 Geology/Soils 4.5 GEOLOGYISOILS Information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in Appendix E of this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR): Limited Geotechnical Evaluation for Spyglass Ranch Project, 259-Acre Property, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. Prepared by GeoTek,Inc. September 20, 2006. 1 4.5.1 Environmental Setting { Regional and Site Geology i I Regionally,the proposed project site is located on the western edge of the Perris Block within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America and is characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. The Province extends from the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province and the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California, 975 miles to the south. The Province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles; and is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west,the Gulf of California ' to the south, and the Colorado Desert Province to the east. The northwest-southeast trending topography is controlled by several fault blocks, including the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault zones,which extend f from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States/Mexico border. The Santa Ana i I Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore Fault zone,while the Perris Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The northeastern most portion of the Province boarders the San f Andreas Fault zone. t The mountainous regions are underlain by Pre-Cretaceous,metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non-marine sediments consisting of sandstone,mudstones,conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. 4.5.1.1 Soils Based on site surveys, field mapping, subsurface excavations, and a review of existing literature and published geologic maps, the project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits on top of metasedimentary and granitic bedrock units. In addition to the presence of alluvial deposits, colluvial materials locally mantle the underlying bedrock. Localized undocumented fill soils may also be present on the project site. Soils derived from the underlain material and bedrock on the project site include: Arbuckle gravelly loam 1, (15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded), Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam(15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded), Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam(2 to 8 percent slopes), Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam (8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded),Lodo rocky loam(8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded),Lodo rocky loam (25 to 50 percent slopes, eroded), and Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam(8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded). Figure 4.5-1 depicts the soils mapped on the project site. Arbuckle gravelly loam (AIE), 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded. Soils of the Arbuckle series are well drained and have slopes of 2 to 25 percent. They occur on alluvial fans and develop from metasedimentary bedrock. Runoff is rapid on this soil, and the potential for erosion is high. L'1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-1 City of Lake Elsinore 1 DJ Revised Draft EIR May 29A7-January 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.5_Spyglass_Geology-Soils.doc 4.5 Geology/Soils Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam (CbF2), 15 to 50 percent slopes: Soils of the Cajalco series are well- drained and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. They occur on uplands and develop from decomposing gabbro and other igneous bedrocks. Runoff is rapid on this soil, and the potential for erosion is high. Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam (GdQ, 2 to 8 percent slopes: Soils of the Garretson series are well-drained and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. They occur on alluvial fans and develop from metasedimentary bedrock. Runoff is slow to medium, and the potential for erosion is slight to moderate. Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam (GdD2), 8 to 15 percent slopes:This soil is cut by shallow gullies, and erosion occurs in furrows. Runoff is medium on this soil, and the potential for erosion is moderate. Lodo rocky loam (LpE2), 8 to 25 percent slopes: Soils of the Lodo series are excessively drained and have slopes of 8 to 50 percent. They occur on uplands and develop from metamorphosed fine-grained sandstone. Runoff is rapid, and the potential for erosion is high. Lodo gravelly loam (LpF2), 15 to 50 percent slopes:In areas mapped as this soil,rock outcrops cover less than 2 percent of the surface. The potential for erosion is high, and runoff is rapid. Ysidora gravelly very find sandy loam (YsE2), 8 to 25 percent slopes: Soils of the Ysidora series are moderately well drained and develop from alluvium predominantly of metasedimentary origin. Runoff is medium to rapid on this soil, and the potential for erosion is moderate to high. In additional to the characteristics identified above, soils derived from metasedimentary and granitic bedrock generally possess a very low expansion potential as defined in the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). 4.5.1.2 Topography Topography within the project site is characterized by small valleys,ridgelines, canyons, and multiple drainage features that are typical of those found in the foothills of the San Jacinto Valley. Elevations range from approximately 1,300 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)in the southwest portion of the property to approximately 1,850 feet AMSL in the northeast portion of the site. Figure 4.5-2 depicts the topography of the project site. In the current condition,a ridge line effectively divides the project site. The area north of the ridge line drains northerly onto adjoining properties and then westerly to Wasson Canyon,which then flows southerly under Camino del Norte and Interstate 15 (I-15). The portion of the project site located south of the ridge lines generally flows southerly on site and through adjoining properties towards Camino del Norte and 1-15.Many small existing culverts along the northerly edge of Camino del Norte intercept the flows conveying them either along Camino del Norte or to 1-15 right-of-way. The flows are then conveyed westerly to where Wasson Canyon flows under 1-15. 4.5.1.3 Seismicity The geologic structure of southern California is dominated by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system; therefore, the proposed project is in a seismically active region. However,no active or potentially active fault is known to exist at the project site nor is the site situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone. Additionally,no County of Riverside fault zones are known to exist on the site. L^lSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 20 PJgnUjry2 0 X.•1010570_City_or Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQA1Rna1 EIR14.5_Spyglass_Geology-Solls.doc y r 0 L �Ow � o vI W a vS o � a� a`� C7 ie c m o E a n c o _o 0 y y N c d C UN C W O GJ d N y d W U C n T N _0 Q O N U 0 O 0 w N y a� oa � o � y O o a N aS � E m Q 0ff co w CL w o 0 0 _o w E -9� d r > y C G J L C U U O LO C N N N N d d U o N C n O W- Lo a� c m d E® w m > � U N > T aD N O N !F N _ C T p N w n T d > M T -_ OJ Y � O O W L > > > > U T t` O fd p) C O O O N O O e C O U N O u coct d O O N m -2 U -0 N Q N N N N N N L U- U 0 W U- W l _ G - � O E r' cc - c b E 0 � o � c 0 ' � a 9 � � J � n O C C C � z � Q Ak------------ - o 11 i440 1680 1480� O �00 M M o 1 1TGp O J� O N t O O 1 J 0 1660 do �o N O O O 00 N _ v 9 141 J O � v A �O l D N O V 0 1 0 160o Topography 4 100'Index Contour "40 — — 20'Interval Contour ®r 0 400 00 Feet z ® Project Boundary Topography FIGURE 4.5-2 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions, I - 4.5 Geology/Soils However,the Lake Elsinore area is located within the northwest-trending Elsinore Fault Zone, which separates the relatively stable Perris structural block on the northeast from the Elsinore Mountains on the southwest. The Elsinore fault zone consists of four sections: the Wildomar Fault zone,the Willard Fault zone,the Wolf Valley Fault zone, and the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault zone. Figure 4.5-3 depicts the ' active faults within the vicinity of the project site. As shown in Figure 4.5-3,the project site is 0.7 miles from the Glen Ivy North Fault, which is a part of the San Jacinto Fault zone. This fault is considered the most likely to produce the highest ground shaking at the project site. The liquefaction potential on the project site is considered low due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying materials and presence of a deep groundwater table. Evidence of ancient landslides or slope I instabilities at the site were not observed during field surveys and literature reviews;thus, the potential for landslides is considered low. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be negligible due to the site's elevation and distance from an open body of water. 4.5.2 Project Impacts 4.5.2.1 Thresholds of Significance ` Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G(VI),project impacts to geological resources are considered significant if any of the following occur: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantive 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 (UBC) (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property; or e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. 4.5.2.2 Environmental Impacts It should be noted that the geology and soils impact discussion below is applicable whether Planning Areas 5 or 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses. Under both of those scenarios,the entire footprint of Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be disturbed. hDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-7 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2997January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.5_Spyglass Geology-Soils.doc 4.5 Geology/Soils Faults capable of generating earthquakes generally produce seismic hazards such as: (1) strong ground motion/shaking; (2)ground rupture; (3)liquefaction; and(4)landslides. Ground motion/shaking occurs when a fault ruptures deep underground,where the pressure is extremely high,resulting in an earthquake. Ground rupture occurs when a fault ruptures deep underground and movement along the fault propagates to the ground surface resulting in vertical and/or lateral displacement. Liquefaction and landslides are the result of ground motions where localized surface and subsurface ground unit conditions are susceptible to collapse or flow. All earthwork and grading at the project site shall be performed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements,the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration(Cal/OSHA), and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore(Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code). Ground Shaking The project site is not located on an active or potentially active fault nor is the site situated within an Alquist-Prioio Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone(Figure 4.5-3). Therefore,the possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low. However,the project site is located approximately 0.7 miles from the Glen Ivy North Fault and is situated within the Lake Elsinore Fault Zone. Minor cracking of near-surface soils due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site located in California. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the project site is similar to the southern California region as a whole. Due to the site's proximity to this active fault system,the proposed development would likely experience moderate to occasionally high ground shaking, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the southern California region. Implementing standard UBC requirements and measures, as outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed project, impacts related to a rupture of a known earthquake fault and strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant levels. Liquefaction Liquefaction,the process by which saturated,unconsolidated soil or sand is converted into a suspension, can result from strong vibratory motions generated by earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a build-up of water pressure in the affected soil layer to a point where a total loss of shear strength occurs, causing the soil to behave as a liquid. Liquefaction primarily occurs in loose, saturated, granular soils; while cohesive soils such as clays are generally not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may become apparent at the ground surface as rapid settlement, lateral spreading, and/or sand boils. Groundwater depth at the project site is expected to be well over 100 feet below the natural ground surface. Therefore,the potential for liquefaction to occur within the project site is considered very low due to the lack of shallow groundwater,the dense nature of the on-site bedrock, and the high density of the proposed fills. Given the relatively large depth of non-liquefiable material, surface manifestation and adverse effects due to liquefaction are not anticipated. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Landslides General slope stability for the project site is favorable and no landslides have been identified on the site. In general, anticipated 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)cut slopes resulting from excavation into the bedrock material on the site would be considered stable. Additionally,the metasedimentary material on the site is also generally favorable to cut slopes. Furthermore, implementation of recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed project would reduce any potential impacts from landslides during construction and operation of the project to less than significant levels. FUR Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-8 City of Lake Elsinore ��U Revised Draft EIR May2A87January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.5 Spyglass_Geology-Soils.doc � ♦ � may.• `M o Lij LPL = E 1 L cz 75 C C ? C y U Q m N /\ O cr v d J W 7 2 J d •� -I o r• � in O •' 1 = � w v c d a m a Vf , �' • ' � /fit ., - •o� M 04, O Ilk •�s cm LO 4 � _ V C Ilk. ° 4.5 Geology/Soils Erosion As previously identified, a majority of the soils on the project site have a moderate to high potential for erosion. Since the fill slopes would be constructed utilizing fill material generated from the cut portions of the site,many of the constructed fill slopes would be prone to surficial erosion, especially during periods of rain. During construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 92-08-DWQ,NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with Best Available Technology(BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. Expansive Soils l The geologic units located on the project site consist predominantly of medium to high density,fine, silty sand to clayey/sandy gravel soils. These soils are classified has having a low to very low potential for expansion. While surface soils on the site may have relatively lower levels of cohesion,the underling materials(consisting predominantly of bedrock)are substantially more stable. Furthermore,with the S addition of compacted engineered fill to developed portions of the site, impacts from lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence, or collapse are not expected to occur. The fill material that would be placed in the developed portions of the project site is anticipated to possess a very low to low expansion potential,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC/California Building Code (CBC). The fill material would originate from the site and would be tested and evaluated to meet design requirements. Development on this type of soil would not create substantial risks to life or property; Itherefore, impacts associated with expansion of soils would be less than significant. Alternative Disposal lThe proposed project would not be serviced by either septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD) Sewer District provides sewer service to the City of Lake Elsinore. Sewer infrastructure within the proposed project area would connect to existing EVMWD sewer district facilities. Therefore, no impacts to the project site would occur from the addition of alternative wastewater disposal systems. 4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts related to geologic, seismic, and soils hazards are all site specific. No soils would be moved off-site. All cumulative development would be subject to similar requirements to those imposed and implemented on the proposed project site and would be required to adhere to applicable regulations, standards, and procedures. The proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts in regards to geology and soils. 4.5.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Geologic impacts resulting from ground shaking, fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, erosion, or expansive soils would be less than significant for the proposed project. While the project site may be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake,the standard geotechnical lSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-11 City of Lake Elsinore _` Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14,5_Spyglass_Geology-Soils,doc 4.5 Geology/Soils recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Evaluation would provide adequate protection for the project to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an"acceptable level." The"acceptable level"of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as"that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety,though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project" (Section 3721[a]). These recommendations are also in accordance with the 1997 UBC and 2001 CBC requirements for resistance to seismic shaking. Repair and remedial work of the project structures may be required after a significant seismic event. In addition, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation would reduce impacts resulting from expansive soils,fill settlement, and ground- water seepage to less than significant levels. The fill slopes created during construction of the proposed project increases the potential for erosion during periods of rain. With the implementation of recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed project, impacts from erosion during construction would be less than significant. Adherence to the UBC, applicable CBC requirements, Cal/OSHA, the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore, and implementation of an Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP would reduce geologic hazard impacts to below a level of significance. In addition,the proposed project shall adhere to all recommendations set forth in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Implementation of these recommendations and requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. 4.5.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures With incorporation of standard geotechnical recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Evaluation, all impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As stated above, incorporation of project design features and geotechnical recommendations in addition to compliance with required plans would minimize geologic impacts on the project site. Project-related and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 4.5.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),no comment letters were received pertaining to Geology and Soils. L^`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.5-12 City of Lake Elsinore jai Revised Draft EIR May 29 an 20 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684__Spyglassl8_CEQARna1 E/R14.5 Spyglass_Geology-Soils.doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following documents were used in the preparation of this section and are included in their entirety in Appendices F.1,F.2, and F.3 of this Environmental Impact Report(EIR): Phase I Environmental Site Assessment SpyGlass Ranch, f 248 Acres, Northeast Corner of Camino Del Norte and Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. Prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. February 4,2004. Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Additional Property, SpyGlass Ranch, 5.1 Acres, South of Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. Prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. April 6, 2004. I Second Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Additional Property, SpyGlass Ranch, 8.87 Acres, South of Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. Prepared by GeoSoils,Inc. July 8,2004. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)was conducted for 248 acres of the subject property north of Lugonia Street. Two Phase I ESA addendums were prepared for two additional properties (5.1 and 8.87 acres)that were added to the original 248 acres, south of Lugonia Street. The ESA and ESA addendums included site reconnaissance of the subject properties, limited observations of adjoining j properties, a review of the historical usage of the subject properties, and a review of relevant documentation provided by various public and private sources. The assessments were undertaken to evaluate the presence or likely existence of recognized environmental conditions(RECs)or potential environmental issues which may not rise to the level of recognized environmental conditions. l Historical review included aerial photograph review,historical files at the Riverside County Flood Control District, and discussions with Mr. Everett Manfredi(Spyglass LLC,property owner from 1982 to present). Regulatory information was also reviewed from federal, state, and local agencies through various electronic databases listing possible hazardous waste-generating facilities within and in the vicinity of the subject property. Site visits were performed on each of the three subject properties to identify surface characteristics. 4.6.1 Environmental Setting A topographic map from 1953 and aerial photographs from 1962, 1974, 1980, 1990, and 2000 indicate that the site has remained generally vacant with several on-site structures. Some of the structures likely had septic tanks and leach fields for the disposal of sanitary wastewater. The map and photographs show no other surficial evidence of on-site or adjacent-site improvements that represent significant potential sources of petroleum contamination and/or hazardous waste. I� According to Mr. Manfredi,there have never been underground storage tanks (USTs) and above ground storage tanks (ASTs)on the site,nor storage of hazardous materials. Since SpyGlass Ranch, LLC has owned the property it has been generally vacant with the exception of an abandoned private residence 1 with swimming, ranch, and equestrian facilities located in the center of the project site. Mr. Manfredi indicated that there are no on-site wells. Environmental Data Resources,Inc. (EDR) conducted a review of the database of federal, state, and local agency regulatory information and environmental data concerning the presence of USTs,hazardous waste Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 20WJanuary 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal E1R14.6_Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials generation, or hazardous material releases within a two-mile radius of the project site. The project site was not identified as being located on any hazardous material site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no listings of permitted ASTs or USTs on the project site. Ten risk sites were reported within the 2-mile-radius search area. However,based on the following parameters these sites have less than significant potential for the risk sites to impact the project site: • The overall groundwater gradient in the immediate vicinity of the project site is estimated to be southwesterly. All of the risk sites are located on the west side of Interstate 15 (I-15), down groundwater gradient from the proposed project site. • The groundwater depth in the area of the project site is 40 to 125 feet. • The elevation of the project site is at least 20 feet higher than the elevation of all but one of the risk sites. The one risk site,not at a lower elevation, is located more than one mile from the project site. The Elsinore Sanitary Landfill located at 2250 Franklin Street is reported with a status of Closed, December 31, 1986. Surface Characteristics The majority of the project site is currently vacant. The eastern most 8.87 acres, south of Lugonia Street, has been recently disked for weed control. Features observed during the site reconnaissance included one residential structure(built in 1929)with a basketball court and animal pens, assorted sheds, and an abandoned swimming pool. It is also likely that a septic tank and leach field are associated with the residential structure. In the vicinity of the structures,the site exhibited abundant piles of debris and scattered debris. The debris consists of household furniture and appliances,metal food cans,metal,wood and landscape debris, tires,paper, glass and plastic bottles,PVC pipe,bricks,wire mesh, wood boat, seemingly empty 55-gallon drums,plastic 5-gallon buckets, and an abandoned vehicle. The site exhibited no substantial surficial staining, or other evidence of onsite hazardous materials/waste or petroleum contamination. The site did not show evidence of USTs or ASTs or mining activity. The site did not display any surface evidence of water wells or private sewage disposal systems. The site has overhead electrical transmission lines with transformers near the south margin, along Camino Del Norte. Adjacency to Schools The closest school to the project site is Tuscany Hills Elementary,which is located approximately 1.1 miles east-northeast of the project site. A future elementary school is proposed to be developed on the South Shore II project site, located immediately east of the proposed project site. Adjacency to Airports Airport Land Use Plan/Public Airport The nearest public airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 7.25 miles northeast of the project site. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-2 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR "_ao9JJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAWinal EIR14 6_Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc r- 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Private Airstrip r The nearest private airstrip project site is the Skylark Airfield, located approximately 2.8 miles south- southeast of the project site. Emergency Plans As identified in the City's General Plan,the City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan(EOP)to meet the requirements of the California Emergency Services Act of 1951 (Section 8550 et seq., Government Code). While the EOP(February 2006) is the authority for emergency actions within the { city, it recognizes and supports the general concepts contained within Riverside County and the State of California Emergency Plans. r Wildland Fire I Much of Riverside County is undeveloped and consists of rugged topography with highly flammable indigenous vegetation. However,the Elsinore Area Plan of the County's General Plan(County of Riverside, October 2003) identifies the project site as located in an area of no to low wildfire susceptibility. The proposed project's impact on fire protections services is analyzed in Section 4.11.2. 4.6.2 Project Impacts 4.6.2.1 Thresholds of Significance Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G(VII),the following significance criteria have been developed for hazardous materials compliance. A significant impact to or resulting from hazards and hazardous materials would be identified if the project was determined to result in any of the following: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials; • 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; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4-mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • Be 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, and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-3 City of Lake Elsinore FD ` Revised Draft EIR May 2997-January 2008 X.•1010570 Cily_o!Lake_Elsinore152684_SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIR14.6_Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 4.6.2.2 Environmental Impacts It should be noted that the impact analysis below is applicable whether Planning Areas 5 or 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses. Under both of those scenarios,the entire footprint of Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be disturbed. Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that,because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazards include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment. Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal The proposed project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids needed for operation of construction equipment at the site and would be transported to the construction site on an as- needed basis by equipment service trucks. In addition,workers would commute to the project site via private vehicles,and would operate construction vehicles/equipment on both public and private streets. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments would be present during project construction of the buildings. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents,lubricant oils, adhesives,human waste, and chemical toilets. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the buildings; however, existing federal and state standards are in place for the handling, storage and transport of these materials. Based upon historic property use, septic tank systems exist on the property. Any septic tank systems would be removed, in accordance with established criteria, during site grading operations. Because compliance with all standards is required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations,no significant impacts are expected due to the transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Asbestos is a strong, incombustible resistant material which was used in many commercial products prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled,asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Intact lead based paint is not considered a hazardous material. However, lead based paint in poor condition(peeling and cracking)can create potential health hazards for building occupants, especially children. Because the on-site residence and shed structures were constructed before 1977,the Phase I ESA concluded that demolition of these structures may create the potential for risk associated with release of asbestos and lead. Therefore,removal of any of the on-site structures represents a potentially significant impact. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-4 City of Lake Elsinore ID•` Revised Draft EIR MaY289_7January 20Q8 X.•1010570_Cify_of Lake Elsinorel52694 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.6_Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Maferials.doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Solid Waste Disposal No indication of on-site solid waste disposal(i.e., landfills)was apparent during the site inspections. Although no land filling operations were identified through the records search or the site visit, miscellaneous debris was observed throughout various portions of the project site. The ground surface could not be visually observed where debris was present. Therefore,the potential exists that stained soil condition could occur beneath the miscellaneous debris,and a potentially significant impact is identified. Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills A solid waste landfill is reported within the study area. The Elsinore Sanitary Landfill located at 2250 Franklin Street is reported with a status of Closed,December 31, 1986. The southeast portion of the project site is located 670 feet from the closed landfill. Based on the status of this risk site and the down groundwater gradient location of the closed landfill, the potential for groundwater contamination is slight. However, due to the proximity of the site to the landfill,the project could result in exposure of humans to hazards from the build-up of methane gas in enclosed spaces. Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (SubcChapter 4 Article 6) and South Coast Air Ouali Management District (SCAOMD)Rule 1150.1 stipulates post-closure landfill regulations regarding future building requirements within 1,320 feet(1/4 mile)of the trash line of a landfill. Figure 4.6-1 shows that 10.8 acres (4.1 percent of the project site)is located within 1,320 feet of the trash line of the closed Elsinore Sanitary Landfill. The project proposes the following land uses for the land within 1,320 feet of the landfill: single family residential(4.03 acres at 4.5 units per acre density), open space(4.26 acres),right-of-way, (1.84 acre)and easement for a water tank(0.72 acre). Construction of residences within 1,320 feet of the landfill trash line represents a potentially significant impact. Adjacency to Schools The proposed project is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing school. However, an elementary school is proposed to be developed immediately east of the proposed project sites. The proposed school would be surrounded predominantly by single and multi-family residences. Commercial uses which may I` potentially handle hazardous materials may be developed as part of the proposed project;however, this l isolated component is located at least 0.5 mile west of the proposed school site. Since emitting hazardous emission or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste is not permitted in residentially-zoned areas, and the potential commercial zone would be sited over one-quarter mile from the proposed school, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school zone. Additionally,Title 5, CCR(Division 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1)requires that any educational facility, ` planned by a school district,be designed to meet federal, state, and local statutory requirements for structure, fire,and public safety. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. Adjacency to Airports Airport Land Use Plan/Public Airport The nearest airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 7.25 miles northeast of the project site. As the project is not located within two miles of a public airport, impacts would be less than significant. toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-5 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2087January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.6 Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Private Airstrip The nearest private airport to the project site is the Skylark Airfield located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. As the project is not located within two miles of a private airport or airstrip, impacts would be less than significant. Emergency Response Plan The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the EOP. Wildland Fire The project site is designated as having low wildfire susceptibility by the County General Plan;however, it is located in an undeveloped and residential area,and in an area of urban/wildland interface. According to the Specific Plan prepared for the project, fuel modification and appropriate setbacks would be included along the open space edges,where they abut residential and commercial development,to transition from naturally vegetated open space areas to irrigated landscaped areas, and lower the danger of wildland fires. In such areas,plant selection and maintenance would avoid plants of high flammability, especially in areas in proximity to structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts The simultaneous development of the proposed project, along with other developments in the project vicinity would not result in cumulatively significant impacts for hazardous materials. All future developments in the vicinity would be subject to the same local,regional, state, and federal regulations. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other development in the area would result in a cumulative increase in wildlands fire protection due to a collective increase to the City's fire protection service load. As with the proposed project, environmental review would be required for other future projects. All future projects would require compliance with the Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan staffing and facility levels, and the response time indicated in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan would be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with regard to wildland fire protection services. 4.6.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Hazardous Materials The Phase I ESA concluded that demolition of these structures may create a potential environmental issue or hazard associated with release of asbestos and lead. Because the ground surface could not be visually observed where debris was present,the potential exists that stained soil condition could occur beneath the miscellaneous debris. Agency Records Review As stated above,the project site is not located on any hazardous material site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. Based upon distance,water flow gradient, elevation, and status,risk sites located within a two-mile radius of the project site are unlikely to impact the project. No associated hazards would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-6 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 208-7J nuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.6 Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc r o to v LL00 a cc = E o J15 cli o ww++ J W W N _ lL O tad O d G r T \ o a� S C N d J t co = O o acu U = U U N aJ Q d J CD _W d yr U d d wV C W � ) O R CD CD 52 cid I 0 J 52 O � V 1 '11 Q a4 0 N O CD J CD 1` I ai 1�1 O cz� Z l o O U o L N � 1 � 0 c ffa O U r W z 0 l _ 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills Due to the proximity of the site to the landfill,the project may be required to comply with Title 27 of the CCR and SCAOMD Rule 1150.1,which stipulates post-closure landfill regulations regarding future ` building requirements within 1,320 feet of the trash line of a landfill. Construction of residences within 1,320 feet of the landfill trash line represents a potentially significant impact. Adjacency to Schools The proposed commercial component of the project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed elementary school, a less than significant impact has been identified for this issue area. Adjacency to Airports Because the project site is not within an airport land use plan,within two miles of a public airport,nor in the vicinity of a private air strip, impacts would be less than significant. Emergency Response Plans The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the EOP. Impacts iwould be less than significant. Wildland Fire l Because the project site is identified as having low wildfire susceptibility, and the project would l incorporate fuel modification and appropriate setbacks to minimize the danger of wildland fires,the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or t death involving wildland fires is less than significant. l 4.6.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures Solid Waste Disposal MM 4.6-1 All debris shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. When debris is removed, care shall be taken to look for potential hidden hazardous materials within the piles. Should hazardous materials be identified, disposal shall be in accordance with all federal and state regulations. Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials MM 4.6-2 Prior to any demolition,renovation, or any other activity that may disturb suspect regulated asbestos containing materials, either an inspection shall be performed by an accredited Building Inspector, or the affected materials shall be handled as asbestos- containing in accordance with all federal and state requirements. If future sampling identifies any such materials as asbestos containing materials they shall be properly abated and disposed of by a state-licensed abatement contactor prior to disturbance or demolition in accordance with all federal and state requirements, including the California Code of Reeulation(CCR)and the Universal Waste Rule(40 CFR Part 9)•, Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-9 City of Lake Elsinore L t a Revised Draft EIR May 290;zJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.6_Spyglass_Hazards-Hazardous Materials doc 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Based Paint MM 4.6-3 Prior to any activity that may cause lead exposure either to workers or tenants, lead based paint sampling shall be performed in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should future renovation,repair, or demolition disturb any suspect paint, a lead based paint inspection and/or risk assessment shall be conducted by a state or federally certified lead based paint inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential tenant or worker exposure in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Should any lead based paint be identified, such painted surfaces shall be properly disposed of as appropriate prior to demolition,following the requirements included in the CCR and the Universal Waste Rule. Landfills MM 4.6-4 Prior to issuance of the site grading permit,the applicant shall finance the installation of up to eleven multi-level landfill gas detection probes at intervals of 100 feet, along the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property to comply with CCR Title 27 and SCAOMD Rule 1150.1. The applicant shall coordinate with Riverside County Waste Management Department(RCWMD),regarding the exact location of these landfill gas detection probes. RCWMD shall be responsible for building the probes and for conducting periodic monitoring and maintenance of the permanently installed monitoring probes. 4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measures presented in Section 4.6.5 would reduce potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. 4.6.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments Subsequent to the close of the Notice of Preparation(NOP)review period,Riverside County Waste Management Department submitted an additional letter regarding the proximity of the project to the closed Elsinore Landfill. The letter indicates that the proposed project is approximately 650 feet from the edge of the landfill disposal footprint. Subject to California Code of Regulations(CCR) Title 27, Subchapter 4, Article 6 requires installation of landfill gas perimeter probes if residences are located within 1,320 feet of the edge of the landfill disposal footprint. Section 4.6.2.2 reviews the environmental impacts associated with the project's proximity to the landfill.As depicted in Figure 4.6-1, 10.8 acres of the project site, including 4.03 acres of single-family residential units,would fall within 1,320 feet of the landfill disposal footprint. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 requires the installation of landfill gas detection probes as described by Riverside County Waste Management Department. ID� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.6-10 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR AAay �lanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl8_CEQA1Rnal E1R14 6—Spyglass Hazards-Hazardous Materials.doc 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality 4.7 HYDROLOGYMATER QUALITY Information from the following documents was used in the preparation of this section and is included in Appendix G of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR): Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, Conceptual Drainage Study and Design Approach/Methodology for Drainage Treatment Control. fPrepared by K&A Engineering,Inc. January 2007. I 4.7.1 Environmental Setting 4.7.1.1 Hydrology Regional Hydrology The project site lies within the San Jacinto River watershed that encompasses approximately 765 square P J P PP Y q miles within western Riverside County. The watershed originates in the San Jacinto Mountains, drains westerly into Canyon Lake and terminates in Lake Elsinore. The watershed elevation varies from over 10,000 feet at its eastern boundary to approximately 1,240 feet at Lake Elsinore. Precipitation varies significantly across the watershed. The San Jacinto River is a major tributary of Lake Elsinore. Since construction of Railroad Canyon Dam, river flow has been regulated and is minor to nonexistent most of the year. The projected 100-year flow is completely contained within the exiting river channel between the dam and Interstate 15 (I-15). With the improvement of the channel-type inlet to the Lake Management Project(discussed below),the 100 year San Jacinto River flow between Lakeshore Drive Bridge and I-15 is also contained completely i within the channel. Elmount". Tile Inake Filsineve —I -Ake N.4-ARagemefit PFoje6t, eampleted in 1995, was designed te ease Site Hydrology The project site consists of 261 acres located on high ground and a ridge line. Under existing conditions, a ridge line effectively divides the property. The area north of the ridge line drains northerly onto adjoining properties and then westerly to Wasson Canyon which then flows southerly under Camino del Norte and I-15. The portion of the property located south of the ridgeline generally flows southerly on site and through adjoining properties towards Camino del Norte and I-15. Many small existing culverts along the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-1 City of Lake Elsinore FD ♦ Revised Draft EIR Allay 298:�January 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.7_Spyglass_Hydrology-Water Quality.doc 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality northerly edge of Camino del Norte intercept the flows conveying them either along Camino del Norte or to I-15 right of way where the flows are then conveyed westerly to where Wasson Canyon flows under 1-15. The site currently consists of eight drainage areas, shown in Figure 4.7-1. The southwest portion(areas A and B)of the site drains towards Camino Del Norte(existing roadway). The existing flows exiting the property's west side(area H)flows across a small undeveloped adjoining parcel to Camino del Norte and then continuing to Wasson Canyon,passing under I-15. Flows leaving the property to the north(areas E, F, and G) all flow across adjoining undeveloped parcels ultimately reaching Wasson Canyon,then flowing south-westerly under I-15. Small drainage areas,that flow cast(portions of area D),flow into a natural drainage course east of the project,then flow southerly towards Camino del Norte. The majority of area D and all of area C flows southerly across undeveloped property to Camino del Norte. Table 4.7-1 summarizes the current runoff potential for the project site. Table 4.7-1. Flow Summary(Existing Condition) Area 10-Year Storm Event 100-Year Storm Event Drainage Zone (ac) (Cfs) (cfs) Camino Del Norte A 44 83 130 B 63 99 157 Subtotal 107 182 287 South C 11 22 34 D 37 64 102 Subtotal 48 86 136 North E 8 13 21 F 44 74 117 G 11 20 32 Subtotal 63 107 170 West H 43 66 �105 Subtotal 43 66 105 Total Project 261 441 698 ac=acres cfs=cubic feet per second hDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2097January 2008 X1010570 City_of Lake_ElsinoreM664 SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WalerQuality.doc yLu r cm A: < > f �CM b }yoo O C f.,, � E16. uf o cm Air LU w ray 1 V �M} L Ir 77i30Ny7 ,4V-i1NVS 3,yoN1S7.3 r{ I dr p 6Q - j •t U ra. s- so b 'o J o, J �j• �Y) N x S N ( w C-n 2 0 CD N • fi C„� O CY T �1 10 l7 V z 0 -�-` ¢cu m U w LL C7 = o Z W 20 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality i 4.7.1.2 Water Quality Poor water quality in Riverside County has been related to inadequate subsurface sewage disposal, waste disposal management of the Santa Ana River watershed, agricultural runoff, sediment from construction- related erosion, and urban storm water runoff. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regions provide state-level water quality policy for Riverside County. Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)also serve to minimize adverse effects on water quality. Federal and State Regulations Clean Water Act(CWA)Section 402(p) The federal Water Pollution Control Act(also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA])was amended in 1972 to prohibit discharge of any pollutant into Waters of the United States unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES Permit. Originally,the NPDES program focused on reducing pollutants from discharges from industrial processed wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plants. In 1987,the I CWA was amended to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)to regulate storm water discharges through use of NPDES storm water permits. Section 402(p)of the CWA established a framework for regulating discharges under the NPDES program. In California,the EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). The SWRCB and nine California RWQCBs carry out the regulation, f protection, and administration of water quality. The state is divided into nine regions related to water ` quality and quantity characteristics. Each RWQCB is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality,the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. The project site is located within the Santa Ana Region,which is addressed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin(Basin Plan). This Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Beneficial uses are defined in the Basin Plan as the uses of water necessary for the survival or well being of humans,plants and wildlife. These uses of water serve to promote the tangible and intangible economic, social, and environmental goals of mankind. Examples are drinking, swimming, industrial and } agricultural water supply, and the support of fresh and saline aquatic habitats (RWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan,January 24, 1995). Riverside County has adopted the Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan(SAR-DAMP)to satisfy and meet NPDES program requirements. In accordance with SAR-DAMP and NPDES requirements, an applicant for a project encompassing more than five acres is required to develop and Iimplement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). New regulations [December 1999 Phase II Rule] expanded the NPDES program to include sites that disturb land equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres. The objective of the SWPPP is to identify and control storm water discharges due to construction activity and to identify and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water,both before and after construction. Discharges associated with construction activity are covered under one statewide General Permit. Coverage under the General Permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent(NOI)to the SWRCB prior to construction, and development and implementation of a defensible SWPPP prior to disturbing a site and for the duration of construction. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-5 City of Lake Elsinore I-D.` Revised Draft EIR May 2907jinUgOL2 UO X:1010570 City_oL Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFina1_EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality California Water Code,Division 7(Porter-Cologne Act) The California Water Code contains provisions regulating water and its use. Division 7 establishes a program to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the state water resources including groundwater and surface water. The SWRCB and RWQCB administer the program and are responsible for control of water quality. They establish waste discharge requirements,water quality control planning and monitoring, enforcement of discharge permits, and ground and surface water quality objectives. Riverside County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit On October 25,2002,the Santa Ana RWQCB issued the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit CAS 618033 (Order R8-220-001) for the County of Riverside and several incorporated cities, including the City of Lake Elsinore. This order regulates discharge of urban runoff within the permit area,which includes the project site and surrounding areas. In addition,the project site is located within the region covered by the Watershed-wide Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with New Development within the Sap.Jacinto Watershed(Order 01-34, NPDES CAG 618005). The order requires that all development projects tributary to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore obtain an NPDES permit, and implement best available technology(BAT)that is economically achievable and best conventional technology(BCT)to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution, including the preparation of a SWPPP. Surface Water Section 303(d)of the 1972 CWA defines water quality standards as consisting of both the uses of surface waters (beneficial uses) and the water quality criteria applied to protect those uses(water quality objectives). State and regional water quality control boards have been charged with ensuring that beneficial uses and water quality objectives are established for all waters of the state. With respect to Lake Elsinore,the following beneficial uses have been identified by the RWQCB: Water Contact Recreation (RECI): Waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2): Waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water,but not normally involving body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. Warm Freshwater Habitat(WARM): Waters support warm water ecosystems that may include,but are not limited to,preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish and wildlife, including invertebrates. bf'ildlife Habitat(WILD): Waters support wildlife habitats that may include,but are not limited to,the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. The federal CWA fw'ther requires that a list of water quality limited segments be developed to identify those water bodies that do not meet water quality standards even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that action plans, referred to as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),be developed by regulatory agencies to improve water quality for these limited segments. On July 25,2003,the USEPA gave final approval to California's 2002 Section 303(d)list of Water Quality Limited Segments and TMDLs priority schedule. Lake Elsinore is identified as an impaired water body on the Section 303(d) list for the following FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-6 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2A8-7,January 2008 X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal_EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality pollutant contributors: nutrients (most notably nitrogen and phosphorous), organic enrichment/low jdissolved oxygen, sedimentation/siltation, and unknown toxicity. r Ground Water Deep alluvial deposits make up the large groundwater basins in the region. The Santa Ana River and its tributaries recharge several groundwater basins. The San Jacinto River recharges a deep (>2,000 feet) basin as it leaves the mountains and several other basins on its way to Lake Elsinore. A general description of groundwater quality is presented in the Eastern Municipal Water District's West San Jacinto Groundwater Management Plan(1990). The plan's major elements consist of a groundwater monitoring program,a groundwater contamination prevention program, and preparation of an annual report documenting the state of the basins in west San Jacinto. Groundwater was not encountered in any exploratory excavations. Natural groundwater conditions may be present,which would impact site improvements. Groundwater depth in the site vicinity is expected to be well over 100 feet below natural ground surface elevations. However, groundwater or localized seepage can occur due to variation in rainfall,irrigation practices, and other factors not evident at the time of the geotechnical investigation. Some perched groundwater should be anticipated in the vicinity of the existing drainages throughout the property, or where relatively impermeable bedrock units are present and/or exposed during grading operations. 4.7.2 Project Impacts i 4.7.2.1 Thresholds of Significance A significant impact to hydrology and/or water quality would be identified if the proposed project is determined to result in any of the following: i • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); ' . Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration i of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site; • 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, } . Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; t • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-7 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2Q97January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyg1assl6 CEQA1Rna1 E1R14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality • Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow; or, • Result in runoff from the project site that would adversely impact designated beneficial uses in the runoff-receiving watershed,or substantially impact public agency efforts to improve any currently recognized conditions of water quality impairment. 4.7.2.2 Environmental Impacts Hydrology Alteration of Drainage Patterns/Storm Water Runoff In general,development of a project site may result in an increase in peak discharge and/or increase in runoff volume due to the construction of impervious surfaces, such as streets, driveways, and buildings, which may decrease the area available for rainfall infiltration into the ground and decrease the time it takes for runoff to leave the site. The proposed project would include the construction of a back bone storm drain system ranging in size from 84 inches to 108 inches within Camino Del Norte along the projects southerly boundary, shown in Figure 4.7-2. This storm drain would flow westerly into Wasson Canyon at the Wasson Canyon under crossing of I-15. This storm drain would receive an approximate 100 year storm flow of 510 cubic feet per second(cfs)from approximately 163 acres on-site in addition to offsite flows from adjoining properties. This 163 acres would cover areas A,B, C, I,J, and K, shown on Figure 4.7-2. Proposed down slope conditions from areas A,1, J&K would continue to release storm flows into their respective existing natural drainage courses. Because the size of the drainage area would be decreased, storm water flow rates would be reduced(Figure 4.7-2). The project proposes construction of a storm drain that would allow drainage off the 35 acres in area H to drain northerly into and along proposed Elsinore Hills Road, flowing into the adjoining property and then northerly to Wasson Canyon(Figure 4.7-2). An agreement has been executed with the adjoining property owner for the acceptance of this drainage area and associated flows'. Area G would remain largely undeveloped with the exception of the proposed reservoir site, draining northerly into a natural water course with a reduction in tributary area. The north-east portion of the proposed project, area F, would drain northerly into a natural water course with a reduction in flows due to a reduction of tributary area(Figure 4.7-2). As proposed,the developed areas of area E would drain southerly into an existing water course at a rate equal to or reduced from the existing condition. This rate reduction would be achieved by reducing the tributary area. Small undeveloped areas along the projects easterly boundary would continue to drain into natural water courses at reduced rates. The rate reduction would be achieved through reduction in tributary area to these watersheds(Figure 4.7-2). ' Contribution Agreement and Amendment to Joint Development Agreement between South Shore Properties,LLC and Spyglass Ranch LLC. EDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-8 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR May 29 WAauary 2008 X.1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinore1526B4_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc cc r a ui mm u r• cc 1 ;�, \- i � ° 's �1,.. DON at'� rrr � �{ p.`"• L ! t N d y O. O 1. _ yYY f tYa CDcn 44%k� N It '` �w s .��?�'-•mot' ��'. ./,� '���•` ���`r��._ r t- 'boo - �^;'�;•< < '. °K� / `r: "v, Al r 1� t cD cD 7591111, .31 u42Ii z � u SS ASS Q o CY, Ix _ En 1 u a o o >lA ca o w u_ � U tSo ZO I I 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality Down slope conditions along the projects southerly boundary,Area D,would release storm flows into their respective existing natural drainage courses at a reduced rate(Figure 4.7-2). Table 4.7-2 summarizes the runoff potential for the proposed project. Table 4.7-2. Flow Summary for the Proposed Project Area 10-Year Storm Event 100-Year Storm Event Drainage Zone (ac) (cfs) (cfs) Camino Del Norte—84-inch to 108-inch Storm Drain A 17 34 53 B ._ .._.V_ 29 - -- 58 � ^90 C 83 166 257 1 _ 12 24 37 J 17 34 53 K 5 10 16 Subtotal 163 326 506 South �. D 7 14 22 E 33 66 102 Subtotal 40 80 124 North F 7 14 22 G 7 14 22 H 356 70 109 1(slope) 2 4 6 J(slope) 3 6 9 Subtotal 54 108 168 West A(slope) 1 2 3 K(slope) 3 6 9 Subtotal 4 8 12 Total Project 261 522 810 Increase Over Existing Conditions -- 81 112 ac=acres cfs=cubic feet per second The proposed project would feature on-site BMPs consisting of Extended Detention Basins (volume- based) and Grassed Swales (flow-based)designed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives. Figure 4.7-3 depicts the water quality improvement areas. The Water Quality Management Plan sets forth an integrated approach to water quality involving the utilization of treatment control BMPs designed to function with the drainage plan for the project site; and to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff(Figure 4.7-3). Specifically,the following treatment BMPs would reduce storm water flow: L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-11 City of Lake Elsinore ��a Revised Draft EIR May 2987January 200© X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152694 Spyglassl6_CEQMRnal EIR14.7 Spyglass Hydrology-WalerQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality • Three extended detention basins, designed according to criteria set forth and defined by Riverside County,would detain and slowly release the design volume of stormwater. - Extended Detention Basin No. 1 would receive surface runoff from drainage areas A,I, J, and K consisting of approximately 51 acres. The total design storage volume (VBw) generated would be 70,380 cubic feet(cu-ft) - Extended Detention Basin No. 2 would receive surface runoff from drainage area C consisting of approximately 83 acres. The total design storage volume(VBMP)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft - Extended Detention Basin No. 3 would receive surface runoff from drainage area E consisting of approximately 33 acres. The total design storage volume (VBI,,ip)generated would be 70,380 cu-ft • Grassed swales constructed according to County criteria would receive and slow nuisance flows and first flush flows. With the proposed project improvements the majority of storm flows would be contained within storm drains ultimately draining towards Wasson Canyon. The BMP improvements would effectively reduce storm flow impacts to all adjoining properties. Bulk Flow Large wildfires can make project sites with steep slopes susceptible to bulk flow. Bulk flow results when a wildfire removes the protective vegetation from a slope,thereby increasing the potential for debris- laden surface runoff to move rapidly downhill. The Elsinore Area Plan of the County's General Plan (County of Riverside, October 2003)identifies the project site as located in an area of no to low wildfire susceptibility. Further,there is very little natural vegetation upstream of the project site that could be affected by bulk flow. There are 19 acres of a greenbelt surrounding water reservoirs, located in the northeast corner of the project site. Of those 19 acres, only 7 acres flow down onto the project site. The project would include sufficient interceptor drains and terrace drains to convey any bulk flow from this area down around the houses and into the storm drains in Camino Del Norte. Therefore, less than significant impacts would be anticipated for bulk flow. 100-Year Flood Hazard The site is not located within a FEMA-mapped 100-year flood zone. Therefore,the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding nor would the structures impede or redirect flood flows. The project site is not subject to hazards related to dam break and subsequent flooding; therefore,it would have no impact as a result of failure of a levee or dam. A less than significant impact is anticipated. Seiche, Tsunami and Mud Flows Seiches are periodic oscillations of water in confined basins,typically caused by earthquakes. As noted in the Lake Elsinore General Plan, a seiche in Lake Elsinore could occur during an earthquake, causing the lake level to rise by 10 inches to 20 feet. The project site is located approximately one mile away from the outlet area of Lake Elsinore, and ranges from approximately 170 to 450 feet higher in elevation than the lake. Due to the distance and increase in elevation, the project site is not expected to be impacted by seiche, and no impact is anticipated. Additionally, the project site is located approximately 25 miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore,no impact from tsunami is anticipated and mitigation is not required. isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-12 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May299;1,lanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_ol Lake_ElsinorM52684 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc WQS ACCESS ROAD WQS WQ + �» N1- TO ADJO/N/N6." '1 I I �j1,- '� A=7.2 '< < �/ s+ BASIN JJ i A=7.4 ac : A=12.0 acA=16,9 oc ` ' ' f 1 ► �a WQB=0.21 ac or A=5.0 act �+ •M`" - 9 3 1+r -___�',M - r r WQS=10x170' v _ t •r-'s = =_,1�` r- r >�' �=.35O %� _ �••%� A=1.70 oc �•l, _ � it �_ i ` A=33.2 acK. �� WQB=0.42 oc or �j'0 A=28.5 ac WQB=0.36 oc or _. ram-- -_ / /`.•.•�. 1 i � 4` 1 WQS 10 x220' rs V✓OS=1 D x20.,0, .. -. -_ '• , J' _ f _ `` � !� r_ � \�, Ht75 _t`.- B- - t?r- WQS=I0 x250' A=6.6 oc wUs. WQS=6'xl50' SPYGLASS WATER QUALITY OPTIONS > Name Area, ac WQ Vol. cu ft WQ Flow, cfs WQ Basin, ac WQ Swale, #xbasexlegth \ > LEGEND : A, I, J. K 50.9 70242 6.01 0,64 _ 1012 PROJECT BDRY & ON-SITE DRAINAGE AREA BDRY w - , C 83.3 114954 9.83 1.1 MAJOR DRAINAGE AREA BDRY Y E 35.0 48300 4.13 0.43 - °' PROPOSED STORM DRAIN g 28.5 39330 3.36 _ 2@10 x 200 �f DRAINAGE AREA (acres) N A=6.6 ac D(S) 6"6 9108 0.78 - 2@6x 150 Q1o=14.0 cfs �- AVERAGE FLOW RATE FOR lOYR STORM (0.62 X Q100) Qfoo=22.0 cfs -� AVERAGE FLOW RATE FOR 100YR STORM (2.8 cfs X ACREAGE) � o F 7.4 10212 0,87 _ 6 x 100 Q 6 x 100 (� �.-- EXTENDED DETEN170N BASIN G 7.2 9936 0.85 - ll� 1 Within adjoining Development GRASSED 5WALE Lq H 35.0 48300 4.13 �- I(S) 2.0 2760 0.24 - 6 x 100 ' H ______ ACCESS ROAD 3.0 4140 0.35 - 6 x 100 J(S) W 1 0 250 500 Feet K(S) 3.0 4140 0.35 - 6 x 100 Water Quality Improvement Area FIGURE 4.7-3 Spyglass Ranch specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions' r 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality Due to the topography of the project site, the potential for mudflow exists. According to Section 4.5, 1 Geology,the erosion hazard potential on the project site ranges from slight to very high. Since the fill slopes would be constructed utilizing fill material generated from the cut portions of the site that may contain low cohesive soils,the constructed fill slopes may be unstable, especially during periods of rain. Additionally,the steepest slopes and/or those in or near the main drainage features on the project site would be particularly susceptible to mud flows. However,these slopes would be landscaped per City of Lake Elsinore standards and requirements that would ensure sufficient soil stabilization. Furthermore, during construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through I the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a SWPPP in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 92-08-DWQ,NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with BAT and BCT to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated and mitigation is not required. Water Quality Construction-Related Impacts l Erosion and sedimentation due to construction-related activities would potentially impact surface water quality within the watershed. Erosion can occur when protective vegetation is removed and cuts and fills are left unprotected. If appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented, such erosion can create local problems (downstream sediment damage). Additionally, improper handling of construction materials and/or equipment could result in accidental spills that could affect surface water quality. ITo reduce or eliminate soil erosion and pollution,the City shall ensure that construction activity is in compliance with the State's General Permit for Construction Activities administered by the California RWQCB, located in Riverside(Santa Ana,Region 8). One condition of this permit is the development l and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce/eliminate erosion and l sedimentation associated with construction. I The SWPPP is a comprehensive program to protect water quality from various sources of pollution generated before and after construction of the project. Erosion, discharge of pollutants and sediment, and drainage flows generated during construction would be controlled with implementation of structural(e.g., silt fences, sandbags, spill control)and non-structural(e.g., scheduling)BMPs to be detailed in the SWPPP. All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook for Construction. Post Construction Impacts Residential Development I The proposed project has the potential to result in long-term impacts on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff, including: Motor oil and fluids that leak from cars onto streets; • Oil,paint, or household cleaners dumped in gutters; • Soap and dirt from car washing; • Dirt, leaves, and lawn clippings; ESpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-15 City of Lake Elsinore _♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2092january2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW6B4_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality • Litter and grime that collects on roadways and sidewalks; • Bare soil that erodes and flows into streets; • Weed killers, fertilizers, and pesticides; and • Animal wastes. The project proposes approximately 158 acres of residential uses and 11 acres of roadway. With the addition of impervious surfaces, including development areas and roadways, storm water runoff would increase along with the potential for sediment and erosion. The State's General Permit for Construction Activities regulates construction-related activities, and requires that pollutant discharges into receiving waters be minimized and/or eliminated. This permit also requires that management measures be incorporated into new development to ensure that once construction is completed,the residential land use does not contribute substantially to water quality problems in water bodies that receive storm water and non-storm water runoff from the projects. A project-specific water quality plan has been developed to address storm water runoff management and water quality treatment objectives(K&A Engineering,Inc.,2007). As previously indicated in this section under Hydrology, the treatment control plan sets forth an integrated approach involving the utilization of BMPs designed to: (1) function with the drainage plan for the project site and offsite areas; and(2)to address treatment of urban and storm water runoff. The sizing of treatment control BMPs for the proposed project is based upon a criteria established by the RCFCWCD for the discharge of urban runoff. Proposed conceptual water quality facilities are shown in Figure 4.7-3 and summarized below. Extended Detention Basin Three permanent basins, sized to detain and slowly release the design volume of stormwater thereby allowing particles and associated pollutants to settle out,would be incorporated into the project design (Figure 4.7-3). The basins would generate a total storage volume of 211,140 cu ft. The bottom of the basins would be vegetated earth in order to allow for infiltration. The inlet design would incorporate energy dissipation measures and a sediment forebay to reduce resuspension of accumulated sediment. These basins would discharge into proposed storm drains at the project's boundary. Grassy Swale Wide, shallow and densely vegetated channels would be constructed. The grassy swale would treat stormwater runoff as it is slowly conveyed into a downstream system. Contact with vegetation improves water quality by plant uptake of pollutants,removal of sediment, and an increase in infiltration. Grassy swales would be located on the site, as shown in Figure 4.7-3. Maintenance of the above-listed BMPs is expected to be financed through a community facilities district, home owners association, or other similar organizations. The proposed system of on-site water quality basins and swales would provide appropriate levels of treatment for all on-site generated flows. Impacts to Beneficial Uses Assuming the proposed project complies with the State's General Permit for Construction Activities, in addition to the implementation of an Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP, development of the proposed project would not result in runoff from the project site that would adversely impact designated beneficial FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-16 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR pg X1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rna1 E1M4.7Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality f ' uses in the runoff-receiving watershed nor would it substantially impact public agency efforts to improve any currently recognized conditions of water quality impairment. Therefore, a less than significant i impact has been anticipated and mitigation is not required. ( Groundwater l The project site is currently undeveloped; therefore, groundwater absorption rates may be reduced due to an increase of impervious surfaces resulting from the development of the proposed project. However, regional absorption and infiltration rates should not be significantly affected, given the limited size of the project site and because the Colorado River and canals in the area are the main ( sources of groundwater recharge for the region, and the project would not affect these two sources. Regional absorption shall continue after development at relatively similar rates as existing conditions. Drainage and storm water run-off patterns would not be significantly affected by the proposed actions. Additionally,the proposed project is located within the service area of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD) and would be eligible for water service (Appendix I). Any future development on the project site would not use groundwater as their water supply. Therefore,there is no impact from the proposed project on groundwater supplies or recharge. 4.7.3 Cumulative Impacts j 4.7.3.1 Hydrology The Lake Elsinore Lake Management Plan addresses cumulative hydrological impacts for the San Jacinto f River watershed affecting the lake. The watershed encompasses the following urban areas: Gilman Hot ll Springs,Hemet,Lake Elsinore,Menifee,Moreno Valley,Perris, San Jacinto, Sun City, and Winchester. The proposed onsite drainage plan would be sized to accommodate storm water flows from the project ( site;therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact is anticipated. ` 4.7.3.2 Wafer Quality The proposed water quality treatment program would treat surface runoff from the project site. Ultimate development as planned in the watershed in conjunction with the proposed project would potentially impact both surface water and groundwater quality. Without controls,both short-term construction- related impacts and long-term impacts due to pollutants and sediments in urban runoff could substantially l impact water quality. However, as with the proposed project,related projects would be required to mitigate impacts through implementation of project specific construction(short-term)BMPs and permanent(long-term)drainage improvements. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts are less than significant. 4.7.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation i 4.7.4.1 Hydrology Alteration of Drainage Patterns/Storm Water Runoff The proposed drainage facilities are adequately sized to meet the drainage requirements of the project as well as any bulk flow conditions and the drainage that is currently flowing off of the site. Therefore the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-17 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2907January 2008 X.1010570_Ci1y_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEWIFinal EIM4.7_Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterOuality.doc 4.7 Hydrology/VMater Quality 100-Year Flood Hazard Because the site is not located within a FEMA-mapped 100-year flood zone,the project would have no impact from placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map. Similarly, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Because the project site location is not subject to hazards related to dam break and subsequent flooding, the project would have no impact as a result of failure of a levee or dam. Therefore,a less than significant impact is anticipated. Seiche,Tsunami and Mud Flows Due to the distance and increase in elevation from Lake Elsinore, the project site would not be impacted by seiche. Since the project site is located approximately 25 miles from the Pacific Ocean,no impact from tsunami has been identified. Although the project site has the potential for mudflows,proper landscaping and adherence to City standards and requirements would limit potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4.7.4.2 Water Quality Construction-Related Impacts Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, including installation and maintenance of BMPs to minimize discharge of pollutants and sedimentation,would reduce construction-related water quality impacts to less than significant. Post-Construction Impacts Post-development storm water flows would be conveyed through the drainage system and water quality BMPs as described in Section 4.7.2.2. The potential for the project-specific or cumulative impacts from additional sources of polluted run-off or substantial degradation of water quality would be less than significant. The proposed project would not adversely impact designated beneficial uses in the runoff- receiving watershed,or substantially impact public agency efforts to improve any currently recognized conditions of water quality impairment. No mitigation is required. 4.7.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures The proposed project and cumulative projects would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and water quality. No mitigation would be required. 4.7.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation required. 4.7.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP),the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD)requested that District standards be followed, fees be paid, and permits be obtained should the District be considered the responsible entity for the long-term operation and maintenance of any proposed flood control facilities. As identified 4* LT>`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-18 City of Lake Elsinore jF jDR Revised Draft EIR May 2A97�lanuary 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuality.doc 4.7 HydrologyMlater Quality . Section 4.7.2.2 identifies a project-specific water quality plan has been developed.,which incorporates treatment control Best Management Practices(BMPs)based on a criteria established by RCFCWCD for the discharge of urban runoff. The project would comply with all applicable RCFCWCD standards. isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-19 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 2004%january 2008 X1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglessl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.7 Spyglass_Hydrology-WaterQuelify.doc 4.7 HydrologyMater Quality This page intentionally left blank. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.7-20 City of Lake Elsinore FE ` Revised Draft EIR May 299;tJanuary 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake Elsinorel52664 Spyglessl6_CEWRnal EIR14.7 Spyglass Hydrology-WaterQuallty.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.8.1 Environmental Setting 1 Applicable Plans I The following plans were considered for analysis in the EIR because they potentially have jurisdiction over the proposed project. City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan(1990) fThe City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is an officially adopted statement of local policy concerning the City's long-term development. The General Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies which guide development within the City. The spirit and intent of the General Plan is to"achieve and sustain a high quality of life for residents and visitors." The General Plan contains all the required elements,including ` Land Use, Open Space/Conservation,Public Safety and Urban Services, Circulation, Housing, and Noise. It also contains two voluntary elements,Parks and Recreation and Community Design. All local actions and documents must be consistent with the General Plan. City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan Land Use Element(1990) jThe City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element establishes the framework for the principal development within the City. The Land Use Element describes existing land use characteristics and development patterns in the City. The Land Use Element is intended to reflect the values of the community with respect to development,redevelopment, and preservation of public and private properties within the City. The existing land uses for the project site and the surrounding parcels are shown on Figure 4.8-1. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element also contains a section about land use compatibility considerations. It states that"compatibility between adjacent land uses in the Stud Area is I y essential to achieve a safe, efficient, and well-organized community. The issues involved in examining compatibility of proposed projects include,but are not limited to,traffic generation, access locations, noise generation,public service demands, siting and visual appearance, and public safety." City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan Community Design Element(1990) The City of Lake Elsinore Community Design Element serves to guide Lake Elsinore as it seeks to maintain its desirable rural characteristics while gaining those benefits found in urbanized communities. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Community Design Element address the evolutionary nature of the city as well as the rural characteristics that have historically contributed to a quality of life that residents seek to preserve and enhance. The Community Design Element assesses the following urban ` design features that strongly affect the image of the city: Natural features and Open Space; Scale of Development; Architecture; Landscape Architecture; Streetscape Design; Circulation System; Community Gateways and;Landmarks. I City of Lake Elsinore—Zoning Code(1990) The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code is a part of the master plan and consists of the establishment of various districts, including all the territory within the boundaries of the city, within which the use of land and buildings, the space of buildings, and the height and bulk of buildings are regulated. No buildings or L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-1 City of Lake Elsinore ��D Revised Draft EIR May 200�:January 2008 X.-1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.8_Spyglass_Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning structures shall be erected,reconstructed or structurally altered in any manner,nor shall any buildings or land be used for any purpose other than as permitted and in conformance with the zoning code and all other ordinances, laws and maps referred to therein. The existing zoning for the project site and surrounding parcels is shown on Figure 4.8-2. City of Lake Elsinore—Draft General Plan Update(2007) The City of Lake Elsinore is currently updating their General Plan. All the required sections,including Land Use would be included in the update. At the time of this Draft EIR the General Plan Update has not been completed, and is not available for inclusion in this analysis. City of Lake Elsinore-Redevelopment Agency(1980) The City Council of Lake Elsinore has been established as the Redevelopment Agency(RDA)for the City. Three redevelopment areas have been adopted by the City as shown on Figure 4.8-3. Portions of the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan area are located within Redevelopment Area No. 2. The purpose of the Redevelopment Areas is to revitalize blighted areas,improve development potential, and to restore or increase the economic vitality of the City. Within the redevelopment areas,the RDA has the authority to dedicate tax increment and incur indebtedness in order to construct redevelopment projects or offer other qualified RDA programs. Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP)-Riverside County(2003) The Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP)was initiated in 1998 to comprehensively update the County's General Plan. The RCIP is comprised of the Community Environmental Transportation Corridor Acceptability Process(CETAP), a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP)and the Riverside County General Plan update. The RCIP, County of Riverside General Plan text was adopted October 7,2003. The RCIP governs only the unincorporated areas of the County. Regional planning programs, including the CETAP and MSHCP programs, are however,relevant to incorporated portions of the County, including the City of Lake Elsinore. Additional information on these RCIP components and their relationship with the proposed project is provided in Sections 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, and 4.3, Biological Resources of this EIR. More specifically,the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)was adopted in December 2002. It establishes a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway improvements in western Riverside County,thus implementing the CETAP program. The MSHCP is a criteria-based federal Habitat Conservation Program(HCP) and state Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), focused on preserving 146 individual covered species through habitat conservation. The MSHCP also serves to enhance maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing the fulfillment of future economic goals. On June 17,2003,the County of Riverside adopted the MSHCP. On January 13, 2004,the City of Lake Elsinore conditionally adopted the MSHCP. On June 22, 2004,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)issued the Incidental Take Permits for the MSHCP. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-2 City of Lake Elsinore fD ` Revised Draft EIR May 20 D4January 2008 X.•1010570_City_ol Lake Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIM4,6_Spyglass_Land Use_Planning.doc co) — # C E < < L j c 2 cm / E _ < » o _ r 2 g / \ - \ e g < 2 = \ I 2 e \ _■ 2 \ / \ a \ E 3 \ \ D _ _ ƒ § E § ■ k , a : \ �\.\ _ � } \ CD to / / 2 � \ \ � � 7 M. m k . \ � \ ) - \ ) ��&b ■ � \ k \ k R \ 00 & 2 § E ( 2 CO _ Sf \ $ ��— � c k u j \ k 0 cmC�l -.I-- La § \ \ ��� P,.jk_ \ £ » 7 1LL. § / \ j D k ® ( / - e @ \ - - : 4 \ - 2 @ 3 3 ƒ LU = e = eCD \ - � c Rs - ■ . - (7 . 0 2 / _ ■ua \ .bd 2 / \ \ § e , , 0 y } ] c § 2 & . k� 2 � � 3 \ � a f / & e . § 2 / £ \ e $ » % kCD E / & ® w / ' z ƒ ■ w CDz ) o y ch CcCAco L W a Q cr. E C m a = W E in o C 0 E E a p as o C ® ig w. c W W N /�� W W Y J O Ql �' li U ® O c LOLO S2 U �U Q U') C/3 F L N cc y N �a o� T N 3 0 0 \ z C4 R y � tl Z J 1 \ 4S,43 \� 2 �\ 0 I 4.8 Land Use and Planning Due to the issuance of the Incidental Take Permits by the USFWS and CDFG, as a Local Permittee,the ( City can now issue take authorizations for the 146 MSHCP Covered Species,provided the project is consistent with the MSHCP. As noted above,consistency with the MSHCP provides full mitigation under CEQA,National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), federal Endangered Species Act(ESA), and California ESA for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the USFWS,the CDFG and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies, and as set forth in the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP. (See MSHCP,page 6-3.). Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG)—Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (1996) fThe Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)is designated by the federal government as the Southern California region's Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)and Regional Transportation r . Planning Agency(RTPA). SCAG has sought to address regional planning concerns through various i documents, including the 1996 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG is "intended to serve the region as a framework for decision making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated during the next 20 years and beyond." Core chapters of the RCPG that respond to I federal and state planning requirements include: Growth Management,Regional Transportation Plan,Air Quality,Hazardous Waste Management, and Water Quality. Ancillary chapters are those on Economy, Housing,Human Resources and Services,Finance, Open Space and Conservation,Water Resources, IEnergy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)—SCAG(2004) [ Destination 2030 is the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) for the six county Region in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,Riverside,Ventura and Imperial Counties. The RTP is the culmination of a three-year effort with a focus on improving the balance between land use, and the current and future transportation systems. SCAG is required to develop,maintain and update the RTP on a three year cycle. Destination 2030 is a Multi-Modal Plan(Plan)representing the vision for a better transportation system, I integrated with the best possible growth pattern for the Region over the Plan horizon of 2030. The Plan provides the basic policy and program framework for long term investment in the regional transportation system in a coordinated, cooperative and continuous manner. Transportation investments in the SCAG Region that receive State or Federal transportation funds must be consistent with the RTP and must be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program(RTIP)when ready for funding. Compass Growth Vision—SCAG (2004) i In an effort to provide local decision-makers with the tools they need to plan more effectively for the six million new residents projected to live in Southern California by 2030, SCAG undertook a growth visioning initiative called Southern California Compass. The objective of this effort was to develop a comprehensive new vision for Southern California over the next 30 years by taking an inclusive approach to planning at both the local and regional levels. The input derived from this multi-phased involvement effort led directly to the development of a new vision for Southern California. The Southern California Compass vision adopted by SCAG's Regional Council in June 2004 helps to set a new course for Southern California to accommodate growth,reduce traffic congestion,preserve open space,manage and minimize pollution, and manage resources more FD� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-9 City of Lake Elsinore _\ Revised Draft EIR May 2007,January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_ElsinorM52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.8_Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning efficiently. The implementation framework known as the 2%Strategy: Shared Values, Shared Future seeks to assist cities and counties develop strategies to accommodate future growth while promoting SCAG's regional principles of Mobility, Livability,Prosperity and Sustainability for current and future generations of Southern Californians. Existing Land Uses Project Site The Land Use plan designates the project site as Future Specific Plan(FSP),Freeway Business(FB), and Neighborhood Commercial(NC)(Figure 4.8-1), as detailed in Table 4.8-1. Table 4.8-1. Land Use Acreages Land Use Acreage Future Specific Plan(Area G) 219.82 Freeway Business 16.57 Neighborhood Commercial 22.41 Total 258.8 The FSP (Area G)designation requires the preparation of a specific plan. Specific Plan Area G contains 651 acres located north of I-15 and west of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Area, and includes part of the 258.8 acre Spyglass Ranch site. A residential land use at a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)would be accommodated over the entirety of Specific Plan Area G. A Specific Plan for Area G, or part of Area G, should include analysis about the visual impact on hillside grading and development from the I-15 and the lake area; and the impact to threatened or endangered species. Non-residential uses shall be limited to tourist commercial,neighborhood commercial if supported by market analysis, open space,recreation, and any public facilities necessary to support the project. The FB designation provides for large floor area uses including office or commercial and manufacturing uses that require large display or storage areas. Uses intended under this designation include home furnishing and improvement centers, industrial supply businesses, equipment sales and service,auto dealerships, large office buildings, and regional commercial developments. Limited manufacturing and wholesale distribution centers are also compatible with this designation. FB has been located to minimize truck traffic on collector or local streets,provide good access to 1-15, and provide good visibility for the commercial aspects of the businesses. The NC designation includes neighborhood shopping centers and small convenience centers which provide for the day-to-day retail goods and services required by residents in the immediate vicinity. The NC designation is intended to provide a concentration of retail uses including,but not limited to,personal services, food and general merchandise stores, eating establishments, and repair stores. NC centers should be compatible in design and scale with adjacent residential districts. Allowable development intensities in NC areas would be up to 13,068 square feet per acre, or a floor area ratio of 30 percent. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-10 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2997January 2008 X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.6 Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc I 4.8 Land Use and Planning _ Surrounding Land Uses The project site is comprised of approximately 258.8 acres located within the central portion of the City of Lake Elsinore,just northeast of Interstate 15 (1-15)less than one mile from downtown Lake Elsinore. The vacant parcels to the north carry the General Plan Land Use designations of FB and Low Density [ (LD)Residential. The parcels to the northwest carry the designation of Approved Specific Plan(ASP) (Ramsgate). To the east,the vacant parcels are designated with the FSP Land Use. To the southeast the vacant parcels carry the land use designation of Open Space and Recreation(OSR). An application has f been submitted for development of a 145-acre mixed use residential community,Village of Porto Romano, for the currently undeveloped parcels to the south of the project site. I-15 borders the site to the f southwest. On the south side of I-15,the vacant parcels are designated as Medium Density (MD) 1 Residential, Tourist Commercial(TC), and FB Land Uses in the General Plan(Figure 4.8-1). Zoning Designation r The project site is zoned"R-l"—Single Family Residential(228.35 acres), and"C-2"—General Commercial District(30.45 acres). The"R-l"District is intended to accommodate low density projects comprised of quality single-family residences developed in an urban environment with available public services and infrastructure. The R-1 District is not however,intended for hillside development. Uses permitted shall include Single-family detached dwelling units, one dwelling unit per lot; accessory uses and structures; small family day care and residential care facilities;public utility distribution and transmission facilities; government building and service facilities;public parks,playgrounds, community centers,recreation buildings, elementary, junior high, and high schools; and manufactured homes. The minimum lot area for any new lot created shall be 6,000 square feet. However, exceptions include the average lot size for any subdivision shall be a minimum of 7,260 square feet; and corner lots shall be a minimum of 7,700 square feet. The maximum i lot coverage shall be 50 percent, and the building height shall not exceed 30 feet. ( The "C-2"District is to accommodate a full range of retail stores, offices, and personal and business j service establishments offering commodities and services scaled to meet the needs of the residents of the entire City. Due to the intensity of use associated with the"C-2"District,properties assigned this designation shall be located on streets that are categorized as Secondary,Major, or Arterial Highways. ` Proposed Land Uses Spyglass Ranch incorporates a variety of land uses and a comprehensive open space and recreation j system into a master planned development. Spyglass Ranch provides for a full range of land uses, including residential, commercial (if multi-family uses are not developed), and open space and recreation. These land uses have been distributed across the site, as shown on Figure 4.8-4. The Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan proposes a 258.8-acre development that combines a variety of components to develop a community within the land uses summarized in Table 4.8-2. Access to the project site would be via Camino del Norte and Main Street. Major north-south access through Spyglass Ranch is provided via proposed Lake Elsinore Hills Road. F� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-11 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2987January 2008 X:1010570_City_o!Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAWinal EIRI4,8_Spyglass_Land Use_Planning,doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning Table 4.8-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses by Planning Area Planning Dwelling Area I Land Use Acres Density Units Residential 1 Courtyard Homes 10.4 8-15 du/ac 96 2 Single-Family Residential 21.5 4-8 du/ac 98 3 Estate Residential 0.4 0-2 du/ac 1 4 Single-Family Residential 34.6 4-8 du/ac 134 5* Multi-Family Residential 6.1 15-24 du/ac 131 6* Multi-Family Residential 8.4 15-24 du/ac 210 9 Single-Family Residential 28.8 4-8 du/ac 135 10 I Estate Residential 7.1 0-2 du/ac I 7 11 Single-Family Residential 28.3 4-8 du/ac 148 12 Courtyard Homes 8.2 8-15 du/ac 75 Residential Subtotals 153.8 6.7 du/ac 1,035 Non-Residential 7 Community Center/Park 3 N/A 0 8A Open Space 40.4 N/A 0 8B Open Space 11.6 N/A 0 8C Open Space 4.1 N/A 0 13 Park 3.5 N/A 0 14A Open Space 6.5 N/A 0 14B Open Space 5.7 N/A 0 14C Open Space 5.5 N/A 0 14D Open Space 12.8 N/A 0 14E Open Space 1.6 N/A 0 Non-Residential Subtotals 94.7 Major Circulation 10.3 Project Totals 258.8 *If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial land use designation shall apply for development consistent with the Specific Plan. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-12 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2987January 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rnal E1M4 6 Spyglass Land Use Planning.doc Co IMP o ` CO) ob W CC I Lo O0 � co LL 7t In y J r— T< N O O r O U 16. Q�U �a < Yp �•h'� p � chi cn U N (: OG V� p I PROPOSED ELSINORE HILLS DRIVE } i - C J / A V G C rt G C z z �, o 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8.2 Project Impacts 4.8.2.1 Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant land use impact, as defined in Appendix G(IX)of the CEQA Guidelines, if the project would: • Physically divide an established community; • Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal ' program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. 4.8.2.2 Environmental Impacts 1 The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to the current General Plan, as well as a zoning change. Additionally, a Specific Plan is being completed for the project, and would serve as the zoning and development standards for the project site. If the Draft General Plan Update is adopted prior to the close of the environmental review of this project,the General Plan Amendment would apply to the General Plan Update, instead of the current General Plan. r The proposed project consists of the following discretionary approvals: I • General Plan Amendment(City of Lake Elsinore); • Zone Change; • Specific Plan Approval;aFA i I All of these discretionary actions would be considered when creating an understanding of the potential iimpacts to land use and planning of the proposed project. Physical Division of an Established Community The proposed project does not create new barriers in areas that contain existing communities, as it is proposed on vacant land, and is surrounded by vacant land. The project does not physically divide an i established community. l Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans,Policies,or Regulations City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element designates the project area as FSP (Area G), FB,and NC. The Specific Plan Area G designation would allow residential land uses at a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre. The FB designation would allow large floor-area commercial development. The NC would allow neighborhood shopping centers and small convenience centers which provide for day-to-day retail goods and services required by residents in the immediate vicinity. The faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-15 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_City_of lake_Elsincrel52684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinel EIRI4.6 Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning proposed project would result in residential,commercial (if multi-family uses are not developed), and open space and recreation areas, with a maximum of 1,035 residential units on 258.8 acres, resulting in an average gross residential density of 3.99 du/ac. Additionally, it is possible that the multi-family residential units planned for Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be deemed unnecessary. If this happens, a maximum of 145,000 square feet of commercial space would be available to accommodate primarily community-serving retailers and services. Therefore,the proposed project is in conflict with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element,which represents a significant impact. The Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan has the potential to be in conflict with the land use compatibility considerations,because General Plan guidelines require that land use compatibility is established within a project site. Internally,the proposed project includes 145,000 square feet of commercial retail uses to be developed within Planning Areas 5 and 6 of the site,which would be adjacent to Open Space (Planning Area 8). Typical land use conflicts associated with commercial retail uses and open space uses include noise pollution and traffic impacts. These issues are discussed in Sections 4.9 and 4.13,respectively, and represent significant impacts requiring mitigation. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Community Design Element—Hillside Development and the 1-15 View Corridor The purpose of the hillside development guidelines is to encourage the preservation and maintenance of the natural character of the hillsides and of significant resources such as sensitive vegetation and wildlife, geological features,natural drainage canyons, and steep slopes. A hillside development ordinance has been established to address all hillside areas within the City. The design guidelines include design layout and siting requirements, architecture requirements,circulation requirements,parking requirements, open space and view requirements, structure placements and slope maintenance requirements, grading, and landscaping requirements. The proposed project maintains an environmentally sensitive approach to design relative to the property's existing topography. Consistent with the design guidelines, grading of the site is sensitive to the need to maintain a hill,while also observing public safety and environmental issues associated with steep slopes, erosion, and drainage. The design of structures is incorporated into sloped terrain where possible. Therefore,the proposed project is in compliance with the Hillside Development design guidelines,resulting in a less than significant impact. The views from the 1-15 corridor present an opportunity to project the positive image of quality development. Implementation of design guidelines in Architecture,Parking,Views,Noise Attenuation, Landscape, and Signs ensure that future public and private improvements are sensitive to public views. As stated in Appendix A, General Plan Consistency Analysis of the Specific Plan,the proposed project follows these considerations. Therefore,the proposed project is in compliance with the I-15 View Corridor design guidelines,resulting in a less than significant impact. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map designates the project area as R-1—Single Family Residential and C-2—General Commercial. R-1 allows for residential development at a density of 7.26 du/ac. C-2 allows for retail, offices, and business establishments. The project proposes residential development at an average of 6.7 du/acre,which is below the 7.26 du/ac limit. However,the project is in conflict with the C-2zoning designation,as the project proposes residential and open space uses on commercially zoned parcels. Therefore, the project is in conflict with zoning,which represents a significant impact. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-16 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR X:1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rnal EIR14.e Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc _ 4.8 Land Use and Planning r City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Plan Part of the project site lies within Project Area Number 2,Area C of the adopted Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed project is not included as part of a Redevelopment Plan, as it has not been previously developed. However,the proposed project would add to the tax increment revenue to benefit the I Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with the Redevelopment Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact. Riverside County Integrated Project The RCIP does not govern land use for the project site. The RCIP does apply as the project relates to ( Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees(TUMF) and the MSHCP. The City of Lake Elsinore has agreed to participate in both TUMF and the MSHCP. The proposed project is subject to regional TUMF fees. Traffic generated by development of the Spyglass i Ranch would impact countywide transportation corridors and the proposed project would be required to contribute to TUMF. Therefore,the proposed project is in compliance with the CETAP portion of the RCIP,resulting in a less than significant impact. None of the proposed project site is located within a Conservation Criteria Cell. A General Biological Survey and Focused Surveys were conducted on the project site and did not observe any listed or MSHCP covered species. Additionally, the project lies outside of any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and Criteria Area Species Survey Area boundaries. As discussed in more detail in the Biological Technical Report(Helix 2006), and Section 4.3,Biological Resources, the proposed project would be { consistent with the applicable Western Riverside County MSHCP guidelines and policies,resulting in a I` less than significant impact. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG) The RCPG contains multiple chapters concerning different areas of discussion. The relevant chapters that have been included in this discussion include the Growth Management Chapter,the Air Quality Chapter, and the Open Space and Conservation Chapter. "that i As detailed in the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan and Table 4.8-3,the proposed project implements seme oes not conflict with the goals and policies of the RCPG. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project isWith the RGPG and Fegiresem will not result in a significant impact. ac=t. 6bafaster96t+s RaF+sH? No hew449ea4eF +4 Wbaa-Pleiber�ieed Al/A IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-17 City of Lake Elsinore +\ Revised Draft EIR May 2G97Januaiy 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore152684__Spyglassl6_CEQATinal EIR14.8_Spyglass_Land Use_Planning doc 0 Go cn O mO Np cu .� CU U CN •C •C'C d p_) m 2 —0 d C0 0 O .� C a 0 .cn. N N 0 a W ca Fn cl. a)� E m via a) '!= E -0aic Ym c 3 3 CD c cnom m c v� E w m c o w U c H _ a) co c v 3 CD I a m S C1 NmaLLim ` � Urn ` a) `—a � •'� Nom "_ L y a) 0- _0 a) a) Co v j ?� a) L cn 3a� `ioc 3aSo rn 3ma`) c m off • 0 , C o i5•u)o i� 'v) m 3 •�C- ca.m iD v a) ca c (B U) .m :�,!E •a) i� cn i> > c a) E -0 m N a m v J 0 o a) a) U c o o CO cn o o O -0a E — � Q 'o co d o a "L m o ay U c N o O c � N cn a) W L C in a) C m cn a) 0 3 a) O N - .0 C C a m .�.� a m •a) d a O a c ai .N m a 0 U' Q O m -0 c`a C E L O o 5 O` N '(D U N U) p cn m c'� o cn rn o_ c ca a m ,a) E I (n a) Na) pa) o- Iona) a) CD F- L6 cg �) =LE 3 o ( H z = 2 aw o = I m rn=— c>a M o 0 '0 0 cn am "O a) C _0 U ` . C - ca C 'b N E o m N .� 0.= C v O N (D p Z •c6 N N N d Y �+ 3 cXvvo-0 o - c o Qc o i� w pia `ay 0 (D y o m � m .:� E ca C m Z 00 .O = N C d a) = N O o o o -2 W p 'C 0)) QI� v_ n vi I Ca _ a -0 L) � � a) � m b�A ca 0 -0 aNi o rnI rnm c`a m E 00 •� � v E m 0 o .2 a �s -0 No aa)) E 0_ - L U 'in - E 0 -0 ` -� o o p O y a f6 Frl — co Es a) ate)� � a�i •ov •� avL o s of aa)) nc a> a I:F; a r� Lco0E -1 _ � cn rn� •o � Ea) �c am c0' cn 1a) — c W—am I� ca cn O N C C a) U_� N a) C cn 0 � vi C � p a) cn..0- ca OL �•C a) ' J� cn-C C C a) - L L: O C N-0 C C m L Q) Q E C d > O a) is ? O '0 3 a) .�' L -p O O E cn ca 0 0-- •y O C. O -0• - -0 c c N cD • o 5 c -0 rO a a 0 E _v is.E v 5 30 o cS m 'm O m _ cl) N o 45 m m a Q cn o a) U a y75 a U a) O N O con" o o c� U N E U m C N >`, cn C cm cn m � -p N a) N ` o0 y O U L a) O .y C p 0 .0 O U L O 7 '- y O p > L p U 1 a) cn No > oin >'� cE °: aciac;mu' E � (D -0 cuaBi5ca0 �oa) U) cn � - � .c fa O 0) C >is is U a) N a) C'C m . C m > -0 . c> c o aNi� m c a in c ' E Z a) do — c� c c •� 'c� min 5 a) c :r co N I � a O m CO 0•0 o m = a) m co a) a) 0 N 0 o aa)) •vim)'� Q N C N U-6 d E a) c m cn a) O. o cnQ m m oY m a) M o -O.m 12 ai a m m E oAu m E o- CD cnc c—oc—) Q N c m m o c`a o ? o y E m W 1 o 0 .� FO c u> E 9 0 E m mom >'o _ omo. a) o > m c m w v E Z _0 E Ca w E m c m � o c) U cn m EAU o D ac)) L �� rnac) M °a Huai cca a)� ac`ni) mo �' m � Eocai � a) a) ma�io �cEa`"io a) m � 0ca MI c 0 J U m co 0 L p � E E u) p 7 ca o m a c cn 0 s.a o c N ca m 0 cmi 'n — a) 0)— U o E V) — L U o y a) rn m cn 00 U m O U-D aL a) cn o 0).0 C m � - �0 0 -0 C O N o o - C cn C U o U (7 0_ cm� cn E (a O C N a) L o C -2 L a) (..� C m L a) a) O U L L 'm -F C o 6� ca cn c U L a cn .0 U p fn E O y�_ U m cn L E s c L U a) E 7 C L t .r a) cn =_ a)L a) cn O_a) cn <n E -EL cn y > O cn"O .�O �.� a 0 2 - - N o-C cn 7• 7 0 0 d-0 a) O a O O N T O m y m ` !— C a) p C cn •� .0 m O)0 ui a) m •0 d U a m 0 c cn Z p C L L z a p m m 0 ' F" m cc`� I m ca �:cu mm0 ca E c m cn 0 o L) — � c"`a cm—ES .5 cn o_ c m �U c a m 0- 0 3 � o a) a) m a). L m rn a) to � o m e a) U U 0 C E cu E N U N L - to p >,a) •� d ~ C "0 z a.-) i m U E N cn c • c a) c rn L m a) a).c m e E� vi Q E ui aia �a n E a cn a I c- 3 a3i �' E z nc>a ' L2 m a`ni �-c ca)`a 0' � rn � m c d a a) N N N O C L y U 7 7 C V p L L 'p' •U U O O C o 6I'� N- m 0 E Q U) -0 a> a U m � 7 .0 L L m LL O O - O C a) - a) - U H m .--� > m.� in m ._ cn i H d O.�� 3cn � C7 c a) .2 Q C O d ea c O— > U cm a m � U a) v N A — 0 a) 3 L E v cn cj� a) CD . EE N W LL z V = W cc N Nd m a) m m p a) d J I J C j J C C 7 d N a) E fn rc .0 O C7 C O U C O(.7 C ca (7 E a) U a m oc c UL �� UL 0aa) o 21,o� y o0 c E E E p_ L i N n Q H LU d ui _�_~.W a- W F— W d W U W n. 0 --- -- a) ao _ m a aci C o0 O a)p) c C cu CD v C C aa O NLC c ON cL v.C.ccr E W 7 Co oEV QC oenO nz OaL) Co CU N N � O ¢ O U CO a) N > LO 5 ' O? ) j • c3 nE o " cL a) m o > c � mca C) cn a) a) -0 O 'E 0 na . o N '- 00 � Ec o 3 o om a m n a o Q E o p E 0 ` o " (D cn Na) ca 0 cc 0 3cn aa X nh0 v a � c c) m 049 3 c m m oo o CD o aa) n a) CD -a CU a W CO V CM OU a) c O CU OV 3- CL n anEo wo cuo m o a cc � com _a0 � oo ) = o 0 8N aia ) oQa ) CLym c p 000 -0) � co CD - C, O OOEM E j >, O • C ? CCQ7O a 'C C E ivnE 3 � Nav) E a) uj mp n niL `p mEQ E L � � ac)q o oCDo cu � oo ( coa)_I—_ at "2LD a) E a) a) v a) nH oE-0 En a naana mnn� n co e cu cn U >>-� cn m CD a) a a) a C O N"C O —O N C nOj a c N CD nc � m > � a (D a'o a) a) `Oo wE rn N a = N U to .L--j o E o 'm c a) EZc `c •LD .- am rnm a) aa)) o` � rn 0 -0 J m c a) o -a a) - m in E cn m a) n'n o c c °) m .S E •� �' m aCl) ui CU m m n 3 0 C .� y 'O 07 0 � O E N m N U a) .0 O O cn U d O j E in = > fn Vcc a) a) Q t6 •� N X n C cn — c a) = rn m L O .S O U d d a) a) a) a) c -o m E Q n a o. L t a) cn a) a) o 0 0_ C) n Mn cu > O r� cc6 S a) N .� cm 3 O O p C � C y N O .- O O c o) rn 'o ? ca c cci_) a) CD u) U o > -0 > ° E O� N C O . L) N - Z > N D E i) aci a`ni 3 o ami a o a) p mp) mmoc � E > � =U) (n -a cot) cvL E m m O Q 'U U m I-- O C7) '> E n > m L) ccv o aa) v m o Lvn (3) L- aa)cu o m •c a c n a) p s o a) aoi = a s o vi n � '� Ewam nCL Z (D cn oc cu�' m 0m CD a) O ' a) m a) O a) O N a) N L p m c) U m c UCD 0 a) co C > E U >,-0 o) 0 c cn c) iss a)CL C° W a) W m E o o c c n S 2 C COc - o °? E a n c o a) E aci c o > �'� Q a 0 c Lm °) s a) LL 3 o m m c� -- o c y) � a) o Q cn Q N 2 O a) � E : a) -o a Z., a) a 0 5 E c° C, ui 2 > c o- .0 - a a) a m o a) • C c o m c C'mz o .E c 3 0) a) o oa m :Ei cn N ` v E 0o m - o N N N y > .N vOi > m o N 0 vOi Z' O n cn U E n• E a) c E cna c� �u cn ma m � E • a a) � a) o m m cn ,c p)_ c m m c a) cn a) a Eo a) c Q �'_ Tn . > O a) Cn -0 E a) U a U o ,c � c c n vi > ' OCD O U O Co c a 7 c L L 7 c C U in a) N L a) a) a) cn a) L U a) c .L Q m H rnm H m cn H ncnm mm F- m a) o H Q� m U � C > o Q U o co a. a) L Q E o _rn ) m a) E Q O C C O O > a) a E C1 U) ) (� E a) -o cn o rn U) cr a) t fn N E a E C `E a) t N O U W HU ryRm' UU � Z F� MLLCa m cn c U a a) a) E J c c m E o a cn � mU E a) oN oN cuss o a) a m J N O W a) 4 a) J N N N .QV O V C& 0 p UO O omC L Q a) C a C C a)O_ Cl) L . na 4a m > �a O p a) ...CD LW n C) W a- 0 W 0 ► � U U Wry d -Cu _ cu a) L ` 0) p C C U y d L � a) d 0 (B O) O p C N .� c� � `o0 CD cocoa � 0 � � 2c o' � H (� o naZ � C a� Nv W .�vi o aci Z.m �'Q � �o O U a) 7 C 0 C = c a) C E a) C O fA n >,C = Y coC Sm C >, m � 'caca ao--D c m Ems = F, E c o � � c CD c a�oi 'o C c y � a) a) c A2 L N .r a) a C p c � U N a) rn a) E aC 0a)i o �' cpn E Q.S co (a O a) cD z E n � 5 vi- U N 2 E m c c > E � y > > o cu w .� U 3 y � � cn E 'y � _ = c E -E u, � 5 on-0 U E3 '�n m E > E o E - U N m a0 �o Q uj ( .5 � o' >' � � c � � � t o > � � ani o n E aEi � o� a o 0 d O( 7 C N 30 CU X n� ° C O N a (u N E L L Y C rn 7 N 'E > -C O C a� v a cUaN � a"i m .cc. � � iu 'V5i o o � a � c co oi o o CD m.X � o U � � � � � � d N •c n Z 'c U U c U C) O U a) .L... a) to CD J O a 43 c c N aU o v rn p n o o y o C N O O N O .rj - C c o L, a) M = cnco0 mac- OL a) � o U) L) >, ccu ,c � EEooca) i� 00 a aU oo (D o mQ � m -a y .S v o £ m o � ' � .c ca oZ o� -_(D a c � � � Hch pow m o v c z `m rnnEo o = a > 3 p o cm Z fO a) a Q . � � 3 c aN � � -�) c 'a-i-i m a`� c 0 o -jaU cC a) � O a) E O c c Z c = O Z C p•2 aC) s �vi N Q- N � Cp C ca m Q ai aa) m a>) upi v a t- 0 0 7 a) �n y 0 0 p N .O a) ' O a C 3 > U p � n "p C O U ` C m O o o < a) p a) 2 0 N C O cn a) -0 cu p) Z U c) U)_0 'm cn n� o_ � .� U ¢ carp 0- o cu , �) C U U [QJCad a) - cU ccn c P o ' c2 v> m U -0O (V 'O a) _C cu -0 .n a 0 -0 O 0 O d c V : 7 a) L �'V 0O C (? Ca O aj-0 C) U 'p)� p W•3 N U) Y a) C -- M L CC) a) Z m O O 5 :G .4 c 3 fCD �O 7 a) jC 2 CM cu C o a) L O U ` C '- cu c U) L m E E cn aE) .�)•� CEO (u O cn > a) U - p U O p �) C tc Cu N `� Cu N M. Z C Q mL o 2 E m"nac) cc rnu EQ 2 ) M o a o _, v - o -E E m � co N ccu o �- rn G = '� .0 a< cu an) o) CD 0 U a`a) � � COi W � o a) vni c o d W = •c rn a) m C C co- Q 2 C a ca (D -0 C cu 2 c- o L >O C = o f -0 NL � N Ea OL m a) cu OZ" w p a)Cn > (D oUmE Zocaun'cawy CU L) o � U (D ca. N rn c °? CU O c W n m o o cu c-�° ca) oE c`ncn Ea`5 o � Z (D '§ CU a) a) o cu C a m = m L) •> >,a >, C C U >, cu o `� X O nc �n � 5 (D a) o anima cc a) W . �' � (D (D a`> NmV -o � cvo a a �, a) > co 0 c o m aci = Z m 2 c2 cn�j ate) L)0 a •3L o E E >: (n E v) '- cn o cn Urn_C v a) a) E a) ai m vi ¢ o U m c C o cca cm U cu a) 2 a) C mwa m C mm = U) c CL c cc c � m H O_H cu cmZ � � cu H Ev' E2Mw m2 o u � U 7 - � U CD a a) C1 a cn a c) - - Ca c c a? O M c . m m a) CM y FL p o -?p -0 >, S oa o p 'S na) a) U � cn cn c/� env a) U n a) 0) Q E c a CD rn m o rn ate) o E c m m C-)Lo a) -0 ac`� c S °c_ N C O•� U CuC L .a Q. O 00 a) a) — -N • o rn COCo Cn CL d.� O CE 0 O C Cn °� p N N t C- N Cn W ca _ .� in c CuL Coo a � � c �.� c a) E � c) o o m Y c C to CT O N rn fU L CO Cy — Ca EL w. m v coi ~ CD .O 'N c 2 Ca ain Cu •o� n -0 rn Cu ua) a c E f° aa) c U v N c rtCn Cu � o > c c o •� a rn a-io c mCD 3 o-c 0 = o o - v aa)rn - c a) m o cb'in c o i> > CL > 2 3 (� O I:E N .0 N C C N y T = N C a) CU -C Cu Cu Cn C L O N CC N fn CO V yam... 0 7 — L L C N a CT L = _ .0 d N D O `O "O = Co . v c E o a 3 `� = a m a) -c ~ L O .. 0 -0 '� a c Cn c is a) m c - c aim c � Cu E " fn m` c �_ a) L E o c m �° a`ni E � '� � � � E IL `o Cn .� CD _ _ .S a) o • o` O U m o a E E m () o a) U >i• C N U = N D Cn C 0 = Cn CU L O a) Q 0 'in Cu = a °' � c .S i� ins 3 0 cLi = — a) E m m � nZ E Cu 0 w cod 0 a) >, w u 0 a? n .o w � o m - c c' `co S E E _� vi aD in J Q a) C d L U U a) C �+ N N a) .0 a) — 0 O O (D >, U O N c0.) O ~ O M .� -0 a) � rn C- Y > Cn N C � N rn = U 0 w _ c CL N OO a c aE o `i) aE) m �) -1 °) o °) � v o °) 0 3 ? c aE 0 C Q a) a C N V a-X .O O N cCo W -0 C o) fC a) � 0 CCc CuC Z'c KE - 2 C a) U >,U c L o iu o Cn c a) a) a Y 3 N a) a) O Cam) UECnotr 03a) ca. E i� U � o -� aEi cna) o m c=i E a rn Cu7�5 o aa)) n, t a) cL c � L X a) ai m L)) a= v) L o o E •- ._ H o m 3 cn cn a3 0 .SL -� H N E 'Cv -0 .� Cv c 3 c E .3H .� C 7 T Cn Q c Cn U Cf) a) Co o cn a) -o >., _ C U ' L (V o a) a) U T O w T O -,- a N N a) N C N N C6 C6 N N C L Q 3 a) -E L a) C O O U _"=_ —O CO U Cu Co Q c > U Ur > .0 C U Cn U U C O 00 y N d f6 CD C L Ca = a) L aU, �Qpp E a >, O L E Y O rn C 0 C O OD O Cn 7 O Cu CD O U ` U 3 - a) a) CU c`O Co Cu Q Cu CO Ca CC O C -CO p).LO E C Co U = 2 C w Co t U)o � Y •rn v O N O O= c Cn C d 'C COn y C N U in (� T E V C C L O O Cn C1 CD O = 0. C C a) O O = N a U U Cu 0) C Cc o CD o) 2 �.. C a CO CD dO � _E O 0. = = ca Q to C a) U C cn O a) C U CT W W O c C O (- a o ee CoCo O O O (O V 4) C') C i CM M 0- Cl) a r- a a aca 'w °C o` N U O CD CC N a) C6 N CD p) d O N '� O Cn '� O y 'j O to '� a a)m '� aciU 0 ac) o) mU M OO U) � CD C) 0 n CL Cu a_ QEO QCo a- Q E c V Q E c c V U E c V QU UCL Ua a �i) 0a_ c) 0 n0 Cn °? `o c c c o -- - ---- c o C � C •C 0) fn U m U N a) s C N . Q ? w umi L a o ! (OD m 3 o c A > Q O m > m L 0 O ID — c O ' a) c cn n O W co CO U C 2 7 _O O m L . L c Q - C > DI E � L c a) ca � O C > n 7 Qcn a) L Q3 rnm o 3 m -`� w a) QaNi °? .S m a) `° %) Y c > Zo a) cn rna) a) rn a� _0 m c`'a "�C E cn c ? (D c � � '� c o � =2 w me a CL U) cc-i � j .a O v) c o cl Ca O cu 0 c co -0 N w g mm � Q aci c > s c L a�'i c) a) > '� CO (n «_ Q > V= �U" N (U.) L ] z Q Q 0) C m m m N V '� N C a) L O C) U a) m •c� c m . QU aXi � L "o c0 3 0 0 >, c o o= a) x o c.° o 0) ;� a) d N c U N f cl) n L >' C U > Q U_ N Q Q Q) ` 0 U O a) U y E ¢ L-.. > N 7 � -0 N o— 0) m 0) L U >, N C � .tn C O L a ) co m N > 'c 2 (D > � •3 � � t a) coo - Eo •3 �n � c "o c � � o is � c c`na � a) L LO 49 a a"� = n ai w c +L• aS U c0 a) — a•o aS - n v a) o (B 0 c � 3 c .E � o Q� ami � aci � cn � .5 0 > 3 ':° � 3 `oY N m o a) u n) � m � o J Q m o o � U � Y � i> > E � � m m nc accn it -v' 3 c aa`> a_Ei O 0 .N � m 3 Op a` o � � '>; � aNi o QE •U = a�oi c o � o c n o 81) o 70 Nv cc`° •E E a) a) v' > Y U rn E m - m i� a�S c m y a) o i� m .? 'v5 E c�i c6 vi i� c c o m a) 0 a) fn U O '� LtL U N N Q j O U U L m o L U O �. m C U 'O cc O _J 0 0 L O E ) E U C L L >CD a) .§ N L O a) O C C O� Q I 0) U m cn o a) O .� o O L m cn . ¢ � . F- 'w F- m 3 F- m EL c4 ma .E U 2 Q � E Qin � CUF- U CU m � L vi �- m � c U m a) C U O j �O d cn 7 0) m � a) Y C U a) O a) (D C a) fn X > U 7 E 7 m C X O m e N += N U c0 .L U m N a) C w N cc U U O-Y `O > c Q •:F; m 0 - O m E o •c w cca 3 au) a) O cn N O U C 0I•- in U ca U C U O c m a) U O '0 O Q m O N y y m c) L cn O` N a) — U) C p 0 a) N c Q. (D -0 N L UU E 2 n E �c vi > U c o` c� m c � o E a) � rn � a) u) o N00 m @ c o0 (1) oc �� m _ U cn O n 75 � p °o � o a Ca c c w um) c Q 2 d 0) fn m ;a a) c O 0) C OQ U -> C U O QL O C a) C m 2 C 'm C OO U cn a) O L O Q O QL c c U to •U o 0 3 m m cn _> m j U n U to U •` � •O .0 cn CL � N >>C O m ^-0 c 0) O U '� O m m U m U 'y 'C �p2 > O N O Z U U pQj 2 N O N N m E C 0) O) > U O O 'C L 2 O c O f�`6 ca N _ N Q•V a) Q d p 2)- CO C N a Q p U fn O 0) U N U m O--0 cn a. U v) W c E W 7 C c o ca � a cm CD c rn io M M Ch M Ch a Wcn In np "p t E� a la a roa; � a) cv cz ja (D a� 5 a) (D �o a) (D 5 a) a) m cu a) EL o .N � c .>_ � c .> v c .> v c . o m -5 O (0 -5 o m "� o cn'� a a) CD � C7 rn � � rn � � rn �� cnz 0 � Qm � C� 2 S w ` c � � � c � � 2 c m m C7 Q. ¢ E � V ¢ E �Ui¢ E cU ¢ E cU ¢ E c � n cn a) L R ca O o C cn _0 ao o (D -O m c c ai m c c N CU (� m m o am cn cn cv a) cn a) a) o cn cn m d o ^ cn cn a) .� a) 3 E � 2 m o o E cv c >.� E L) c > .co - � ro I..L c" (o c N N Y O C U �T, O C +T' U T — C U cn U C J C) O 'C N O n O U Q U) rnd) con L� a) a) a) o o/) N RdR a) -0 a) c U) :F; co E Mn ) - -c c co V co Of a) cB ) j �- M - QH 0Q �cp �- cL o cn U V V O R a) C 7 0 .0 U O 'y d.�.m Mn U O O cu O C C R C U) a) o "- cv c c c c� N E 3 c N m R o R o � — � .E 3 0 0 y nR o c na) a) � H- � °?a R Co-o cu a) cm ) C � Ea - .c� .� —Ho cl) L E ?c — m ` rc.oc�oiR o ¢ Emau N n ' o > o M a) _ s c ) a � a)0 .0 E cu c � L E o -0 � iy 3> o -O ono o o co N L a N +O > `En a) a) O cd a) CD a) U -0L .CCUNv C L ~ o x .- U) cn CD- O � E E c t .E � c E ` o L �3 cl, O ' .. U .... a) _ N 3 a3 c 0 " ¢_ - RN u a) c O C CD RtNpp 0cR ~ RN aLV5 cn rn y o a) E N o ti ~ f° c c CR CD ' vnN a3 OO N O a) L C ac) O -0 +• Q zG cn Q o L O NN C 'iv iu c N C o N R R c6 cn C N U R cn C d a) cn () U) c`a c CL.O .N' O f6 .U. R a) X_ en R c D E 'in $v O _ fC9 C d z > N M E ai N CDO N O f° " °° E G o c O cOi N " O d c Q) ca U c a) E _0 CD •0 ca n rn 2 0) cc O (9 N U a) cn > cn C_ c ...' 0 -0 a) 'v E ,v .�C c c�-n a) O a7 C6 "p 2 Q.�. en 3 I C > a) E C _ N f6 Q N _.--• � C O O C O y C d > > _U U U R Ln a) p 0) 0 — O a) n '> n y O n ca •— n o C U 'E -O O U O L L` C O C U) in R cn O . LU U R C cca O a R U r V d M M a1 n U_ U MU U) O O O U W a a a am U) o rn a) Cm o [B N a) m a) m y .> C .> C .>IL d C C C C U) O O O O O R 0 N c� Ur aN CL U (� aCUmU n U o �U U o co U o SU a cn0a cn0a � cnUa � � T,~I _�_ c ------_- O co U O mco O E. C C Z N m m 0)C^(7 _0 C � y N ca c ,a) N a) cc m c '� " n o 3 — o > � m cu � o c c w m Q :� 0 0 EL Cl. U) cw U (i > c °� m J �. Q . m w a) 0 3 O) o c d� a) oc- m d m m 0) Y cc m � m LO N o a o °? ' > > _ U m a) c > ca (n m c m o U V- v) m v a) >, O E C O m CD M O Ca T. � N t N O t -0 7 •� •� Q c d C C o c) o n U t � 3 "co c a) E c' � E o U � � E m a o-5 0 -0) t - o Cu O co M O _ a) m cu w C a) a) -0 d N E r N C u) U >. m . cv m L) ' U m . Q) _ N a) N 0 O-: O <n Q) Q C O d m �p Q m ?r cc co la) aci c n E N a) 'c > 3 °) x a�i 1° o '� U cjj c v .c V •� - cca `i c N c o N c cco m c a a>i 1- _� ` O= � N O N : _ rn Q rn c w .ia a a�i a o aa) 2 E .c 3 `) m i) cCDi o .- 0 c a N o 3 s o � N p E c 'v cn � CC6 'p>. C U >; L m i•'— O_C .O cn a) C U O O t` O m a) m (n t a) m c a o �� c� Q (O o c cg ' a) 2 U) E N .� .CC � C) N cn 0. H in U a m O a) N m ,E U d N C d > N O m O <n v) O a) c X c O UJ Q— � !�- a) -0 a•` "-' > m Z> J o ona)� L) M � c y .� rna) x `3 o a) .E m e O � o > c i t m m a) � o � i� in (cO C T m O `a O a) a) ,_ OC 'N y [.) m a) > = cu - =O d= U OO a o - _ cfl ri " W •c ,o o o '<n v s U) m "o a) o cc) c T ai m Q in m c (n o m a) " n L) a) � . c 3 a) •O E v c.) •U N a O ai m O m.O N N N O OZ .c O c O _> .L--� -0 CL ca a) a) cAt c -2 a`� "' E .n ... . o o aEi � � u, a) m € coi _�' c •� o m = .c1 .m t N c CL oa �L — a) •- y m 3 c°'i no c > c acm n.� -E x � c = a) ch 0 E cu m H Mtn = mot 3 .3 H 3w c Cl)o E I m o m E 0 a .E X_ LL �svQH L) -0 tta vi AD a) - cn cn m c > m co a) 0 0 a) T C Y N — C ca N O L ca :r 3 u) y c o N G a0 C d O O c •a c - a) E CD CM d m E ate) o cn a) rn a) U O a) d U C _m — � Q_C C O CDm o) E 0 7 c a O d > 7 U) W N C C O N w a Q ti a0cn U 0 Ch M U 2 a � LLi C CO m m > a) Muua) a) cOm L CO .r O) a) D) a) CD U) a: n U E V Q E c V Q U) U a � C/) W m o 0 •C M CUD — cn 0 m CD T 'C C I;•) a) o Q) > U — L - •N � v c Tnm ¢ a) o aa)) co °? w o c C lu 1 c E -o -3 cn m 3 w ro m c cn . Z c • c c n c _ o En _ +L•' c N j a) rn o -0 N Z,V cn O� a) > cm E (Oil 0 3 -� QNj C � O C � O -C c � Y C cl• p g .o i� cn ca a 0 a) U) v O- c -o Q o - w a) c o cn U o E a) `° 3 m u a `) O 'O V -o cn:� cc M •cc°_) M y u) E .0 -0 `n �' r_' n m c � E cn 'a o o E o o c a'0 w m o o a) 0) E . ri o " Q C c E c o -2 E .0 p CO_m - c) °) 0) ccv o v cq a voi .o .�c c Ln o "in s n E cv 'o ca cc Q� +�" tp O C a) �' m M a) cn V U) 7 T 7 m .� N a O -� .gip O — C co CO C V ( cC .o•`� E a n cD c n co c te a. o N � � � 'o a) m s CO m 0 7o ._ a) .`° E E — v) •O n CO E 7 a'� Oj,-O= N 7 cu c fn O' ca In -3 CM Fn cu .-- O a) L C U 0 . N E E c m a a) E > °r° � ' a) Z a) ncn— v) � _ � � •c) 00 ` in m cn a o U o � � d o acic`� aci i� ccn �o- o ac'i � a'm amp N .Cn co 0 3 v) o Ea w cu '� � o > v°'i � E auEoo c ooa) � � Oo � 'yo i� � � voo3oa) Eu'i J n ya) ooco oEcVc� OCDaC oa rncoc a) c Ncnis a) coca -0 O rn a) � Q.� n $ o -Cn(D U) o N (D 0 :2 c c .S � m 3 i� ._ g o n-0 OO a U o t c c c 0 — :T m CO E x U a) a`) Io o u) o ca o o E N am T3 o m >': .� v c >;CC a .�-i E- = vi 3c=/) -a 3 a�i `-' '- o c E E °) - o a) 3 E 2 "a) cn ao o � c aa) c 2 aa) 0 g 3 a) c � L o � o 'o :� o o c U ` o cg o E U) cn cn �' a) I� o cn N a) — d n cn :-. a) N a) a) 7 O O •fn C N a) TJ (�C -O O = N •O= IOC D) O V C U N a) C O uVi N C O O N In C .— O O E 'n 0 a) C O O nH a) o 'in m Q o 0 3 o Q W � v IX W cg U nZG Q as � 3 _ � � d c � � 'cn cn U c a ca Eli v 12 12 — c c c ca m a) a � o o � ca 3 cn ca CU C a) N co N a3 •o C ca O Q) O O o c ID C Q Q U IC W) v O N d Z c (D ti O N •O .c is O � c cm Inc � o0 a U cC CE a) o 0 C 3 c cC Id In fl D C In a V IC @ O O En O0. In U C N U) O ICC C C O co w a- � U 7 6� > C.)coN M cM a U U O O UW (n o In ca cc W a) N N a) a) p),can c .> � C .� -O >. S O to -� O cn IZ a) d N a) U co C O C u Q O CL a � a � a a cvi�va � U)ic0a � -- -- - --- 0 00 N = -0 � � o cco t m Z' aa) Q) IL,.o.,, � o .E t c o,� o o 3 E m 0 :5 CD c E c a m �'� m w a ?� 0) CD a 0 m d y m -0 C a) C fq p) E O a) ' N W 7 vi `•� a o co �t a�i a) m o o u> 'in 'N ui •� Z '� ' Y m :: y ?: c o o amp � H - cncn W e y Co co m cu 0 a) -c m .ma � c� �n 'm ca 0 w c rn o NC-i a) v vi a c) c cn ai o o m '� .c) a cm .. C C O C C L c C m o d fCC >. N O -0 m � 0 -8 N p c O' cA N O N c06 T (Q O :- " o CDs c) c) � m v� 'E i� CO > E ' cmi vi a) - n m cn a �u `� o m m 3 c o W .o o c m o f v�i oc E Ci i cn N � E � rna� � cn ors c 'a) ao •g'm ao E 9._ N t i L W u> m o m c°3 a�'i o coi O a) 7 a N o _ U c _E N a) C N m m a cn N m E a) a) a) w C a C C 0 - cm m � o` n3 O ff � v _ E(D ov w o o o c m 'wy - °) � Nc � m cW " 0C cu mO - -o O U 0 iA C L m -0 L CN O a) a) 00 a c ccv �� � = m c � m o m m � a � � N o .� m o o me 53 05 � aa`� °? E o o in c � m a) 'E w ti 0 CD0) mo E s WE p `o cNi w 3 o m w 3 a) 0 m ccu E c— o f c ccg �' m w o U m .0. o N a) cu Q) m .y a N .� N 7 -0 '� -0 a) a (UD N y e •O -O O -5 a) m $ a) oE a�ic 'o: c o a iooti rnoo E (D •o � � oOXo '00 _ L) > > aE . o c cn - vvQ 'W a3 ._ cn c - H Q am ca. na v c m y U (q N > N O N U O a) a) rn a) W - N co Q)) -o 00 C C m CL -0 c c — E ca m o m cm U C W a 00 U N O f0 m c d Co C m N O 9 a) O E � m - o m E .a m > j c co 110 CD a) � 0• - v) N 0 =3 a) � � � (D 00 m � a) a o m aEi p E ? y m W a _ � O o 0 O 0 () w C ag! Q) C - N a) E .2 'Da) O IO m O L ca Z U ca CDD a) O C E -0 aci O N Em �) m Q � N a ca N O aj aJ a) m m f6 CD O m a) in > .5 CD E m v ui E co—0 o - a) co 0) C O O) a) Q) w cn �[ m .o o �_ E cp 0ui a) a) -2 O Q C O U y Q N 8 - ca0 N N V- N ca wam o2 wEECDQ- c c O cz a A U 7 N co C) N N CV U c+i cM c-MCL d U U U W a a a r c o m U) Q U) 'a io () (L) m a) m io m a) o).0) U)" al a) �C. fn cc W dama Qmom^m CommaQEV EV QE caM c1 vUMa cn0 _ t n0C ci) a ^aV� � .� C coU .0 N L CO .� .LN ca L (C6 C N c N N n c iu m a) o "3 c iv a) a) o "3 vi c o y 16 O) Crj .� O d m c0 ` N O d O c0 `3 CO p N a) c0 L .--� W co D CCS rn > c O -0 . ca cu a�ci c U v co M C o 2 "o c U -m c a) c N n� c� o a) c� Y E '� �, 0 a) c� Y E c � �, c > n—'Fu a c - co I..L . ) a) C 'O -O C O "C •�- 2c in C O 'L- -C .� Q7 -N = m 2 N a) a) N .0 J v m -0 O p n c° c Z c ca ca - o c cn c° c Z c cv cu o c cn N cc C t O cn N U a) -C c N _ a) N 0) CO _ O a) c vi Ca N U C c a 'N' •� � aa)) � N E m a) U o a)-0 m U o S o co c 2 � �_ ' N o m o m c aNi C = ,cm 2 � N c u) c "= c� cn c o 0-5 � .0 0 — Q 3 (.) Q n n c c t 0 0 N -`—' N o � (D 0 cv O N '= N CL cpp w '> � E � o � V N _ - � — cga o � 0 a) � 0 o — o � 0 m m C. m `� () a) a) a) cO .N i� o m � n i� cv i� Oo a) co CD cv a) E U nU o 'er "o m `N' cc 0 c U) °) 3 .2 > co � a) cn � °' 3 .� c>O a -0 a) ( � E 'cn a) N � c > 0 0 c _� c0 o tca � ' o t `° O ' 0 rn� mOOm is a) n m N a) s o a) a) o E cn.? Z d _ .� ` N c m a`) . � a) a`) c m a`) .cn E � �_0 N o E co N o•c cc6i > JO ul aCi m U a) m o -c O cn 5 c m w 6 m O .c n N 5 fC 5 n m 0 ccu > �0 Q o Oa N -0 � O a) cn v N w N -0 � 0 O o N -0 cn •U m n o p C c O 0 o c cn c o c v -0 c o cn E a) c ,o 00 a` n o a) ca of `O -o co E 'n o m v3i -co .0 co E o Q- _N a) -0 °) U, cH • v — "0 0 aUi C U� N � � cm - M N EOCD 0 a)a-) v v ci c co o or o i U a) 0 M Ec � u) Eo E a6) EoEn 0 � � Oc o 0oomc � � moo 00 . oo o > v co O CV cc U O U LN IL N ~ U O U > cm�a QaNi N CL N CJ) a) n_ N U a) O` N C N U O O C O C`O a) a) L > en CO N N O E Z. O O E C O N a) n C L O O (0 0 Q) a) cn -0 U N > a) N cn 'r) C m "C ` Q CO @ Q) _0 C O U a) a) cn U C a) N a) Y O O -0 O n CO O Q N ) o 0 S) `p CO "> CO N c .E o) rn E cl - � 0 a") 0. ai 0 -o C i -N a) O ci o 0 U �—> N p 0 N C �_ OO N V 00 c c L = O C a) C O d n U N (0 C7 N " N N i. 0 0 aO') � a � p cl E 0 -_-_ > - o Mn Tv c° > @ c c o "c 0 � o E - A2 a) c E a) 0 o p ?^� 0 cu m o � C_0 a n N ! a) C a) o = o = a) E c �U— m c° CD N cn O a) O a) O cnCa 72 U C a) a) a) -O O W U (O in a) C CT O c0 0 N U N �O N O N f0 r a) f0 (` fa 0 rn j C C > > O O 7 O O O -0 NFn O N O O n N .0LI) = U O U �" -0 C co a) > U 0 —O W W 0 m W O E Cn -o N t N C C O co ., a c0 U 7 Lo CO •U 07 N N CV CV C'M M M Cl) d U U U U N a UW C a3 �O co C a) a) m O a) a) N a) C6 a) a) y C6 N C1 N m Co, C7 0 G) CY 0 0 0 � aa) (D cn z C7 no co w (� m �� (� aO cu 0 Q Q E cU Q E cC-) Q E cUl Q E cU aa � � a � f � aa 0 _ n ui � U) 0a � aS aS U U c° .� 0 0 O �0 = N c -O O U .0 cn 0 0 rn N C N .N .V N N c N a N .9 0 a) •O = L co f6 C , C N) o m W U N cB M -—0 .m H m m e 0)) - U c a t . > -mac c 0, c a) c m o ai cn o � W e a) rn E o d LL cl- Y fa U)i ca Q 1` j. c O O cn ,6 o a ` 3 E 'cu CO (NO _o Co O 4 U c` � N V J N U ¢ U N U 0 C L.. O C 0 .cn 7 vi.0 U O V O m 0 U a) J C c 00Ummoori � cUorpn �� � � a`ni � ccoaNiEf° u) � m � y ` �� m�o 0 co O u0i voi N a m a 0 m a p > m ? O �C a) O a pV C U U cn 0) N y Co d m j U) :t 0 0 -0 N a) �`p' o •c .� CD a V c f6 j o •E p c N N '-' 3 a) 0_ O y p c C 2 .N cc U N m U c U c L a .� rn= "U y m m > in E a) a cn a c v c m -0 d t CD a) a) 3 a`a)) c vi o m CD`o -C > ccv rn uoi o v y w 3 -0 0. ai ami _— E c c am o c m Dui oo = >' c_ o c 5 m 3 o E Z 'O = a L a) (O O) U .L-. O_ m o"-a U 'cn - .c cn o O ` a U C in 0 N 3 a) C U) c '> ai .x >;� cn rnUEUcn —z u, m � a, wmEoa dim ' � rndrn � c a) o c' a) 'in c E a) m E o w a .m m c°)i m o ~ ui aci r o E J n > a.N — c _rn "ci o a a o a) a i� a) = 0 c am v = c4 m E O x d O m L 0 U � Q U -05 0 o L d m m C a) L O U O a p w ry a) U oo d X a) 0.� � m cn m O pa m p) OC a CacOa a m aap =•Lp3 'C0 UN C a mV U0 .Ea--) cOnccv »c ' � I—� cCuoi L6 aa) C 0 > 0o a O0y O� ' "V ¢ N a O O Am O 0 a, u a EE U " cLa-- O O a N a) m d 0 = cm 0 C C a) m )m O in- U3m am nm U aO UH5 E m t0C ) c rn 0 N � 'c Ea Co E o a a In 0)) E a c p a C C a) rn U a m m m 0 C 'C N 0) U d p C 0 Na) " a) 0 0 U) a) EO d 2 c � c c uj :rm y N U 0 o C o C m 0- U O O 16 O C O O C a 7 C n mm E m ag cco O m U c 0 0 c � :F; o N d U � � rn 2 cn cumL 00 0 U N N C U) EO -0 O C � O C E o i+ m N 0 N a) m N U 0 C O 7 C O 'in N U C � N rn N rn w o •in rn cn ao .o " E c E a) > E m rn °vi .E ov c` j o m ovc E 0)a n N C N C C a oc°)iaia) m Emmc ay d C U m U O E 0 � _Z � c 2 E _Z" U C N N O C m a) m a m a) a 7) : 7 7 C v) rn N — m N_v) v.� m C O L a) a) O m p m C L CD 0) cn a) a) a L O =7 CD > C (D 7 N > C 2N UC rn= .> p Im (nn -0 O U F- m U a) � Q 1 O as �+ d m U O � _ C- U U U c L w aa a CO cr °C Q rn rcv ism () m a) a) a) rn.N o rn o m :3 o u) :3 a a) m rna) 0 rn (D (D 0 m0: CD C9 Qma C9 p_ ma C9 CU n �� Uo29 UEoc—cvV UEoMV ►r1 ¢ cn0a � cnUa � cnUa � d 00 cn m c -0 c c 15 C o0 •� O m co O m e O E m m o N C C O O O 0 — O U 0 •u N U O C C (O .O w C N C U = 7 ~ ) O O ` N N `� C W 7 Cu 0 cn ac°i o f E 0 `° a`> 0o c 2 0 c m .0 w n Y e t _N Y 0 � - N Ev � 'c � 0 0a o - ai o m c co �`• 'w ca co 0 0 a) E c c o F- a@ c a 0 o a o c 3 -- +- cn iQ 0 a`> E c m m o E m m '� C> �p .°' O L EO o N " C w -, a) m C p in _ O U U O C: m C C U E m co 0 U c 0 E co O c r .o > X- 0 c° o m -o c) a) > N o c CU 0 3 0 m UR U C m o cn 0 = o o cn (n E 0 c 0 3 m U w r o 0 m a 3 L v 0 > 0 a 0 c cu c E c 7 N Q) U C N O (O f0 'a' U m 0 — U) a) O U O y a) C o d � (d o ~ Q) C � 4) Q) � L — � 0 7 U — 0 _ fl c a) a) 3 0 rn a o o v m c m E N o c .O m C O c m C o •� 0 — c � > _� q7 O m E N c o C ? cn a) 5 0 3 0 0 N o 0 c 0 3 E cu c is c-° v_' a n �' cn c° a>> � � .0 a) c . 0 0 M a) 0 3 0 � 0 c U .4 � E c - min 0 m 0 � n y C 'x .0 -0 m e a 0 o o o c i� co `n 0 0 0 a) o ._ c o o m o o J Q d c n a) cv 3 a) - w .0 N 0 0 - c a W _ aa, '� (v cn ` E >o m -co-„ m cv 0 a Y cn o Y _0 0 0 E E U o ``- 0 > �' E 0 b U 0 00 a > oc c a°'i v3 J o a) oo m o co m -0 o a) c O .o � iv E m 0o n ani "' m o � .c m -0 U) < 0 0 0 3 � o .� a) DLO p � 3 m en C) � o 0 m °� CO E U o aZi o cn 0 in a`> a"i �' 2 a"i `-° '0 c° o f 0 of °' 0 o cn 0 0 a)) c > 2 0 °' -_ m a) N m U o a) m cn m .r U O O m ti -D s O m c) -0 Q � 2 m o cn _ m .5 o m H Q 3 cn m H of J.JE c 0 0 U O O "O C o O O d to .D CAm 00 G U � C m O cn c � 0 m o CD o :n ch Q) U c..) m a) Y W N m 0 U C C cu O 0- cn U W p U d CO a5 N C m 0 0 v> CO c ? N IL O c d cn Q� 0 V CDN 4 C7 _d a � Ua � py aj N _ (O v N N fV N O U 0 0 'C @ '� p o c o 0 o c) E a) a) a) o c(o cv C N Cn N c6 — U m a w -q _ 2 _� — o 1 0 c �° a) ¢ o aa)) (n E a vi 0 •CK3 `c_ aa) c a' m .n E o E w ro 3 o N t -o E a) c E c V ca - n c) = is o � ca i� E E a) - E a a) c c a) Cl. m m 3 o ca co o .a' ` — E _q ca �� g in 3 c U ca _ a) co 0 0 > o c`a'i m .api m > o aNi � ) —o a-i E ,° ` .0 Div -0 cca E o = oho _ C O C p IL- 7 E •p CU 7 E @ C C C - 41 C O C O c O a) L ON _0 a) -C (n U) p � (� a)3 -0 C N O N p •O VLo o E c � o N L o E 3 E E N N m E o '� 3 3 .o V CO O O M (6 (O E N CQ a) m c O a) N U N O U (n N d N U p C C N .N C -p CD M O LL -O a) Q) d t ca 3 'U Coa) Voc u lNcD -Ooo �po. 3tN N O N m LrN 5NCD O oa ' CO .N .0 CO CL N � CU N CN C -0 U m II LL L a(u N N � a) Q) a C: oN vO i _0 _ c -a) � co p Oo CL " o In O C O p OOC D Oo0 0 3O a) 4 C m 0 c� 2 O oc E co E : o E x2 a) o -0 m M:3 -u - oo Lnod) oo f ocoa") ccmg O N Q ) O .c O` .CEE- U tC E p N -`O `O E U UN) L) a (O C C p C C Q) 0 2 p U O Q) N - N !O a) a) Ca) Cp -O f-- O .O .0 -n C6 `) O Q1 U y 0 m (m C] U a) 4) O '- ._ CU C C4 O a) O O` (NO 4) U O to °) � N.= N .E Cn cat � .� .� A c taxi (/J aC°i a`> � w � LOL � tn Stan) E .E N C N m co a) N CU ` UJ N Cp U a) C/j N C Ca pca L .,.�- O ccCpp 3 ` U O C a N Y N CO C C (D Q) C c` CD O E O > > L ++ NO p c c co a) C V C O C PA O U a) C is a) E °) 00 C E N A a) Y 7 (d m 'D CO O C 7 N N O Gf O -0 :3 N "0 al N '� co cm U O O L N a) CO C M C U -0 -C C -0 U CL) C CC1 E _ 0 O N C O N CD C C — CD E O p t N O 0 0 3 C 4) ca a) :.O (N C D _N a) E c E v ca `O (p m _C N -L7 Z C (n co C C O N cc A d Ch C!) C O O O lT d •O .O •U L O m fU a) a) Q) a> a) N m v a CO O N ' CL m - � � :a a) a) CY a) CD a) C7 to � v a) o o Cl �c. Q E QE Q E� V U o -Q C/AuE Uad LU o C C U m m U O O (3) -0 N .-. .N m ` 0 c 2 N 'a to y m C N C c c Q m uci a) vi .� E c c 'n '� c o E w m o a) o a) m o . c a) n ,o .w c a) a) 3 - �_ Lp E a) > CU cu 3 =o o o T c c U y �' ,n m "m n) m o p .N Y cmcnm3mc — c � c E '° C- V) o -0 c>v "o c (D o a) -0 Ta o a) n iv "o u, �D D cn .X cn a"i L o .3 c 'v� c o c vi c = cts -� 0 3 c .� c U w o m o � a) o a) 'o E o c-° a) Z3 a) o Z - a) a = is m m - o a> Q �. C c .� 3 :_ ca � u a) is a�`�i E o .�_ cn E 3 -o U Z Do 2 a`) E a � in Y � !' w o m@ n Z5o ami c-' m o 00a m o m =° m c_ o ccv m io C° •E o o �o c C .S � o � o U CD c cn di o _ _ V) N U a) N O L ?� DLO E � 7O N C _N O (n = ~O O .0 p C n n p �' `O 07 ma� a' � '" co aoa of = -06; ` m °' �, _ .�. i� a•� Z o m o U) c .- m o C. a U c i� c m 3 a a) o a) > -n m cn a) 70 � 1 > o - - cu c U c m -0 a) a) o o o -C u) v a) m o ai U o .m c c d c ' c) CD o o c o cn U L a) m o 'c m m e m " m 3 2 a`) o (D c o o �c - _ E o c J CL 'S m U (�6 N L 'm0 L O .E Z L C (E`O U O (>U m (L O m m 0 O c uCi N L L 3 O 0)O L.-. C C CD O d E 'X O C ~ a C D U O CL a) L L L U) -- a) a) (n Q) C F— O �•- 00 a m a) c c a) m S o o _ o o m a) °) E N o D "m a ri a) 3 "E m - c a) o "gin U o n l) m c° - a`) m m m cn 3 d` o Q a) a) E c -0 cn -o a m iv 3 c c c a) o n 3 d a) � En m C: _ i� _ cn c w c is m cv o cn 3 c M o _ _ 0 -0 .c U `J cn .0 C rn :.D LID c_ m to -� Y > C > O .— m Q) U C O a) S d O p `O d � � . o m � � o c w c E ' a � .n oo > E c a) > m m cEa 3cn a) o EL a) o c o o p c� m cn m m o a o 4) a) m E o c m a) E E o U) 3 m ` -0 m U .N m w Q to o � c Q c -0 •O 0 c� "u> ._ U WHO ._ o ._ U cn cn o cz CL) N o C o •0 c_ o c`a m c > a a) 0 `° n- a � o .E Cu c' ._. O U m C 0 d C a) C -= C .O � FL N cn •0cu cu .0 cn ca. O y) m C U m a) U p -D C m o 375 C C U m C p d ?: co n m C c p 0 Cr cn cn r" N cn O c O -0 C CC M .� U � = •C cu E U ~ ~ a)E cu O00 2 m 0 C C 2 -0 (6 � EC � v7 C -Cd cu m p co cn ,a) O E m 0 a) CD _ o E C L U 41 OU a) .� U 7 O a) Cu o n o cn c a) -n v U c U) °) 0 cu °) '� c�a °) o E m roi m a) ca > o N a) o L_ CV C:: L N (6 N CC6 7 C C 0 3 a) a) C U) m X (n I a) C, C C C CD CY� E E �c CDc CD cn m p 0 - m N O a) 7 C -L7 U a) C CT p m 0 3 O N - N cn N ca'n @ o - :, 0 E E 7 c o > m V5 mCD C 0 'm d (D m pp cu T 'O M U cn C C IC O IL 7 CD O 00 N O O O ) Cc �-' W o a a COm c _m o c 0) C � � � f0) i1 w m m cu m j p m C T•j C .� _-_ C .� C � .0 C O Q. N d O C O O C y (O cn ` -U ` C Q C Q C7 C d a u 0 CL U) U a cn u a- U) C-4 C a) co 0 C c Nc N0 cp � C � a) cn w c ._ W • - o W e o - - mAld n- a) a) � � . y, E m c° CL o c-- � . c 0 E 0-_ d QCo in-o o 2)B N n a c.LM coo 5 -O D a) J C6 V a ,.o m . Y aci n > cmi t c `i'a CD w can) � L C a) O Ql m m ui a"i 0 0 0 - 0i Q) n Q ti T O aa)) c cn o C1 cn c E ._ -0 a) o m w a) a o m 2 •2 o E o rn oci c w 0- cn() Q= E c a > rnaa -0.) O - a) n o a, •a) oo o'iy C m .� y Ea aa)cu �.c o .� ~ w •v w a �� 0 w a)v y co m -0 o m O — a) 7 O C J O N 7 O m N U ?` O Q.r N O O C cmn 'O 0 E O N N m = cmw -0 'Fu E to j j d.� N L C O d d d V Q) C p 00 a c cn -K Co o c C w 3 .o o a) .- o a c c ca � a) c >, m 0 I� m co o a L L � E ' a) m o a) m r CO. 0) � H= 0 c c am (D -0 ' (D CD o E a > � °� o m � .m E � L ` a) > n0 m 0i E m aC) cn .� w c0 Qum n s E E m c E N o ` a2 n o 0 —_u 0 o c $ o m a a O -C,� u) L m C fn O d C N d = N m ` 0 N y. nim O E ~ C C � O _ E N a) O m O h CD O)� L•. U 0 m E O O O N m O a) a) .0 a) p O C7 o O- a) o m c E C `H m v E E aEi rn N m x 2 � ch a°'i Q o N cEa � m O c a) o � 2U E . Y in 1° c a) cu o m 0- y n o f m c c a) co a) a cn E E a) co FL E > W= a a) E U c' •� a) >' of cn c c >1c0 c Co 0°'i c a) ca oL oQ c m 0 a) aci E � 3 CC, E 2 5 > d 5).r a) a) 0 cD p a O cn C N U a)C � M •C oW 3 m - o co � cc-v o > o ono o mci N � UUac) >o3 a) Q � E aiocv Eo-•0 NM � � � a-a 2 Q- L O 3 N V •N Q O —O N C Q D -0 c 0 d co L C O c Q. co)- CO a) m cu m a) � n � � � CooyOa � L N O CO C a) O c — •a •' > O_ - fA a) O m C •p O m E it: L > m 0 a)U) M d -0 N CD 0 � - U •o m >o L us o c E m a m a) U U m m m � ui ' O O O C m m 00 N 'cu O d Znn m m - .L] E U m D) N N N j c cam° L '~ O •— � m a) o c, E a) c a) m E c o >.— �t N O E N N - O a— v) m a°'i 0 o c 15 Uo c w m m cn - v c aCi � 0)1- E a`ni 9 m o 0 Eo a s LI, c a E E E m v 1° > 0 m m E a) O c 3 (ch D rn a) f° .� o a U � � _� E E E , -5 C d E E En C a) � > o > > Ucn o m gy m y o CO m a) C H a m 3 c m a) o -p x C •c _m m c 10 a) .c T > T.0 C X C O` .E 'O U C E m Q) v) O cn O a) a) U �O O a) N (n E c a) O > a) N L L cu U _C C m •— N O1 o >. 0 N cc C m o O O ` C cCo O_ O .m a V oU cn O CM O p O O - c9 •C X : N m a) a) U N co o .c ci E U cn > m- C U a) ca Q CM ca O 0 O N O N U 07.0 m �O (O m a N f6 C � (D W c n Doi = E o a) a,E) .E c -o 0 n m cu w 0 'c -ia a E cca •`) vmi .0 C .(n 'a cn o C .L•. m C c m -c �O cca 5 N V) O U O C V) CCO of cOi) a) � N Q CO O > j O C a) m N m >+ m ` -O ?. a) ') .� = m y a) C ca- a) >, co a) > 'fn U N 0 7 a) O o •U � �o a) v d U d a) w H w o n � c c a) rn ` O 'O m .V - m U a) ' L U N m cn a) C:)-CU ) gy m o c 3 o a) L cHui ` c m N c aCi • • • • • d • • m v, m a 0-v) ui 0 t C', c m m - a) C a a c () E n Q-o m E o A 3 ~ H Q) C L O Y > a) o n o d U CD m Y _ N C O m LL C L a7 � U) m a N Q) U t o� cu t) W _- _. --- - N > ro m � O Cc C T S (D O- O a a) E 'in U) cc O Q a a cn " 0 O C 0 co .E •n N > IJJ 7 cu Y Om J V U O � C C6 V E U N o U) y U O N � a UC � (u N C/) tq � J Q, o 00 a .o io d' E CD Om E fn E L cn L C (n Mn a) "O U Co O N Q) _ O a) a) L E O O C a3 = in E cn (n N m ca O �, ca C con cU CD 0 O O_ a a)i a) O to a) "U 0 a) ui N 3 U o) o cc .0 _0 C .� L O C C ? cn a) a C 'C N 0 C a7 a) 2 .Or 2U 7 'D O a 7 O ] cn �. A .0 a) O 7 (D C a) >_ o E E E �_ O o a) co (D L `� cu tCC C O cV E ` cn .LO C O �- E N C cn a) > a) V .0 O O (O Q) ui C C O C O 0 c o E a) v a� 'n a) °' a) T m a, _= M cn cc forn6 a c a) �> O CD C m7 a) co (D C-a') EOco oc= Uac)ot ocn a, a > o Ea c ' m a) cai cn a) UEa) > o c ` � E cn D o o c a) 00 w in cn is c c E vi c c�i io n E o O ca ca co v S o n o y o �' o : c o o E ? a� �, Z — o y m e v, c o c c cn a) a� C:jo E a� a> io v c a) > oa c E m En— : U) a� c' ai o cn L a�i .o E Z1' cu E °� c v > U o t ca as E aoi ` m ct°, o �i co �'—� cmo m o - c � � � � �' a' E a3i aDco >,� � � � � .cc 0 c' m o a� 2co > cn a) amoi cn 0 _ _ .� U V — W O O U O j (a�) C 7 O .a O C O O O in O O O O .L.., 7 7 O ;+•' U7 0 acj a) 7 U O CD a) � U 7 U E O •O O O 0 O O O -C U O U a) N c U > U .N �U mm '§ >O W .L-+ JL LUa �, a axi am ain � dL.. CO W UJ m W Ea (b LL0 a) � m0 •c O E • • • • LL • • • • W • • • • • a • • • • cn _0 Om 7 L O co 0- cc U :3 •U rnCD CL m CO Cu- Co� c Cc 0 n a a7 m cc m•� a am m cn cr 0 Q 4.8 Land Use and Planning Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation Plan The 2004 RTP details six goals with which projects in the SCAG area should promote. These are: • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the Region; • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the Region; • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system; • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system; • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency; and • Encourage Land-use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments. Due to the large amounts of infrastructure the project is adding to the City of Lake Elsinore to improve circulation(i.e. Lake Elsinore Hills Road),the project supports and complies with these goals, resulting in a less than significant impact. Compass Growth Vision The Compass Growth Vision encourages municipalities to consider the following principles when implementing development: • Focusing growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors; • Creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities; • Targeting growth around existing and planned transit stations; and • Preserving existing open space and stable residential areas. Due to the location of the Spyglass Ranch, adjacent to I-15,the proposed project complies with the first principle. The proposed project is not designed as a mixed-use, walkable community,which creates non- compliance with the second principle. The proposed project does not target growth around existing and planned transit stations which creates non-compliance with the third principle. Finally,the proposed project does not preserve the existing hillside open space. The project is not in compliance with the last three principles; therefore,project implementation would result in a significant impact. Consistency with Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan None of the proposed project site is located within a Conservation Criteria Cell. A General Biological Survey and Focused Surveys were conducted on the project site and did not observe any listed or MSHCP covered species. Additionally,the project lies outside of any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and Criteria Area Species Survey Area boundaries. As discussed in more detail in the Biological Technical Report(Helix 2006),and Section 4.3,Biological Resources,the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable Western Riverside County MSHCP guidelines and policies,resulting in a less than significant impact. iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-34 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Revised Draft EIR May u r 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinon;152684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.8 Spygless Lend Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project represents land use changes to the current City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. It is generally consistent with the adjacent land uses surrounding the project site and with the developing S character of the City of Lake Elsinore. The proposed project would result in additional urban intensity for the project site and in conjunction with surrounding, developing areas. Additionally,there are 18 other projects that are in the planning process in the City of Lake Elsinore or { the area of Riverside County surrounding the City. Table 4.8-4 details the potential impacts to land use from these projects,which are being considered for cumulative impacts. f None of the cumulatively considered projects would result in the physical division of,or create barriers to, an established community, as they are all in areas that are currently undeveloped, or would result in r complementary infill development. Therefore,the cumulative effects of the proposed project and the other projects that are being considered on the physical division of an established community would be less than significant. Many of the other projects being considered for cumulative impacts would conflict with the City of Lake 1 Elsinore General Plan. 44-E2 een of the cumulative projects (including Spyglass Ranch)would be required to seek or have been approved for either a General Plan Amendment'or a zoning change. Therefore,the impact to land use would be increased as a result of the Spyglass Ranch project and the other cumulative projects,resulting in a significant cumulative effect. i The cumulative effects of the proposed project and the other projects that are being considered would also l be less than significant regarding a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, as any projects that are approved would be required to mitigate for 1 MSHCP requirements. 4.8.4 Level of Significance Before Mitigation The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The Spyglass Ranch site is ( currently surrounded by vacant land to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries. The project is also bounded by 1-15 to the south and southwest. The project would have entrances on Camino del Norte and Main Street that would provide access to the surrounding areas and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore,the proposed project is less than significant when considering this threshold of significance. I� The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable plans except the following: the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element, and the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to Land Use and Planning, and would require mitigation. The proposed project does not conflict with the Riverside County MSHCP, as the biological surveys determined that project implementation would be consistent with the MSHCP. Therefore, the proposed project has an impact of less than significant when considering this threshold of significance. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-35 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR AAay409ZJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreM664_Spyglessl8_CEQA1Rna1_EIR14.8_Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning Table 4.8-4. Cumulative Projects Physically Conflicts with Divides and Conflicts with Applicable HCP or Other Established Plan,Policy,or Conservation Project Project Name Project Description Community? Regulation? Plan? Status A)TT 31345 KB 404 du SFR,96 du MDR No Impact Yes. Requires General A)Not in criteria A)Approved Homes, B)TT Plan Amendment and zone cells. Approved at BOS 32785,&C)PP :change. and Consistent. 8/23/2005; 18773 B)Approved as B)BOS consistent by 1/30/2007 EPD. C) pending Pending GPA/CZ;C) approval at Development EPD;MSHCP Review consistency has Team yet to be 3/24/2005 determined. Alberhill Ranch PA1:335,412 s.f. No Impact No Impact—Specific Plan Exempted Approved, Specific Plan commercial, 1,011 SFR, Area under 550 MFR;PA2:258 construction SFR Broadstone 184 du MFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Riversedge (apartments) j Apartments Canyon Hills 2,700 SFR, 1,575 MFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved (Multiple TM) Canyon Hills 302 SFR No Impact Yes. Annexation. No Impact Approved Estates(TM 34249) City Center Condos 144 du MFR(condos) No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact Approved, Plan Amendment and zone no building change. permits issued Clurman(TTM 158 du SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved 30698) Corman Leigh 81 SFR on 23 acres No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Residential Des. Rev. Costco/Lowe's 418,823 s.f.Commercial No Impact No Impact No Impact Constructed Fairfield Apartments 325 du MFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved (Ramsgate) (apartments) Home Depot 1 gas station,230,997 No Impact No Impact No Impact Constructed Shopping Center s.f.Commercial .Inhn I ainn Nmm�c 1 QRR�� .,.,97G 4 v__ —""-- .1••omen -55 vv con 32v.v avrca iw 111yout I �ub. rwquimb General Consistent if in Planning (Phase 2-homes; Residential, 11.7 acres Plan Amendment and Back Basin 770 Review Phase 1 -Golf Commercial,329 acres Specific Plan Amendment. Mitigation Course) Open Space Agreement is approved by RCA and wildlife agencies FUR Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-36 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR Lak A�A87January 2008 X:1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinom152664_Spyglessl6 CEOMFinel EIRI4.8 Spyglass Lend Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning Physically I Conflicts with Divides and Conflicts with Applicable HCP or Other Established Plan,Policy,or Conservation Project Project Name Project Description Community? Regulation? Plan? Status Joint Land Owners 1,525 du SFR,7,000 s.f. No Impact No Impact No Impact Partially Development JR Restaurant,6 acres approved, 31593&TR 32013, General Light Industrial partially in [Southshore I and II] Planning Office Park Review northwest of Franklin and 1-15, TR 32846) _ La Laguna Estates 660 du SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact In Planning Review La Strada(TTM 134 du SFR No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact Approved 32077) Plan Amendment,Specific Plan Amendment Lake Elsinore 101 SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Highland(TM 31957) Lake View Villas 155 du MFR(condos) No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact Approved, (Scott Woodward) Plan Amendment and zone no building change. permits issued Lakeside Palms 369 SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact 1 In Planning (TM 32786) Review Lennar(TTM 191 du SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved 31792) Marina Village 94 du MFR(condos) No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Condos(33820) Merritt&Luster 160 du SFR No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact In Planning Property(Centex R Plan Amendment and zone Review 2006-18&TR change. Required Annex 32503) 71 recorded by LAFCO January,2007. North Peak(TTM 480 du SFR,Golf No Impact No Impact No Impact In Planning 35123) I Course,Parks i Review PP 18751 i 6,959 s.f.restaurant with No Impact I Yes.Requires zone change. Approved by Development 800 s.f.dining EPD as Review patio7,000 s.f. consistent. Not Team. Restaurant in criteria cells, iso no JPR. PP 19918 6 acres General Light No Impact No Impact. Still in Process, Development Industrial MSHCP Review consistency has Team. yet to be determined. FSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-37 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 667January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinon:152664_Spyglassl9_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.6_Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning Physically Conflicts with Divides and Conflicts with Applicable HCP or Other Established Plan,Policy,or Conservation Project Project Name Project Description Community? Regulation? Plan? Status Ramsgate 25476, 1,012 du SFR No Impact No Impact ' No Impact Approved 25477,25478, 25479 Ramsgate SPA#4 120 du MFR No Impact Yes. Requires Specific Plan No Impact Approved (TT 34231) _ Amendment Ramsgate SPA#5 TT 25475-132 du; No Impact Yes. Requires a General No Impact Approved (TT 25475-Old Kiln TT 33725-221 du SFR Plan Amendment,Specific &TT 33725-Little i Plan Amendment, Valley) annexation,and zone change Simard(TTM 27 du SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved 32129) Taft(TM 33140) 104 SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Pending Approval Target Shops 150,000 s.f.Commercial No Impact No Impact No Impact Constructed Tessera 90 du SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved, no building permits issued The Village of Porto 1,860 SFR and MFR, No Impact No Impact No Impact In Planning Romano 100,000 s.f. Review neighborhood commercial TR 31390&Related 6,188 du SFR,80 du I No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Projects Assisted Living, 168 du Senior Care,48,700 s.f. Church,91,034 s.f. Commercial TR 31593(South 521 SFR No Impact No Impact No Impact Approved Shore I) TR 32013(South 400 SFR(detached No Impact No Impact No Impact In Planning Shore II) condos) _ Review TR 35024 Condol�92 du MFR on 42 acres No Impact Environmental Issues not Environmental In Planning Map yet known Issues not yet Review known Tuscany Hills North 807 du SFR No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact 1 Approved (TR 31370- Plan Amendment,Specific 1 oscano Heights) Plan Amendment,zone change for added acreage Tuscany West(TT 164 du SFR No Impact Reduced densities; No No Impact Approved 25473-Ramsgate) General Plan Amendment, No Specific Plan Amendment Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-38 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft E/R May�68�J�nuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.6_Spyglass_Lend Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning Physically Conflicts with Divides and Conflicts with Applicable HCP or Other Established Plan,Policy,or Conservation Project Project Name Project Description Community? Regulation? Plan? Status Village at Lakeshore 146 du MFR(condos) No Impact Yes. Requires Specific Plan No Impact Approved Specific Plan and zone change. Waterbury(Back 1,796 du SFR,611 du No Impact Yes. Requires General No Impact Approved Basin Specific Plan SFR,4 acres MFR Plan Amendment,Specific &East Lake Plan Amendment,and Specific Plan) avigation easement. Watersedge 35.4 acres Mixed Use, EIR in Process EIR in Process EIR in Process In Planning 30.6 acres Residential, Review 10.9 acres Marina and Right of Way TR=Tract Map du=Dwelling Units SFR=Single Family Residential TTMM=Tentative Tract Map SPA=Specific Plan Amendment MDR=Medium Density Residential MFR=Multi-family Residential Comm.=Commercial s.f.=Square Feet PP=Proposed Parcel Map 4.8.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures The proposed project would result in significant impacts due to conflicts with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element,the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code,the SCAG RCPG, and the SCAG Compass Growth Vision Plan. The following mitigation measures are required to minimize project impacts. i MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall apply for a General Plan Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. 44*e--A City-approved General Plan Amendment shall result in a designation of the project site as Specific Plan land use. MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall apply for a Zoning Code Amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. T4HC-A City-approved Zoning Code Amendment shall result in a designation of the project site as Specific Plan Zoning,with an allowable density of up to 6.7 du/acre. 4.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation After the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.8-1 through MM 4.8-2,the project would no longer conflict with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element or the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. Therefore,the level of significance would be reduced to less than significant. toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-39 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinon:152664_SpyglasslB_CEQA1Rna1 EIR14.6_Spyglass Land Use_Planning.doc 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)indicated that the proposed project is regionally significant per California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines and requested that the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and regional plans, stating separately how the proposed project would or would not support each plan. Section 4.8.2.2 and Table 4.8-33 address the project's consistency with each of the applicable general and regional plans. The project was found to conflict with four plans: the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element, the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code,the SCAG RCPG, and the SCAG Compass Growth Vision Plan. Mitigation is provided in Section 4.8.5 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. LT1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.8-40 City of Lake Elsinore �� j�JJ• Revised Draft EIR May 2Q WJanuary 2008 X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.6 Spygless Land Use_Planning.doc 4.9 Noise 4.9 NOISE Information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section: Noise Impact Analysis, Spyglass Ranch, City of Lake Elsinore, California. Prepared by Giroux&Associates. February 21,2007. Revised May 2,2007. The complete report is included in Appendix H of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). i 4.9.1 Environmental Setting f - 4.9.1.1 General Noise Concepts f Noise is defined as"unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal 1 activities,when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA)approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by y discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only frequencies audible to the human ear. Range of Noise I Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large,the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10,the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring 1 intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before,which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. The most common sounds f vary between 40 dBA(very quiet)to 100 dBA(very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA,while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA,which can cause serious discomfort. I Perceived Noise Levels Due to the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, increasing a sound intensity by a factor of 10 raises its level by 10 dB; increasing it by a factor of 100 raises its level by 20 dB; by 1,000, 30 dB and so on. However, due to the internal mechanism of the human ear and how it receives and processes noise, when two sound sources of equal intensity or power are measured together, their combined effect(intensity level)is 3 dB higher than the level of either separately. Thus,two 72 dB cars together measure 75 dB under ideal conditions. Typically, a sound must be nearly 10 dBA higher than another sound to be judged twice as loud. 1 Noise Descriptors ( Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level(Leq)represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak hour Leq is the noise metric used to collect short-term noise level measurement samples and to calculate the Day-Night Level(Ld ). The Leq descriptor is listed here for reference only; the City of Lake Elsinore relies on the Ldn to assess transportation related impacts on noise sensitive land uses. Ldn is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound,with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of ten decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between LT'�� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-1 City of Lake Elsinore ��jjJJ Revised Draft EIR May289;�January 2008 X.1010570_City_ol Lake Elsinoml52684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during nighttime hours when sound appears louder, and thus, is weighted accordingly. For example,monitoring experience has shown that 24-hour weighted L&is typically 2-3 dB higher than the mid-afternoon Ley sound levels. L&does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time,but rather represents the total sound exposure. As identified in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Noise Element,the City relies on the La„noise level standard to assess transportation related impacts on noise sensitive land uses. Traffic Noise The level of traffic noise depends on three factors: (1)the volume of the traffic; (2)the speed of the traffic; and(3)the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally,the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Due to the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic(assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change)results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) community noise assessment criteria this change is considered"barely perceptible." 4.9.1.2 Existing Noise Environment Ambient noise conditions are primarily influenced by vehicular traffic from surrounding roadways. The majority of vehicular traffic noise impacting the project site is generated from Interstate 15 (I-15)and Camino del Norte,which are the main roadways that service the site. A short-term project vicinity noise measurement analysis was conducted by Giroux&Associates to determine existing baseline noise levels at the proposed project site. Figure 4.9-1 depicts the boundaries of the project site and the four noise measurement locations. Noise measurements were recorded between the hours of 12 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on October 21, 2006. All locations were monitored for a time period of 15 minutes. The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 4.9-1. Table 4.9-1. Existing(Ambient)Noise Level Measurements Noise Parameter' Site 11 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Energy Average(Leq) 47.9 53.3 69.2 69.4 1-Second Max(Lmax) 72.0 60.0 79.0 75.5 1-Second Min(Lmin) 34.5 45.5 60.5 58.0 101h Percentile Level(Lio) 42.5 55.0 72.0 72.0 33ro Percentile Level(1-33) 36.5 53.5 69.0 69.5 50th Percentile Level(Leo) 36.0 52.5 67.5 68.0 90th Percentile Level(Lgo) 35.0 49.5 64.5 64.5 Source:Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) Notes: i Noise measurements taken on October 21,2006;15 minute duration 2 See Figure 4.9-1 for the location of the monitoring sites. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-2 City of Lake Elsinore f Revised Draft EIR May 29PJanuary 2M X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake Elsinore1526B4 Spyglassl5 CEQAIFinal EIRW 9_Spyglass Noise.doc • 1 1 • • 1 1 • • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • • 1 - M • 1 1 • • 1 • 1 1 • • r ! jT 1 • _ 1 • r . -i- •' � ��! - .,.fit A 4.9 Noise As shown in Table 4.9-1, ambient sound levels in the project vicinity range from 47.9 dBA to 69.4 dBA Lcq. However,monitoring experience has shown that 24-hour weighted La„is typically 2-3 dB higher than the mid-afternoon L,,q sound levels. Therefore,under existing conditions,the proposed project ambient noise condition ranges from 50 to 72 dBA Ld,,. As described below,the City of Lake Elsinore exterior noise standard is 65 dBA Ldn; therefore, existing traffic noise levels exceed City guidelines for residential uses. / Sensitive Receptors I Uses that are typically considered noise sensitive include residences, schools,hospitals,parks, and wildlife habitats. The proposed project site is currently undeveloped but is adjacent to sensitive residential areas. The nearest residence is located approximately 550 feet south of the project site,but it is buffered by I-15. Under existing conditions,there are no non-buffered sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of the project site. 4.9.2 Project Impacts 4.9.2.1 Thresholds of Significance As defined in Appendix G(XI) of the CEQA Guidelines,project impacts from noise are considered significant if any of the following occur: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; Ij • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ICity of Lake Elsinore Noise Standards The City of Lake Elsinore has identified two separate types of noise sources: (1)mobile, and(2) stationary. To control mobile or transportation related noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airport and railroads, the City of Lake Elsinore has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels in the Noise Element of the General Plan. To control stationary source/non-transportation related noise impacts(such as speakerphones,trash compactors, air-conditioning units, etc.)in residential areas, Ithe City of Lake Elsinore has adopted a noise control ordinance. Noise Element Criteria The State of California established noise exposure standards to guide local municipalities in the development of Noise Elements as part of their General Plan. Table 4.9-2, from the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan/Noise Element,presents the City of Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix,which deviates slightly from State noise guidelines. FDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-5 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR A4ay L2o97January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Table 4.9-2. 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 I C I D D Residential _ Mobile Homes A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel,Motel,Transient Lodging A A B B C C D -Regional, District Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank,Restaurant, -Regional,Village Movie Theatre A A A A B B C -District,Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial, Institutional Development, Professional Offices,City A A A B B C D Office Building Commercial Amphitheatre,Concert Hall -Recreation Auditorium,Meeting Hall g Institutional g C C D D D -Civic Center Commercial Recreation Children's Amusement Park,Miniature Golf Course,Go-cart Track,Equestrian A A A B B D D _ Center,Sports Club _ Commercial Automobile Service Station,Auto -General,Special Dealership,Manufacturing, A A A A B B B Industrial, Institutional Warehousing,Wholesale,Utilities Institutional General Hospital,Church,Library School's A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks _ A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course,Cemeteries,Nature Centers Wildlife Reserves,Wildlife A A A A B C C Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A I AT A I A A A Source: Noise Element,City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Notes: 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 noise 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 this design. Zone D(Clearly incompatible) New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. For example,residential uses arc"clearly compatible"with noise conditions up to 60 dBA Lda, and are "normally compatible" in conditions up to 70 dBA Ld,,. A 65 dBA Ldn exterior level is the threshold when noise begins to substantially interfere with the enjoyment of outdoor activities. Therefore, a 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise level (45 dBA Ld„interior noise level)would be the applicable noise standard for the proposed project. In the context of this noise analysis, on-site noise impacts associated with traffic are controlled by the City Noise Element. EDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-6 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May?QQ;�January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglass16_CEQA1Rna1 EIRI4.9_Spyg1ass Noise.doc f 4.9 Noise INoise Ordinance Criteria l The most effective method to control community noise impacts from non-transportation noise sources (such as trash compactors, air-conditioning units, etc.)is through the application of a community noise ordinance. For the purpose of this analysis, the noise impacts associated with the proposed commercial uses are controlled by the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance. r Referring to Table 1 in the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance,the maximum exterior noise levels not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes from stationary or commercial facility related noises to multi- family residential land uses are 45 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and 50 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. For general commercial land uses,the exterior noise levels can not exceed 60 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. For interior noise levels,the maximum interior noise levels for all residential uses are 35 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and 40 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m, and shall not be exceeded for more than five minutes in any hour. Community Noise Assessment Criteria In community situations,noise exposure and changes in noise levels occur over a number of years. The generally accepted level at which changes in the community noise levels become"barely perceptible" typically occur at values of greater than 3 dBA. Changes of 5 dBA are defined as "readily perceptible" and 10 dBA is considered twice as loud. To be considered a significant impact,project traffic must create a noise level increase in the area adjacent to the roadway segment of greater than 3 dBA and the resulting Inoise level must exceed the City Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold. In the context of this noise analysis, off-site noise impacts associated with traffic are controlled by the Community Noise f Assessment Criteria. State of California Code of Regulations Title 24 The California Code of Regulations(CCR), Title 24,Noise Insulation Standards, states that multi-family dwellings,hotels, and motels located where the Ldn exceeds 60 dBA,must obtain an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design shall limit interior noise to less than 45 dBA Ldn. The maximum noise + levels, either existing or future,must be used for this determination. Future noise levels must be predicted ` at least ten years from the time of building permit application. 4.9.2.2 Environmental Impacts This section addresses the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed project. Noise impacts were analyzed from the following sources: project construction, on-site exterior and interior noise, off-site vehicular noise,and non-transportation project noise Project Construction i The proposed project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year period. Over that time, construction noise has the potential to create short-term impacts to ambient noise levels. Furthermore,noise associated with construction activities, especially heavy equipment,may reach very high levels. The USEPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. Figure 4.9-2 shows the range of noise emissions for the most common Lj1JJ T1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-7 City of Lake Elsinore �1 Revised Draft EIR May-gAB7January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQA1Rna1_EIR14.9 Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise construction equipment. As shown,noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to noise levels in excess of 100 dBA when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Demolition and earth-moving activities typically represent one of the highest potential sources for temporary noise impacts. However, discretionary scheduling of the noisiest construction activities may minimize possible construction noise intrusion. For example, one of the most effective methods of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours and by limiting the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours. Noise can be further reduced by locating all stationary noise generating equipment as far as practical from existing residences. The City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance has the following specific requirements for both short-term and long-term construction noise levels: Table 4.9-3. City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance Single-family Multi-family Semi-residential) City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance Residential(dBA) Residential(dBA) Commercial(dBA) Mobile Equipment' Daily,7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.(except Sundays and legal holidays) 75 80 85 Daily,7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m..(includes Sundays 60� 65 70 and legal holidays) Stationary Equipment2 Daily,7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.(except Sundays I 60 65 70 and legal holidays) Daily,7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.(includes Sundays 50 55 60 and legal holidays) Source:City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance Notes: 'Includes non-scheduled intermittent,short-term operations(less than 10 days)of mobile equipment. 'Includes repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operations(10 days or more)of stationary equipment. Additionally, the City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts limits operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling,repair, alteration, or demolition work between the weekday hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Sensitive Receptors The nearest residence is located approximately 550 feet south of the project site,but it is buffered by I-15. Under existing conditions,there are no non-buffered sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction hours. Therefore,noise generated during the construction of the project would not affect any surrounding sensitive receptors and would represent a less than significant impact. `� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-8 City of Lake Elsinore L F D ` Revised Draft EIR X.•1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinore15204__SpyglassO CEQAIFinal pyglass EIRI4.g_S Noise.doc Away 299�lanUary 2008 Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet 6 : 4 E, l <T• l IL Compacters (Rollers) Front Loaders �, Backhoes c w 2 Tractors co o � w Scrapers, Graders E �j Pavers c a`) Trucks c -0 C' Concrete Mixers N /y^'' T O ` C ro = Concrete Pumps o N a r- Cranes (Movable) b a) a) Q- 2 ZCranes (Derrick) z w Z, Pumps ca ° Generators L 16 Compressors A Pneumatic Wrenches mom, ca E n .0- Jack Hammers &Rock Drills s — Q w Pile Drivers (Peaks) Vibrator o 0 0 Saws N o� N LC in Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels FIGURE 4.9-2 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY IMany Solutions 4.9 Noise On-Site Exterior Noise 1 As identified above, on-site noise impacts are controlled by the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Element, which stipulates 65 dBA Ldn as the applicable exterior noise standard. The primary source of on-site exterior noise impacts to the proposed project would be traffic noise from I-15 and Camino del Norte. The project would also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the internal roads within the site. Due to the distance,topography and low traffic volume/speed,traffic noise from those internal + roads would not make a significant contribution to the noise environment. The City Noise Element sets noise standards for residential development projects. These standards include a provision that outdoor living areas should not experience noise levels greater than 65 dBA Ldn ( assuming proper noise mitigation measures are in place. According to the noise analysis conducted by Giroux&Associates, several roadways within or adjacent to the project site would experience traffic t noise impacts in excess of 65 dBA L&. Therefore,these roadway segments have the potential to impact adjacent proposed residential development. Table 4.9-4 lists the roadway segments that have the potential to impact on-site exterior noise levels at the project site. iTable 4.9-4. Roadway Segments Contributing to On-site Noise Impacts Lan at 50 feet from Roadway Segment Traffic Volume Assumed Speed Centerline(dBA) Elsinore Hills Road 14,200 vehicles/day 45mph 69.41 Camino del Norte 18,000 vehicles/day 45mph 70.41 1-15 122,000 vehicles/day 70mph 85.72 Source:Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) Notes: 1 Project Lan at buildout 2 Existing Ldn Based on the measurements in Table 4.9-4, on-site exterior noise levels generated by Elsinore Hills Road, Camino del Norte and I-15 would be well above the 65 dBA L&threshold for residential development projects set forth in the City Noise Element. Therefore,proposed residential uses adjacent to these f roadways would experience a significant noise impact. Table 4.9-5 lists the proposed residential areas that would experience on-site exterior noise impacts from the roadway segments identified above. p Table 4.9-5. Proposed Residential Areas with Potential for On-site Exterior Noise Impacts i Roadway Segment Adjacent Development' Elsinore Hills Road PA-4, PA-5,PA-6,PA-9, PA-1 1,PA-12 Camino del Norte PA-1,PA-6 I-15___.. PA-1,PA-6 Source:Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) Note: 1 PA=Planning Area;see Figure 2.3-1,Conceptual Land Use Plan According to Table 4.9-5,residential units in Planning Areas 4-6, 9, 11 and 12 located 50 feet from the Elsinore Hills Road centerline would experience a 69.4 dBA Ld„noise level upon buildout resulting from vehicle operation at the project site. Therefore,these residential units would exceed the exterior noise Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-11 City of Lake Elsinore 1 DR Revised Draft EIR May anua 2008 X1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIR14.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn,which represents a significant impact. In order to mitigate this impact and to bring exterior noise levels into compliance with the City's Noise Element, a buffer, an acoustical barrier (wall or berm of 6 feet in height), or a combination thereof would need to be established along portions of Elsinore Hills Road. If a barrier is selected,Figure 4.9-3 shows a possible location. Since Camino del Norte parallels I-15, traffic noise from the two roadways acts in combination on adjacent residential uses. Table 4.9-6 shows the combined on-site exterior noise impacts to the areas in the project site adjacent to the two roadways. The combined Ldn noise levels listed below have been attenuated to account for setback. Only existing traffic volumes were available; therefore,the traffic analysis did not include build-out volumes for I-15. A 1.5 dBA La„was added to the combined Ldn to approximate build-out conditions. Table 4.9-6. Camino del Norte and I-15 On-site Exterior Noise Contributions Distance to Camino del Norte Distance to 1-15 Combined Ldn Attenuated Adjacent Parcels Centerline(feet) Centerline(feet) for Setback(dBA) PA-1 _ 125 350 78.8 PA-6 300 500 77.2 Source:Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) According to the calculations in Table 4.9-6,residential units adjacent to Camino del Norte and I-15 would experience on-site exterior noise levels up to 78.8 dBA Ldn. Therefore,residential units setback from these two roadway segments (Planning Area 1 & 6; Table 4.9-5)would exceed the exterior noise standard of 65 dBA La, which also represents a significant impact. In order to mitigate this impact and to bring exterior noise levels into compliance with the City's Noise Element, 12-foot acoustic barriers/earthen berms would have to be installed along those segments of Camino del Norte (Figure 4.9-3). Since both the westernmost perimeter and the southeastern corner of Planning Area 1 would be exposed to directional noise from traffic on Camino del Norte and I-15,the previously indicated 12-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm would be tapered to protect perimeter homes from a direct line-of-sight to the freeway. On its western perimeter,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm would taper from 12 feet to 8 feet for the first 100 feet; from 8 feet to 7 feet for the next 200 feet; and from 7 feet to 6 feet for the remainder of the perimeter. Assuming a worst-case scenario because final site plans have yet to be developed, the acoustic barrier/earthen berm at the southeast corner of Planning Area 1 would also have to taper, from 12 feet to 6 feet,to shield those homes nearest Camino del Norte from freeway noise. Additionally, since the easternmost portion of Planning Areas 5 and 6 would be exposed to similar traffic noise from Camino del Norte and I-15,the 10-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm would also be required to taper to protect those homes with a direct line-of-sight to I-15. Specifically,beginning at Camino del Norte, the acoustic barrier/earthen berm would taper from 10 feet to 7 feet for the first 50 feet before transitioning to 6 feet for the remainder of the Planning Areas 5 and 6 Elsinore Hills Road perimeter. On-Site Interior Noise As identified above, on-site noise impacts are controlled by the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Element, which stipulates 45 dBA Ldn as the applicable interior noise standard. Interior noise exposure is the difference between the projected exterior dBA Ldn at the building fagade and the noise reduction of the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-12 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR n"..ay 299;z anuary 2008 XA010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglessla CEQAIFinal EIR14.9_Spyglass Noise.doc r y M Ecr)ICU LU CC E CD LO LO cm is { v. e,' _aLO o o N L w v' I c LU y 71 co r c c v l Eli I' r- CAIcn _ I a O y cc i• to � 1 ti+ '+ � C� II 00 O + v� PRC)PUSCI)Et.tif'YURE Mt S UR1VE C ` y/G (.. - t -i1 � y ice' i'',• - aai + t y i rn cu cc f a rQ. 41 co ,1:.:;` cuZi o o r_ I 4.9 Noise structure. Typical building construction can provide approximately 12 dBA in noise reduction with "windows open"and a minimum 20 dBA reduction with"windows closed." New construction can generally produce a"windows closed"noise reduction ranging from 25 dBA to 30 dBA; however, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish the effectiveness. f According to the on-site exterior noise analysis conducted, a substantial portion of the proposed project site would experience exterior noise levels above the 65 dBA Ldn threshold, and at some locations, above 75 dBA Ldn. As described in the previous section,the installation of noise walls along Elsinore Hills Road and Camino del Norte would bring those residential areas in compliance with City's Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn requirement. However,Table 4.9-7 shows those residential areas that would experience interior noise impacts, even with the mitigation provided by the proposed noise walls, and the required 1 mitigation needed to bring those areas into compliance with interior noise standards. Table 4.9-7. On-site Interior Noise Impacts and Required Mitigation Impacted Required Exterior Noise Level City Noise Element Interior Mitigation Residential Noise Wall (dBA Ldn) Interior Standard Needed Units Floor Height wlNoise Wall (dBA Ldn) (dBA Lan) PA 4-5,9, 11 &12 First Story 6.01 <65 dB 20.0 Second Story NA 68.0 dB 23.0 PA-1 First Story 12.0 65.0 dB 45.0 20.0 Second Story NA 79.0 dB 34.0 PA-6 First Story 10.0 65.0 dB 20.0 Second Story NA 77.0 dB 32.0 Source:Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) Note: 1 Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 requires either a six-foot wall or a 98 foot setback from the centerline of Elsinore Hills Road for all single l family residential uses abutting Elsinore Hills Road. f To meet the City Noise Element 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard and to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24 for single family and multi-family residential units, a reduction of approximately 20 dBA Ldn would be required for the first floor of all residential units on the property. A reduction of 23 dBA Ldn would be required for second story balconies of residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road (Planning Areas 4-5, 9, 11 and 12). A reduction of up to 34.0 dBA Ldn would be required for second story balconies of residential units nearest I-15 and Camino del Norte(Planning Areas 1 and 6). Therefore,a significant impact would be anticipated for on-site interior noise,and mitigation would be required. I Off-Site Vehicular Noise As identified above, off-site noise impacts are controlled by the Community Noise Assessment Criteria, l which stipulates a significant impact would occur if project traffic creates a noise level increase in the area adjacent to the roadway segment of greater than 3 dBA and the resulting noise level exceeds the City I Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold. Long-term noise concerns from the increase of residential uses at the project site center primarily on vehicular operations on project area roadways. To assess the off-site noise levels impact associated with development of the proposed project, a noise analysis was conducted and includes the following traffic scenarios: Existing: This scenario refers to existing background noise conditions. fa� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-15 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May-286;EJanuary 2008 X..1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684 SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIM4.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise • Near-term (Year 2009) With/Without Project: This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at future year 2009 with all other expected projects included with and without the proposed project. • General Plan Buildout(Post 2025) With/Without Project: This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at future buildout with all other expected projects included with and without the proposed project. The Federal Roadway Noise Model(FHWA-RD-77-108)1 was used to calculate both existing and projected Ldn resulting from current and future vehicle operations at the project site. Table 4.9-8 shows the Ldn for each road segment in the project vicinity for the traffic scenarios listed above. Table 4.9-8 presents a comparison of the-existing off-site noise condition to future noise levels with and without the development of the proposed project. According to the noise analysis,roadway noise impacts would increase from 0.0 to 3.3 dBA Ldn for all project area roadways with the development of the proposed project in the near-term(2009). Based on the comparison results in Table 4.9-8,Elsinore Hills Road(north of Camino Del Norte)would experience a+3.3 dBA Ldn project related noise increase at 50 feet from the roadway centerline and would exceed the City Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold in the near-term(2009). This represents a significant noise impact. The same roadway segment would experience a+2.4 dBA Ldn project related noise increase at 50 feet from the roadway centerline upon full General Plan Buildout(post 2025). This does not represent a significant noise impact because the segment would not exceed the+3.0 dBA threshold. Commercial Use Alternative Although the project proposes residential uses, traffic noise impacts were also examined for an alternative that would convert Planning Areas 5 and 6 to commercial use. Table 4.9-9 summarizes the Ldn at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along the same 19 roadway segments. According to Table 4.9-9, the Elsinore Hills Road(north of Camino del Norte)roadway segment would experience a potentially significant"project only"traffic noise impact for both the near term(2009)and General Plan buildout(post 2025)conditions with the development of commercial use in Planning Areas 5 and 6 because the roadway noise would experience a+3.3 dBA Ldn project related noise increase at 50 feet from the roadway centerline and would exceed the City Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold. The General Plan buildout(post 2025)traffic noise level is projected to be 70.6 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. As such,the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment would extend approximately 118 feet from the roadway centerline. This represents a significant impact. 1 This model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions,and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic conditions,distances, speeds,or noise barriers. L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-16 City of Lake Elsinore j D Revised Draft EIR May nua 200 X:1010570 City_of Lake_E/sinon-W684_Spyglassl8 CEWIFinal EIM4.9_Spyglass Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Table 4.9-8. Off-site Noise Level Scenarios for Proposed Project dBA Ldn at 50 Feet from Centerline Near-term Buildout Near-term wlProject Buildout wlProject Roadway Segment Existing (2009) (2009) Difference (2025) (2025) Difference Canyon Estates Dr/ e/o Summerhill 60.4 60.6 60.6 0.0 60.9 60.9 0.0 wlo Summerhill 66.6 67.5 67.7 0.2 67.5 67.7 0.2 e/o La Strada 47.8 62.9 64.2 1.3 l 70.9 71.1 I 0.2 Camino del Norte/ La Strada-Elsinore NA' 66.2 66.8 0.6 70.2 70.4 0.2 Hills Road e/o Elsinore Hills Road 52.6 68.2 69.9 1.7 1 68.9 70.4 1.5 Summerhill Drive/ s/o Railroad Canyon 70.0 70.8 70.8 0.0 1 72.0 72.0 0.0 Canyon Estates Drive- 69.7 71.3 71.3 0.0 72.4 72.4 0.0 Railroad Canyon n/o Canyon Estates Dr, 67.7 69.5 69.5 0.0 71.5 71.5 0.0 La Strada/ No Camino del Norte NA 63.6 63.9 0.0 70.4 70.4 0.0 Elsinore Hills Rd./ n/o Camino del Norte NA 65.0 68.3 3.3 67.0 69.4 2.4 Central A ve./ n/o Cambern Avenue 71.9 74.2 74.2 0.0 75.4 75.4 0.0 s/o Cambern Avenue 73.1 75.7 75.7 0.0 75.9 75.9 0.0 s/o I-15 73.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 76.1 76.1 0.0 Main Street/ n/o 1-15 64.2 68.9 70.4 1.5 71.0 72.0 1.0 s/o I-15 69.1 70.6 7 1.8 0.2 ( 72.6 72.7 0.1 Franklin Street slo I-15 66.4 67.7 68.0 0.3 70.1 70.3 0.2 Cambern Ave-1 w/o Central Avenue 62.3 64.1 64.1 0.0 73.6 73.7 0.1 e/o Central Avenue 50.9 64.0 64.0 0.0 70.3 70.3 0.0 Railroad Canyon Rd./ e/o Summerhill 72.6 74.3 74.3 0.0 76.5 76.6 0.1 Source: Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) Notes: ' Several roadway segments listed in Table 4.9-2 will be built in the future to support this project. Since these roadways do not exist,ambient noise levels could not determined,and therefore will not be part of this analysis. However,traffic noise for these segments must be mitigated to a level below significance in order for the proposed project to be in compliance with CiVs Noise Element. e/o:east of w/o:west of s/o:south of n/o:north of LT>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-17 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR may 2QD7JIauarL20Qa X..,1010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAWinal__EIR14.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Table 4.9-9. Off-site Noise Level Scenarios for Proposed Project with Commercial Use dBA Ldo at 50 Feet from Centerline Near-term Buildout Near-term w/Project Buildout w/Project Roadway Segment Existing (2009) (2009) Difference (2025) (2025) Difference Canyon Estates Dr/ e/o Summerhill 60.4 60.6 60.6 0.0 60.9 60.9 1 0.0 w/o Summerhill 66.6 67.5 67.8 0.3 67.5 67.8 0.3 e/o La Strada 47.8 62.9 64.9 2.0 70.9 71.3 0.4 Camino del Norte/ La Strada-Elsinore NA' 66.2 67.2 1.0 70.2 70.6 0.4 Hills Road e/o Elsinore Hills Road 52.6 68.2 70.9 2.7 68.9 71.3 2.4 Summerhill Drive/ s o Railroad Canyon 70.0 70.8 70.8 0.0 72.0 72.0 0.0 Canyon Estates Drive-Railroad Canyon 69.7 71.3 71.4 0.1 72.4 72.5 0.1 n/o Canyon Estates Dr. 67.7 69.5 69.5 0.0 71.5 71.5 0.0 La Strada/ n/o Camino del Norte NA 63.6 63.8 0.070.4 70.4 0.0 Elsinore Hills Rd./ n/o Camino del Norte NA 65.0 69.9 4.9 67.0 70.6 3.6 Central Ave./ n/o Cambern Avenue 71.9 74.2 74.2 0.0 75.4 75.4 0.0 s/o Cambern Avenue 73.1 75.7 75.7 0.0 75.9 75.9 0.0 s/o I-15 73.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 76.1 76.1 0.0 Main Street/ n/o 1-15 64.2 68.9 71.2 2.3 71.0 72.6 1.6 s/o 1-15 69.1 70.6 70.9 03 72.6 72.8 0,2 Franklin Street/ s/o I-15 66.4 1 67.7 68.2 0.5 70.1 70.4 0.3 Cambern Ave./ w/o Central Avenue 62.3 64.1 64.1 0.0 73.6 73.7 0.1 e/o Central Avenue 50.9 64.0 64.0 0.0 70.2 70.4 0.2 Railroad Canyon Rd./ e/o Summerhill 72.6 74.3 74.4 0.1 76.5 76.6 0,1 Sourco: Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) LTjjJJ>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-18 City of Lake Elsinore �f Revised Draft EIR May 2907-January 2008 X:1010570 City of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAWinal EIR14.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Non-Transportation Project Noise Impacts CommerciaUResidential Interface If market forces demand,Planning Areas 5 and 6 may be developed for commercial retail uses. Typical I noise pollution associated with commercial retail uses include: truck loading and unloading,external air conditioning units,parking lots,trash compacters, speakers, and potential noise resulting from live music within restaurants or bars. Therefore, the potential exists for a noise conflict between the residential and commercial uses within the project site. The commercial use areas of the proposed project must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance requirement presented in Section 4.9.2.1. It is expected that noise from I-15 and Camino del Norte will generally overshadow the anticipated noise associated with the development and operation of the commercial uses. However,because final engineering designs and site plans for the commercial uses have not been prepared,the noise analysis could not evaluate noise impacts from potential noise source locations, such as loading docks, on the adjacent residential areas. Therefore, a significant impact is anticipated for the commercial/residential interface. 1 4.9.3 Cumulative Impacts ` Cumulatively,traffic noise may increase both from area growth and from the implementation of other area projects. Traffic volume changes from infill development and from conversion of existing agricultural uses may substantially increase in the future,thereby modifying the area's acoustic I environment. Table 3.5-1 includes a list of other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects proposed within the vicinity of the proposed project. These projects would directly impact the roadways surrounding the proposed project. However, grading would not occur concurrently due to differing + project schedules. Therefore,construction of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts. Cumulative operational impacts are determined by comparing noise levels resulting from General Plan buildout(2025) and existing conditions. An increase in 3 dBA and exceeding the City's Noise Element exterior noise threshold represents a significant impact. Eleven segments experience a significant cumulative impact and are listed in Table 4.9-10. This table identifies the project's contribution to that cumulative impact. 1 According to Table 4.9-10, cumulative area growth not associated with the proposed project would cause 11 roadway segments in the project vicinity to exceed the City's Noise Element exterior noise threshold and increase above 3.0 dBA. Although substantial,project estimates conclude that cumulative noise impacts would increase by a maximum of 1.5 dBA Ldn for all project area roadways under the General l Plan buildout(post 2025)traffic scenario. As such,the resulting noise level would increase above 3.0 dBA and,therefore,would not represent a significant cumulative impact. Commercial Use Alternative Although a majority of the roadway segments would have significant cumulative traffic noise impacts in General Plan buildout(post 2025)conditions,the project contribution would be relatively insignificant. The commercial use alternative would result in slightly higher noise levels for some segments; however, those increases would not exceed noise levels by 3.0 dBA. Therefore, a less than significant impact would be anticipated for cumulative operational impacts under the commercial use alternative. j_T�1JJ 1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-19 City of Lake Elsinore �1 Revised Draft EIR May 887January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinore152664_Spyg1assl6_CEQAIFina1__EIR149_Spyg1ass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Table 4.9-10. Cumulative Noise Increases at Full Buildout(2025)for Proposed Project _ dBA Lan at 50 Feet from Centerline Increase from Existing Cumulative Increase at Roadway Segment Conditions w/o Project Project Contribution Full Build out(2025) Canyon Estates Dr/ e/o La Strada 23.1 0.2 23.3 Camino del Note/ e/o Elsinore Hills Road 16.3 1.5 1 17.8 ummerhill Drive/ ...........__......... n/o Canyon Estates Dr. 3.8 0.0 3.2 Central Ave./ n/o Cambern Avenue 3.5 0.0 3.5 s/o I-15 3.1 0.0 3.1 Main Street/ _......._...,...._.-............n/o 1-15 6.8 1.0___. 7,8 s/o I-15 3.5 0.1 3.5 Franklin Street/ s/o I-15 3.7 0.2 3.9 Cambern Ave./ w/o Central Avenue 11.3 0.1 11.4 e/o Central Avenue 19.4 0.0 19.4 Railroad Canyon Rd./ e/o Summerhill 3.9 1 0.1 4.0 Source: Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) 4.9.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation Project Construction/Sensitive Receptors The proposed project shall adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction hours to limit potential noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive Receptors Since there are no non-buffered sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of the project site,noise generated during construction would have a less than significant impact on surrounding sensitive receptors. No mitigation would be required. On-site Exterior Noise According to the noise analysis, a substantial portion of the proposed project site would exceed the City Noise Element exterior noise standard of 65 dBA L&. These areas are identified in Table 4.9-5. Specifically, Table 4.9-6 shows unmitigated noise levels as high as 78.8 dBA for first-floor'exterior living areas in residential units adjacent to I-15 and Camino del Norte. Since architectural and grading plans IDISpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-20 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May-2Ag7-January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIM4.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc r i 4.9 Noise have yet to be completed, a significant impact would also be anticipated for all second-and third-floor balconies. Therefore,a significant impact would be anticipated for on-site exterior noise and mitigation would be required. On-Site Interior Noise A majority of the proposed project site would experience exterior noise levels above the 65 dBA La„ threshold,and at some locations,above 75 dBA Ldn. To meet the City Noise Element 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard and to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24 for single family and multi- family residential units,a reduction of up to 34.0 dBA Ldn would be rccluired for the residential units nearest 1-15 and Camino del Norte(Table 4.9-7). Therefore, a significant impact would be anticipated for on-site interior noise. Off-Site Vehicular Noise Near-term(post 2009) project contributions would increase the existing noise environment by a maximum of 3.3 dBA Ldn for all project area roadways that exceed the City's Noise Element exterior noise threshold(Table 4.9-8). An increase of 3.0 dBA is generally considered the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible. This represents a significant impact and requires mitigation. General Plan Buildout(post 2025)project contributions would result in an increase of 2.4 dBA Ldn for all project area roadways;therefore,project traffic would not result in a significant noise impact since this is below the+3.0 dBA threshold. Commercial Use Alternative ` Although the project proposes residential uses,off-site traffic noise impacts were also examined for an alternative that would convert Planning Areas 5 and 6 to commercial use. According to Table 4.9-9,near- term(2009) project contributions would increase the exiting noise environment by a maximum of 4.9 dBA Ldn for the Elsinore Hills Road(north of Camino del Norte)roadway segment. Additionally, General Plan buildout(post 2025)project contributions would increase the existing noise environment by a 3.6 dBA Ldn for the same segment under the commercial use scenario. Both of these segments are projected to operate above 65 dBA Ldn. An increase of 3.0 dBA is generally considered the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible;therefore, impacts are potentially significant and require mitigation. Non-Transportation Project Noise Impacts Planning Areas 5 and 6 may be developed for commercial retail uses. Therefore,the potential exists for a noise conflict between the residential and commercial uses within the project site. The commercial use areas of the proposed project must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. However, it is expected that noise from I-15 and Camino del Norte will generally overshadow the anticipated noise associated with the development and operation of the commercial uses. Since final engineering designs and site plans for the commercial uses have not been prepared,the noise analysis could not evaluate noise impacts from potential noise source locations,such as loading docks,on the adjacent residential areas. Therefore, a significant impact is anticipated for the commercial/residential interface. 4.9.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential operational noise impacts to less than significant levels. ^` Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-21 City of Lake Elsinore fa` Revised Draft EIR May_�anuary 2008 XA010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinel EIM4.9_Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Exterior Noise MM 4.9-1 Single family residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road(Planning Areas 4-6, 9, 11 and 12)shall either establish a buffer(be sited outside of the 98 foot contour),an acoustical barrier(wall or berm of 6 feet in height),or a combination thereof to meet the City Noise Element 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise threshold for residential units. The acoustic barrier/earthen berm should be of solid construction; i.e., such as block or glass or a combination of the two,with no gaps or holes. MM 4.9-2 Residential units in Planning Area 1 adjacent to I-15 and Camino del Norte shall require a 12-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm to meet the 65 dBA L&exterior noise threshold. Along the westernmost perimeter of Planning Area 1,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall be designed to taper, from 12 feet to 8 feet,to shield residential units with a direct line-of-sight to 1-15. At the southeast corner of Planning Area 1,the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall also be designed to taper,from 12 feet to 6 feet,to shield those residential units nearest Camino del Norte from traffic noise. The acoustic barriers/earthen berms should be of solid construction; i.e., such as block or glass or a combination of the two, with no gaps or holes. MM 4.9-3 Residential units in Planning Areas 5 and 6 adjacent to I-15 and Camino del Norte shall require a 10-foot acoustic barrier/earthen berm to meet the 65 dBA Lda exterior noise threshold. Along the easternmost perimeter of Planning Area 6, the acoustic barrier/earthen berm shall be designed to taper,from 10 feet to 6 feet,to shield residential units with a direct line-of-sight to I-15. The acoustic barrier/earthen berm should be of solid construction; i.e., such as block or glass or a combination of the two, with no gaps or holes. MM 4.9-4 Upon completion of final grading plans,a supplemental noise assessment shall be conducted to confirm that individual or combination of barriers and setbacks have reduced exterior noise to below 65 dBA and interior noise to below 45dBA. Interior Noise MM 4.9-5 Residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road(Planning Areas 4-5,9, 11 and 12)shall require upgraded acoustic features capable of providing up to 23 dBA Ldn of mitigation for second-story residential facades with a direct line-of-sight to Elsinore Hills Road. According to the hierarchy of structural noise mitigation listed below,these units would require standard dual-paned windows in order to meet the City's interior noise standard. Exterior to Interior Reduction Desired Mitigation Measure(s)Needed 0-10 dBA None 10-20 dBA Close windows facing roadway. Provide supplemental ventilation 20-25 dBA Close standard dual-paned windows. Provide supplemental ventilation 25-30 dBA Close upgraded dual-paned windows. Baffle vents and line ducts with absorbers. Provide supplemental ventilation. >30 dBA Custom upgrades(dual layer drywall, triple-paned windows,steel doors,etc.) LT>`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-22 City of Lake Elsinore �J ` Revised Draft EIR May 2oQ77i nuary 2008 X:1010570 City o/Lake Elsinora152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI4.9 Spyglass_Noise.doc 4.9 Noise MM 4.9-6 Residential units in Planning Area 1 adjacent to I-15 and Camino del Norte shall require custom acoustic upgrades capable of providing up to 34 dBA La of mitigation to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA L". MM 4.9-7 Residential units in Planning Area 6 adjacent to 1-15 and Camino del Norte shall also require custom acoustic upgrades capable of providing up to 32 dBA Ldn of mitigation to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA La. MM 4.9-8 A supplemental acoustic analysis shall be submitted in conjunction with the issuance of building permits for residential units adjacent to both Elsinore Hills Road and Camino del Norte to verify that adequate structural noise projection exists in perimeter residents to meet the City's interior residential noise threshold of 45 dBA Ldn. Since the exterior tier of development will assist in shielding interior units,the above acoustic upgrades are needed only on the outermost tier of development. MM 4.9-9 Supplemental ventilation, in conjunction with air conditioning, shall be required in any livable space where window closure to shut out roadway noise is needed to meet interior noise standards. Off-Site Vehicular Noise MM 4.9-10 Should Planning Areas 5 and 6 be developed as commercial land uses,residential units abutting Elsinore Hills Road shall be sited outside of the 118 foot contour. IIf commercial uses are developed,the following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts resulting from the non-transportation project noise impacts to less than significant: MM 4.9-11 Upon submittal of final engineering design of the commercial uses,the project shall l incorporate all mitigation measures to minimize hours of operation and reduce exterior noise levels resulting from potential noise source locations, such as loading docks, speakerphones, music/live entertainment,to 65 dBA Ldn from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 1 60 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. These measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As demonstrated in Table 4.9-11 below, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-1 through 4.9-4 would reduce operational impacts to exterior noise to below a level of significance.Mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 would also reduce impacts to off-site vehicular noise impacts along Elsinore Hills Road. Implementation of MM 4.9-5 though 4.9-9 would reduce potential impacts to interior noise to below a level of significance. Should Planning Areas 5 and 6 be developed as commercial land uses, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-10 would reduce off-site vehicular noise impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-11 would reduce non- transportation project noise impacts to a less than significant level. There would be no significant impacts to construction or sensitive receptors. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for the project. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-23 City of Lake Elsinore falRevised Draft EIR May 2007,lg�� X.1010570_City_of Leke_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.g Spyglass Noise.doc 4.9 Noise Table 4.9-11. First Floor Exterior Noise Level(dBA Ldo) Impacted Residential Barrier Height Units Roadway Unmitigated Mitigated (feet) PA 4-6,9, 11 &12 Elsinore Hills Road 69.4 <65.0 6.0 PA-1 1-15&Camino del Norte 78.8 65.0 12.0 PA-6 1-15&Camino del Norte 77.2 65.0 10.0 Source: Giroux&Associates. May 2,2007(Appendix H) 4.9.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),no responses were received pertaining to noise. falSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.9-24 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR AAaBg�lanuary 2008 X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEWAnal ElRW9 Spyglass Noise.doc 4.10 Population/Housing 4.10 POPULATIONMOUSING This section evaluates the population and housing consistency of the proposed project with the applicable policies and information contained in the Housing Element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. The RCIP was adopted by the County on October 7, 2003. The RCIP updates the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan(originally adopted in 1987 and revised 1992),which was the existing and governing plan. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan was adopted in 1990 and the Housing Element was updated in 2002. This section also focuses on the effects that the proposed project may have on the County's future population,jobs and housing balance,and the demand and provision of affordable housing, while considering current trends in land development and the employment sector. Assessment of existing and future housing needs in the County is provided in Section 6.0 of the RCIP Existing Setting Report and the County Housing Element Update. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR)analysis relies primarily upon the RCIP data since the RCIP provides the most recent and relevant information regarding housing. There are no substantive discrepancies in the Goals,Policies or Objectives between the adopted City General Plan and the RCIP that would alter the analysis or conclusions in this section. 4.10.1 Environmental Setting Applicable Plans and Standards I City of Lake Elsinore—General Plan (1990) The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is an officially adopted statement of local policy concerning the City's long-term development. The General Plan contains goals,objectives,and policies which guide development within the city. The spirit and intent of the General Plan is to"achieve and sustain a high quality of life for residents and visitors." The General Plan contains all the required elements,including Land Use,Open Space/Conservation,Public Safety and Urban Services,Circulation,Housing,and Noise. It also contains two voluntary elements,Parks and Recreation and Community Design. All local actions and documents must be consistent with the General Plan. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan—Housing Element Update(2002) The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Housing Element Update is a document designed to ensure that the City establishes-policies,procedures,and incentives in its land use planning and redevelopment activities that would result in current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community, including groups with special housing needs. The City's General Plan also established policy for providing adequate housing and related action programs. Under State law, Housing Elements are to be reviewed and updated every five years. The City of Lake Elsinore Housing Element Update presents the City's Housing Plan for the period 2002-2007. Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP) General Plan Housing Element(2003) The RCIP General Plan Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of the current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community,including groups with special housing needs. The RCIP also established policy for providing adequate housing and related action programs. Under state law,Housing Elements are to be reviewed and updated every five years. The RCIP Housing Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-1 City of Lake Elsinore hil-` Revised Draft EIR may 299:7 ai ry?_008 XA010570_City_ol Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.10_Spyglass_Population_Housing.doc 4.10 Population/Housing Element presents the County's Housing Action Plan for the period of 2003-2008. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Housing Element Update is required to be consistent with the RCIP. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG)—Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (1996) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)is designated by the federal government as the Southern California region's Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). SCAG has sought to address regional planning concerns through various documents, including the 1996 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG). The RCPG is "intended to serve the region as a framework for decision making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated during the next 20 years and beyond." The RCPG contains a chapter on Housing. 4.10.2 Existing Conditions Population Growth Historically, Riverside County has primarily consisted of rural residential and agriculture land uses. In the last several decades,residential development in the County has increased dramatically. According to population figures from the California Department of Finance,the population in the County rose by 70 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then another 30 percent between 1990 and 2000. Between 1994 and 1999 Riverside County grew by over 96,000 people(approximately 7%). Surrounding counties grew by approximately six percent during the same time period. According to SCAG, in 1999 the County of Riverside had a population of 1,504,100 individuals and an annual growth rate of 3.13 percent. By the year 2020,the population in the County is expected to increase to approximately 2.8 million people. The California Department of Finance estimates that Riverside County will continue to grow to 3.5 million people by the year 2030 and 4.5 million people by the year 2040. In preparation of the Housing Element for the RCIP, 1990 and 2000 Census data was utilized. In the period between 1990 and 2000, Lake Elsinore experienced a 60 percent growth. As of 2000,Lake Elsinore represented approximately 2 percent of the population in Riverside County. The City of Lake Elsinore is located in the western part of the County and recorded a population of 29,118(1.90%)and 8,899(1.78%)of County households' in 2000. According to the 2000 Census data,there is an average of 3.27 persons per household in the City of Lake Elsinore. The State of California Department of Finance publishes population information on an annual basis. The 2006 report states that the City of Lake Elsinore experienced a 7.04 percent increase in population from 2005 to 2006. This translates into a total population on January 1,2006 of 38,340. Additionally, SCAG produces population growth estimates. Table 4.10-1 shows the most recent estimates. Table 4.10-1. Population Estimates %change from %change from 2000 2005 2000-2005 2020 2005-2020 Population 29,118 36,804 26% 57,842 36% Source:Southern California Association of Governments,Growth Estimates,2004. 1"Household"is defined as including all individuals who occupy a housing unit. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-2 City of Lake Elsinore 1 a Revised Draft EIR May 2GG7Janu2ry 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEQAIPinal EIR1410_Spyglass_Population_Housing.doc r ` r _ 4.10 Population/Housing Employment r According to the California Employment Development Department, 93 percent of the job growth for the County during the period between 1990 and 1997 occurred in the Service Producing sector. The fastest i growing occupations were in Retail Trade, Health Services, and Local Government. The largest declines were in Construction,Aerospace Manufacturing, Communications, and Public Utilities industries. There was an expected increase of 80,100 jobs between 1995 and 2002 with the largest increase anticipated with the Professional/Technical and Service occupations. Overall,the unemployment rate increased to nearly 11 percent in 1993. Since then, however, it has steadily decreased and the current rate is under 5 percent. As of 1997,the western area of the County supported approximately 88 percent of the employment. Housing According to the 2000 Census, 64 percent of households in the County contain 2-4 persons, 21 percent r contain 1 person, and 15 percent contain 5 or more persons. Single-family detached units dominate the western county area. Table 4.10-2 provides a summary of the Housing Units Estimates for the City of Lake Elsinore, as provided by SCAG. r i i Table 4.10-2. Housing Unit Estimates %change from %change from 2000 2005 2000-2005 2020 2005-2020 Housing Units 8,899 10,681 20% 17,386 39% Source:Southern California Association of Governments,Growth Estimates,2004. I Table 4.10-3 provides a summary of the predicted regional housing needs in the City of Lake Elsinore from 1998 to 2005. An additional 30,677 housing units is the projected needs assessment for this planning period. The majority of this need is projected to be required in the western Riverside County ss area. SCAG is in the process of updating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Table 4.10-3. 1998-2005 Housing Needs Assessment City of Lake Elsinore i Income Category __.. .- _ _Very . Total � Ve Low Low Moderate Above Moderate ! Adjusted Need (26.0%) (17%) (22.0%) (35.0%) i 3,763 I 978 639 829 1,317 Source: SCAG,Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment,November 2000 Affordability refers to the relationship between total household income and total expenditure for housing. Affordable housing is a factor in improving the social and economic conditions of a region. A lack of affordable housing can result in socioeconomic impacts, such as households paying more for housing than they can reasonably afford. The 2000 median income in the county was$47,400. The median home price for September 2000 in Lake Elsinore was $132,000. hDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-3 City of Lake Elsinore _\ Revised Draft EIR 2008 X:1010570_Ci1y_of Lake_E1sinoreW684_Spyglassl6_CEQAWina1_EIR14.10_Spyglass_Populafion_Housing.doc 4.10 Population/Housing Job-Housing Balance SCAG and the SCAQMD have discussed the concept of a job-housing balance over the past decade as a means of achieving regional air quality improvement goals. However,the basic concept is directed at minimizing commuting distances,reducing infrastructure needs and costs, mitigating traffic congestion, conserving energy, and improving air quality. SCAG has incorporated a job-housing balance into its growth forecast. The currently adopted Growth Management Chapter(GMC)of the RCPG includes policy statements that indicate SCAG's support for"balanced"development on a subregional level. Underlying the term jobs/housing balance is the concept that,if an area is balanced, it includes the correct number(or balance) of housing and employment opportunities so that the majority of the people living in the subregion can also work in the subregion. A lower jobs/housing ratio results in fewer jobs for residents,which results in workers commuting out of the area. A higher jobs/housing ratio results in a larger number of jobs that cannot be filled by residents. This, in turn,results in workers commuting into the area. Generally,job- rich subregions have ratios greater than the regional average, and housing-rich subregions have ratios lower than the regional average. As such,a subregion is considered Lalauced if it had an employment to housing ratio of 1.02 in the year 2000 and has a projected employment to housing ratio of 1.08 in the year 2025 (the regional averages for the County). A balance of jobs and housing can benefit the environment of an area by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip lengths,which create potentially significant environmental impacts associated with transportation,air quality and noise. Currently, the County supplies a substantial portion of the labor pool for the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area. Based on SCAG's projections,the job/housing ratio for the area surrounding the project site in SCAG's Western Riverside County Subregion is projected to be balanced in 2025. 4.10.3 Project Impacts Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact to population and housing, as defined in Appendix G(XII) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines if any of the following occur: • Substantially exceeding existing population, and housing projections were substantially exceeded; • The displacement of substantial numbers of residential units,requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and/or • The displacement of a substantial number of persons,necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Significance thresholds for employment impacts are based upon§15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, According to this section,a socioeconomic impact must either cause or be caused by a physical change to the environment before it can be considered a significant impact. "Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment."Socioeconomic changes may have substantial impacts on the lives of people,but evidence of economic and social impacts that do not 2 SCAG 2004 RTP Growth Forecast LTI� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-4 City of Lake Elsinore ����JJ. Revised Draft EIR May209.XJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.10_Spyglass_PopulatioeHousing.doc r 4.10 Population/Housing contribute to, or are not caused by,physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that ` the project may have a significant impact on the environment(CEQA Guidelines §15064 (f)(6)). Land use changes that entail no discernable effects on the environment cannot be deemed to be significant socioeconomic impacts. f Environmental Impacts Population and Housing Projections Implementation of the Spyglass Ranch project would result in higher population numbers than those used for the General Plan, and in turn for the SCAG projections. Table 4.10-4 shows the dwelling unit 1 calculations that would be approximated if the project site was developed under the current land use designations. Table 4.10-4. Current Land Use Dwelling Unit Calculations Estimated No.of Average Estimated Current General Plan Land Use Dwelling Units Density/DU Population Freeway Business - - - Future Specific Plan 659 3.22 2,122 Neighborhood Commercial - - - I Total 659 2,122 Source:City of Lake Elsinore General Plan 1995. f In comparison, Table 4.10-5 shows the approximate dwelling unit count and population estimate for the proposed project. Table 4.10-5. Population Estimates for Spyglass Ranch Average Estimated No.of Estimated Residence Type PopulationlUnit Dwelling Units Population Estate Residential 3.22 8 26 Single Family Homes 3.22 515 1,658 Courtyard Homes 2.71 171 463 Multifamily Units 2.20 341 750 Total 1,035 2,898 Source:Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 2006. A total of 659 dwelling units were included for the Spyglass Ranch project area when the SCAG growth estimates were calculated. The Spyglass Ranch project proposes a maximum of 1,035 dwelling units, 376 units above the number of units incorporated into the growth estimates. Table 4.10-6 details the estimated increase in population due to the increased number of dwelling units on the project site. Although an alternative scenario is proposed that would create commercial uses on the areas that are proposed for multi-family uses,this was not evaluated in this section. The evaluation of the highest number of population growth is the most conservative evaluation. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-5 City of Lake Elsinore -\ Revised Draft EIR May=Qanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreM664 Spyglassle_CEQATinal EIR14.10_Spyglass_Population_Housing.doc 4.10 Population/Housing Table 4.10-6. Spyglass Ranch Population Estimate Differences Current No. DU Above Pop.Above in Specific Percent of Adopted Growth Avg. Adopted Growth Residence Type Plan Total Estimate Pop/Unit Estimate Estate Residential 8 1% 8 3.22 26 Single Family Home 515 50% -144 3.22 464 Courtyard Homes 171 17% 171 2.71 463 Multifamily Units 341 33% 341 2.20 750 Total 1,035 1009/6 376 776 The Spyglass Ranch project would result in 776 residents living in the City of Lake Elsinore that were not included in the estimate calculated by SCAG. According to SCAG's letter to the City during, ublic review, while the 376 additional dwelling units were above the base units used for the property when determining the City's housing forecasts the proiect's proposed housing units appear to be well within the City's total housing forecasts values and would result in a .T-he additional 376 dwelling tmiI6 less than significant impact. Displacement of Residential Units The Spyglass Ranch project site is currently vacant. Construction of the project would not result in the displacement of any residential units; therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact regarding this threshold. Displacement of Persons The Spyglass Ranch project site is currently vacant. Construction would not result in the displacement of any persons; therefore, implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact regarding this threshold. 4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative impacts associated with population and housing issues is the City of Lake Elsinore,which assumes full buildout of the General Plan. SCAG's regional growth data projects that the population of Lake Elsinore would be 57,842 persons in 2020, an increase of 21,038 persons(62.63 percent)over the estimated 2005 population. As shown in the Cumulative Projects table(Table 4.8-4)of the Land Use and Planning Section,many of the Cumulative Projects,including Spyglass Ranch, have requested a General Plan Amendment(GPA). The GPAs would result in increased housing numbers above the projections used for SCAG, and would result in a significant cumulative impact. None of the cumulative projects that are being cunsid,ered with Spyglass Ranch result in the demolition of existing housing units,displacing existing persons or dwelling units. Additionally, development related to the Spyglass Ranch project or any of the Cumulative Projects would not result in or contribute to substantial demolition of existing housing that would displace existing people or dwelling units. Therefore, the Spyglass Ranch project and the rest of the Cumulative Projects,would not contribute to a cumulative impact, and would result in a less than significant contribution to this effect. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-6 City of Lake Elsinore �i a Revised Draft EIR May 2997January 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinon;152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR14.10_Spyglass_population_Housing.doc r r 4.10 Population/Housing r - 4.10.5 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation The Spyglass Ranch project would result in 776 residents living in the City of Lake Elsinore that were not included in the estimate calculated by SCAG. According to SCAG,Tthe additional 376 dwelling units do not substantially exceed housing projections; resulting in a less than significant impact. Construction of the project would not result in the displacement of any residential units nor would it displace any persons. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts regarding these two thresholds 4.10.6 Environmental Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required for population and housing. 4.10.7 Levels of Significance After Mitigation signifieant and tina-voidable. A Statement of Findings and Oyeffiding Gensidefatie 9 would be required Impacts to population and housing would be less than significant. I 4.10.8 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),no responses were 1 received pertaining to population and housing. I l it i EDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-7 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR may 2o p4anUIM2W X1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal_EIRI4.10_Spyglass_Population Housing.doc 4.10 Population/Housing This page intentionally left blank. L'1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.10-8 City of Lake Elsinore F�J• Revised Draft EIR May2987January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.10 Spyglass Population Housing doc 4.11 Public Services 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES The following section describes existing fire protection,police protection, school, and library services and potential impacts of the proposed project on the availability of these facilities and services. Letters from service providers are included in Appendix I of this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). 4.11.1 Environmental Setting 4.11.1.1 Fire Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services with the Riverside County Fire Department(RCFD) Iand the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CDF). The RCFD stations, shown on Figure 4.11-1,that would serve the proposed project(in order of response)include. • Fire Station No. 10(Lake Elsinore), located at 410 W. Graham Avenue, approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. I • Fire Station No. 94 (Canyon Hills), located at 22770 Railroad Canyon Road, approximately one mile southeast of the project site. • Fire Station No. 85 (McVicker Park), located at 29405 Grand Avenue, approximately three miles ' west of the project site. In addition, a future station(Rosetta Canyon)will be constructed. As within all areas serviced by the RCFD, emergency medical or fire would be provided by the 88 career and 6 volunteer staffed stations operating fire suppression,emergency medical,rescue, and fire prevention and education services. All staff firefighters have paramedic training. RCFD has established a level of service standard of seven minutes to any incident in the city. The current average response time to the site from Fire Station No. 10 is approximately 3-5 minutes for the first unit, 5-8 minutes for the second unit, and 8-10 minutes for the third unit. 1 Current staffing at Fire Station No. 10 provides for three engines, including one City Medic engine and two state engines, staffed by one station captain, engineer, and fire fighter. Fire Station No. 94 would lend support to Station No. 10 when needed. Fire Station No. 94 maintains a single City Medic engine to address issues in eastern Lake Elsinore. The Rosetta Canyon Station will have an engine and a truck with one station captain, engineer, and two fire fighters. 4.11.1.2 Police Protection Police protection services are provided by the Lake Elsinore Police Department(LEPD)under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department(RCSD). Services include City police protection and the Lake Elsinore safety patrol. The LEPD also provides cooperative programs including community oriented policing, crime-free multi-housing,Neighborhood Watch, and other deterrents to crime. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff s Station is located at 333 W. Limited Avenue in the City of Lake Elsinore, approximately 0.7 mile from the project site(Figure 4.11-1). The station is staffed by 123 sworn officers and 23 non-sworn personnel. The Lake Elsinore Police Department Lake Patrol includes 20 sworn personnel, four boats, and four personal watercraft. The Lake Patrol is also augmented by a special group of volunteers known as Lake Elsinore Marine Search and Rescue(LEMSAR). The department's standard at the Lake Elsinore station for minimal acceptable response times by sworn Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-1 City of Lake Elsinore FD ` Revised Draft EIR "2A4ZJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EJM4.11_Spyglass Public Services.doc 4.11 Public Services personnel is to respond to"Priority 1"calls within 6 minutes or less. Current police staffing requirements for Lake Elsinore are the same as for the County at 1.2 officers per 1,000 population. Average response times for City police protection vary due to the differing priorities of each call received by 911 and dispatched to officers. What may begin as a lower priority due to information initially received by Central Dispatch may become a"Priority 1"situation when the officers arrive at the location; therefore, these response times cannot be accurately averaged. LEPD indicates that every effort is made by sworn personnel at the Lake Elsinore Sheriff's station to respond to"Priority 1"calls within 6 minutes or less. This criterion for first response would also be applied to the proposed project. 4.11.1.3 Schools The City of Lake Elsinore is currently served by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District(LEUSD). There are thirteen elementary schools, four middle schools,three high schools, and one continuation high school that serve the District. There are no schools present on the project site. Schools within proximity to the project site are shown in Figure 4.11-1. The proposed project is currently located within the attendance boundaries of Tuscany Hills Elementary School, Canyon Lake Middle School, and Temescal Canyon High School. Table 4.11-1 shows the enrollment and capacity for each of these schools for the 2006/07 school year. Each of the schools serving the proposed project has available capacity. There are 25 seats available at Tuscany Hills Elementary, 55 seats available at Canyon Lake Middle School, and 426 seats available at Temescal Canyon High School. However,per communication with LEUSD and according to the District-wide School Facilities Master Plan,the district is experiencing substantial growth and would not adequately meet future demand for schools. Table 4.11-1, Capacity and Enrollment at Project-Service Schools for 2006/07 School Year School Enrollment Capacity Seats Available Tuscany Hills Elementary School 623 648 25 Canyon Lake Middle School 1,297 1,352 55 Temescal Canyon High School 2,074 2,634 426 Source:Communication with Karen Koski,LEUSD,January 3,2007(Appendix 1). 4.11.1.4 Libraries The Riverside County Library System(RCLS)is a network of public and academic libraries serving Riverside County. It is administered by Library Systems and Services, Inc. (LSSI) for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The RCLS serves library users at 28 libraries throughout the County. Libraries within proximity to the project site are shown in Figure 4.11-1. The project site is currently served by two facilities: • Lake Elsinore Library located at 600 W. Graham Avenue in Lake Elsinore; and • Lakeside Library located at 32593 Riverside Drive in Lake Elsinore. � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-2 City of Lake Elsinore L �L D Revised Draft EIR May 2A97.January 2008 X.1010570_01y_of Lake_ElsinoreW664 Spyglass16 CEQA1Rna1 EIR14 11_Spyglass Public Services.doc FTT 74 r— UNICORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY--� II UNICORPORATED Cit Of Temescal_Canyon RIVERSIDE-COUNTY y' Hi scat-C nyo Canyon lake Fire.Station No:60 City of Lake Elsinore Tuscany Hills Pro posed Elementary School Ile p ` Project c� 0 Proposed Fire.Station Lake Elsinore ' Branch,L'i bra" Fire-Station No. 10 ry s " ?Prop-osed Fire-Station u Lake Elsinore Pa'froaa�anyo�Fd 0 Police Station E Lak shore CanyonjLa`e /or Middle:Schaol Lake � Clsiaorc 0UNICORPORATED w RIVERSIDE COUNTY b F v � \ � ILJ�-1• Fire Station No' 11 b N N w o . Fire Station -T) Police/Sheriff Station o'�Le " r School N Mission Trail Library 0 Library 1 f ` 0 0.5 % 1 Mile ® Project Site 1 Public Services FIGURE 4.11-1 �R Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY IMany Solutions- 1 - 4.11 Public Services In addition,the City has begun planning for a new library, although discussions are still at the initial stages and completion is,at a minimum,two to three years into the future. The Lake Elsinore Library currently contains 57,509 volumes. The Lakeside Library currently holds approximately 13,000 volumes. 4.11.2 Project Impacts 4.11.2.1 Fire Protection The impact analysis for fire protection would be applicable whether Planning Areas 5 and 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses. Both types of land use would increase the demand on fire protection services. During construction and operation of the proposed project, compliance with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements would be required and conditioned to the proposed project. The project would comply with the 2006 International Fire Code, California Building Code, and applicable RCFD Code ` requirements and standards for construction,access,water mains,fire flow, and fire hydrants. RCFD indicated fire flow requirements within Schedule A(residential housing tracts)are set at a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute at a residual operating pressure of 20 psi for a period of 2 hours. Any water system would be designed to meet this demand and flow. For commercial land uses, a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute is required. l RCFD guidelines establish a level of service standard of seven minutes to any location within the city. As identified previously,the proposed project would receive fire protection from Fire Station No. 10. This station is located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site and is equipped with three engines, lincluding one City Medic engine and two state engines. This station would respond to the project site within 3-5 minutes after dispatch. Fire protection service to the project site would also be provided by Fire Stations No. 94, 85, and the future Rosetta Canyon station. Each of these stations is (or would be) located within three miles of the project site and could respond within approximately 5-10 minutes. However,based upon communication with RCFD1, while current staff levels are sufficient to meet existing demands,the additional demand generated by the proposed project could not be handled with current staffing levels. Demands would be met with the development of the Rosetta Canyon station. With development of this station, existing services would be able to accommodate existing plus project demands. Therefore,there is no need for additional facilities and/or equipment to serve the proposed project site. In addition,all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement,Fire,and Paramedic Services). Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not hinder the attainment of established level of service goals,there would be no need for new facilities and/or equipment,and a less than significant impact is anticipated. 4.11.2.2 Police Protection The impact analysis for police protection would be applicable whether Planning Areas 5 and 6 are developed with multi-family uses or commercial uses. Both types of land use would increase the demand on police protection services. ' Communication with Scott DeForge,Assistant Fire Marshal,Riverside County Fire Department,sent March 15, 2007. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-5 City of Lake Elsinore f \ Revised Draft EIR May 2AQ7.anuary 2008 X.1010570_Ci1y_of Lake_E1sinoreW664_SpyglassW CEQAIFinal EIRI4.11_Spyglass Public Services.doc 4.11 Public Services The LEPD currently employs 123 sworn officers and the officer ratio of one sworn officer per 1,000 population is met. Current response times for emergency calls for service are less than five minutes,which meets the department's standard for response times. According to communication with the LEPD,2 the station currently has adequate staffing to handle the generation of 2,897 residents for the proposed project. Therefore,there is no need for additional sworn officers, services, or infrastructure to serve the proposed project site. In addition,all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities District(CFD)No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement,Fire,and Paramedic Services). Consequently, there would be no need for new facilities and/or equipment,and a less than significant impact is anticipated. 4.11.2.3 Schools The proposed project includes the development of,at a maximum, 1,035 housing units with an estimated increase of 2,897 persons in residential population. In the event that Planning Areas 5 and 6 are developed with commercial uses,there would be a reduction in the amount of students generated by the project.However,the EIR assumes the scenario where the maximum number of students would be generated. The number of students projected to be generated at build-out of the proposed project is shown in Table 4.11-2 below. The generation factors er dwelling unit were obtained through communication with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. As shown in Table 4.11-2,the proposed project is expected to generate 636 total students. Of the 636 total estimated students, 283 would be elementary school students, 170 would be middle school students, and 183 would be high school students. LEUSD has indicated that students generated by the proposed project would exceed the available capacity at the elementary and middle schools in the project vicinity. Table 4.11-2. Proposed Project Student Generation Impacts Generation Factor Proposed Seats Resulting Seat Students/ Project Available at Deficiency at School School Dwelling Unit' Generation School2 with Project Tuscany Hills Elementary School 0.3698 283 25 -258 Canyon Lake Middle School ` 0.1640 170 55 -115 Temescal Canyon High School 0.1766 183 426 243 Total 636 426 .130 Notes: 1 Generation rates provided by LEUSD(Appendix 1). 2 See Table 4.1$1 for information on seat availability per school. Because the proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 636 students to LEUSD, and the elementary and middle schools identified to serve the proposed project would not meet the expected generation,a significant impact to school services is anticipated. In their December 18, 2006 correspondence (Appendix I),LEUSD has requested that an elementary school be included as part of the 2 Communication with Beth Decou,Crime Prevention Officer,City of Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff s Station,sent December 19,2006. 3 Communication with Mike Sattley,Director of Facilities Services,Lake Elsinore Unified School District,sent December 18,2006. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-6 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR Ma 4907 nuary 2008 X.,1010570_City_ol Lake Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEOAIFinal EIRI4.11_Spyglass_Public Services.doc +r- I 4.11 Public Services proposed project. Subsequent to the submittal of that letter,however, LEUSD, City Staff and representatives from the proposed project and adjacent projects attended a meeting to discuss the best location for the elementary school site. It was agreed upon at the meeting on February 9, 2007,that LEUSD would place the elementary school on the South Shore II project site located to the east of the proposed project. The proposed project is working with LEUSD, the City and the neighboring development to ensure road connectivity is provided between sites. In addition,the proposed project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD pursuant to the School Facilities Act(Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407)to offset these impacts on school facilities resulting from I new development. SB 50 provides limitations on development fee exactions for school mitigation purposes, specifying that it is the exclusive method for financing school facilities and provides the exclusive method for mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities. Compliance with SB 50 is considered to be full and complete mitigation of impacts on adequate school facilities. The amount would be determined at the time of project approval. Payment of required school mitigation fees would reduce impacts to schools to below a level of significance. I 4.11.2.4 Libraries r In the event that Planning Areas 5 and 6 are developed with commercial uses,there would be a reduction in the amount of library resources needed to serve the project. However, the EIR assumes the scenario where the maximum number of students would be generated. According to the RCLS,the existing library capacity within the project vicinity is adequate to serve the current population. In addition,Riverside County has planned for library service to meet anticipated I growth along the I-15 corridor, including the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is within the scope of what can be served by the current library configuration in the area, and a less than significant impact is anticipated.4 In addition,the proposed project is required to participate in the Riverside County r Uniform Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on new residential housing developments to support future facility development and library material purchases. 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts Fire Protection Services 1 Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other development in the area would result in a cumulative increase in fire protection requirements due to a collective increase to the City's fire protection service load. As with the proposed project, development of future projects would require participation in the CFD No. 2003-1 to offset any additional fire protection services needed to serve the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to fire protection services. lPolice Protection Services The cumulative residential population increase associated with development of the proposed project and related projects is expected to collectively intensify the City's police protection service load to the project ` site. Similar to the proposed project, development of the related projects would require participation in the CFD No. 2003-1 to offset any additional police protection services need to serve the project site. 4 Electronic communication from Mark Smith,Administrator,Riverside County Library System, sent November 9, 2006(Appendix J). isSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-7 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 209;January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl8 CEOAIFinal EIRK11_Spyglass_Public Services doc 4.11 Public Services Therefore,the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to police protection services. Schools Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would result in a cumulative increase in student population. However, as with the proposed project, other development projects would be required to pay applicable developer fees levied by LEUSD,pursuant to S13 50, to offset these impacts on school facilities resulting from new development. Therefore,the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to schools. Libraries Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would result in a cumulative increase in demand for library facilities and services. Similar to the proposed project, development of related projects would require participation in the County's Uniform Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on new residential housing developments to support future facility development and offset any potential impacts to libraries. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to library services. 4.11.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation 4.11.4.1 Fire Protection According to RCFD,while current staff levels are sufficient to meet existing demands, additional demand generated by the proposed project can not be handled by current staff levels; however, all demands can be adequately handled with development of the Rosetta Canyon station. Response times from fire stations within the vicinity of the project site are approximately 5-7 minutes; therefore,the stations in the area would meet the required service criteria. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.11.4.2 Police Protection According to the LEPD,there is adequate staffing to provide service to the project site. No additional facilities, equipment, or officers are necessary. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. 4.11.4.3 Schools The proposed project would generate approximately 636 total students. While the LEUSD currently operates below capacity,the generation of additional students would contribute to a deficiency in available seats in the district. The proposed project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD pursuant to S13 50,to reduce these impacts on school facilities resulting from new development. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.11.4.4 Libraries According to the RCLS,the existing and planned library facilities in the area are sufficient to serve the current and future residents generated by the proposed project. However, the project is required to pay a fee for library collections and facilities development as part of the uniform mitigation fee adopted by the T>'7 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-8 City of Lake Elsinore L t ai Revised Draft EIR Ma52QPJAnuary 200g X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore1526B4_Spyglass18 CEQAIFinal EIR14.11_Spyglass_Public Services.doc �l 4.11 Public Services County in 2002. The proposed project would not contribute a significant impact to library services in the area. 4.11.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures Fire Protection No impacts to fire protection services are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,no mitigation measures are recommended. Police Protection No impacts to police protection services are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,no mitigation measures are recommended. Schools No impacts to school services are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,no mitigation measures are recommended. iLibraries 1 No impacts to library services are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,no mitigation measures are recommended. 4.11.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation l 4.11.6.1 Fire Protection Impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. I 4.11.6.2 Police Protection Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. 4.11.6.3 Schools Impacts to schools servicing the proposed project site would be less than significant. 4.11.6.4 Libraries Impacts to libraries would be less than significant. 4.11.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),the Lake Elsinore Unified School District(LEUSD)indicated that they would not have sufficient capacity to handle the elementary students that would be generated by the proposed project in addition to other development projects. In addition,an elementary school was also requested to be located within the project site. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-9 City of Lake Elsinore FDRRevised Draft EIR AA 4491-January 2008 X.•1010570_Cily_of Lake_Elsinors152664_SpyglasslB_CEQAWinal EIR14.11_Spyglass_Public Services.doc 4.11 Public Services Section 4.11.2.3 addresses the project's impacts on LEUSD. Subsequent to submittal of the response letter, LEUSD, City Staff,and representatives from the proposed project and other projects attended a meeting to discuss the best location for the elementary school. This issue is discussed further in Section 4.11.2.3, as well. As stated above,payment of applicable development fees levied by LEUSD pursuant to SB 50 would reduce impacts to school facilities resulting from new development to less than significant. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.11-10 City of Lake Elsinore j Revised Draft EIR May2A9�January 2008 X.•1010570 City_ol Lake Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFina/EIR14.1 1_Spyglass Public Services.doc 4.12 Recreation 4.12 RECREATION According to the existing City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Open Space/Conservation element,parks represent an important resource in the City for the preservation of natural resources, the managed i production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project to existing recreational facilities and to potential impacts resulting from construction of new parks. 4.12.1 Environmental Setting A variety of recreational amenities currently exists within and in proximity to the City of Lake Elsinore, I including the lake itself, the adjacent Cleveland National Forest, local and regional parks, athletic fields, and access to school facilities. According to the City's General Plan,there are several regional recreational facilities within the City, including Lake Point Park, Swick Park, and other recreation areas currently totaling approximately 35 acres. The school playground facilities at Machado Elementary ` School are also open for general public use. In addition,the California Department of Parks and Recreation currently operates and maintains three recreation facilities along the lake perimeter including 1 the Riverside Drive Campground, Temescal Wash Day-Use Area, and Four Corners Boat Landing. The 1 total state park boundary,including the lake, is approximately 3,000 acres. An additional 330 acres is identified in the City's General Plan to be developed in the future. I The Quimby Act requires the dedication of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City of Lake Elsinore has adopted a more strict standard requiring dedication of land or payment of an in lieu fee, of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Following this standard,the City would need 191.7 acres of parkland to support its January 2006 population of 38,340 residents. According to the City's General Plan Update,there are 267.11 acres currently being used for open space and parkland. Thus,the city is in excess of the park space requirement by 75.41 acres. 4,12.2 Project Impacts 1 As defined in Appendix G (XI) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines,project impacts to recreation are considered significant if any of the following occur: The project increases 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; or • The project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 4.12.2.1 Environmental Impacts The proposed project includes the development of approximately 94.7 acres of open space and recreation land use(including natural and manufactured open space, and recreational uses). Of this total, 6.5 acres would be parks. Two neighborhood parks would provide 6.5 acres of recreation within the project site: a larger 3.5-acre park is intended to serve the active recreational needs of the community, while a smaller 3.0-acre park would provide both active and passive recreation uses. The proposed park areas are shown on Figure 4.12-1. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.12-1 City of Lake Elsinore _` Revised Draft EIR X1010570_City_or Lake_E1sinore152684_SpyglasAB_CEQAIFinal EIR14.12 Spyglass_Recreation.doc 4.12 Recreation Pursuant to City standards, five acres of park area arc to be dedicated for each 1,000 subdivision residents, cash in-lieu fees, or a combination of both,as a condition of residential development approval. In the event that Planning Areas 5 and 6 arc developed with commercial uses, there would be a reduction in the amount of parkland needed for the project,as the number of future residents would be less. However,the EIR assumes the scenario where the maximum number of residents would be generated. By this standard,the City of Lake Elsinore would require the proposed project to include 14.5 acres of park area to serve the projected 2,897 residents. Therefore,the project does not provide sufficient amount of park space to meet the requirements of City standards and pursuant to the Quimby Act, cash in-lieu fees would be required for the remaining 8 acres. Adherence to the design standards outlined in the Specific Plan would ensure that the construction of the new parks would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. 4.12.3 Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the population of the City of Lake Elsinore by approximately 2,897 residents. Combined with the population increase generated from the projects listed in Table 3.5-1,the proposed project would cumulatively increase the need for parks and recreational facilities. The proposed project includes 6.5 acres of dedicated park space and would pay in- lieu park fees for the remaining required acreage. Therefore,with the combination of new park space,in- lieu park fees, and adherence to park design standards,the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities. 4.12.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation The increase of 2,897 residents to the City of Lake Elsinore would represent an increase in demand for existing parks and recreational facilities. However,the proposed project includes development of 6.5 acres of park space and payment of required park fees. Furthermore, adherence to the design standards outlined in the Specific Plan would ensure that the construction of the new parks would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to recreation. 4.12.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated for the proposed project;therefore,no mitigation measures pertaining to recreation would be required. 4.12.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation The provision of 6.5 acres of park land and payment of required park fees would ensure that project- specific and cumulative impacts to recreation would be less than significant. 4.12.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation(NOP),no responses were received pertaining to recreation. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.12-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May2097-January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Leke_Elsinorel52664_SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal EIRI4.12 Spyglass Recreation.doc 1 J •- Sev Y'1't'� � yl '� - PA 14E PABS � Open Space 1 Open Space � 16 AC •� _ -. 116 AC PA 14D Q� . •s('��` Open Space NAP: FA i I �(L :.I Ar i L+lgAe'r S de rarely Reodennal H� ul J �.PttUAC. � PA 00, hAa _ - 0 \ _�i oldAwdmpal Open SC Space � t"VV. 4.1 AC PA 14C ti V Open Space vl 1 T PA 14S \` ss AC r \ y l,� 1 �` Open Spam zA PA BA S.7 AC Open Space !ln',>Ic Famll•Fnet.iemu�l ^ 39.7 AC 'db AC F•y, ra o tsurAO � �X 0.4 PA 13 Park ) 35 AC 'PA 14A Open Spa« - - s f Off\ 63 AC Cr STAT/STJCAt SUMMARY LAND USE ACRES DENSITY DU's �s \ Residential 1.1 8 tt.4AC Estate Residential(0-2 DU/AC) 7.5 ��`^ ILOW. a An a-famr Residenoa!(4-8 DU/AC) 113.2 4.5 515 22 1 6.6 9.2 171 Cour and Homes(8-15 DU/AC) �`. 14.5 73.5 341 Mult,-Family Residential(15-24 DU/AO •"� sue` \ ResidentialSubtotals 153.8 6.7 1,035 ` PA 8A C�Pm Space 'y• M't K Non•ReBldential o"i?Ac Open Spa— Marcy Circulation o -NorrResidential Subtotals 105.8 -- \ c •. ° ® Includes 0.7 AC Under Separate Ownership .. Proposed Water Tank Locations 0 250 500 Feet - * I(Plan ing Areas Sand 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial s land use designation shall apply for development consistent with this Specific Plan. , r -!- E Proposed Open Space and Recreation Plan FIGURE 4.12-1 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions" B �ET"C' `4 , 0000!'-manrm -' o Z I000 LEGEND l Major Highway - 100' ROW Secondar�r 90' ROW s ` Local Road - 60' ROW l 1 • N m 0 250 500 Feet - Proposed Circulation Plan FIGURE 4.13-2 Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report ONE COMPANY I Many SolutionsW r i P r- 4.13 Trans ortation/Traffic onsite during the grading and excavation phases. Construction-associated traffic would be minimally affected along streets in the project vicinity, and grading and construction vehicles would affect traffic to varying degrees during these phases. A less than significant impact is identified for construction. I Alternative Transportation Two existing RTA bus routes are located near the project site along Railroad Canyon Road. RTA is also coordinating with the adjacent development to the southeast of the proposed project who would construct Camino del Norte (Pers. Comm. Michael McCoy). Per communication with RTA,bus stops/turnouts would be required along Camino del Norte. In addition,RTA has indicated bus stops/turnouts could be ` planned along Elsinore Hills Road, La Strada Parkway, and/or the future Aventino Street within the 1 neighboring project site. These bus facilities would be located immediately adjacent to the project site and would provide service to residents of the proposed project. This encourages alternative transportation as a viable alternative to automobile transport. Long-Term Operational Impacts—Level of Service Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to and produced by a development. For the proposed project, additional traffic to the area would be generated from the development of single- and multi-family residential dwelling units. It should be noted that the project allows for commercial- retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. A higher number of I trips would be generated should a portion of the project site be developed with commercial-retail uses. For the purposes of this analysis,the maximum trip generation would be used for the proposed project to provide a conservative analysis. I For the commercial retail portion of the project, a portion of the traffic would come from pass-by trips from adjacent roadways and are trips that are currently on the roadway system. To analyze a "conservative"scenario in terms of the assignment of traffic,the traffic volumes from the commercial- retail portion of the project have not been reduced as a result of pass-by trips. ( The number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project was estimated based on data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 4.13-3 summarizes the daily and peak ii hour trip generation rates and volumes for the proposed project. As a commercial retail trip generated by the project would also be making trips to a residential land use within the project, a double counting of those trips occurs. The trip generation for the project accounts for the internal interaction(10%)between I the proposed land uses. As shown, the proposed development is estimated to generate a maximum of 13,189 average daily trips(ADT),with 597 AM peak hour trips and 1,275 PM peak hour trips. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site,the location of residential, employment, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. To determine the traffic distributions for the proposed project,peak hour traffic counts of the existing directional distribution of traffic for existing areas in the vicinity of the site and other additional information on future development and traffic impacts in the area were reviewed. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-11 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2Qg;EJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportation_Trafic doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.13-3. Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimated Trip Generation Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Analysis Zone Land Use Quantity Unitsl Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily Single-Family Detached DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 9.57 Residential Multi-Family DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.86 Attached Residential Commercial Retail TSF 0.82 0.53 1.35 2.65 2.87 5.52 59.63 Project Trip Generation 1 Multi-Family 96 DU 7 36 43 34 16 50 563 Attached Residential Single-Family 2 Detached 233 DU 44 130 174 149 86 235 2,230 Residential 3 Multi-Family 341 DU 24 126 150 119 58 177 1,998 Attached Residential Single-Family Detached 290 DU 55 162 217 186 107 293 2,775 4 Residential Multi-Family 75 DU 5 28 33 26 13 39 440 Attached Residential Subtotal 60 190 250 212 120 332 3,215 Total 1,035 DU 135 482 117 514 280 794 8,006 Alternative Project Trip Generation 1 Multi-Family 96 DU 7 36 43 34 16 50 563 Attached Residential Single-Family 2 Detached 233 DU 44 130 174 149 86 235 2,230 Residential 3 Commercial Retail 145,000 TSF 119 77 196 384 416 800 8,646 Single-Family Detached 290 DU 55 162 217 186 107 293 2,775 4 Residentia12 Multi-Family 75 DU 5 28 33 26 13 39 440 Attached Residential Subtotal 694 60 190 250 212 120 332 3,215 Total 230 433 663 779 638 1,417 14,654 I r.F.......1/4/\a/1 nn An CC 7n nA AAn A A^ 111LU1I101 1 I V/0/ GJ 4J I VU to V4 141- 11,4VJ Grand Total 207 390 597 1 701 574 1,275 1 13,189 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,7th Edition,2003,Land Use Categories 210,230,and 820. 1 DU=Dwelling Units;TSF=Thousand Square Feet 2 A total of 10,000 square feet per acre has been assumed for the 14.5 acre commercial retail planning areas. ��JJ.FDR Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-12 City of Lake Elsinore j� Revised Draft EIR May29G3January 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake Elsinorel52664_SpyglasslB CEWIFinal EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportafion_Trafrc.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation,trip distribution, and the proposed arterial highway and local street systems which would be in { place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. Opening Year(2009) Without and With Project r To assess opening year(2009)without and with project traffic conditions,project traffic is combined with existing traffic, areawide growth, and other development. To account for areawide growth on project f roadways, opening year(2009)traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 2 percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a three year period. Areawide growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways in addition to traffic generated by other development and the proposed project. Other development in the vicinity of the project site has been determined for opening year(2009)without and with project traffic conditions based on communication with City staff. The individual cumulative projects trip distribution maps are included in the Traffic Impact Study r (Appendix J.1). Opening Year(2009) Without Project As demonstrated in Table 4.13-4, for opening year(2009)without project conditions,the following i roadway intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours without additional improvements: i • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74 (EW)—PM peak hour • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Main Street(EW)—PM peak hour • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—AM and PM peak hours • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74(EW)—PM peak hour • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS) at Main Street(EW)—AM and PM peak hours • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—AM and PM peak hours • Dexter Avenue (NS) at Central Avenue/SR-74 (EW)—PM peak hour • Camino del Norte(NS)at Main Street(EW)—PM peak hour I Camino del Norte(NS)at Franklin Street(EW)—PM peak hour • Suinmerhill Drive(NS) at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—AM and PM peak hours toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-13 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR A4ay�9A�January 2008 XA010570_City_of Lake Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.13-4. Opening Year(2009)Without and With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Without Project Conditions With Project Conditions Traffic Delay(Secs.)-LOS' Delay(Secs.)-LOS' Intersection Contro12 AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 40.0-D 99.9-F3 40.3-D 99.9-F3 Main Street(EW) CSS 32.5-D 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps(NS)at: _ Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 43.0-D 99.9-F 43.6-D 99.9-F Main Street(EW) CSS 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F Dexter Avenue(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS_ 34.9-C 99.9-F 35.1-D 99.9-F Cambern Avenue(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 27.3-C 35.5-D 27.3-C 35.9-D Camino Del Norte(NS)at: Main Street(EW) CSS 19.2-C 38.7-E 99.9-F 99.9-F Elsinore Hills Road(EW) TS 13.5-13 14.3-13 15.4-13 25.6-13 La Strada(EW) TS 14.1-B 16.2-13 14.5-B 16.4-13 Franklin Street(EW) _ CSS 14.0-13 35.7-E 16.4-C 99.9-F Summerhill Drive(NS)at: Canyon Estates Drive(EW) TS 18.7-B 23.1-C 18.9-B 24.4-C Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F 99.9-F Notes: Unaccebtable LOS(E or F)are shown in bold. 'Delay and Level of Service has been calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.8.0115(2006). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 2TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 399.9-F=Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service F. Opening Year(2009) With Project As demonstrated in Table 4.13-4, for opening year(2009)with project conditions,the following roadway intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hour conditions without additional improvements: • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) at Central Avenue/SR-74(EW)-PM peak hour • 1-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) at Main Street(EW)-AM and PM peak hours • 1-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)-AM and PM peak hours • 1-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74(EW)-PM peak hour j_T>� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-14 City of Lake Elsinore ��jD Revised Draft EIR May 2997-January 2008 X.•1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14 13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic.doc I . 4.13 Transportation/Traffic • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Main Street EW —AM and PM peak hours � p ) ( ) • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—AM and PM peak hours • Dexter Avenue(NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74 (EW)—PM peak hour • Camino del Norte(NS)at Main Street(EW)—AM and PM peak hours • Camino del Norte(NS)at Franklin Street(EW)—PM peak hour I • Summerhill Drive(NS) at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—AM and PM peak hours The following intersection would decrease from acceptable LOS D to unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour: • Camino del Norte(NS)at Main Street(EW)—AM peak hour General Plan Buildout Without and With Project The General Plan Buildout traffic volumes have been obtained from the City's traffic model which has been modified to support the General Plan updated process. The future peak hour approach and departure volumes obtained from the traffic model are consistent with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255. The final forecasted traffic volumes have also been examined against the interim year traffic volumes to ensure there is no negative growth from interim year to General Plan conditions. Additionally,traffic volume flow conservation check and possible manual adjustments have been conducted to ensure that traffic flow, especially at the interchange areas, is reasonable. This scenario assumes that General Plan improvements have been made to the study intersections. The project's i required contribution into the Western Riverside TUMF program would contribute to these intersection improvements shown in Tables 5 and 6 of the Traffic Study(Appendix J1). 1 General Plan Buildout Without Project As demonstrated in Table 4.13-5,for General Plan buildout without project traffic conditions, all roadway 1 intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour conditions. General Plan Buildout With Project As demonstrated in Table 4.13-5, for General Plan buildout with project traffic conditions, all roadway intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour conditions. Modeling conducted for the study area intersections indicated that these intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service under Long Range General Plan buildout conditions, both with and without the proposed project. The City Engineer has reviewed the site conditions and has concluded that heavy vehicle queuing on Main Street between Camino del Norte and the I-15 suthbound ramps would occur during the peak hours due to the proximity of the intersections and other physical topographical constraints. Since the intersections are located less than the Caltrans minimum distance of 400 feet of each other and due to the probability that queuing would result in actual operations that are not acceptable, a significant cumulative impact is identified for General Plan buildout. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-15 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR May 2007January 2008 X.•1010570_QIy_of Lake Elsinore152664_Spyglassl&_CEQAIFinal EIRW 13_Spyglass_Transportafion Traffic.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.13-5. General Plan Buildout Without and With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Without Project Conditions With Project Conditions Traffic Delay(Secs.)-LOSS _ Delay(Secs.)-LOS' Intersection Contro12 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 10.7-B 10.2-B 10.7-B 10.2-B Main Street(EW) TS 17.2-B 18.5-B 17.7-B 21.4-C Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 0.4-A 0.5-A 0.4-A 0.5-A 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW)3 I Main Street(EW) TS 36.5-D 17.6-B 45.3-D 24.4-C Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 0.2-A 0.4-A 0.2-A 0.4-A Dexter Avenue(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 29.1-C 45.1-D 29.1-C 45.0-D Cambern Avenue(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 39.2-D 50.1-D 40.5-D 50.3-D Camino Del Norte(NS)at: Main Street(EW) TS 21.1-C 25.2-C 25.5-C 40.7-C Elsinore Hills Road(EW) TS 15.2-13 19.1-B 16.8-B 32.1-C La Strada(EW) TS 15.2-13 17.4-13 15.3-B 17.8-B Franklin Street(EW) TS 12.2-13 14.5-13 12.2-B 15.3-B Summerhill Drive(NS)at: Canyon Estates Drive(EW) TS 23.7-C 39.2-C 24.2-C 45.1-D Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 49.6-D 49.3-D 50.4-D 49.9-D Notes: 'Delay and Level of Service has been calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.8.0115(2006). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown 2TS=Traffic Signal 3New Interchange Design Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants have been analyzed for each of the project study intersections. The following study area intersections are projected to warrant a traffic signal based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis or opening year(2009)without project traffic conditions: • Camino del Norte (NS)at.Main Street(EW) • Camino del Norte (NS)at Elsinore Hills Road(EW) • Camino del Norte (NS) at Franklin Street(EW) tSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-16 City of Lake Elsinore .\ Revised Draft EIR May-289-7,)anuary 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14 13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic.doc r 4.13 Transportation/Traffic I The following study area intersection is projected to warrant a traffic signal based upon the peak hour Jsignal warrant analysis for opening year(2009)with project traffic conditions: • Camino del Norte (NS) at La Strada Parkway(EW) 1 Traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix D of the traffic impact study. 1 Air Traffic The nearest public airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 7.25 miles northeast of the project site. The nearest private airstrip to the project site is the Skylark Airfield, located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project does not propose land uses that would result in a change in air traffic patterns at either airport. Hazards/Incompatible Uses The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates specific design criteria for street improvements. Implementation of the design criteria assures that all street improvements are safely designed. The proposed project would comply with all specified design criteria. The proposed project would construct residential and potentially commercial uses within an area that is designated for future specific plan, freeway business, and neighborhood commercial uses by the City's General Plan such that development of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to incompatible uses. ti Emergency Access l As identified above, 10 intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the opening year (2009) scenario. All study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the General Plan buildout scenario. While conditions would improve in the long term, substantial impacts to 2009 conditions may impede emergency access to the project site. However, sight distance at each project access will be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of f Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. Impacts to emergency access will be less than significant. Parking Capacity I The proposed project would provide sufficient parking in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. I 4.13.3 Cumulative Impacts The preceding analysis of the proposed project is based on methodologies that incorporate the cumulative effects of traffic from general growth and anticipated development in the area. This reflects background traffic and traffic from areawide growth already approved by the City of Lake Elsinore,plus the development of the proposed project. To account for areawide growth on project roadways, opening year 1 (2009)traffic volumes have been calculated based on a two percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a three year period. Areawide growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways in addition to traffic generated by other development and the proposed project. As identified above,traffic from the proposed project would impact 10 intersections during the opening year(2009)scenario. While all project area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better in the General Plan buildout scenario, significant impacts during the opening year(2009) faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-17 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 2097january 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl8 CEOAIFina1 EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic scenario create cumulatively significant impacts to the regional circulation grid. Cumulative impacts are significant and require mitigation. 4.13.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation Site Access and Circulation As identified above,vehicular access to the project site would be provided by the existing Main Street off-ramp of the I-15 freeway and the Camino del Norte frontage road. Major north-south access through the project site would be provided via Elsinore Hills Road. Roadway classifications within the project site have been designed in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Therefore, impacts relating to site access and circulation would be less than significant. Construction-Related Impacts No import and export of fill material is anticipated for grading. Minimal truck trips would be associated with grading because heavy construction equipment would be delivered to the site and remain onsite during the grading and excavation phases. Construction-associated traffic would be minimally affected along streets in the project vicinity. Construction-related impacts would therefore be less than significant. Alternative Transportation As identified above,RTA is coordinating with the adjacent development to the east of the proposed project who would construct Camino del Norte. Per communication with RTA,bus stops/turnouts would be required along Camino del Norte, and could potentially be planned along Elsinore Hills Road,La Strada Parkway,and/or Aventino Street. These bus facilities would encourage alternative transportation as a viable alternative to automobile transport. Impacts to alternative transportation would be less than significant. Long-Term Operational Impacts—Level of Service As mentioned above,traffic from the proposed project would add, at a maximum, 13,189 trips to the existing roadway network. These additional trips would contribute to a direct project impact at the intersection of Camino del Norte and Main Street during the PM peak hour under the opening year(2009) scenario. The project would also contribute to 10 already failing intersections during the opening year (2009) scenario. In addition,traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted and indicated that traffic signals would be warranted for four intersections during the opening year(2009)with project scenario. Therefore,direct and cumulative impacts are considered significant for the opening year(2009)with project scenario and mitigation is required. Conversely, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the General Plan buildout scenario. However,the City Engineer has identified that there would be a high probability of heavy queuing on Main Street between Camino del Norte and the I-15 southbound ramps during peak hour under the General Plan buildout scenario due to the proximity of the intersections and other physical topographical constraints. Due to the probability of queuing,which would result in actual operations that are not acceptable, a significant cumulative impact is identified for General Plan buildout. Air Traffic The nearest public airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 7.25 miles northeast of the project site. The nearest private airstrip to the project site is the Skylark Airfield, located faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-18 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2 DQWAM 2 X1010570 City_o!Lake_Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIM4.13 SpyglassL Transportation Traffic doc 1 f_ 4.13 Transportation/Traffic approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project does not propose land uses that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. Impacts are less than significant. Hazards/Incompatible Uses The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates specific design criteria for street improvements. Implementation of the design criteria assures that all street improvements are safely designed. The proposed project would comply with all specified design criteria. The proposed project would construct residential and potentially commercial uses within an area that is designated for future specific plan, freeway business, and neighborhood commercial uses by the City's General Plan such that development of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Emergency Access I As identified above, 10 intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the opening year (2009) scenario. All study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better I during the General Plan buildout scenario. While conditions will improve in the long term, substantial i impacts to 2009 conditions may impede emergency access to the project site. However, sight distance at each project access would be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping,and street improvement plans. Impacts are,therefore, less than significant. Parking Capacity I The proposed project will provide sufficient parking in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Therefore,impacts are less than significant. 4.13.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures Traffic Capacity/Level of Service Implementation of the proposed project would result in the substantial generation of traffic in relation to the existing capacity of the surrounding street system, during the operation phase of the proposed project. In addition, several project-area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hour scenarios. The following improvements shall be constructed to address these impacts and are shown on Figure 4.13-3: On-site . MM 4.13-1 Construct Camino Del Norte from the west project boundary to the east project boundary at its ultimate cross-section width(widen from 2 lanes to four lanes)including sidewalk and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. MM 4.13-2 Construct Elsinore Hills Road from the north project boundary to Camino Del Norte at its ultimate cross-section width(widen from 2 lanes to four lanes)including sidewalk and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. MM 4.13-3 On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. fDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-19 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2007january 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake Elsinore152664_SpyglassIB CEQAIFinal EIR14.13_Spyglass Transportation_Traf6c.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Off-Site MM 4.134 In addition to participating in the Western Riverside TUMF program for General Plan improvements,the project shall participate in the phased construction of the off-site intersection improvements shown in Table 4.13-6 through payment of established City of Lake Elsinore fees,payment of the project's fair share traffic contribution, assessment district and/or community facilities district financing,and construction of off-site facilities under appropriate fee credit agreements. MM 4.13-5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall participate in the fair share traffic contribution of the Project Study Report(PSR)for the I-15/Main Street interchange. 4.13.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with respect to site access and circulation, construction-related impacts,alternative transportation, air traffic,hazards/incompatible uses, emergency access, and parking capacity. As demonstrated in Table 4.13-6, for opening year(2009)with project traffic conditions,all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with recommended improvements. Therefore, significant long-term operational impacts related to substantial increases in LOS on project-area roadways would be reduced through incorporation of MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-4 for all roadways with the exception of the I- 15/Main Street interchange. Although the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service under Long Range General Plan Buildout Conditions with mitigation, it is anticipated that heavy vehicle queuing on Main Street between Camino del Norte and the I-15 southbound ramps would occur during the peak hours. Geometric improvements to the intersections alone will not adequately address this issue due to their proximity to one another, in addition to other physical topographical constraints. The traffic study recommends that an alternative interchange design be developed by the City in conjunction with Caltrans through the project study report(PSR)process. As these conditions are likely to occur prior to General Plan Buildout,it is recommended that the PSR process begin immediately. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13- 5,which requires the project contribute on a fair share basis to the funding of this PSR,the impact to the 1-151 Main Street interchange would remain significant and unmitigated. A Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations would be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091 and 15093. 4.13.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments The Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency submitted a letter indicating that they had reviewed the Notice of Preparation(NOP)and had no comments. They are on the distribution list to receive a copy of this Draft EIR. lalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-20 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May2997-January 2008 X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEWIFinal EIR14 13_Spyglass_Transportation_ha(lic.doc Construct Camino Del Norte from the west project boundary to the cost (project boundary at Its ultimate cross-section width including sidewalk land parkway improvements In conjunction with development. Construct i]sfnore Hills Drive from the north project boundary to Camino Del Norte at Its ultimate cross--section width htduding sidewalk and i parkway improvements in. conjunction with development: Street'D' op i I Site [ [ h � 1 street. all ?s E _o `o 5 e' tP On-site traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. v Sight distance at each project access should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards of the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street Improvement plans. N Ed The project shall participate in the phased construction of the off-site intersection improvements through payment of established City of Lake s e end Elsinore fees, participation in the Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees program, payment of the projects fair share Q = Traffic Signal traffic contribution, assessment district end/or community facilities district STap= Stop Sign financing, and construction of off-site facilities under appropriate fee credit agreements. 0 a As Is the case for any roadway design, the City of Lake Elsinore should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the I project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are � satisfactory. —�H The project shall participate In the fair share traffic contribution of the 0 Project Study Report for the L-15 Freeway/Main Street interchange. N Circulation Improvements FIGURE 4.13-3 ONJ ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report U � o 00 ca N c li 0 L►- U LL 0 LL p Li U LL U LL U _N C �; C) L6 C6 O) O> ) to 0) LO m � 7 W ` O � C J � CT CV CA O 6 O O) CM O) OD CT a; c3i 7 LL C) LO O CV O O C) Lo m N (7) N O cM cd 0 0 y J O U) u_ — O ILc 0 m LL m LL U 0 U LL U IL. U U V A 6 � Lh 6 A to o0 m P�- C6 A r- A N G O 0) N cli N M N N cM m cu O O O O O C) O a-1 NI O �I M v r. c o .�O H N N N MI N N N MI M i Cl) J NI NI NI O O O O O O O � O O O O O O i+ .O d O a F-� N N N MI N N N MI N MI cc v LL O J O CD CD CD O O NI O Q 01 Q O C �I CDa--I CD O O CD O CD O CD o N fA H O O O O O O CD CD O CD CD CD C C o w.I N J �I � NI Lq O O CD O O O h4 N � _ G O O O O O O O A I O In O —I yl C � a rl O — 'I L H O O O O O O O O O O O v O — — Z Wi J O O O O O O NI O III g �ICD W �`+ to y m to coCn m y U m co y co y h� H H U HI H H H H U HI H H H H a o i c m co N a m m CL W 2 to Z, w cn mO = W- t� ti E E c E c c as m yy >) a) a a a a) m a a o >) a a) a) Ir - � �yc+ Eo E _> E > _Eo w > E W>, —E Eo Q> > E> Eao) yMO)0 m y Oa _ O a) O a) CO Oa) O m O N O n > n > m CO E o n n n U� oEoa m Ea ' CU o Cc on n o E E E E E > E n �xQo ov o Lo Lt -0C L Q SQ o�o L L dC) 00 O7 � U O C N � C LL U U m LL m U Li 0 fn w ai r; co 4 a6 M v rn o cn a) w Cd J I W M M N O CO N O O N N Y C N O O QS O p = H > N N > w m > O N Lev N m w >. m N a a �+ c U u- U m m U m m li 0 > c a> co C1 cn C `O r-_ m m LLB I;h cc o OD ai r- > > m I m N 0) N m t C C � ca O O AI e-I O O O O O •c Q U co p M _0 fU - a cU) r C —o U in U o a L - fD N d H N O O O O O O co M :2 ta) (a N y _m U) L N = U) 0; —�— S fn !F= O V O 2 to N L O U N N I 3 0 .0w w 3 w o n l o 0 o O o �Y a -o 2 '0E 6 d o fA C N CD v d O N a)CO 25 ea CV O O O O O V MY O c Jco LO IOU - LO : li O v W o LL p J CV CD CD O �I c4 c4 ? °O _2 O 0 O O Q C C pCp ti CL O U C C Q ` O_ - U CO w O O a) �I O ' Nli c0 2E2 a ca CD v p p gCA E 3 aEi X m a o CL O ~ co c a `� `o o N I I N J O O O NI �Y O O NI � •n N �Y c o U cn -F 3 -- c o o � N ccH ' A y :G y I- w O O O III O O O 2 c L_ O co ' co LL—i a L N ER C D O) 3 co ' CD 0 p - >i O C LL - a CIO 'I H �I �I N N CV (n -N II O O _N Li n U O) Q L O� 0 N ID C Z N +L.. O) C ^ a) C O N WI J O —I O CD O �I N N c m m (D a m c `O w 0).s c U) — it >c a o ' o (D O Q U ?i y C a) 7 W O) .2 L E E O- 3 m O>>-o U (n m NI NI NI m NI m cn cn f6 > ~ m o J �I A cp H U H H H U ~ H H H w cfc M E �� � aEi U) L O a m m m a� Lc 0 U 0 .9 O a O 0 O C C G m -0 N C A N Z E U) y N E ._L O O cn c 3 E N to 0 0 N L O > tm co O C O L d > 0 L m U N 2 V o co O>i E c u coi > aEi n � m v y m O�i � iO y� Z >o� G a a W c W c m m � potu) c EU aa) YI o c c w W E E cn 0 m c a> o > m w u W :7 h N N h a d o c� rn — m c 2 > C `o Ls Z ti Z E c W E c a> as > f° > cm > o cd 0 �- �- m aD m (D Z > O o E t L c CO H > Z . -- N� c N rn `� c� L O� fn N a (Y Q 12 C 0 E o> E y o a > c v .o o f E I I C C c� 0 E N O i�i y 2 N .c W 2 N .> c O c c� 3 m a; ►- � o �, IKO - mUo 0 o E Q m o O� O� � S c io m� Z W E Q cn y E Q Q c E (D m L II 3 J ca N o Y- LL .> T 5 o Q a� CD = W � - � m o - r t a� c o cn m m � 3 II �, � o. a)o Q O m E _ E :C O U t � .. p . � Z n m mcna; a� cn �i� ,a fD C Cn L_ t O a L L w CIOU N m e J .0 H Cn LL' RJ N 10 fC L6 N r 1� -J tL y UW c Z r~ 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems l 4.14 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS The following section describes existing water,wastewater, solid waste, and gas service systems and potential impacts of the proposed project on the availability of these facilities and services. Service provider letters are included in Appendix I. 4.14.1 Environmental Setting 4.14.1.1 Water Supply Water supply to the developed portions of western Riverside County(i.e.,the inland valley)is sustained by local groundwater, surface water from Canyon Lake, and imported water from northern California and the Colorado River. Riverside County incorporates four major watershed areas. The proposed project is in the southern portion of the Santa Ana River Basin watershed. A two-day to one-week water supply to meet peak demand is provided by many local water agencies within Riverside County. Long-term storage of large quantities of water is provided only at Metropolitan Water District(Metropolitan)and State of 1 California Department of Water Resources(DWR)facilities. II The project site is located within the water service area of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Located in southwestern Riverside County,EVMWD's service area includes the cities of Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake,Murrieta, and unincorporated communities. EVMWD is a sub-agency of 1 the Western Municipal Water District(WMWD), a member agency of Metropolitan. As a special district, EVMWD's powers include provision of public water service,water supply development and planning, f wastewater treatment and disposal, and recycling. EVMWD's water supply is a blend of local l groundwater from eight wells, surface water from Railroad Canyon Reservoir/Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plan, and imported water from Metropolitan through the Auld Valley and Temescal Valley Pipelines. 1 EVMWD prepared a district-wide Water Supply Assessment(WSA)pursuant to Senate Bill 6101 which describes existing and planned water supply and demand. The WSA also documents the district's ability to meet existing and planned future demands over a 20 year period. According to the WSA,EVMWD serves a total of 33,400 potable service connections with an annual demand of 26,939 acre feet per year as of January 2005. Existing supply is currently 48,900 acre feet per year. 4.14.1.2 Wastewater In addition to EVMWD's provision of public water service,water supply development, and planning, EVMWD also provides wastewater treatment and disposal, and recycling to the region, including the cities of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, as well as portions of Murrieta and the unincorporated County of Riverside. EVMWD's main wastewater collection and treatment facility is the Regional Wastewater 1 Signed into law October 9,2001, SB 610 resulted in amendments to the Public Resources Code and the Water Code. Revising provisions established by SB 901, SB 610 requires that any city or county having determined that a project is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment would include the identification of existing water entitlements,water rights,or water service contracts relevant to the water supply identified for a proposed project,and the amount of water received pursuant to such entitlements,rights,or contracts. LT1RSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May200:7January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake Elsinorel52664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRI4.14 Spyglass_Ufi7itles Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems Reclamation Facility(WRF)located in Lake Elsinore. The plant was completed in 1997, and expanded from 2.0 to 4.0 million gallons per day(mgd)in 1989, and to 8.0 mgd in 2000. The plant currently serves approximately 8,706 homes and businesses. Three other treatment plants provide additional wastewater treatment facilities: the Horsethief Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP),the Railroad Canyon WWTP,and RCWD's Santa Rosa WRF. According to the WSA prepared for EVMWD,wastewater production at the Regional WRF is currently 4.5 mgd. Future expansion to 30 mgd is possible on the plant's existing site. Current wastewater production represents 15 percent of the ultimate projected flow at the WRF. 4.14.1.3 Solid Waste County Facilities The Riverside County Waste Management Department(RC;WMD)provides solid waste disposal for cities and incorporated areas of the County, including the City of Lake Elsinore. RCWMD-is responsible for: (1)implementing the goals,policies, and objectives of the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE) for meeting the 50 percent diversion goals; (2)implementing programs that adhere to the goals,policies, and objectives outlined in the County's Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)for reducing household hazardous waste; (3)meeting the solid waste disposal needs of the County's residents; and(4)maintaining and updating the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP)and reporting on the County's progress in complying with Assembly Bill(AB) 939 (in which the state mandates volume and toxicity reduction of solid waste). The individual cities within the County, including Lake Elsinore,are independently responsible for the implementation of CIWMP goals and objectives to comply with AB 939. According to the RCIP General Plan EIR,the Riverside County Annual Report for 2000 (August 2001) documents that the County's disposal facilities provide more than 15 years of disposal capacity,based on projected growth in disposal with a 50 percent diversion rate. This includes seven eetivelandfills within the unincorporated area, six of which are operated by the County and the seventh(El Sobrante),which is privately owned and operated under an agreement with the County. Of these landfills,only three are active and would potentially serve the groiect site: El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill,and Badlands Landfill. A description of these landfills is provided below. Waste collection for the city is provided by CR&R Incorporated, a private waste hauler in Perris. CR&R is a private company that provides refuse hauling, recycling, and green waste disposal and is the operator of the Perris Material Recovery Facility (MRF) located at 1706 Goetz Road in the City of Perris. The landfill closest to the project site is El Sobrante Landfill, located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road in Corona. The Class III(non-hazardous municipal solid waste),permitted landfill is currently active and accepts mixed municipal waste, construction/demolition waste, and tires.z It has a total acreage of 1,322 acres and disposal acreage of 645495 acres. Permitted capacity of the landfill is approximately 109,000,00gi 84,930,000 tons. The remaining capacity(as of January 2007Be^^• 904)is 37,000A017233 1;000 tons. Total daily permitted capacity is 10,000 tons. The 2006 daily average volume disposed was 3,590 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is January 24-92031. 2 Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System(SWIS),November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number: 33-AA-0217. LT�`� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-2 City of Lake Elsinore j YR- Revised Draft EIR May299;,January 2008 X:1010570 Ciry_ol Lake Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEWIFinal EIM4.14 Spyglass_Utda,�s Service Syslems.doc I 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road. The Class III permitted landfill is currently active and accents agricultural,construction/demolition,dead animal, green material, industrial, inert,metal,mixed municipal,and tire waste.3 It has a total acreage of 1,109 acres and disposal acreage of 144.6 acres, Permitted capacity of the landfill is 16,244,000 tons. The remaining capacity(as of January 2007) is approximately 11310,000 tons. Total daily permitted capacity is 3,000 tons. The 2006 average volume disposed was 2,030 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is 2016. The Badlands Landfill is located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue. The Class III permitted landfill is currently active and accepts agricultural, ash, construction/demolition,dead animals,green materials, industrial, inert,metals,mixed municipal, tire, and wood waste.° It has a total acreage of 1,168.3 acres and disposal acreage of 150 acres. Permitted capacity of the landfill is 15.237,000 tons. The remaining capacity(as of January 2007) is approximately 8,653.000 tons. Total daily permitted capacity is 4,000 tons. The 2006 average volume disposed was 2,195 tons. The projected closure date of the facility is 2011. It should be noted that while El Sobrante Landfill is the closest landfill to the project site,it is the decision of CR&R Incorporated as to where the waste generated at the project site will be delivered. 4.14.1.4 Gas Services Southern California Gas Company, a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy, is the principal distributor of natural gas in southern California,providing retail and wholesale customers with transportation, exchange,and storage services and also procurement services to most retail core customers. Southern California Gas Company 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. I 4.14.2 Project Impacts 4.14.2.3 Thresholds of Significance Water According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,a significant impact on water supply would be identified if the proposed project is determined to result in one of the following: • Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. 3 Integrated Waste Management Board,Solid Waste Information System(SWIS).November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details.SWIS Number: 33-AA-0007. 4 Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System(SWIS),November 2006. Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number:33-AA-0006. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-3 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 2907Jamary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEQMFinal_EIRI4.14 Spyglass_UWi ias_Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems Wastewater According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a significant impact on wastewater utilities would be identified if the proposed project is determined to result in one of the following: • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; • Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; • Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Solid Waste According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a significant impact to solid waste services would be identified if the proposed project is determined to result in one of the following: • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; or • Project development does not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Gas Service A significant impact on gas services would be identified if the proposed project is determined to result in one of the following: • Require or result in the construction of new gas facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or • Have insufficient gas supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or require new or expanded entitlements. 4.14.2.4 Environmental Impacts Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of, at a maximum, 1,035 residential dwelling units on approximately 259.6 acres of undeveloped land. The estimated residential population would be approximately 2,898 persons. It should be noted that the project allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. Under the commercial use alternative, a maximum of 694 residential dwelling units and 145,000 square feet of commercial uses would be developed. For the purposes of this analysis,the maximum generation rates would be used for the proposed project to provide a conservative analysis. iaiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-4 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May-2ONJanuary 2008 X.1010570 City_or Leke_E1sinore152664_Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR14.14 Spyglass_UIilitios_Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems Water Figure 2.3-5 depicts the location and types of the proposed water system facilities for the proposed project. Domestic water service and fire protection would be supplied by water mains and fire hydrants constructed to EVMWD standards within the project streets. Water supply would be provided to the development via four water pressure zones(1601, 1701, 1801, and 1940). Water supply would be provided by a connection to the EVMWD existing water system zone 1601 and the water system located f near the intersection of 3`d Street and Dexter Avenue. Connections for zones 1701, 1801, and 1940 would be made to proposed developments to the north and east. In addition,within the project, connections between the zones would be provided by use of pump stations to provide higher zones additional sources, + and pressure reducing stations to provide lower zones a"second point of connection"where necessary. Reservoirs(water tanks) for zones 1601, 1701,and 1801 are planned for construction within the project. Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and EVMWD. In addition,assurance of the provision of adequate water service is required to be 1 provided prior to the approval of a subdivision map and/or plot plan for new residential development of 500 homes or more, in accordance with Senate Bill(SB)221.5 Per correspondence provided by EVMWD(Appendix I),the project is eligible for water service. Furthermore,per correspondence with Loren Sorber,project land uses were accounted for in the EVMWD Water Supply Assessment(WSA)and were taken into consideration when the eligibility letter was prepared(pers. comm. Loren Sorber, EVMWD,February 13,2007). As previously identified, current demand is 26,939 acre feet per year with a supply of 48,900 acre feet per year. EVMWD has sufficient water supplies available to meet projected water demands for the proposed project regardless of final land use designation. Reservoirs(water tanks)for three of the four water pressure zones serving the proposed project would be constructed on the project site. Adherence to City and EVMWD regulations would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the installation of water lines and utility improvements required to serve raw and potable water to the proposed project. Wastewater The project sewer collection system would be constructed within the project's streets, as depicted in Figure 2.3-6. Sewerage would drain to two outfalls: EVMWD is currently constructing a 54-inch sewer line in Main Street(Lakeshore Relief Sewer) which would serve the southerly portion of the project; and The northerly portion of the project would be served by a sewer line to be constructed as part of the adjacent development. In addition, a third off-site outfall is also proposed. These improvements would occur within existing streets/paved areas,and therefore would not result in significant off-site impacts. s Signed into law on October 8,2001,California SB 221 established a process whereby sufficient water supply must be identified and available for new development for any residential development of 500 homes or more,or,in the case wherein a water supplier has fewer than 5,000 service connections or the proposed development would increase the number of connections by at least 10 percent,unless there is proof of adequate water over at least the next 20 years,including long periods of drought. L � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-5 City of Lake Elsinore jj D Revised Draft EIR May 2997January 2008 X.9010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 SpyglasAB_CEQAIFinal_EIR14 14_Spyglass_ .riwws_Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems The westerly one-third of the site would flow to the westerly tract boundary at Frontage Road(Camino del Norte). There are two alternatives for this sewerage: Option 1 is to construct a new sewer line in Camino del Norte northerly to the intersection of Third Street and Dexter Street(nearly 4,000 feet)and Option 2 is to construct a sewer line westerly,bore under the I-15 and to Minthorn Street where it would be connected(less than 1,000 feet)to the 54-inch line now being constructed by EVMWD. Collected wastewater would then flow to the Regional WRF. According to the WSA, of the facility's 8 mgd capacity,the WRF currently treats approximately 4.5 mgd of wastewater to tertiary standards and discharges the effluent to Temescal Wash. The current Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-issued NPDES permit for the Regional WRF requires that a minimum of 0.5 mgd of flow be discharged to the wash for environmental habitat needs. The remaining treated wastewater from the district's reclamation facility is expected to be recycled for irrigation or industrial purposes. Per correspondence provided by EVMWD,the project is eligible for sewer service. EVMWD has adequate capacity to serve the projected increase in wastewater service due to implementation of the proposed project. Sewer-related infrastructure would be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City,EVMWD,Riverside County Department of Health, and RWQCB. Adherence to these standard guidelines would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. Solid Waste Minor amounts of non-hazardous solid waste including wood and concrete would be generated in the short-term by construction of the proposed project. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)prepared a waste characterization study which quantified and characterized disposal and diversion rates from construction and demolition activities (CIWMB 2006). According to the study, for residential development, approximately 76 percent of waste generated from new construction is able to be diverted. For new non-residential construction, approximately 86 percent of the waste material is able to be diverted. Therefore, on average, approximately 81 percent of waste generated during construction of the proposed project could be diverted,thereby substantially reducing the total amount of waste that would be disposed of at the landfill during construction of the proposed project. The addition of a maximum of 1,035 dwelling units would generate approximately 424 tons of solid waste per year in the long term,as shown in Table 4.14-1a. This corresponds to approximately 1.2 tons per day and does not take into consideration diversion of waste through recycling efforts. If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with multi-family uses, a commercial land use designation shall apply for development consistent with the Specific Plan. In this case,a maximum of 145,000 square feet would be developed as neighborhood commercial and the remaining acreage would be developed as single-and multi-family residential. Table 4.14-1a. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation Yearly Solid Waste Generation Factor* Generated Land Use Dwelling Units (tons/du/year) (tonslyear) Residential 1,035 0.41 424.35 Total 424.35 *Source:Riverside County,RCIP Draft General Plan EIR,Section 4.15 Public Services. August 2002 FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-6 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 2967-January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglessl6_CEQAIFinal_EIR14.14_Spyglass_Utilities_Service Systems doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems According to Table 4.14-1b,approximately 633 tons of solid waste per year would be generated in the long term with the inclusion of commercial land uses. This corresponds to approximately 1.7 tons per day and does not take into consideration diversion of waste through recycling efforts. In the event that Planning Areas 5 and 6 are developed with commercial uses,there would be a reduction in the amount of solid waste generated by the project. However, the EIR assumes the scenario where the greater amount of solid waste would be generated. Table 4.14-1b. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation, Commercial Land Use I Yearly Solid Waste Dwelling Units/Square Generation Factor* Generated Land Use Footage(sf) (tonslsflyear) (tons/year) Residential 694 du 0.41 284.54 Commercial 1 145,000 0.0024 348 Il Total 1 632.54 *Source:Riverside County,RCIP Draft General Plan EIR,Section 4.15 Public Services. August 2002 Regardless of final land use designation,project-generated solid waste would most likely be transported i to the RCWMD's Perris MRF for transfer and processing. In either case;the proposed project would I contribute less than one percent of the MRF's currently permitted daily capacity,which is 3,600 tons/day. I Additionally,the proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the MRF's currently permitted daily throughput,which is 1,800 tons/day. Final disposal would l y-be at the El Sobrante Landfill,the Lamb Canyon Landfill,and/or the Badlands Disposal Site. According to the CIWMB, El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted capacity of approximately 109,000,002184,930,000 tons with a total daily.permitted capacity of 10,000 tons(4,000 of which are reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County),the Lamb Canyon Landfill has a permitted capacity of 16,244,000 tons with a total daily permitted capacity of 3,000 tons,and the Badlands Disposal Site has a permitted capacity of 15,237,000 tons with a total daily permitted capacity of 4,000 tons . As identified in Section 4.14.1.3.the 2006 daily average volume disposed of at the El Sobrante landfill was 3,590 tons for in-County waste,2,030 tons at the Lamb Canyon landfill,and 2,195 tons at the Badlands landfill. This represents 90.68,and 54 percent,respectively,of the daily permitted capacity that is currently being used. However,tTbe facilities would be able to accommodate the amount of daily solid waste generated by future development of the proposed project because t—Tbe proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the remaining daily permitted capacity of the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands €eeiii ),,facilities. . The proposed project would not substantially decrease the remaining capacity of these landfills. While the Badlands facility only has a e-four year life expectancy as of 200I the life expectancy of the Lamb Canyon landfill is nine years and the life expectancy of the El Sobrante landfill is 24 years,thereby exeeeds-exceeding the l 15-year threshold established by the CIWMB; therefore,the landfills within the project area ha&-have I sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed project. In addition,the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste, including the County's SRRE, HHWE, and City Ordinance 8.32 of the i Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris removal. Impacts are,therefore, considered less than significant. taiSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-7 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 288;EJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglessl8_CEQAIFinal EIRI4 14_Spyglass_Udlifies_Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems Gas Services Natural gas would be provided to the proposed project by the Southern California Gas Company. According to the 2006 California Gas Report, Southern California Gas Company has a current demand of 2,645 million cubic feet per day(MMcf/day)with a capacity of 3,875 MMcf/day. According to the typical demand rates provided in written communication from Southern California Gas Company, the residential uses of the proposed project would require 719,209 therms (71.9209 MMcf)per year, as shown in Table 4.14-2. Typical demand rates are not available for commercial uses due to the wide variety of construction materials. Project demands for residential land uses would represent less than one percent of current total demand and capacity. The Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the project is proposed. Specifically,medium pressure gas lines are located at the intersection of Canyon Estates Drive and Canyon View Drive. These facilities would require extension along Grunder Drive. Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. Table 4.14-2. Estimated Gas Demand Dwelling System Area Average Yearly Gas Land Use Units (therms per year) Demand(therms) Single Family Residential 694 799 554,506 Multi-Family Residential(5 or more units) 341 483 164,703 Total 1,035 — 719,209 "Source:Southern California Gas Company,Communication dated January 4,2007 4.14.3 Cumulative Impacts 4.14.3.1 Water Supply Cumulative water demand is addressed by EVMWD projections for water usage and supply in the WSA. These projections take into account population growth and changing trends in increased development. According to the WSA, EVMWD anticipates the district would use 52,071 acre feet annually by the year 2025. In addition,the WSA projects 61,000 acre feet per year of water supply would be available in 2025, with additional water supply sources. Future supplies include the construction of a pump station that would increase the Temescal Valley Pipeline capacity and plans to address Elsinore Groundwater Basin's overdraft condition. Water purveyors cannot approve projects without demonstrating adequate water supplies,pursuant to SB 221. As with the proposed project,proof of adequate project-specific water supply would be required for other development projects to ensure adequate supplies are available to serve projects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with regard to water supply. 4.14.3.2 Wastewater As previously discussed, the District's reclamation facility currently treats approximately 4.5 mgd with a capacity of 8 mgd. According to the WSA, wastewater volumes treated at the district's reclamation facility are expected to increase. Future wastewater volumes are expected to be 12.7 mgd in 2025 based LT1iSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-8 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May-20W:January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel526B4_SpyglassIB CEQAIFinal EIR14 14_Spyglass Utilities Service Systems.doc . 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems I I on currently anticipated growth. As current facility capacity is only 8 mgd,EVMWD would begin planning for expansion of the Regional WRF when the average flow reaches 6 mgd to meet the additional flows. As stated previously, future expansion to 30 mgd is possible on the plant's existing site. The EVMWD has a master plan to meet long-term wastewater treatment demands. Cumulative demands l are identified in the EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan prepared by Kennedy-Jenks Consultants and improvements detailed in the district's capital improvement program. Therefore, the WRF would have adequate capacity to accommodate the wastewater treatment demand generated by the project in addition to cumulative development. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to wastewater treatment facilities. 4.14.3.3 Solid Waste The addition of solid waste from the nronosed project in conjunction with the solid waste generated from cumulative projects would result in an increase in demand for capaci at the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon,and Badlands landfills. According to Table 4.14-3,approximately 21,836 tons of solid waste per year or 60 tons per day would be generated from all of the cumulative projects identified in Table 3.5-1 at build out. This is less than one percent of the remaining daily permitted capacity of the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon,and Badlands facilities. The proposed project in coniunction with the cumulative projects would not substantially decrease the remaining_capacity of these landfills. In addition,the anticipated closure date for the El Sobrante landfill is 20310. Current remaining capacity at the landfill would provide 243 years of life. Additionally,the project would adhere to City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and standard City Conditions of Approval regarding construction debris removal. Because the proposed project in conjunction with the cumulative projects contributes less than one percent of the permitted capacity of the existing landfills and the closest landfill can accommodate City waste beyond 15 years, a less than significant cumulative impact is anticipated. fTable 4.14-3. Estimated Cumulative Solid Waste Generation Yearly Solid Waste Dwelling Units/Square Generation Factor* Generated Land Use Foota e s Ltonslsflyearl tons! ear Residential 26273.6 du 0.41 10,772.18 Commercial _ 3.433.722 SF 0.0024 8.240.93 Industrial 261,360 0.0108 2.822.69 Total 21,835.8 `Source:Riverside County,RCIP Draft General Plan EIR,Section 4.15 Public Services. August 2002 4.14.3.4 Gas Service Cumulative natural gas demand is addressed in the 2006 California Gas Report,which identifies policies and rules to ensure reliable, long-term supplies of natural gas to California. The report covers a 20-year natural gas demand forecast period from 2006-2025. Demand for natural gas is projected to grow at an annual average rate of 0.15 percent over all market sectors and 9 percent over residential/wholesale hDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-9 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2907january 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152694_Spyglassle_CEOAIFinal EIR14.14 Spyglass_Utilities_Service Systems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems demands within 20 years. Future demand is projected to be 2,645 MMcf/day with a capacity of 2,713 MMcf/day in 2025. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with regard to natural gas service. 4.14.4 Levels of Significance Before Mitigation 4.14.4.1 Water Supply EVMWD has sufficient water supply to meet the demands of the proposed project without impairing it's ability to provide water service to the proposed project and related projects within the EVMWD's service area. Reservoirs (water tanks)would be constructed on-site. Construction would comply with all applicable regulations and ordinances. Impacts related to water supply for the proposed project would be less than significant. 4.14.4.2 Wastewater The proposed project's sewer and wastewater service demands would be met by the EVMWD as provided for in the EVMWD WSA. On-site and off-site project impacts due to the project's sewer collection system would be less than significant. 4.14.4.3 Solid Waste The proposed project would not significantly decrease the remaining capacity of El Sobrante Landfill and/or the Badlands Disposal Site. The proposed project's contribution is less than one percent of the total permitted daily capacity and the permitted throughput of these facilities. Therefore,the landfills serving the site have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. The demand generated by the proposed project would not substantially decrease the remaining capacity at these landfills. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact to solid waste services. 4.14.4.4 Gas Services As discussed above, Southern California Gas Company has indicated the project is eligible for natural gas service. According to the 2006 California Gas Report, sufficient gas supplies also exist to serve project demands in addition to other development. In addition,the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new natural gas facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts to natural gas services would be less than significant. 4.14.5 Environmental Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to water supply,wastewater services, solid waste services, or natural gas services are anticipated;therefore,no mitigation measures would be required. 4.14.6 Levels of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to water supply, sewer services, solid waste services, and natural gas services would be less than significant. LT1I- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-10 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May2QD7,January 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR14.14 Spyglass_Utilities_Service Syslems.doc f i 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems 4.14.7 Response to Notice of Preparation Comments During the public review and comment period for the Notice of Preparation( OP),the Riverside County r . Waste Management District(RCWMD) indicated that substantial amounts of solid waste may be generated by the proposed project which may potentially impact the County's solid waste landfills. They also requested that the EIR address solid waste generation,particularly noting the quantity of construction and demolition waste, and how waste would be handled. Section 4.14.2.4 addresses solid waste generation and identifies how waste would be handled. Additionally,the project would adhere to City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris removal. As identified, impacts would be less than significant. r IFDRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-11 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR Ma,9^;,lanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinel EIR14.14 Spyglass UliUlies Service Sysfems.doc 4.14 Utilities/Service Systems This page intentionally left blank. � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.14-12 City of Lake Elsinore L f a Revised Draft EIR May 2QX�January 2008 X..1010570 Cliy_of Lake Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.14 Spyglass Ulilil,cs Servlce Systems.doc 5.0 Alternatives 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION The identification and analysis of alternatives is a fundamental concept under California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). This is evident in that the role of alternatives in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)is set forth clearly and forthrightly within the CEQA statutes. Specifically, CEQA §21002.1(a) 4 states: "The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the 1 manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to"describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a)). The CEQA Guidelines direct that selection of alternatives focus on those alternatives capable of eliminating any significant environmental effects of the project or of reducing them to a less-than significant level, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly. In cases where a project is not expected to result in significant impacts after implementation of recommended mitigation,review of ` project alternatives is still appropriate. The range of alternatives required within an EIR is governed by the"rule of reason"which requires an EIR to include only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote and speculative or whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained. J Alternatives that were considered but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process should be identified along with a reasonably detailed discussion of the reasons and facts supporting the conclusion that such alternatives were infeasible. Based on the alternatives analysis,an environmentally superior alternative is designated among the 1 alternatives. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative,then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2)). 5.2 CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS As stated above,pursuant to CEQA, one of the criteria for defining project alternatives is the potential to attain the project objectives. Established objectives of the project applicant for the proposed project include: • Create a balanced community with integrated land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore. • Cluster neighborhoods and utilize compact building design within residential and recreational land use mixes in an effort to preserve natural open space. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-1 City of Lake Elsinore _♦ Revised Draft EIR May 299;zJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinon:152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR15.0_Spyglass Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives • Maintain the integrity of the natural environment through systematic and sensitive planning which preserves and conserves open space. • Foster a distinctive, attractive, and cohesive community with a strong sense of place by responding to community values and the natural features of the site. • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices with a diverse residential product mix. • Phase development to ensure adequate levels of service in a manner which does not create a financial burden to the citizens of the City. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION In addition to specifying that the EIR evaluate"a range of reasonable alternatives"to the project, Section 15126.6(c)of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify any alternatives that were considered but were rejected as infeasible. The following alternative, existing zoning regulation,was considered for analysis in the Draft EIR,but was not considered for further evaluation. This alternative is described below, along with a discussion of why it was rejected from further consideration. 5.3.1 Existing Zoning Regulation Alternative The current General Plan land use designation and zoning are inconsistent with each other. Because of this inconsistency,the Alternatives Analysis considered the proposed project under both scenarios. Under the Existing Zoning Regulation Alternative,the project site could be developed at the maximum level of intensity that would be permitted consistent with applicable zones under the existing City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. The City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map designates the project area as "R-1"— Single Family Residential(228.35 acres)and"C-2"—General Commercial District(30.45 acres). "R-1" allows for residential development at a density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre. "C-2"allows for a full range of retail stores, offices,and personal and business services. The"R-l"designation is in conflict with the current General Plan Land Use designations of Freeway Business and Specific Plan Area. Under this zoning,the project site could be developed with up to 1,658 dwelling units and 30.45 acres of commercial uses, as compared to the 1,035 units that would be developed under the proposed project scenario. Upon further evaluation of the Existing Zoning Regulation Alternative, it was found that impacts would actually increase as compared to the proposed project. Specifically, impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality,noise,population and housing,public services,recreation,transportation and traffic,and utilities would increase with implementation of the Existing Zoning Regulation Alternative. Impacts to biological resources, cultural resources,geology and soils,hazards and hazardous materials, and land use and planning would be the same under this alternative as with the development of the proposed project. No issue areas were determined to be reduced in level of impacts. Therefore,this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 5.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/ No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative proposes to leave the project area in its present condition, without project development or new construction. Existing conditions for each environmental issue,as described in Sections 3 and 4 of the Draft EIR,would remain. It is anticipated that Elsinore Hills Road fSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-2 City of Lake Elsinore .` Revised Draft EIR May 2897,January 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_ElsinoreW664_Spyglassl6_CECAWinal EIM5.0_Spyglass_Allemafives.doc Il 5.0 Alternatives would be built by South Shore,LLC due to the joint development agreement between Spyglass Ranch LLC, and South Shore,LLC. I Environmental Impact of No Project/No Development Alternative r Aesthetics: Since the No Project/No Development Alternative would not modify the existing project site, or add construction on the project site,no changes to the visual character of the site would occur. i Therefore,no aesthetic impacts would occur. Compared to the proposed project,which identified a less than significant impact, this alternative would have fewer visual impacts. Air Quality:Under the No Project/No Development Alternative,there would be no air emissions due to project construction or operation, and no project- or cumulative-level air quality impact would occur. Therefore, no impact to air quality is identified under this alternative. The proposed project identified significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality. Therefore,this alternative would result in fewer air quality emissions compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources: Under the No Project/No Development Alternative,biological resource conditions 1 on the site would largely remain as described under Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. However, due to the construction of Elsinore Hills Road as a regional circulation network road, 13.87 acres of vegetation communities including Riversidean sage scrub and non-native grasslands would be impacted. Further, 0.02 acre of jurisdictional drainages would also be impacted by the road construction. However,these 1 impacts would not be a result of the No Project/No Development Alternative. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would decrease the level of biological resources impacts, and would not require mitigation. Cultural Resources: Since there would be no development under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would not be any soil disturbance or potential impact to cultural or paleontological ( resources. However, it is anticipated that Elsinore Hills Road would be constructed by an adjacent development. During that construction,impacts could occur to cultural resources but not as a result of this alternative. Therefore,no impact is identified for this alternative for cultural and paleontological 1 resources. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would reduce any impacts to cultural or 1 paleontological resources and would not require mitigation. Geology and Soils: Since there would be no development at the project site under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no population exposed to additional seismic risk. In addition, no grading would occur. Less than significant impacts were identified for the proposed project with incorporation of the standard geotechnical recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Evaluation. 1 Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have less of an impact to geology and soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Since there would be no increase in population at the project site S under the No Project/No Development Alternative,there would be no additional exposure to stained l surfaces, asbestos-containing materials, lead based paint, and potential methane gas. Therefore,no impact is identified for this alternative for hazards and hazardous materials. While the stained surfaces located on-site would not be removed, the project would not generate residents that would be exposed to these soils. The proposed project would have significant but mitigable impacts. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would reduce any potentially significant impacts to hazardous materials and eliminate the need to incorporate mitigation measures. Hydrology/Water Quality:The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in modifications to the existing drainage patterns or volume of storm water runoff, as the total impervious area on-site Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-3 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 290;Uanuary 2008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rnal E1M50_Spyg1ass_Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives would remain unchanged from present conditions. In addition,implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in modification to the existing treatment of stormwater runoff. Furthermore,no changes with regard to water quality would occur; therefore,no water quality impacts would occur. The proposed project identified less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have less of a hydrology/water quality impact. Land Use and Planning: The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the modification of any land use on the project site as the site would remain vacant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not conflict with any applicable land use plan. The proposed project would have significant,but mitigable impacts. Unlike the proposed project,this alternative would not require an amendment to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan or Zoning Map;therefore,this alternative would have less of an impact to land use and planning. No mitigation would be required. Noise: Since there would be no construction and no future project operations on the site,the No Project/No Development Alternative would not increase noise in the vicinity, and no significant noise impacts would occur. Therefore,no impact is identified for this alternative for noise. The proposed project had significant,but mitigable noise impacts. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would reduce any potentially significant impacts to noise and eliminate the need to incorporate mitigation measures. Population and Housing: Since there would be no development on the project site,the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in an increase in housing or population. However,no housing will be provided to accommodate the predicted growth in the General Plan. The proposed project would have signifieam and unmitigableless than significant impacts to population and housing. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would reduce the level of significance to population and housing. Public Services: The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require increased public services to the site, since there would not be any development that would require police, fire protection, school, or library services. Therefore,no impact to public services is identified for this alternative. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have fewer impacts to public services. Recreation:The No Project/No Development Alternative would not lead to an increase in population requiring the provision of additional recreational amenities. This alternative would not provide any recreational use.No impact is identified for this alternative. The proposed project identified less than significant impacts. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have fewer impacts to recreation. Transportation and Traffic: Since there would be no development under the No Project/No Development Alternative,no increase in vehicular trips due to project construction or project operation are identified for this alternative, and no impact is noted. Traffic modeling prepared for the proposed project has concluded that at project buildout(2009), intersections in the project vicinity would operate at inadequate levels of service if roadway improvements were not constructed. However, development of this alternative would not contribute vehicle trips to exacerbate poor conditions along project area roadways. This alternative assumes that Elsinore Hills Road would be built on the project site by an adjacent development. However,this alternative would not result in fair share contributions from the project to help alleviate the construction cost of Elsinore Hills Road and other area roadway improvements. The proposed project identified a significant and unmitigable impact to transportation and traffic. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would eliminate those impacts and the need for mitigation. Lj�,,JJl T1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-4 City of Lake Elsinore �� Revised Draft EIR May 20 PJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152664 Spyglassl6_CEOAIFinal EIR15.0 Spyglass_Altematives.doc . 5.0 Alternatives i Utilities: The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require increased utilities to the site, ! since there would not be any development that would require water,wastewater, or landfill/recycling services. However,this alternative would not include the construction of reservoirs (water tanks)for three of the four water pressure zones needed to serve the proposed project and neighboring projects. Because these facilities would still need to be constructed for water storage for adjacent projects,this would represent an adverse and potentially significant impact. The proposed project had less than significant impacts. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have greater impacts to utility services., 1 Conclusion:Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in reduced impacts for all environmental issues areas except utilities and services as compared to the proposed project. Comparison of the No Project/No Development Alternative to Project Objectives The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the project applicant. Specifically, this alternative would not create a balanced community with integrated land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore,nor would it cluster neighborhoods and utilize compact building design within residential and recreational land use mixes in an effort to preserve open space. Furthermore,this alternative would not foster a distinctive, attractive, and cohesive community with a strong sense of place by responding to community values and the natural features of the site. Additionally,this alternative { would not create a range of housing opportunities and choices with a diverse residential product mix. Finally,the No Project/No Development Alternative would not phase development to ensure adequate levels of service in a manner which does not create a financial burden to the citizens of the City. Specifically this alternative would not result in the construction of three water tanks needed for adjacent development,nor the fair share contributions needed for regional circulation improvements. 5.4.2 Alternative 2: Existing General Plan Designation Alternative Under the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative,the project would retain its current General Plan land use designations. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element designates the project area as Future Specific Plan(Area G),Freeway Business, and Neighborhood Commercial. The Specific Plan Area G designation would allow residential land uses at a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre. The Freeway Business designation would allow large floor-area commercial development. The Neighborhood Commercial designation allows for neighborhood shopping centers and small convenience centers. The existing General Plan land use designations would allow a maximum of 659 dwelling units of single-family residential on 219.82 acres, 16.57 acres of freeway business, and 22.41 acres of neighborhood commercial. Table 5.4-1 illustrates the difference in land uses between this alternative and the proposed project. I Table 5.4-1. Alternative Land Use Comparison Alternative 1 Proposed Project Proposed Project(With (General Plan Designation) (All Residential) Commercial Uses)' Land Use Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Single-family Residential 219.82 659 139.3 694 139.3 694 Multi-Family Residential 14.5 341 Freeway Business 16.57 Neighborhood Commercial 22.41 1 14.5 The Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan includes an alternative that would change the land use designation for 14.5 acres from multi-family residential to neighborhood commercial. FalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-5 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2QQ7January 2008 X.-1010570_Cify_of Lake_Elsinon:152684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR15.0_Spyglass_Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives Environmental Impact of Existing General Plan Designation Alternative Aesthetics: Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in the entire project site being developed. Similar to the proposed project,open space areas would be provided under this alternative. The proposed project identified less than significant impacts;therefore, development under this alternative would have a similar level of impact to aesthetics. Air Quality:Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in a similar level of construction-related air emissions, since project grading and associated emissions from construction equipment would still occur. Emissions from project operation would be higher under this alternative, since this alternative is modeled to generate a greater number of vehicle trips due to the types of land uses proposed. Therefore,this alternative would still result in significant impacts to reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides(NOJ,during the project's construction phase and ROG,NO,,, and carbon monoxide(CO)during the project's operational phase. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation measures comparable to those identified for the proposed project would be required,but would not reduce construction-, operational-, or cumulative-level impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. The proposed project identified significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality. Because operational emissions would be increased,this alternative would have a greater impact to air quality than the proposed project. Biological Resources: Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would likely result in comparable impacts to biological resources because the entire project site would be identified for development. In addition,this alternative would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The proposed project identified significant and mitigable impacts. Therefore,compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have a similar level of impact to biological resources. Cultural Resources: Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would likely result in similar impacts to cultural resources because the entire project site would be identified for development. In addition,this alternative would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. The proposed project identified significant but mitigable impacts to cultural resources. Therefore,compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have a similar level of impact to cultural resources. Geology and Soils: Similar to the proposed project, development under the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils as development would need to comply with the same applicable federal and state regulations as the proposed project. Under this alternativz, the level of significance would be the same as the proposed project at less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Similar to the proposed project, development of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would not be of a land use or type that is likely to generate hazardous materials. A small quantity of materials typically utilized during construction would be present in similar quantities to those generated by the proposed project. In addition,the removal of structures onsite that may contain asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint would still occur. Additionally,the removal of soils with surface stains would also be required. A passive methane gas collection and ventilation system would need to be incorporated into the project design or evidence would be provided proving the 10.8 acres located within 1,320 feet of the landfill are in compliance with Title 27 regulations. The proposed project identifies significant but mitigable impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. As development under this alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-6 City of Lake Elsinore ♦ Revised Draft EIR May 11 PAOiSM200ff X..1010570_City_of Leke_E1sinore1526B4_SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal EIR15.0_Spyglass_Altemalives.doc 5.0 Alternatives r - hazardous materials as compared to the proposed project,this alternative would be subject to similar mitigation measures. Hydrology/Water Quality:Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in development of the entire project site. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project. In addition, like the proposed project, development would be required to comply with the same conditions that the proposed project is subject to, and compliance with those conditions and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. The proposed project identifies less than significant impacts. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a similar level of impact to hydrology and water f quality. I Land Use and Planning: Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in a significant impact to land use and planning. As identified, the existing General Plan designations and zoning are inconsistent. To develop the project site under this alternative, a zone change would be required. Similar to the proposed project,implementation of the zone change would eliminate this inconsistency and reduce the impact to below a level of significance. In addition,under this alternative,there would be an increase in impacts from the residential and neighborhood commercial interface and residential and freeway business interface. Similar mitigation to that identified for the proposed project would be incorporated to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, this alternative would result in a similar level of impact to land use and planning. I Noise: Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in a similar level of noise impact related to construction as identified for the proposed project, since the majority of the project site would still be identified for development. However, this alternative is expected to generate a higher level of noise associated with operational vehicular trips, since this alternative is projected to generate more traffic than projected for the proposed project. This alternative would exacerbate the significant impacts identified for the proposed project to roadway segments. This ` alternative would likely result in reduced on-site noise impacts because the commercial uses would serve as a buffer between the freeway noise and the residential land uses. However,this alternative would result in a greater level of impact from the residential and neighborhood commercial interface and residential ! and freeway business alternative. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Because of the increased noise levels,this alternative would result in a greater level of noise impacts than the proposed project. 1 Population and Housing:Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in the development of 659 dwelling units and generation of 2,122 residents. SCAG growth estimates are based on General Plan land use designations. Therefore,the population generated under this alternative is consistent with the projections used in SCAG's growth estimates. This alternative would result in a less than significant impact. Compared to the proposed project, which proposed 1,035 dwelling units, this alternative would have less than impact than the proposed project umitigmed iagaet-to population and housing. Public Services: The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative proposes 376 fewer homes but increased commercial uses than the proposed project. Impacts to public services under the proposed project were concluded to be less than significant. The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would reduce demand on local schools and libraries due to fewer residences. Similar to the proposed project, impacts to public services would be less than significant. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-7 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR X:1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinoml52684_SpyglassIB CEQAIFinal EIR15.0 Spyglass_Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives Recreation: Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would require 10.61 acres of parkland per the Quimby Act as opposed to 14.5 acres required of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, impacts to parks and recreation can be mitigated through inclusion of recreation areas and/or payment of appropriate Quimby Act fees. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation would be less than significant. Transportation and Traffic:Traffic modeling prepared for the proposed project has concluded that similar to the proposed project,the addition of traffic from this alternative would further exacerbate the degraded intersection conditions. Implementation of this alternative would generate 20,067 average daily trips,which is 52 percent more trips than the maximum number identified for the proposed project. In addition,because this alternative includes Freeway Business land uses,this alternative would result in an increase of heavy truck traffic,which would further exacerbate declining levels of service along project area roadways. The proposed project identified significant and uninitigable impacts to transportation and traffic. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would have a greater impact to overall traffic. Mitigation measures similar to those identified for the proposed project would be incorporated to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore,compared to the proposed project, this alternative would also result in significant and unmitigable impacts to transportation and traffic. Utilities: The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative proposes 376 fewer homes but increased commercial uses than the proposed project. Impacts to utilities under the proposed project were concluded to be less than significant. Compared to the proposed project,which proposed 1,035 dwelling units,this alternative would have a similar level of impact to water,wastewater, and landfill services. Conclusion: Implementation of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would reduce impacts to population and housing and recreation; increase impacts to air quality,noise, and transportation and traffic; and result in similar impacts for aesthetics,biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, land use and planning,public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project. Comparison of the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative to Project Objectives The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would not meet all of the objectives of the project applicant. Specifically, this alternative would result in 16.57 acres of Freeway Business,which would allow for large floor-area community development rather than a clustered neighborhood. In addition, single-family land use designations would not allow the development of a diverse residential product mix. Because this project results in a higher level of impact for three issue areas compared to the project, it is not recommended as the environmentally superior alternative. 5.4.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative The Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed to reduce impacts associated for the project,with the specific goal of bringing the air quality impact to below a level of significance. Trip generation would need to be reduced by approximately 65 percent in order to reduce the air emissions to less than significant levels. Willi that parameter, the reduced density alternative would develop a combination of residential uses, including 180 single family residences, 60 courtyard homes, and 120 multi-family units on the project site,for a total of 360 residential dwelling units. Park areas would also be included, similar to those proposed by the project. To further reduce impacts to issue areas such as aesthetics,biological resources, and cultural resources,this alternative reduces the acreage from 260 acres to 60 acres. The proposed project has a residential density of 6.7 dwelling unit per acre. Using this density,this alternative could develop 360 units on approximately 54 acres plus an additional 5.2 acres for FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-8 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR X.1010570_City_of Lake Elsinore1526a4_SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal EIM5.0_Spyglass_Allematives doc 5.0 Alternatives park space,pursuant to the Quimby Act. The 60 acres would be built in the topographically flattest areas of the project site to reduce substantial grading requirements and aesthetic impacts. In addition, site design under this alternative would include a buffer from Interstate 15 (1-15)to further reduce noise impacts from roadway traffic. This alternative would also have a buffer from the adjacent landfill to the residential uses. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to accommodate the proposed densities. Environmental Impact of Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative Aesthetics: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would reduce the amount of residential units that could be developed on the project site. The project would include 5.2 acres of park space and a buffer from the I-15 to the project site.Additionally,this alternative would result in substantially less grading of the hillside as the 60-acre project would be located in the flattest areas feasible. With the reduction in density, acreage and grading, this alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics. Similar to the proposed project,development under this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics. Air Quality:Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in a reduced level of construction-related air emissions, since project grading would occur over a smaller portion of the project site and the resultant construction emissions would be less. Emissions from project operation under this alternative would also be reduced,as this alternative reduces trip generation by approximately 65 percent. Therefore, the significant impacts to ROG and NO,identified during the project's construction phase and ROG,NO,and CO during the project's operational phase would be reduced to less than significant levels under this alternative. The proposed project identified significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce impacts to air quality to less than significant levels. Biological Resources: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in a reduced level of impact to biological resources because only 23 percent of the proposed project acreage would be developed under this alternative. Any impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would be mitigated with incorporation of measures similar to those identified for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would have significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources. However,these impacts would be fewer than under the proposed project. Cultural Resources: Impacts to cultural resources under the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would be reduced because only 23 percent of the proposed project acreage would be developed under this alternative. Any impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would be mitigated with incorporation of measures similar to those identified for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would have significant,but mitigable impacts to cultural resources. However,these impacts would be fewer than under the proposed project. Geology and Soils: Similar to the proposed project,development under the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils as development would need to comply with the same applicable federal and state regulations as the proposed project. Under this alternative,the level of significance would be the same as the proposed project at less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Similar to the proposed project, development of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would not be of a land use or type that is likely to generate hazardous materials. A small quantity of materials typically utilized during construction would be present in reduced quantities to those generated by the proposed project. In addition, the removal of structures FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-9 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinel EIR15.0_SanuaN 2008 pyglass_Alfemefives.doc 5.0 Alternatives onsite that may contain asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint could still occur. Additionally, the removal of soils with surface stains would also be required. Because this alternative would include a buffer from the landfill, a passive methane gas collection and ventilation system would not be needed pursuant to Title 27 regulations. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in significant,but mitigable impacts to hazards and hazardous materials associated with asbestos and lead. Development under this alternative would be subject to similar mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts. Because of the reduced acreage and buffer from the landfill,this alternative would result in fewer impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology/Water Quality: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in a decreased impact to hydrology and water quality than with the development of the proposed project because it would support less impervious surfaces. Accordingly,there would be a decrease in surface runoff as opposed to the proposed project. Impacts to water quality would also be expected to decrease under this alternative since less of the project site would be exposed to development. In addition, development would be required to comply with the same conditions that the proposed project is subject to, and compliance with those conditions identified for the proposed project would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Compared to the proposed project,this alternative would result in reduced impacts to hydrology and water quality. Land Use and Planning: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in a significant impact to land use and planning. As identified,the existing General Plan and zoning designations are inconsistent. To develop the project site under this alternative,a zone change would be required. Similar to the proposed project,implementation of the zone change would eliminate this inconsistency and reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Therefore, this alternative would result in a similar level of impact to land use and planning. Noise: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in a reduced level of noise impact related to construction as identified for the proposed project, since less construction would occur. Additionally, this alternative would generate a lower level of noise associated with vehicular trips, since this alternative could decrease traffic by approximately 65 percent. Moreover, site design under this alternative would include a buffer from the roadway to further reduce noise impacts from roadway traffic. The proposed project identifies significant,but mitigable impacts to noise. While noise impacts are projected to be less under this alternative, any impacts will be mitigated through incorporation of measures similar to those identified for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in significant,but mitigable noise impacts. Population and Housing:Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 360 dwelling units. SCAG's growth estimates are based on General Plan land use designations which would have resulted in the development of 659 dwelling units and generation of 2,122 residents. This alternative would result in the generation of 360 dwelling units and 1,037 residents. Therefore,the population generated under this alternative would not conflict with the projections used in SCAG's growth estimates. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact from population and housing. Public Services: The Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in lower demand for fire and police protection since it proposes 65 percent fewer residential dwelling units than the proposed project. The decrease in residential uses proposed under this alternative would also decrease the demand for local schools and libraries.Impacts to public services under the proposed project were also concluded to be less than significant;however, compared to the proposed project which proposed 1,035 dwelling units,this alternative would have less of an impact on public service providers. FD� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-10 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2887January 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQARnal E05.0_Spyglass_Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives Recreation:Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would provide 5.2 acres of parkland,which is required by the Quimby Act. Because the proposed project provides 8 acres less parkland than is required,this alternative would result in fewer impacts to recreation. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to recreation. i Transportation and Traffic: Traffic modeling prepared for the proposed project has concluded that similar to the proposed project,the addition of traffic from this alternative would further exacerbate the f degraded intersection conditions. Implementation of this alternative would generate approximately 3,300 ADT, which represents a 65 percent reduction in trips compared to the maximum number identified for the proposed project. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have less of an impact to overall traffic. As implementation of this alternative would contribute additional trips to already impacted project area roadways,this alternative would also be required to incorporate mitigation measures similar to those identified for the proposed project to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Similar to the proposed project,mitigation would not reduce the significant unmitigated impact to the 1-151 Main Street intersection. Therefore, similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in a significant but immitigable impact to transportation and traffic. Utilities: The Reduced Density Alternative would result in lower demand for water and wastewater f services since it proposes 65 percent fewer homes than the proposed project. The decrease in residential uses proposed under this alternative would also decrease the demand for landfill capacity. Impacts to f utilities under the proposed project were also concluded to be less than significant;however,compared to the proposed project which proposed 1,035 dwelling units,this alternative would have less of an impact on utilities services and utility providers. Conclusion: Implementation of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would decrease I impacts to aesthetics, air quality,biological resources,cultural resources,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality,noise,population and housing,public services,recreation, and utilities. Impacts to geology and soils, and land use and planning, would be the same under this alternative as with the development of the proposed project. This alternative would { reduce the sifnificant unmitigated impact to air quality but not to traffic. I Comparison of the Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative to Project Objectives The Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative would reduce impacts to twelve issue areas including air qualityand pepoistien and housing,which would result in significant,unmitigated impacts under the proposed project. This alternative would not reduce the significant,unmitigated impact to traffic and transportation. The Reduced Density Alternative would meet all of the objectives of the project applicant. However,the City and other responsible agencies are requiring substantial upgrades to regional traffic circulation and public utilities (sewer,water, and reclaimed water) around the project. Spyglass, LLC's share of these costs alone would exceed 15 million dollars and do not include the project's on-site infrastructure costs. This cost would add approximately$27,175 per unit to the cost of each residential unit under the Reduced Density Alternative. That represents an increase of approximately 188 percent of the total project cost. This cost would make the project cost prohibitive to market and sell(personal communication,Erik Lunde, Spyglass LLC). 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 5.5-1 provides a qualitative comparison of the impacts for each alternative compared to the proposed project. As noted in Table 5.5-1,the No Project/No Development alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, since it would eliminate all of the significant and tai''�� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-11 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR an 2008 X:1010570_Ciiy_of Lake_Elsinon:152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR150_Spyglass Altematives.doc 5.0 Alternatives unmitigated impacts identified for the project. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)states that"if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." The Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative since it decreases significant unmitigated impacts to air quality and results in a less than significant impact to aesthetics,biological resources, cultural resources,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality,noise,public services,recreation,transportation and traffic, and utilities. This alternative would require a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant unmitigated impacts to traffic. Table 5.5-1. Comparison of Alternative Impacts to Proposed Project Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Reduced Environmental No Project/ Existing General Plan Density/Reduced Issue Area Proposed Project' No Development2 Designation3 Acreage4 Aesthetics Project Level: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Less than significant No impact Less than significant . Less than significant Cumulative Level:Less Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than significant Less impact Similar impact Less impact Air Quality Project Level: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Significant and No impact Significant and unmitigated Less than significant unmitigated Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Cumulative Level: Less impact Greater level of impact Less impact Significant and unmitigated Biological Project Level: Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Resources to below a level of No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level: Less Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Similar impact Less impact Cultural Project Level: Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Resources to below a level of No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level:Less Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Similar impact Less impact Geology and Project Level: Less than CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Soils Significant No impact Less than significant Less than significant Cumulative Level:Less Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Less impact Similar impact Similar impact Hazards and Project Level: Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Hazardous to below a level of No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level Materials significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level:Less Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: _I than Significant Similar impact Less impact Hydrology/ Project level: Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Water Quality to below a level of No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level:Less Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Similar impact Less impact FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-12 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR N4ay P9)-;7j uar` ?008 X.-1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinorel52664_SpyglassWCEWWinal EIRI5.0_Spyglass_Alfemafives.doc 5.0 Alternatives Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Reduced Environmental No Project/ Existing General Plan Density/Reduced Issue Area Proposed Project' No Development2 Designation3 Acreage4 Land Use and Project level:Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Planning to below a level of No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level: Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Mitigated to below a Similar impact Similar impact level of significance Noise Project level:Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: to below a level of .No impact Mitigated to below a level Mitigated to below a level significance Comparison to Project: of significance of significance Cumulative Level:Less Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Siqnificant Greater impact Less impact Population and Project level: Less than CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Housing SignificantSk*aAt No impact Less than significant Less than Significant and il+gated Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Cumulative Level:Less Less impact Less impact Comparison to Project: than Significant Less-Similar impact SyA+f+s.ant aad Public Services `Project level:Less than CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Significant No impact Less than significant Less than significant Cumulative Level:Less Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Less impact &m4aFLess Impact Less impact __ Recreation Project level:Less than CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Significant No impact Less than significant I Less than significant Cumulative Level:Less Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Less impact Less impact Less impact Transportation Project level:Mitigated CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: and Traffic to below a level of No impact Significant and Significant and significance Comparison to Project: unmitigated. unmitigated. Cumulative Level: Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: Significant and Greater impact Less Impact unmitigated. Utilities and Project level:Less than CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: CEQA Significance: Service Significant Potentially significant Less than significant Less than significant Systems Cumulative Level:Less impact Comparison to Project: Comparison to Project: than Significant Comparison to Project: Similar impact Less impact Greater impact Note: This table provides a qualitative comparison of the level of impact for each issue area compared to the proposed project.Please see Sections 4.1 through 4.14 for a discussion of impacts for the proposed project. 1 The proposed project would result in either 694 single family residential dwelling units and 341 multi-family dwelling units or 694 single-family dwelling units and 14.5 acres of neighborhood commercial 2 The No project/No Development Alternative would leave the project area in its present condition without project development or new construction 3 The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative would result in 659 single-family residential dwelling units,16.57 acres of freeway business and 22.41 acres of neighborhood commercial. 4The Reduced Density/Reduced Acreage Designation would result in 360 residential dwelling units on 60 acres of land. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-13 City of Lake Elsinore .♦ Revised Draft EIR May 2QQ7January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinon:152684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR15.0_Spyglass Alfemafives doc 5.0 Alternatives This page intentionally left blank. FUR Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 5-14 City of Lake Elsinore i UJ Revised Draft EIR May 6a7Janggry 2008 X.-1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFInaI EIR15.0_Spygless Ilematives.doe r ' 6.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS This section discusses the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth. Growth-inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the support sector of the economy. A project could also induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity that attracts new population or economic activity. In accordance with Section 15126.2(d)of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)must "discuss the ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth ... Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring i construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could t significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." Two issues must be considered when assessing the growth-inducing impacts of a project: i • Elimination of obstacles to population growth: The extent to which additional infrastructure capacity or a change in regulatory structure would allow additional development in the City; and S • Promotion of economic growth: The extent to which the proposed project can cause increased t activity in the local or regional economy. Economic impacts can include direct effects, such as the direction and strategies implemented within the project area, and indirect or secondary impacts, such as increased commercial activity needed to serve the additional population projected from the project. 6.1 ELIMINATION OF OBSTACLES TO POPULATION GROWTH The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth is considered to be a growth-inducing impact. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure,including roadways,water mains, and sewer lines, into areas not currently provided with these services is expected to support new development. Similarly,the elimination of or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, can result in new population growth. The adopted forecasts for the region,subregion,and City are as follows: Table 6.0-1. Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 19,208,661 20.191.117 21.137,519 22.035.416 22.890.797 Housing Units 6,072,578 6,463,402 6.865,355 7,263,519 7.660.107 Emaloyment 8,729,192 9.198.618 9,659,847 10,100,776 10,527.202 Source:Southern Califomia Association of Governments.Growth Estimates,2004. FalSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 6-1 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 2887-January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRI6.0_Spyglass_Growth Inducing Impacts.doc 6.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts Table 6.0-2. Adopted West Riverside Council of Governments Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 1614,605 1,830.421 2,037,129 2,230,185 2,413,467 Housing Units 521,606 606,139 691,621 776.168 860.168 Employment 541,587 633.161 727,005 822,031 918,640 Source:Southern California Association of Governments.Growth Estimates 2004. Table 6.0-3. Adopted City of Lake Elsinore Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 42,940 50,442 57,842 64,934 71,737 Housing Units 12,703 15.033 17,386 19,707 22.008 Emnlovment 11,231 12,342 13.487 14,648 15,835 Source:Southern California Association of Governments.Growth Estimates 2004. In the case of the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan, all public service infrastructure is currently available adjacent to the project; all infrastructure would need to be extended through the project location. The development would require the extension of roadways, sewer,water, gas, and electrical lines,which would be developed to serve the project area. Improvements would be completed in accordance with the Specific Plan to serve the ultimate buildout area. Because development associated with the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan would result in the extension of public facilities that would serve only the Spyglass Ranch development,the project would not be considered growth inducing. Buildout of the Spyglass Ranch project is expected to be complete in 2017. Table 6.0-4 details the population a+id-housing unit, and employment figures and growth estimates for the City of Lake Elsinore, as reported by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Table 6.044. Population, Housing Unit,and Employment Estimates %change from %change from 2000 2005 2000-2005 2020 2005-2020 Population 29,118 36,804 26% 57,842 I 36% Housing Units 8,899 10,681 20/0 17,386 39/a Emnlovment 8,355 9,455 13% 13.487 I 30% Source:Southern California Association of Governments,Growth Estimates 2004. The City of Lake Elsinore has,through Resolution No. 91-42, established generation rates for the population per dwelling unit type. Table 6.0--2-5 shows the estimated population based on the dwelling unit types proposed in the Specific Plan. DRSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 6-2 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May 9QDzJWJ&MM XA010570 City of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFInaI EIRI6 0_Spyglass_Growth Inducing Impacts.doc 6.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts Table 6.0-45. Population Estimates for Spyglass Ranch Average Estimated No.of Estimated Residence Type Population/Unit Dwelling Units Population Estate Residential 3.22 8 26 Single Family Homes 3.22 515 1,658 Courtyard Homes 2.71 171 463 Multifamily Units 2.20 341 750 Total 1,035 2,898 Source:Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan,2006. The current land uses for the Spyglass Ranch project site allow for a maximum of 659 dwelling { units, as demonstrated in Table 6.046. Table 6.046. Current Land Use Dwelling Unit Calculations Allowable Dwelling Total Allowable Land Use Acres Units per Acre Dwelling Units Freeway Business 16.57 0 0 Future Specific Plan 219.82 3 659 Neighborhood Commercial 22.41 0 0 Total 258.8 659 Source:City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, 1995. A total of 659 dwelling units were included for the Spyglass Ranch project area when the SCAG growth estimates were calculated. The Spyglass Ranch project proposes a maximum of 1,035 dwelling units, 376 units above the number of units incorporated into the growth estimates. Table 6.04-7 details the estimated increase in population due to the increased number of dwelling units on the project site. Table 6.0-47. Spyglass Ranch Population Estimate Differences DU Above Pop.Above Current No.in Percent of Adopted Growth Avg. Adopted Growth Residence Type Specific Plan Total Estimate Pop/Unit Estimate Estate Residential 8 1% 8 3.22 26 Single Family Home 515 50% -144 3.22 -464 Courtyard Homes 171 17% 171 2.71 463 Multifamily Units 341 33% 341 2.20 750 Total 1,035 100% 376 776 The Spyglass Ranch project would result in 776 residents living in the City of Lake Elsinore that were not included in the estimate calculated by SCAG. This is considered a significant growth inducing impact if this increase in population could spur surrounding projects to increase their densities at a future date; the Spyglass Ranch site is largely surrounded by undeveloped land. The vacant parcels to the north carry the f � Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 6-3 City of Lake Elsinore aRevised Draft EIR May 2007AMMy 2 X.1010570_City_ol Lake_Elsinorel52684_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRI6.0 Spyglass_Growth Inducing Impacts.doc 6.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts General Plan Land Use designations of Freeway Business(FB)and Low Density(LD)Residential. The parcels to the northwest carry the designation of Approved Specific Plan(ASP) (Ramsgate). The Spyglass Ranch project would not result in additional density on these parcels, as they have already been approved for development at a set density. To the east,the vacant parcels are designated with the Future Specific Plan Land Use. To the southeast the vacant parcels carry the land use designation of Open Space and Recreation(OSR). The Spyglass Ranch project would not result in additional density on these parcels, as they are expected to remain vacant for perpetuity. An application has been submitted for development of a 145-acre mixed use residential community,the Village of Porto Romano, for the currently undeveloped parcels to the south of the project site. Interstate 15 (I-15)borders the site to the southwest. On the south side of I-15,the vacant parcels are designated as Medium Density (MD) Residential,Tourist Commercial(TC), and Freeway Business(FB)Land Uses in the General Plan. The Spyglass Ranch development would not result in increased density being requested for these parcels. Alternately,the multifamily units could be removed from the project,and the 14.5 acres would be developed under a commercial land use designation consistent with the Specific Plan. The average employees per acre for commercial uses are 20.68. Therefore,approximately 300 Jobs are forecast to be created if commercial development replaced the multifamily units. Promotion of Economic Growth Increased industrial, commercial,and residential development typically generates a secondary or indirect demand for other services. The City's growing population would require additional goods and services, such as groceries, entertainment, and medical services which would stimulate economic activity. Because the proposed project would substantially alter the population projections adopted by SCAG,the project would experience secondary effects of increased residential demand for goods and services. This increased demand could result in greater employment-generating uses in the County that could generate a secondary demand for goods and services to support new and expanding business throughout the Lake Elsinore area. 6.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In summary,the proposed project would not directly induce additional population growth in the City; however,it would directly induce economic growth. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 6-4 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2A8-7Jggag 2008 X.1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIM6.0_Spyg1ass Growth Inducing Impacts.doc r 7.0 Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7.0 INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act CE A Guidelines Section 15126 b Q tY ( Q � ( ), Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)must include a discussion of significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The impact analysis, as detailed in Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR, concludes that the impacts discussed below would remain significant after mitigation. 7.1 AIR QUALITY(PROJECT-AND CUMULATIVE-LEVEL) Implementation of the project would result in significant and unmitigated emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), during the construction phase and ROG,NO,, and carbon monoxide(CO)during the project's operational phase due primarily to mobile source emissions. Furthermore, incremental increases in pollutant levels would result in significant cumulative impacts at the regional level. In addition, the proposed project conflicts with the South Coast Air Quality 1 Management District(SCAQMD)Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)due to inconsistencies with the growth projections for the project area as it is not consistent with the currently adopted zoning as identified in the City's General Plan. Even with implementation of mitigation measures as identified,the daily construction-and operation-related emissions cannot be reduced to less than significant levels. In summary,impacts would be significant and unmitigable. in gFawtli alone. ulifflitigabl44ide mitigation mearmfes aFe available for-f:esowee seetiens iliat analyze the diCumulative mid diwet Pr- Ire pop"latioli and h8usingwetlid wHiaili sit e. 47.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (CUMULATIVE-LEVEL) Modeling conducted for the study area intersections indicated that study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service under Long Range General Plan buildout conditions,both with and without the proposed project. However, the City Engineer has reviewed the site conditions and has concluded that heavy vehicle queuing on Main Street between Camino del Norte and the 1-15 southbound ramps would occur during the peak hours due to the proximity of the intersections and other physical topographical constraints. Since the intersections are located less than the Caltrans minimum distance of 400 feet of each other and due to the probability that queuing would result in actual operations that are not acceptable, a significant cumulative impact is identified for General Plan buildout. The City will take the lead in developing an alternative interchange design in conjunction with Caltrans through the project study report(PSR)process. As these conditions are likely to occur prior to General Plan buildout, it is recommended that the PSR process begin prior to issuance of the grading permit. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-5,which requires the project contribute on a fair share basis to the funding of this PSR,the impact to the I-151 Main Street interchange would remain significant and unmitigated. LT1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 7-1 City of Lake Elsinore jj jj JJ Revised Draft EIR May-AQ;:January 2.008 X.•1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglassl8_CEQAIFinal EIR17.0 Spyglass_Inventory_Unavoidable Adv Impacts doc 7.0 Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This page intentionally left blank. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 7-2 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR May 29A�January 2008 XA010570_City_of Lake_Elsinore152694_Spyglassl6 CEWIFinal EIR17.0 Spyglass Invenfory_Unavoidable Adv Impacts.doc 8.0 Significant Irreversible Changes i 8.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by implementation of the proposed project being analyzed. Irreversible environmental changes may include current or future commitments to the use of non-renewable resources or secondary growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Growth inducing impacts of the project area are discussed in Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR. Construction and operation of the project would contribute to the incremental depletion of resources, ( including renewable and non-renewable resources. Resources such as lumber used in building construction, are generally considered renewable resources, and would be replenished over the lifetime of the project.Non-renewable resources, such as natural gas,petroleum products, steel, copper and other materials are typically considered to be in finite supply and would not be replenished over the lifetime of the project. i In addition, implementation of the proposed project would contribute to significant irreversible changes to air quality because of project and cumulative level impacts of reactive organic gases (ROG),nitrogen oxides (NO,,), and fine particulate matter(PMIo)during the project's construction phase and ROG,NOX, and CO during its operational phase. FaSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 8-1 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May-2907January 200E X:1010570_Cily_of Lake_E1sinoreM684 Spyglassl6_CEQA1Rnal EIRI8.0 Spyglass_SignificantIrreversibleChanges.doc 8.0 Significant Irreversible Changes This page intentionally left blank. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 8-2 City of Lake Elsinore I-` Revised Draft EIR May 22997January 2008 X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 SpyglasslB CEQAIFinal EIRI6.0 Spyglass Signiricent Irreversible Changes.doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References 9.0 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 9.1 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 9.1.1 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The following firms and individual were responsible for the content of this Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR): Lead Agency City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department Planning Division 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Rolfe Preisendanz,Community Development Director Tom Weiner,Planning Manager Matthew Harris,Senior Planner ' Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner 1 Ken Seumalo,Public Works Director Chuck Mackey, Traffic Engineer i Ed Basubas,Traffic Engineer Applicant Spyglass Ranch,LLC 2751 West Coast Hwy., Suite 210 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Erik Lunde Environmental Analysis HDR Engineering,Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Betty Dehoney, CEP,Program Director of Environmental Services Melyssa Sheeran, Spyglass Ranch Project Manager Caroline Evans, City Planner/GIS Analyst 1 David Dettloff, GIS Analyst Meghan Scanlon,Environmental Analyst Shirley Taylor,Environmental Analyst Clement Brown,Environmental Analyst Sophia Habl Mitchell,Environmental Analyst Shannon D'Agostino,Environmental Analyst Terri Parsons, Document Production Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-1 City of Lake Elsinore I \ Revised Draft EIR May2QWJanuary 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR19.0 Spyglass Persons Orgs Consulted-References.doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References Air Quality/Noise Giroux and Associates 3 Rushingwind Irvine, CA 92614 Hans Giroux Biological Resources Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La,Mesa., CA 91941 Barry Jones Dale Ritenour Cultural Resources Brian F. Smith and Associates 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064 Richard Greene,Project Archaeologist Brian F. Smith,Principal Investigator George L. Kennedy,PhD, Senior Paleontologist Geotechnical/Soils GeoTek,Inc. 4130 Flat Rock Drive, Suite 140 Riverside, CA 92505 Anna M. Scott,Project Geologist Edward H. LaMont, Branch Manager Edmond Vardeh,Project Engineer Hazardous Materials GeoSoils,Inc. 26590 Madison Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 Donna Gooley,Director of Environmental Services John P.Franklin,Manager Hydrology and Hydraulic Study K&A Engineering,Inc. 357 N. Sheridan Street, Suite 117 Corona, CA 92880 Larry Stickney Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-2 City of Lake Elsinore ED-♦ Revised Draft EIR May-2A6-7January 2008 X..1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinorel52684 Spyglassl8 CEQAIFinal EIR19.0 Spyglass Persons Orgs Consulted-References.doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References Specific Plan T&B Planning Consultants 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 ! Tustin, CA 92780 Joel Morse Dave Patel Traffic Kunzman Associates 1111 Town&Country Road, Suite 34 Orange, CA 92868 ICarl Ballard,Principal Associate William Kunzman,P.E. 9.1.2 Persons and Organizations Consulted The following individual and agencies were contacted for information during the preparation of this Draft f EIR: 1 • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District—Loren Sorber • K+A Engineering—Larry Stickney,Engineer • Lake Elsinore Police Station/Riverside County Sheriff's Department—Beth Decou, Crime Prevention Officer • Lake Elsinore Unified School District—Mike Sattley,Director of Facilities Services • Lake Elsinore Unified School District—Karen Koski,Facilities Services • Riverside County Fire Department—Scott Deforge,Assistant Fire Marshall I 0 Riverside County Library System—Mark Smith,Library Administrator • Riverside Transit Agency—Michael McCoy, Senior Planner • T+B Planning Consultants—Dave Patel j • Southern California Gas Company—Dick Gebhardt, Technical Services Supervisor I 9.2 REFERENCES 1 Borchard, Theresa, 1982. Site recorded for P-33-7193. On file at the Eastern Information Center University of California—Riverside, California. Brian F. Smith&Associates. 2006. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Spyglass Ranch Project, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California. September 13. Brian F. Smith&Associates. 2006. Paleontological Resources and Monitoring Assessment, Spyglass Ranch,Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. September 12. LT1� Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-3 City of Lake Elsinore �� jjJJ Revised Draft EIR May2997-January 2008 X.A010570 Cify_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIRW.0 Spyglass Persons Orgs Consulted-References.doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection. 2004. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program California Farmland Conversion Report. California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWMB). 2006. Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. June. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Solid Waste Information System(SWIS). Facility/Site Summary Details, SWIS Number: 33-AA-0217. November. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. January 24. Caibuiie,Larry A., 1957. Cultural Resources Investigution of the Missing Link Specific Plan, Riverside County, California. Scientific Surveys,Inc. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center,University of California-Riverside, California. City of Lake Elsinore. 1995. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. November 27, 1990. Reprinted 1995. City of Lake Elsinore. 2006. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. October. City of Lake Elsinore. 2006. City of Lake Elsinore Draft General Plan Update Background Reports and Land Use Alternative Maps. January. Contribution Agreement and Amendment to Joint Development Agreement. Executed between South Shore Properties, LLC and Spyglass Ranch LLC. County of Riverside. 2006.Riverside County Emergency Operations Plan. February 17. County of Riverside. 2003. Riverside County General Plan. Elsinore Area Plan. October. County of Riverside. 2002.Riverside County General Plan Draft Program EIR. October. County of Riverside. 2004. Riverside County Integrated Project-General Plan. October 7, 2003. County of Riverside. 2004. Riverside County Integrated Project-Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. June 17,2003. Eastern Municipal Water District. 1990. West San Jacinto Groundwater Management Plan. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 2005. District-Wide Water Supply Assessment Final Report. August. GeoSoils,Inc. 2004. Second Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Additional Property, SpyGlass Ranch, 8.87 Acres, South oj'Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. April 6. GeoSoils, Inc. 2004.Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Additional Property, SpyGlass Ranch, 5.1 Acres, South of Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. April 6. IDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-4 City of Lake Elsinore -` Revised Draft EIR May 2Q PJanuary 2008 X:1010570 City_of Leke_ElsinoreW664 Spyglassl6_CEQA1Hna1 EIR19 0 Spyglass Persons Orgs Consulted-References.doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References GeoSoils,Inc. 2004.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment SpyGlass Ranch, ±248 Acres, Northeast Corner of Camino Del Norte and Lugonia Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California 92663. February 4. iGeoTek,Inc. 2006. Limited Geotechnical Evaluation for Spyglass Ranch Project, 259-Acre Property, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. September 20. Giroux and Associates. 2007. Noise Impact Analysis, Spyglass Ranch, City of Lake Elsinore, California. February 16. Giroux and Associates. 2007. Air Quality Analysis, Spyglass Ranch, City of Lake Elsinore, California. I February 16. Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. 2006. Biological Technical Report. Spyglass Ranch. August 25. IHelix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2006. Lake Elsinore Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis of the Spyglass Ranch Project(SP 2005-02, GPA 2005-06, ZC 2005-07). May 19. Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dry Season Protocol Level ' Survey Report for Vernal Pool and Riverside Fairy Shrimp. September 29. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Trip Generation Manual. 7`h Edition. K&A Engineering,Inc. 2007. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, Conceptual Drainage Study and Design Approach/Methodology for Drainage Treatment Control. { January. I Kennedy-Jenks Consultants. 2003. Wastewater Master Plan. Prepared for EVMVVD. Kunzman Associates. 2007. City of Lake Elsinore, Spyglass Ranch, Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised). February 8. Kunzman Associates. 2007. Traffic Analysis Addendum for the Spyglass Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised). February 8. Lunde, Erik. 2007. Developer, Spyglass Ranch LLC. Personal communication with Melyssa Sheeran, HDR Inc. February 12. McCoy, Michael. 2006. Personal communication with Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner, City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division. July 5. Meredith,Pat. 1982. Site recorded for P-33-7228. On file at the Eastern Information Center,University of California-Riverside, California. Scott,Eric. 2006. Paleontology Literature and Records Review, Spyglass Ranch Project,Lake Elsinore Region,Riverside County, California. San Bernardino County Museum. September 12. Smith,Mark. 2006. Electronic communication. Administrator,Riverside County Library System. Sent November 9. FURSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-5 City of Lake Elsinore Revised Draft EIR May2987January 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinorel52664 Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIRIg.0 Spyglass_Persons Orgs Consulted-References-doc 9.0 Persons and Organizations Consulted and References Sorber,Loren. 2007. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Personal Communication with Melyssa Sheeran, HDR Inc. February 13. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 24"2007. Air Quality Management Plan. httv://www.aamd.jzov/agmn/07agmR/index.litmi. Southern California Association of Governments. 2004. Compass Growth Vision. Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. RTP Growth Forecast. Southern C'.alifnmia Aggnr.intinn of Governments_ 1996_ Regional ComprPhonsive Plan and Guide (RCPG). Southern California Association of Governments. 2004. Destination 2030:Regional Transportation Plan. April. State of California Department of Finance. 2006. Population Report. January. T&B Planning Consultants. 2006. Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. June. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2007. Joint Project Review No. 06-12-18- 01 for LEAP 2006-03 (Spyglass). January 11. 9.3 ELECTRONIC RESOURCES California Air Resources Board(GARB). 2006. Ambient Air Quality Standards. November 10. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aags2.pdf>. California Department of Transportation. 1996. Guidelines for the Official Designation of Scenic Highways. March. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/shpgl.htm>. California Employment Development Department. Local Area Profile for Riverside County. <http://www.labonnarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsiniz/1ocalAreaProOSSelectioii.asp'?menuC hoice=localAreaPro->. California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2006. California Gas Report. <http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/docs/2006—CGR.pdf>. City of Lake Elsinore. 2006.Lake Elsinore's RDA:Revitalize, Rebuild, Renew! http://www.lake- elsinore.org/rda/index.asp Southern California Association of Governments. 2000. Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment. November. <Iittp://www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/rhna/index.htm>. Southern California Association of Governments. 2004. Growth Estimates. <http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm>. faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 9-6 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Diaft EIR May 20 WJanuary 2008 X.1010570_City_of Lake_Elsinora152694_Spyglassl6_CEQAIFinal EIR19.0_Spywass Persons Orgs Consulted-Re/erances doc APPENDIX A.1 Notice of Preparation CITY OF^,.- LADE LSIROKE -kW.- DREAM EXTREME,M r NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO: RECIPIENT DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2006 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT f REPORT FOR THE SPYGLASS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN l ` Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Contact: Wendy Worthey, Senior Environmental Planner The City of Lake Elsinore will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the above-referenced project. In compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines,the i City of Lake Elsinore is sending this Notice of Preparation(NOP)to responsible agencies,interested parties and federal agencies which may be involved in approving or permitting the project, and to trustee agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project.Within 30 days after receiving the NOP,each agency is requested to provide the City of Lake Elsinore with specific details about the scope and content of the environmental information to be contained in the EIR related to that agency's area of statutory responsibility. The purpose of this NOP is to solicit the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. A 30-day review and comment period for this Notice of Preparation is provided under State law. Please have your response post-marked by January 18, 2007. Please send i your response to Ms.Wendy Worthey at the address shown above. Please provide the name for a contact person in your agency. According to Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines,the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan meets the criteria for projects of statewide,regional or area wide significance. Therefore,pursuant to Section 15082(c) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines,the City is hosting a public scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for public agencies and members of the public to provide input as to the scope and content of the environmental information.Meeting and project details are as follows: Date: January 11, 2007 Time: 10:00- 11:00 AM Location: Lake Elsinore City Hall, Conference Room A 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department,130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Notice of Preparation -2- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed Spyglass Ranch project site is located on 259.6 acres of land east of the Interstate 15 Freeway (I-15), along the Corona/Temecula corridor in the City of-Lake Elsinore.The site is located six miles east of the Cleveland National Forest, eight miles south of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, and one mile south of Alberhill Creek and the San Jacinto River. The project has the following assessor's parcel numbers: 377-350-004, -007, -008, -010, -011,-014, -015, -016, -017, 377-260-004, -005 and-006. The regional and local vicinity maps are depicted in Figures 1 and 2,respectively. The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped and generally vacant with the exception of a private residence with swimming,ranch and equestrian facilities. Currently this residence is unoccupied as it is undergoing renovation. This private residence will be retained on the project site. Over the years, a network of graded dirt roadways has been created to provide access within the site. The project site is bordered to the north, east, and south by relatively vacant land and rural residences, and to the west by I- 15 and Camino del Norte.The project site and surrounding land uses are presented on Figure 3. The topography of the project site is characterized by small valleys,ridgelines, and canyons,ranging in elevation from approximately 1,290 feet above mean sea level(MSL)in the southwest portion of the property to approximately 1,845 feet above MSL in the northeast portion of the site. The site is disturbed and predominant vegetation on the site consists of non-native introduced grasses and patches of Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat. Non-native landscape,turf, and ornamental plants have been incorporated into landscaped areas around the existing private residence,ranch, and equestrian facilities. Additionally, a small number of cherry trees and California junipers grow along an ephemeral drainage near the northwestern corner of the project site. Two prominent drainage washes exist on the site: one drains the central part of the site to the south and the other drains the northwestern part of the site to the west. Flows in the site drainages occur during and shortly after runoff events due to the small watershed area,porous soils, and steep gradients present within the project area.No perennial or year round streams or rivers are located within the project area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would be a master planned community, consisting of residential and open space/recreation within the City of Lake Elsinore.The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan currently designates the project site as Future Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre),Freeway Business, and Neighborhood Commercial. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan(SP) and increase the maximum density to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes up to 1,035 residential units,in conjunction with 6.5 acres of parks, and 88.2 acres of open space/conservation.The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. The specific plan land use map for the proposed project is depicted in Figure 4. Table 1 provides a land use summary for the project. City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department,13o South Main Street,Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 f VaVeyj MARCH ! I } � A F B !ice,•, •,! ! / /� - 1 '• s � '! ! s ,Hh'dorrd J_� j, 1 Sprui+gs Perris 011, r,164- jr `i' ` t �- I ,!��� •• is ../ f / i! _ f,• f 1 Canyon Lake t� '\ 10 l ,:�,� • r�.,✓ir£ - , ''• /� .t1 ,,C L{E'�V�E.L A N D V r' `'r> . r r r S y7'� NAT�ION,t �JFr`O��E�S:Ti 'l� �h• � ')ti J�y��"..11r"il � fir:. , •'� j°----- 1 ID"E C0U_NTY LE U CUU,NTY ;I,- .01 Al j.. m KEY MAP 0 2 4 m 0 Regional Map FIGURE 1 �1J ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Notice of Preparation ,. r \ I I I I I I ! \ I ' 5, City of Canyon Lake a ;;;f: PROJECT SITE1 - !tAry,Y,�N.�4i►1RD m ITrII �I . A 3 c 1 Ehif1U/9 City of ` Lake Elsinore u l i ? -PNDY CANYm wj,; T� L � 0 0.5 Mi 0 Vicinity Map FIGURE 2 ONE COMPANY IMany Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Notice of Preparation w 01 FA � . � �• _ r 0 � - o 1� ' , f '�,. •• x rjW ffw.�: 'ras:1 All .�. _• _ N ' •7777 T � Q .k'rurie: F.iklr Aerial fFlr wil April-20051' n a 1116, 0 500 1,000 -�rfeet 0 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses FIGURE 3 1�J ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Notice of Preparation PA aB PA 14E Open Space Open Space L6 AC r PA L4r) P.A i0 Pik a /j Opn Space N.20 F_- ate Courm �j /J 10 j D'_' I_5 4midome3 '5 00 Z;',' PA Single Family;-RCILdeRtIal A'- 5AC ;4 05 DU'ic, L�etj elo - '� PA 0 PA 8C 5ingle Famill.Rss'demjzl Open Space Y4. :5 5.-,:: 4.1 AC 5 Dl:f PA L4C Open Space PA HB 5-3 AC PA 8.A.Open Space RA 4 Open Spec* 3917AC Single Family Residential rl.u.nc I FAC&te Residential 0.4 AC PA 1' w ............. COUTIvard Hcmes W-2DLVAC) 3 2AC 75 DL% 15:5 DU ACC PA 11 :angle FRrVidv Rendencial 9 2:3 C4 PA 5 4 5 L)L',AC MulwFarnity Resid 6nrial* D.4AC 131 DlJi (15 14 MAO /J 'j Open spact STATISTICAL SUMMARY ;ell SAC F LANDU5E ACRES DE451T)' DUs PA6 Residential '.0" Multi-Family Btare Re51den0al(0-2 DU'AC) -.3 I.l a .41� F A DL 1 13 4 a4Ac /j 1 3 515 ZLODU. Couir,ard Homes(8-15 DL'ACr Q-- ILS-14DUIAV I /I %lu1(j-Fxm4 Rejidenriji 1)5-24 DU.A7 14 5 23 5 1 341 'J Re5,'dentw SuororaI5 1538 6- 1035 Non-Residential PA SA Cie M 6.3 1 0 r.Space 0_A� Open Space 88-- :Nk UNO'Ckulation 11 1 -Non-Re5idenbxi Subtcit.'ds i05_6 PROJECI 101ALS 259.6 4.0 I'm Include-0-'AC Under Separate Ownership Proposed W'arer Tank Locations It Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses,a commercial F land use designation shallappl%for development consistent�tiith this Specific Plan. C2 Land Use Map FIGURE 4 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan City of Lake Elsinore I Notice of Preparationt Notice of Preparation -3- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Table 1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses Land Use Gross Acres Density Dwelling Units Residential Estate Residential (0-2 du/ac) 7.5 1.1 8 f Single-Family Residential(4-8 du/ac) 113.2 4.5 515 I Courtyard Homes (8-15 du/ac) 18.6 9.2 171 Multi-Family Residential(15-24 14.5 23.2 341 du/ac)* Subtotal 153.8 6.7 1,035 Non-Residential Parks &Community Center 6.5 8.9 Open Space 88.2 1.6 Major Circulation 11.1 Subtotal 105.8 10.5 Total 259.6 4.0 1,035 *If Planning Areas 5 and 6 are not developed with Multi-Family uses, a commercial land use designation shall apply to development allowable under the Specific Plan. Recreational Facilities t The project includes two parks,providing a total of 6.5 acres of recreation. The 3.5-acre park will provide the largest facility and is intended to serve the active recreational needs of the community. The park will 1 be located at the intersection of proposed Elsinore Hills Drive and Street"D."Proposed amenities for the park may include but are not limited to: ➢ Sand volleyball courts ➢ Basketball courts ➢ A tot lot ➢ Shade tree plantings and rolling turf areas ➢ Picnic facilities ➢ On-site parking ➢ Specific specialty sports provided for may include soccer/football fields,baseball/softball fields, and roller hockey. i A smaller 3.0-acre park will provide both active and passive recreation uses. Proposed amenities for the park may include,but are not limited to: ➢ Tennis courts ➢ Sand volleyball courts ➢ Basketball courts ➢ Tot lot ➢ Shade tree plantings and rolling turf areas ➢ Picnic facilities ➢ On-site parking Site Access and Circulation Primary access to the project site will be achieved via Camino del Norte and Main Street.Major north- south access through Spyglass Ranch is provided via proposed Lake Elsinore Hills Drive. Heavy City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department,130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Notice of Preparation -4- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan through-traffic volumes will be reduced in the internal residential neighborhoods,per the overall circulation design. Major roadways will be implemented as non-access roadways (Camino Del Norte and Elsinore Hills Drive),with residential neighborhoods served by smaller residential collector roads. Hillside Development Policies While the Spyglass property is within the City of Lake Elsinore's Hillside Planned Development Overlay District(HPD),the HPD location designations were not shown on the City's current zoning map.Due to the mapping error,the Spyglass Ranch project is not subject to the HPD overlay district. However,the project must still comply with the Hillside Development policies outlined in the Community Design Element of the City's current General Plan document. Regional Fire Protection The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCOFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CDF). The RCOFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions,providing fire suppression,emergency medical,rescue, and fire prevention D,.....1: ... >l 4L... Q..,,tL....o�t ll:.>;o:.... ..f RCOFD carvinae tha(';tv of T aka Fle;nnra A tntal of services. 17atta-llon L In he Souliivve—st■i —ion of a�CO D se..avv�tb. r;t ..f »_�..--_�_---•_-• __ four fire stations (three existing, one proposed) are located within the City boundaries and will generally provide service to the proposed project area on a regional level: ➢ Fire Station No. 10, servicing the central area of the City, located at 410 W. Graham Ave (approximately 1 mile from the project site); ➢ Fire Station No. 85,McVicker Park Fire,located at 29405 Grand Ave. (approximately 4.5 miles from the project site); ➢ Canyon Hills Fire Station#94,located at 22770 Railroad Canyon Road(approximately 2.5 miles from the project site); and ➢ Proposed Rosetta Canyon Fire Station, to be located south of Ramsgate Drive. Although the fire stations are operated by RCOFD, CDF staffs firefighters and stores fire-fighting 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. Standard response times are established by RCOFD guidelines,including a seven minute response time to any location within the City. Regional Police Protection Law enforcement services for the proposed project would be provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The nearest sheriff's station is located at 117 South Langstaff in the City of Lake Elsinore. The sheriff's station is located approximately one mile from the project site.Traffic enforcement is provided for Riverside County in this area by the California Highway Patrol with additional support from the local County Sheriff's Department. Utilities All drainage facilities would be constructed according to Riverside County Flood Control District standards and requirements. The project site is within the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's (EVMWD) service area. The single family dwelling currently onsite is provided water by the EMVWD. The applicant has obtained a will serve letter for water and sewer utilities verifying that the EVMWD has the capacity to serve the proposed project area. The project site does not contain any existing sewage infrastructure.Development of the proposed project site will require the construction of sewer pipelines. Sewer and water pipelines from the project site could connect with the existing main sewer and water lines running along Ellis Street ending on the east side of the I-15 Freeway, along Camino Del Note(east of Main Street and west of Granite Street). City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department,130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Notice of Preparation -5- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan l Southern California Edison would provide electrical service to the site.The Southern California Gas Company would provide gas service to the site. ENTITLEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The proposed project will require,but may not be limited to,the approvals and entitlements as indicated below: City of Lake Elsinore • General Plan Amendment I • Zone Change • Specific Plan • Tentative Tract Map � l California Department of Fish and Game Section • 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement i Regional Water Quality Control Board • Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I Based upon technical analysis and supporting information,the City has determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)is the appropriate CEQA document. The environmental topics that will be addressed in the Draft EIR are as follows: 1 • Aesthetics • Land Use/Planning • Air Quality • Noise • Biological Resources • Population/Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Geology/Soils • Recreation • Hazards &Hazardous Materials • Transportation/Traffic • Hydrology/Water Quality • Utilities/Service Systems lThe EIR will also identify alternatives to the proposed project that would be capable of reducing or eliminating one or more of the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The following two issue areas will not be discussed in the EIR because less than significant impacts have been identified. 1 Agriculture Resources Based upon review of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,the project site is not identified as containing Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the project site used for agricultural uses. However,the project site does contain Farmland of Local Importance in the northwest portion of assessor parcel number: 377-350-015. According to the Riverside County Integrated Project(RCIP) General Plan, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county's local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing,or has the capability of production,but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland, City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department,13o South Main Street,Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Notice of Preparation -6- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Farmland of Statewide Importance,or Unique Farmland. Neither the RCIP nor City General Plans include policies protecting Farmland of Local Importance. Furthermore, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is zoned Single-Family Residential(R-1)and General Commercial(C-2). No conflicts are known to exist;therefore,no impact is identified for this issue area. No agricultural land exists within the site or adjoins the site.The proposed project would not involve any other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore,implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural resources. Mineral Resources The project site is not known to have any mineral resource that may be of value to the region or State. Further,the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan, as indicated in the City's General Plan. Therefore,there is no opportunity to affect mineral resources, and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on this issue area. As identified above, please have your response post-marked by January la, 2007 and send to ivis. Wendy Worthey at the address shown above. Name: Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner Telephone: (951)674-3124 x 288 Cily of Lake Elsinure Cuinniunily Develupwetil DeparUuenl,13u Suulh Main 3lreel,Lake Elsinure,CA 9253u APPENDIX A.2 Notice of Preparation Distribution List CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE _ INITIAL STUDY MASTER DISTRIBUTION LIST December 15,2006 State Clearinghouse Riverside County Clerk CALTRANS District#8 Governor's Office of Planning and Research Attention: M.Meyer Office of Forecasting/IGR/CEQA Review 1400 Tenth Street,Room 212 2724 Gateway Drive Attention: Mr. Daniel Kopulsky,Chief ' Sacramento,CA 95814 P.O.Box 751 464 W.Fourth Street,6`h Floor MS 725 (916)445-0613 Riverside,CA 92502-0751 San Bernardino,CA 92401-1400 (951)486-7018 (909)383-4557 South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. California RWQCB—Santa Ana Region California Department of Fish and Game Attn: Steve Smith Attention: Mark Adelson Eastern Sierra—Inland Deserts Region 21865 E.Copley Drive 3737 Main Street,Suite 500 Attention: Leslie MacNair Diamond Bar,CA 91765-4182 Riverside,CA 92501-3348 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Ste C-220 (909)396-2000 (951)782-4130 Ontario,CA 91764 (909)484-0459 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Service Los Angeles District-Regulatory Branch Lake Elsinore Unified School District Attn:Karen A.Goebel,Asst.Field Supervisor Attention: Robert Smith Attn: Mark Sattley,Facilities Services Dir. 6010 Hidden Valley Road 911 Wilshire Blvd. 545 Chaney Street,Unit B Carlsbad,CA 92011 Los Angeles,CA 90017 Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 (760)431-9440 (213)452-3289 (909)253-7015 County of Riverside Planning Department Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Attn: Robert C.Johnson,Planning Director Attn: Phillip M.Miller,District Engineer Conservation District 4080 Lemon Street,9 u,Floor 31315 Chaney Street Attn: Dusty Williams,General Manager Riverside,CA 92502 Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 1995 Market Street (951)955-3265 (951)674-3146 Riverside,CA 92501 (951)955-1250 Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Cons.Dist. Southern California Gas Co. Southern California Edison Company Attn: Robert Wheeler Attn: District Project Manager Attn; Robert Lopez,Region Manager 29071 Calle Del Buho 1981 Lugonia Avenue 26100 Menifee Road Murrieta,CA 92563-5661 Redlands,CA 92374-9720 Romoland,CA 92585-9752 (951)696-8223 (909)335-7674 (951)928-8208 { Riverside County Office of Education Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians San Bernardino County Museum l Attn: Dave Long,Superintendent of Attn: Stephanie Gordin Attn:Kathleen B.Springer,Sr.Curator of Schools 45000 Pechanga Park Way Geologic Science 3939 13th Street Temecula,CA 92592 2024 Orange Tree Lane I Riverside,CA 92502-0868 Redlands,CA 92374 (951)826-6530 (951)308-9295 (909)307-2669,Ext.242 Riverside Co.Transportation Commission Riverside County Transportation Department Western Riverside Co.Regional Conservation 4080 Lemon Street,3`d Floor Attn: Juan Perez Authority P.O.Box 12008 4080 Lemon Street,8th Floor Attn:Thomas B.Mullen,Executive Director Riverside,CA 92502-2208 P.O.Box 1090 4080 Lemon Street, 12`h Floor (951)787-7141 Riverside,CA 92502-1090 Riverside,CA 92501 1 (951)955-6800 (951)955-9700 Western Riverside Council of Governments Ms.Laura Miranda,Deputy General Counsel Riverside Co.Habitat Conservation Agency Attn:Rick Bishop,AICP,Executive Director yy Pechanga Tribal Gov't Attn: Carolyn S ms Luna,Director 4080 Lemon Street,3`d Floor 12705 Pechanga Road 4080 Lemon Street,7th Floor Riverside,CA 92501-3679 Temecula,CA 92593 Riverside,CA 92502 (951)955-7985 (951)955-6625 Riverside Local Agency Formation Lake Elsinore&San Jacinto Watersheds CALTRANS District#8 Commission Authority Attention: Rosa Clark Attn: George J.Spiliotis,Executive Officer 11516 Sterling Avenue 464 W.Fourth Street,6`h Floor MS 726 3850 Vine Street,Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92503 San Bernardino,CA 92401-1400 Riverside,CA 92507-4277 (951)369-0631 (951)354-4220 (909)383-6327 City of Canyon Lake Planning Department City of Murrieta Planning Department Lake Elsinore Library 31516 Railroad Canyon Road 26442 Beckman Court 600 W.Graham Avenue Canyon Lake,CA 92587 Murrieta,CA 92562 Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 (951)244-2955 (951)304-2489 (951)674-4517 City of Lake Elsinore Mission Trail Library Canyon Lake Library Attn:Wendy Worthey,Principal Env. 34303 Mission Trail 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Planner Wildomar,CA 92595-8436 Canyon Lake,CA 92587-9400 130 South Main Street (951)471-3855 (951)244-9181 Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 (951)674-3124 Soboba Band of Mission Indians Sun City Branch Library Southern California Association of 23904 Soboba Road 26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard Governments San Jacinto,CA 92583 Sun City,CA 92586 818 W.Seventh Street, 12th Floor Attn:Harold Arres,Cultural Resources 951-679-3534 Los Angeles,CA 90017 Manager (213)236-1800 (951)487-8268 Riverside County Waste Management Attn:Sungkey Ma 14310 Frederick Street - Moreno Valley,CA 92553 Additional- Morongo Band of Mission Indians For projects proposed at the corner of Grand Attn:Maurice Lyons,Chairperson Avenue and Riverside: 245 N.Murray Street,Ste.C Banning,CA 92220 Peter Dawson 18010 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore CA 92530-6066 petedawson@verizon.net APPENDIX A.3 Comments on Notice of Preparation 12/27/2006 12:20 FAX 9514711418 PLANNING Dept Fax a 005/008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA � % Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarzenegger Sean Walsh Governor Director Notice of Preparation p � � CO ` December 18,2006 —. KC 2 6 ^5 To: Reviewing Agencies CITY(f Ln?r Re: Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan SCH# 2006121069 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation(NOP)for the Spyglass Ranch Specific plan draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their continents on the scope and content of the NOP,focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility,within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Aeency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Matthew Harris City of Lake Elsinore 130 S.Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence conccming this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process,please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445.0613. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse Attachments cc:Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812.3044 TEL(9)6)445-061a FAX(916)323.3016 www.opr.ca.gov 12/27/2008 12:20 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax IM 006/008 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006121069 Project Title Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Lead Agency Lake Elsinore,City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The proposed project would be a master planned community,consisting of residential and open space/recreation within the City of Lake Elsinor. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan currently designates the project site as Future Specific Plan(3 dwelling units per acre),Freeway Business,and Neighborhood Commercial. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan(SP)and increase the maximum density to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes up to 1,035 residential units, in conjunction with 6.5 acres of parks, and 88.2 acres of open space/conservation. The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. Lead Agency Contact Name Mafthew Harris w nl...-9 1..1. ci.. p4garIc Vllr 01 VGn7 LglilYlc Phone 951-674.3124 Fax email Address 130 S.Main Street City Lake Elsinore State CA Zip 92530 Project Location County Riverside City Lake Elsinore Region Cross Streets North of 1-5 and Main Street/Camino Del Norte Intersection Parcel No. 377-350-004,-007,-008,-010,-011,-014,-015.-016,-017/377-260-004,-005,-006 Township 6s Range 4w Section 5 Base SBB&M Proximity to: Highways 1-15,SR-74 Airports Railways Waterways Lake Elsinore Schools 3 Elementary, 1 Community Day, 1 Middle School Land Use GP Des:Freeway Business,Future Specific Plan and Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: R-1 Single Family REsidential and General Commercial(C-2) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Geologic/Selsmlc;Minerals; Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Parks;Schools/Universities;Sewer Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation: Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife;Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Conservation;Office of Historic Preservation;Department of Parks Agencies and Recreation; Department of Water Resources;Department of Fish and Game,Region 6; Department of Hearth Services: Office of Emergency Services;Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission;California Highway Patrol; Department of Housing and Community Development;Caltrans,District 8;Department of Toxic Substances Control;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8 Date Received 12/18/2006 Start of Review 12/18/2006 End of Review 01/16/2007 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufflelent information provided by lead agency. 12/27/2006 12:21 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax 007/008 ID 90 �. D) O o m 0 T o a Tu a 1O '�2 M a m _� CD «-� � � m 00 € a o c x .. o M e8m '� a� � a�� N meo m E ���yy m m� a m� c y �i me �4S ma m mm m(1 (� QUO.' >s ia� Ott d d d Q Cb d v o cya Od so0 3' me $mo ro3 3ice 3 �ca $ � c�z � �� ace rJ E!U❑ ❑ � ❑ aQ to am o v y m b N V 0 0 (� y CO g 8 m u U. Ds° oa a $o`'pd � ��e aa 3 ID dn w 2 �$o wv'A IL oz « > 02 � mE s c ED aO Ir 0 E � wo o 5om g L° oemr�timocm �~ o �� 0MW 0m W a Q a a 0 FAmE0 m(nuo �0 oI o ® [I Cl71 ❑ L) ;t 0 0 ❑ ❑ ■ _ O C y E w C d o d 4 C c O e e c ° a` E N 9 h a m o r. c� N v � E m ° s� Q ro off, d' =_'g � a� ' w n aa AE 0'C�� F- a1= ec CYh Maw M au � $ Nl w� i5 3 � a �c o' e � m � c >. Aa ooa 'w mza ~ ,L°� C$ Ea' E� Ev Em EZ' O � c m tQoQ��m � .� �1p t �z o > m p x s . s S L� sm CY .0 HGV E i� fj VIm C?N� 2G� V� U� Cp7 (7� C70 t72� t1U ❑ ® 0 m0 ❑ ■ ■ n ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ CC E E ° m « a o ,� o OI OI ' fn N « t N Itl r� a h a so a �o c s Z _ � _� E o _o _o `o _o c_� A $' m Ad Z O v .X 1 76 . o+—Tv V°— '_3 O j c r, C. A 0 H m e a e T m y a:t m 19 �� i0 c w > A eU � T_ � �� o o po IE o �c 10 WW 0-6 m c� Yy1 m u= � u �+ m m— c ad Ate= m yu o O 21 A O O A O A N C A m 0 IL W,Q! r ` W m y m _ y r W p m ��LL U O E __ = IE C w co C7 G9LU G� 100� C9 W O E C �M OdN` N ON O �� Q� -� �� o V .0r .0� .dU adc .!lc� � dT mw EMU o w r,o r m t C: tma rA rn 80 U 4 � L a.0 aa > aQ n c •N �� c > O m « W 10 m m m 10 B m EI m � m 0 � m m m m r O� � q 0 $ Ls L� L6os aof icoS. oc�2 �, u.�,o oa oo w n o E ao o� cD.d zc�o ❑ 0 (� 0 00 Cl 0 ■ � 0C! ® ❑ ■ og « s J O a a c C w o� e E N n o ii o m y W di • b A « � v O O u p m® a o > > E m—�o„ u c O m C1O K' OH Wes « Mew �g a e6a � ~ m o •' C dfe _Wc A «aaM W CC, ZN cLN�i oLYMY'1 C�a�i No T�ci°,�C oa a rs 9� c eN a¢10 �yy � N QG C�V e� � E - CD a�EA o 0BE Iu 2. dZ D 430 OW p3 —a CodU) Ao owz U L GfAIL i�0 iim z W ■ ❑ ❑ o ■ o a M a ❑ ■ �� o 0 ❑ WARREN D.WILLIAMS `�otixrr r��e 1995 MARKET STREET Seneral Manager-Chief Engineer �e�° no RIVERSIDE,CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us FAII RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR !1 J] ISM_M1 U dip I� AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTR IN January 3,2007 2�(?, CITY OF 1AKE E +,. Ms. Wendy Worthey lSl. .,RE City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Dear Ms. Worthey: Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan This letter is written in response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed project would be a master planned community consisting of up to 1,035 residential units, 6.5 acres of parks, and 88.2 acres of open space/conservation. The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. The proposed project site is located on 259.6 acres of land and is bordered to the north, east, and south by relatively vacant land and rural residences,and to the west by Interstate 15 and Camino del Norte in the city of Lake Elsinore,Riverside County. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following comments/concerns that should be addressed in the DEIR: 1. It should be noted that the District does not normally plan check or recommend conditions for land use cases in incorporated cities. The District will only assume an advisory role and comment on items of specific interest to the District, including MDP facilities or other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, upon written request from the city. 2. Should the District be considered as the responsible entity for the long-term operation and maintenance of any proposed flood control facilities, these facilities must be constructed to District standards, any related fees (i.e., plan check, inspection and administrative) must be paid, and draft copies of any regulatory permits (i.e., Section 404, 401 Water Quality Certification, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) necessary for the construction and maintenance activities must be forwarded to the District for review, comment and approval prior to the District's acceptance of these facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Steve Horn at 951.955.5418 or me at 951.955.1233. Very truly yours, I.G TERESA TUNG Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: David Mares SH:mcv P8\111444 D _ tillRiverside County t , r II l� Waste Management JDepar•tment G f]rrtrs Jr:r€;er'rrkcrrtrjr, Gerlrrrl aitcrr�a�oi'r=CYtrcl Grigirtc°�=r° January 23, 2007 Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental Planner City of Lake Elsinore 130 South gain Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: NOP of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Dear Ms. Wor•they: The Riverside County Waste Management Department (Department) has reviewed a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above- mentioned specific plan project. The specific plan will consist of residential and open space/recreation uses within the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, the project proposes up to 1,035 residential units, in conjunction with 6.5 acres of parks, and 88.2 acres of open space/conservation. The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multifamily residential units are not developed within the project site. Build-out of the proposed project may have the potential to generate a substantial amount of solid waste that aright adversely affect the County's solid waste landfills. To assess waste impacts, the EIR will need to include the projected amount of waste to be generated by the proposed development by utilizing an appropriate waste generation factor for construction activities and the project's type of land use. Please consult the California Integrated Waste Management Board website to determine waste generation factors. The project's EIR consultants are responsible for the analysis to determine project waste generation capacity. Given its scale of development, particular importance should be given to the quantity of construction and demolition (C&D) waste that could be generated by the project and how the waste will be disposed. Should a large quantity of the projects' C&D waste be brought to one of the County's landfill for disposal, It could exceed the landfill's daily permitted capacity, thus a violation of State regulations and an impact to County landfill operation, The Draft EIR should analyze this potential solid waste impact. The following issues should be addressed and discussed in the Draft EIR: The DEIR should identify how waste generated by the project will be handled. The project proponent should make every effort and take every means to recycle, reuse, and/or reduce the amount of construction and/or demolition 14?IO Fr•e der'1c°k Street•A401'etrrr I Wlevl (.'r1 92,553 •19511 4NO-3 00 -Fto (951)486-3.205 •Fax (951)480-y JO 4l'Yl°lfi,r91`f'I)}I'rtr U!',�r ;' pr'ilttc'rl on r-rr f ule(l pelpee Wendy Worthey NOP of a DEIR for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan January 23, 2006 Page 2 of 2 materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) generated by development of the project that would otherwise be taken to a landfill. Hazardous waste materials are not accepted at Riverside County landfills., the project proponent shall take any hazardous wastes, including paint used during construction, to the facilities that are permitted to receive, handle, and/or process hazardous waste, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. During specific development, the applicant shall contact the Riverside County Household Hazardous Waste Collection (HHW) program — 24-Hour Hotline, at 1.800.304.2226 for further information Sincerely, q &d Mirtha L.iedl Planner PD#51161 2 ;Asamm Ri versiliP (.O1l11t►, Waste Mallage11 ent Delia 'lineirt lfvn'. i7; f;ow;wt'kf mat,'F Chico! r' March 22, fl — UAR 2 3 MO, s� Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental Planner City of Lake Elsinore ~�—'----_ 130 South Maim Street Labe Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: MOP of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Dear Ms. Worthey: The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) reviewed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned specific plan and issued the attached comments on January 23, 2007. Based on additional research conducted by staff, the RCWMD would like to introduce the following additional comments: The proposed project is approximately 651 feet from the edge of the landfill disposal footprint, which extends to the boundary of the landfill property, The Elsinore Landfill operated from 1953 to 1986, and served the City of Lake Elsinore and the surrounding unincorporated area. The landfill site is 44 acres in size, a rectangular shaped parcel of land with an average width of 650 feet and an average length of 2,625 feet, excluding the 4-acre old borrow area located north and adjacent to the landfill, The landfill unit is unlined, and at the time of closure, there was approximately 1.14 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) in place. This landfill mass has the potential to produce landfill gas (LFG) from bio-degradation of the buried trash, which is an ongoing process and will continue for many years. Currently, a gas collection and disposal system is installed and operated at the landfill. This LFG collection system is operating efficiently and in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 27, Subchapter 4, Article b requires installation of additional perimeter probes if residences are located within 1,320 feet of the edge of the landfill disposal footprint in order to eliminate any potential threat of gas migration. Based on the exhibits you submitted to the RCWMD for review, the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan may have proposed residential uses within 1,320 feet of the edge of the landfill disposal footprint. In this case, the developer and/or builder will be required to finance the installation of up to eleven (11) multi-level LFG detection probes at intervals of 100 feet, along the northerly and northwesterly edge of the landfill property to comply with CCR Title 27, Subchapter 4, Article 0 regulations, and the SCAQMD Rule 1150.1. The developer and/or builder will be required to coordinate with the RCWMD, r'.1F�filkrY,dY, rokNirrr,t - Alm a;sal=i111''?. ( .1 <�_'SSi •i4Slid3�'(i-;_'l111•./u�'(��1i �,�!">-i'liS •Futlei t.iarttoIA'41 oa rcc =c loc-!1,;rt'? '+ Wendy Worthey NOP of a DEIR for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan March 22, 2007 Page 2 of 2 however, the RCWMD's environmental engineers will determine the final locations and design of these additional gas probes with the concurrence of the SCAQMD and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). The RCWMD will be responsible for conducting periodic monitoring and maintenance of the permanently installed monitoring probes. Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The RCWMD is willing to work with the developer/builder and the City of Lake Elsinore to ensure that our concerns and requirements are addressed. Please address and discuss our comments in the EIR, and contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please send the RCWMD a copy of the DEIR upon its completion. Sincerely, M Mirt4Uedl,a Planner LBL:ML/ml Cc: Angie Dufresne Mark Hunt Panda Workman PD#52762 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Tony Carstens •Agency Director Planning Department > l Ron Goldman Interim Planning Direct JA N - F 2007 February 2, 2007 p'nNA > -Qm City of Lake Elsinore Attn: Ms. Wendy Worthey 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Dear Ms. Worthey: The Riverside County Planning Department has reviewed the above notice and the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. We have no comments at this time but would like to request that we receive a copy of the draft environmental document for our review and analysis when available. If you should have any questions, please contact me at (909) 955-4949. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ron Goldman, Interim Planning Director thleen Browne, Special Projects F:\KBROWNE\DER Log\Respl-trs\k4000 Lk Elsinore Spyglass Ranch SP_Req DEIR.doc Riverside Office•4080 Lemon Street,9th Floor Indio Office•82-675 Hwy 111,2nd Floor Murrieta Office •39493 Los Alamos Road P.O. Box 1409,Riverside,California 92502-1409 Room 209,Indio,California 92201 Murrieta,California 92563 (951)955-3200•Fax (951)955-3157 (760)863-8277- Fax (760)863-7555 • Fax (951)600-6145 12/27/2006 12:21 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax im 008/008 or LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT a' 545 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore,CA M30 M 951 MS3.7000 • 5AX: 951/253-7084 December 18,2006 Saddleback Development Attu:Eric Lunde 2751 West Pacific Coast Hwy.,Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Spyglass Ridge Specific Plan Dear Eric Lunde, With the rapid amount of home construction in the Lake Elsinore Valley,the Lake Elsinore Unified School District is diligently working to ensure there are adequate facilities for the unprecedented number of students moving into the valley. According to the District's most recent School Facility Needs Analysis conducted in April 2006,the current student yield factors are as follows: Elementary School at.3698,Middle School at.16a0 and High School at.1776_ Based on the information that we have on the Spyglass Ridge Specific Plan,the Lake Elsinore Unified School District will not have room for the elementary school pupils that will be generated from Spyglass Ridge and the surrounding area. There are no additional schools planned for the near future in the quadrant of the District where your proposed development will exist. We are hereby requesting that an elementary school be located in the Spyglass Ridge Specific Plan. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in further detail. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and commitment to the future students of your project. Sincerel , Mike Sattley Director of Facilities Lake Elsinore Unified School District CC: Justin Rich-Dolinka Group Tom Weiner-City of Lake Elsinore Matthew Harris-City of Lak6 Elsinore GOVERNING BOARD:Jeanie Corral• Kim J.Cousins • Jon Dray •Ibm Thomas •Sonja Wilson 8UPERINTENDEN7..Frank W.Pasaerelle,Ed.D. 12/27/2006 12:20 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax IR 002/008 SI&M QX CAUFORMA Atnord Schwarz .. r rnrernnr NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 015 CArI'il'OL MAL14 ROOM 364 SACtAb PrM CA M14 (910 604251 Fax(f16)do-5306 w.m hc.tn.env C� � r lDecember 20,2006 OEC z 6 PLAri^I,-Z LlSI(•INRF Mr. Matthew Harris City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 Re: $CHO 20061210W CEQA Notice of Preparation(NQP1 for the 8nvalaas Ranch Specific Dion S mil EnvIE2AmenWJm2aa1Heport IDEIR)• City of Lake Elsinore-Riverside County Dear Mr.Harris: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced document. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that any pro)ect that causes a substantial adverse change In the significance of an historical resource,that includes archeological resources,Is a 'significant effecf requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR per CEQA gukielines§ 15084.5(b)(c). in order to comply with this provision,the bad agency Is required to assess whether the pro)ect will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect(APE),' and if so,to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources,the Commission recommends the following action: J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center(CHRIS). The record search will detettnlne: • If a part or the entire (APE)has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. ■ If any known cuttural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. ■ If the probability is low, moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey Is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. If an archaeological Inventory survey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. ■ The final report containing site fortes,site significance,and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning depwtrnent. All information regarding site locations,Native American human remains,and asaoclated funerary objects should be in a separate confidwftl addendum,and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. Contact the Native American Herttage Commission(NAHC)for. A Sacred Lands File(SLF)search of the project area and Information on tribal contacts In the project vicinity who may have Information on cultural resources in or near the APE. Please provide us site identification as follows:tlSG9 7.5-minute ouadra_nate chain with name township range and jection. This will assist us with the SLF_ • Also,we recommend that you contact the Nature American contacts on the attached Gat to gat their input on the effect of potential project(e.g.APE) impact. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resourm,per California Environmental Duality Act(CEQA) §15064.5(Q. In areas of Identified archaeologial sensitivity, a certified!archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American,with knowledge In cultural resources,should monitor all ground-dlstlJrbing activlties. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provislons for the dlsposilion of recovered artifacts, in consultation wltit culturally aflilleted Native Americans. 12/27/2006 12:20 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax 0 003/008 4 Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines,Section 15064.5(d)requlres the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC,to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. Health and Safety Code§7050.5,Public Resources Code§5097.98 and Sec_§15064.5(d)of the CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 4 Leed aflpneles shoulctcQnsider avoidance as defined in Q 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines when significant cultural resources are discovered during the wy=of oroiect planning Please feel tree to contact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions. ++M OIII�I�IUI1� 1/ CC: State Clearinghouse /Program Analys Attachment: List of Native American Contacts 12/27/2008 12:20 FAX 9514711419 PLANNING Dept Fax la 004/008 Native American Contacts Riverside County December 21, 2006 Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Soboba Band of Mission Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resource Center Robert J. Salgado, Sr., Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno P.O. Box 487 Luiseno Temecula ,CA 92593 San Jacinto , CA 92581 Iuiseno0soboba-nsn. (951)308-9295 (951) 654-2765 (951) 676-2768 (951) 695-1778 Fax (951) 654-4198 - Fax Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Bennae Calac, Director of Cultural Resources Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 487 Luiseno P.O. Box 2183 Luiseno San Jacinto ,CA 92581 Temecula , CA 92593 ;951) 663-8332 (951) 676-2768 ;951) 654-4198 Fax (951) 695-1778 Fax Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Nillie Pink ATTN: Harold Arras, Cultural Resources Manager t8310 Pechanga Road Luiseno P.O. Box 487 Luiseno remecuia , CA 92592 San Jacinto , CA 92581 ivipink@hotmail.com (951) 654-2765 909) 936-1216 harres0soboba-nsn. gov FAX (951) 65"198 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibilidey as defined in Sec. 7050.5 of the Health&Safety Code,Sec.5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Sec.5097.98 of the Publi Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2006121069;CEQA Notice of Preparation(NOP)for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR);Riverside County,California. SOUT14F62N CALIFOR-NiA 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey ASSOCIATION Of Senior Environmental Planner GOVERNMENTS City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Main Office Lake Elsinore, California 92530 1318 West Seventh Street 12th Flow RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Los Angeles,Callfofnia Report for Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan-SCAG No, 120060825 -9W17-3435 Dear Ms, Worthey, 1(213)236-1800 Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan to the Southern California Association of 1'12131 ZJ&1425 Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's Offken:NFwiew mrw d, 4W i,>, responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws Aq'Ao and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local �'vq IJNIIXAF111) Om�Ivkvl Z'W:1 0mo agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of Pscv>aregional goals and policies, Impeti'd county:Wuw urrwu"krlloma: SCAG staff reviewed the aforementioned NOP, and has determined that the proposed tm project is regionally significant per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project considers up to 1,035 residential WO Gimpbrll'NOwA,Im',fadvw'lo" dwelling units. AlmO's-Ali,ad llRfip €d M4m]lieiqhll.x ffiogh.mek �"Vw OmW. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and ppsmml- ASO(16'-11111'. lkoli€. -""ae 6aboO,l„wq ko 1, applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 [d]), If there are I,pamwllrl Nvn-i-h�' WxP lI ''0� inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should be Almk "wil1l;-Wsq'Kl 1w,AV!&_• provided. Jos,litlux,!,,,Aw4l4es,Tow I aM1kk!(, Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and Compass Growth Vision that rnay be applicable to your project are outlined in the attachment. We expect the EIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and -011 address the manner in which the project is consistent with applicable core policies or �VF"(witl supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them AAln wbimlac-;m1f �: in your EIR- Also, we would encourage YOU to use. a side-by-side comparison of SCAG b 14" " tosAwJew" policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the policy with the proposed (043"Iy;ulw<Nw1)Y'Q'14gJ,' project. fMmn [d J"J111w-h4m t1willw", Nea todlllllr'liow-Ail VwwL,Nyt�'i 1"iOe SCAG's Compass Growth Vision, adopted in 2004, encourages better relationships (hLjller -€h�bbl'��ll6f_ 1111111(agwo between housing, transportation, and employment. For a clearer understanding of the intent of and possibilities with Compass, please consult our website, www.socalcompass.org in addition to the guidance offered in this letter. 00vlfi.Rlim"i lh9"''hlf� Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the EIR when this document is �:�Swer RlWi* PetiN'(Aom414 Y-Ralf ZW'w.bmw(io available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Jill sitit flemdfdillq(aujity kmiy NW ".)o Egerman at (213)236-1919.Thank you. kSMe Al,u Wi­. kviv Since ly. Alag9 Wpm,Omitw '7 '_ - Wmvra county:W4y htikek'V'wow(MI'lly •W Geowa SIfill V'Mm'-010imbow, S atsaouras Y( ats Manager, Environmental Division Wawa CQuoly Tonspoethtiort DOCS# 13OB76 v1 ("Mraissitm Kow,Mfllho"w'hlvafjmfs' 0 ';' 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPYGLASS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN SCAG NO. 120060825 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan consists of a planned community on 259.6 acres of land. The proposed project would consist of residential and open space/recreation within the City of Lake Elsinore. The project proposes up to 1,035 residential units, in conjunction with 6.5 acres of park, and 88.2 acres of open space/conservation. The plan also allows for commercial-retail uses if multi-family residential units are not developed within the project site. The project also includes a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum density to 4 dwelling units per acre from 3 dwelling units per acre. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should be addressed in the Draft EIR for Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Regional Growth Forecasts The EIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts, which are the 2004 RTP (April 2004) Population, Household and Employment forecasts.The forecasts for your region, subregion and city are as follows: Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 19,208,661 20,191.117 21,137,519 22,035,416 L 22,890,797I Households 6,072,578 6.463,402 6,865,355 7,263,519 7,660,107 Employment 8,729,192 9,198,618 9.659.847 10,100,776 10.527.202 Adopted WRCOG Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 1,614,605 1,830,421 2,037,129 2,230,185 2,413,467 Households 521,606 606,139 691,621 776,168 860,168 Employment 541,587_ 633,161 727.005 822,031 918,640 City of Lake Elsinore Forecasts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 42,940 50,442 57,842 64,934 71,737 Households 12,703 15,033 17.386 19,707 22,008 Employment 11,231 12,342 13.487 14,648 15,835 The 2004 RTP growth forecast at the regional,county and subregional level was adopted by RC in April,2004. City totals are the sum of small area data and should be used for advisory purposes only. DOCS#130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 3 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of JUI:II gUc11J c111U UUCJ IIUI IIIICI ICgIUIICII IIILCIICICIIC:C Wllll IUl:cll Ic1110 UJC �.lVW815. 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. 3.06 Support public education efforts regarding the costs of various alternative types of growth and development. 3.07 Support subregional policies that recognize agriculture as an industry, support the economic viability of agricultural activities, preserve agricultural land, and provide compensation for property owners holding lands in greenbelt areas. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. DOCS# 130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 4 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job-rich subregions and job growth in housing-rich subregions. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. 3.19 National Forests shall remain permanently preserved and used as open space. SCAG shall support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, and federal plans. 3.20 Vital resources as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals should be protected. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL POLITICAL AND CULTURAL EQUITY The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference ROCS# 130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 5 with local land use powers. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 3.25 Encourage the efforts of local jurisdictions, employers and service agencies to provide adequate training and retraining of workers, and prepare the labor force to meet the future challenges of the regional economy. 3.26 Encourage ernployrr►er►t duvulupment in job-poor localities through support of labor force retraining programs and other economic development measures. _1_._ 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in fair efforts to develop- sustaniauie communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. AIR QUALITY CHAPTER The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project include: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community-based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulation can be assessed. 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government(regional, air basin, county, subregional, and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION CHAPTER The Open Space and Conservation Chapter goals related to the proposed project include: 9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. 9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. 9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. 9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection to lives and properties against natural and manmade hazards. 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipments. DOCS# 130876 v1 f / 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 6 9.06 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed. 9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations. I 9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies that are pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following: Regional Transportation Plan Goals • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments. Regional Transportation Plan Policies • Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. Performance Performance Performance Indicator Measures Definition Outcome Mobility 0 Average Daily Speed Speed-experienced by travelers 10% Improvement regardless of mode. • Average Daily Delay Delay-excess travel time resulting 40% Improvement from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed. Total daily delay and daily delay per capita are indicators used. Accessibility 0 Percent PM peak Auto 90% work trips within 45 Transit 37% minutes of home • Distribution of work Auto 8% Improvement trip travel times Transit 8%Improvement Reliability a Percent variation in Day-to-day change in travel times 10% Improvement travel time experienced by travelers. Variability results from accidents, weather, road closures,system problems and other non-recurrent conditions. DOCS# 130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 7 Safety C Accident Rates Measured in accidents per million 0.3% Improvement vehicle miles by mode. Performance Performance Performance Indicator Measures Definition Outcome Cost Effectiveness i Benefit-to-Cost(B/C) Ratio of benefits of RTP $3.08 Ratio investments to the associated investments costs. Productivity & Percent capability Transportation infrastructure utilized during peak capacity and services provided. conditions 0 Roadway Capacity-vehicles 20% Improvement at per hotir per lane by type of known bottlenecks facility. • Transit Capacity—seating N/A capacity utilized by mode. Sustainability 0 Total cost per capita Focus in on overall performance, $20 per capita,primarily in to sustain current including infrastructure condition preservation costs system performance Preservation measure is a sub- set of sustainability. Preservation 0 Maintenance cost per Focus is on infrastructure Maintain current conditions capita to preserve condition. Sub-set of system at base year sustainability. conditions Environmental • Emissions generated Measured/forecast emissions Meets conformity by travel include CO, NOX, PM10, SOX requirements and VOC. CO2 as secondary measure to reflect greenhouse emissions. Environmental 0 Expenditures by Proportionate share of No disproportionate impact Justice quintile and.ethnicity expenditures in the 2004 RTP by to any group or quintile each quintile. Benefit vs. burden by Proportionate share of benefits to quintiles each quintile ethnicity. Proportionate share of additional airport noise by ethnic group. • Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multi-modal transportation system will be RTP priorities and will be balanced against the need for system expansion investments. • RTP land use and growth strategies that differ from currently expected trends will require a collaborative implementation program that identifies required actions and policies by all affected agencies and sub- regions. GROWTH VISIONING The fundamental goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. Thus, decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development should be made to promote and sustain for future generations the region's mobility, livability and prosperity. The following "Regional Growth DOCS# 130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 8 Principles" are proposed to provide a framework for local and regional decision making that improves the quality of life for all SCAG residents. Each principle is followed by a specific set of strategies intended to achieve this goal. Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents • Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. • Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. • Encourage transit-oriented development. Promote a variety of travel choices Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities • Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. • Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. • Promote"people scaled,"walkable communities. • Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people • Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. • Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. • Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. • Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth • Encourage civic engagement. Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations • Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. • Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. • Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. • Utilize"green"development techniques. CONCLUSION All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. DOCS# 130876 v1 10 January 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey Page 9 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and responsibilities include the following: SCAC is designatod by tho federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. '134,49 U.S.C. '5301 P.t CP.f1 93 C F R '450 and 4q C_F.R_'613_ SCAG is also the desianated Re.aional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)and Regional Transportation Improvement Program(RTIP)under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082 respectively. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C.'7504(a) as a Co-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.'7506. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372(replacing A-95 Review). SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206 and 15125(b)]. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). SCAG is responsible (with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. Revised July 2001 DOCS# 130876 v1 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 917654182 �`iZa (909)396-2000 www.aqj.iid.gov �,.�� c ' / December 21, 2006 Ms, Wendy Worthey City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Ms. Worthey: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for %Spyidass Ranch Specific Plan The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental impact Report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition,please send with the Draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Air Qualiq Analysis TheSCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD reconimends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling(909)396-3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board(CARB)approved URBEMIS 2002 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at., www,agiiid.&oN./ce(ia/tnodcls.hitii1. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any)and operations should be calculated. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to,emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, eartli-loadinglu"loading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources heavy-duty construction equipment)and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vebicle trips, material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources(e.g.. boilers),area sources(e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips(e.g.,on-and off road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and coniparing the results to localized significance thresholds(LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed prctiect, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD Ms, Wendy Worthey -2- Demonibet 21, 2006 or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at lin://www.acimd.gov/ It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips,especially heavy-duty diesel-fiteled vehicles,perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment("Health Risk Assessment Cruidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis;')can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following intemet address- http://A iv N;.ggtiid.Uv/cMaAtandbook/inobile toxicimobile toxic.htini. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generatingsuch air pollutants should also be included. Midention Measures lit the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by taw be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter I I of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for rAXAn'� OWA A sainpie air quality mitigation measures. Addilloind niiiigailuit ifwasufes cart 9be'JVU---LI%'A V-1-1 k51%,1sa I wcbpages at the following internet address: www.agmd.bov/cegaihandbook!mitigahan/tilM intro.hti-nl Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 --Fugitive Dust,and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction-related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address-, hqp://%%-ww.ggmd.gov/L)rdas/agt,,uide/ggguide.him . In addition,guidance on siting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective., which can:be found at the following internet address- http://www.arb.ca http://www.arb.ca. sov/ch/handbook.pdf: Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §.]51264 any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public information Center at(909)396-2039. Much oftbe information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the S('AQM.D's World Wide Web Hoinepage ://www.aunid.pov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that prqiect-related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist CFQA Section, Oat (909)396-3304 if you have any questions re#arding this letter. Sincerely, steveSmith, PKD Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li LAC061220-51,1 Control Number TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP 10755-F ScRiPPs PowAY PARKWAY#281• SAN Dn;co,CAuwomu 92131 TELEPHONE(858)554-0550 • FAcsrnm.R(858)777-5765 •wwwmmwLAw.com Kathryn A.Ogas kogas@mtowlaw.com Brenda L.Tomaras btomaras@mtowlaw.com January 16, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Ms. Wendy Worthey City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: Comments on Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan Dear Ms. Worthey: Our firm represents the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians of the Pechanga Indian Reservation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe (hereinafter"Pechanga Band"), submits the following response to your Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan. The Pechanga Band formally requests that it be involved in the entire Environmental Impact Report (EIR)process for the proposed Project. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to submitting more detailed comments when it receives further information on the specific cultural resources impacts. At this time the Pechanga Band is submitting general comments regarding their interests and concerns with this Project. We request that these comments as well as subsequent comments submitted by the Pechanga Tribe be included in the record for approval of the Project. In addition,the Pechanga Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, is formally requesting,pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the Project. Please add both the Pechanga Band and Miranda, Tomaras & Ogas, LLP to your mailing list for this and other projects which will impact Luiseno sites. Pechanga Indian Reservation Brenda L. Tomaras Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee Tomaras & Ogas, LLP P.O. Box 2183 10755-F Scripps Poway Parkway#281 Temecula, CA 92593 San Diego, CA 92131 Letter to Wendy Worthey Re: Spyglass Ridge Page 2 SIGNIFICANCE TO THE TRIBE As you know, the Pechanga Band has a long history of involvement with projects in and around the Lake Elsinore area. In fact, Lake Elsinore plays a significant role in the Tribe's creation stories. The Pechanga/Luiseno people have called this area home since time immemorial and can trace its ancestors to the areas that will be directly impacted by this Project. This land and its resources are an integral part of its present-day cultural values and, as such, the Tribe has an evident interest in this Project,both generally and legally. The Pechanga Tribal Government has a Cultural Resources Department, with a staff of experts in Luiseno history and archeology,which its elders entrust to protect and preserve its cultural resources for future generations. As such, the Pechanga Tribe is specifically concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luiseno archeological sites and cultural resources which may be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the Project; and, above all, the proper and lawful treatment of Native American remains and sacrod itciiis -at inay be discovered in the course of work. FURTHER ASSESSMENT REQUESTED Based on the history of known cultural resources in the Specific Plan area, the Pechanga Band contends that a thorough cultural resources assessment should be required as part of the DEIR for the Project. The Tribe is aware of an archaeological report which notes the presence of at least two archaeological sites in or around the Project area. That report, nearly twenty years ago in 1987,was based upon only a pedestrian survey of the Project area, in conjunction with a records search. Additional studies of the sites, as recommended by the report, were apparently never done,thus no determination of significance has been made regarding the two known sites. Further, although the Tribe understands that a more current pedestrian survey has been performed, it is not clear to what extent the entire 296 acres were surveyed, as opposed to merely trying to relocate the known sites. As such, the Tribe believes it is imperative that a thorough walkover, with Tribal participation, be performed of the entire project property. In addition, as the City knows, the Developer graciously took members of the Tribe and monitoring staff out to the Property to view the two known sites. Based on that review, the Tribe believes that it is necessary to perform Phase II testing at the site on the top of the hill. In addition, other Phase II testing may need to be done depending on the results of the thorough site survey. Because this area has the potential to be rich in cultural resources, based upon, among other things, the fact that the vicinity in and around the project area is conducive to areas which would be quarry areas, milling stations or possible encampments as reported in the 1987 archaeological study, as well as the fact that several other projects in close proximity to this properly contain numerous sites, CEQA requires a thorough evaluation of the cultural resources within the Project area. Any lack of investigation regarding the entire site, or determination regarding significance of sites found is contrary to the mandates of CEQA to evaluate potential project impacts. Further, the Pechanga Band requests that the City and developer take steps for the protection of any uncovered resources in the process of the requested assessment. The additional surveys may reveal significant archaeological resources and sites which may be eligible for r - Letter to Wendy Worthey r Re: Spyglass Ridge Page 3 inclusion in the historic site register, may contain human remains and/or may be sacred Luiseno sites. The Pechanga Band believes that only after the completion of more extensive surveys by both the City and the Pechanga Band, will a complete assessment of impacts be accurate. PECHANGA TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT The Pechanga Tribe will itself be engaging in further assessment of the Project area, in consultation with tribal elders, to identify more specific information about this culturally sensitive area. Moreover, the Tribe possesses necessary information about the archeological and r cultural sensitivity that an archeological survey alone will not reveal, and should be consulted with at the earliest possible stage of the environmental review to assist in identifying and mitigating the cultural resources impacts for this Project, as the applicant has already agreed to do. Given that Native American cultural resources will likely be affected by the Project, the Pechanga Tribe requests it be allowed to be involved and participate with the City and applicant in creating mitigation plans for the duration of the Project under California Public Resources Code § 21081 According to the California Public Resources Code, § 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage commission must name a"most likely descendant,"who shall be consulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga aboriginal territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or items discovered in the course of this Project. CONCLUSION In order to approve an EIR the City is required to make findings that it has adopted mitigation measures that have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible. CEQA Guidelines § 15092. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP Brenda L. Tomaras Attorneys for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Liil TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP 10755-F Scxlrrs PowAY PA1zxwAY#281• SAN D1Eco,CALIFORNIA 92131 TtLEPHoNE(858)554-0550 • FAcsmmz(858)777-5765 •W Ww.MMWLAw.COM Kathryn A.Ogas kogas@mtowlaw.com Brenda L.Tomaras btomaras@mtowlaw.com March 6, 2007 Ms. Wendy Worthey City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 AV: ,apyglass 1td1JL;,11 J1JGV1"c 1 lall Dear Ms. Worthey: Last month the Pechanga Cultural Resources staff and myself had a meeting with Mr. Erik Lunde to discuss Pechanga's comment letter regarding the NOP and to address the Tribe's concerns with archaeological resources. As you may recall, in the comment letter the Pechanga Band indicated it believed that Phase II testing at one of the known sites was necessary to determine the significance and extent of the site. While it is still the Tribe's position that appropriate investigation is necessary to determine the significance of the site in order to devise appropriate mitigation measures, and that Phase II testing prior to completion of the DEIR is the preferred method,we understand from Mr. Lunde that the DEIR is actually nearly complete. Mr. Lunde has asked the Tribe to work with him in devising some alternate investigation method which would not cause delay of the release of his environmcntal documents. i In the spirit of cooperation, the Tribe has agreed to an evaluation program which will be conducted during a controlled grade in and around the site. Further, it was made clear that the assessment and investigation process may necessitate the addition of mitigation measures/conditions of approval depending upon the resources encountered during the ' evaluation. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP Brenda L. Tomaras Attorneys for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 4.13 Transportation/Traffic 4.13 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC The following reports were used in the preparation of this section and are included in their entirety in Appendices J of this Environmental Impact Report(EIR): City of Lake Elsinore, Spyglass Ranch, Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised). Prepared by Kunzman Associates. April 29,2007. 4.13.1 Environmental Setting 4.13.1.1 Applicable Plans and Regulations Regional Plans and Policies Destination 2030:2004 Regional Transportation Plan { Destination 2030 is the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)for the six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,Riverside,Ventura, and Imperial. The RTP I focuses on improving the balance between land use and the current as well as future transportation systems. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)is required to develop,maintain, l and update the RTP on a three-year cycle. I Destination 2030 is a multi-modal plan representing the vision for a better transportation system, ( integrated with the best possible growth pattern for the region over the plan horizon of 2030. The RTP l provides the basic policy and program framework for long-term investment in the vast regional transportation system in a coordinated, cooperative, and continuous manner. Transportation investments in the SCAG region that receive State or federal transportation funds must be consistent with the RTP and must be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program(RTIP)when ready for funding. Consistency with the RTP is included in Section 4.8,Land Use, and Table 4.8-3, Applicable Land Use Regulations. Due to the large amounts of infrastructure the project is adding to the City of Lake Elsinore to improve circulation,the project supports and complies with these goals,resulting in a less than lsignificant impact. 1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)program evolved from the need to establish a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway improvements for western Riverside County. This program(adopted December 2002) establishes a single uniform mitigation fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system. It was adopted with the intention to avoid multiple, discrete fee programs with varying policies, fees, and improvement projects. The project proponent would contribute the required amount per dwelling unit TUMF for funding regional transportation improvements. FDSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-1 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 20OVIMMMM X:1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglass18 CEQAIFinal EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Local Plans and Policies Riverside County Congestion Management Plan Congestion Management Plans (CMPs)are required pursuant to California Proposition 111,passed in June 1990,which requires that a designated Congestion Management Agency develop and adopt a CMP for each County with a population of more than 50,000. The County of Riverside is responsible for the development,monitoring, and biennial updating of the County's CMP. The goals of the County's CMP are to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. The CMP is also used as a method for proposing transportation projects that are eligible to compete for state gasoline tax funds. In 1997,Riverside County Transportation Commission(ROTC)modified its original CMP to focus on meeting federal Congestion Management System(CMS)guidelines. The focus of the CMP is the A-xn-1nnmPnt of nn Pnhnnri-d Traffir Mnnitnrino Rvcte.m in whirh real-time traffic nmint Bata can he accessed by RCTC, Coachella Valley Association of Governments,and Caltrans to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and Federal levels. In preparation of the 2001 CMP,there were no deficiencies found on the CMP system based upon the year 2001 monitoring effort. The CMP for Riverside County was developed through a cooperative effort involving local jurisdictions,public agencies,businesses, and community groups. The regional transportation system subject to the CMP is defined as all state highways and principal arterials. The RCTC has defined the CMP roadway system in Lake Elsinore to be State Route 74(SR-74)and Interstate 15 (I-15). All local jurisdictions are responsible for determining the impacts of local development/land use decisions on the CMP roadway system. RCTC requires local agencies whose developments impact the CMP system by causing the LOS on a non-exempt segment to fall to'F"to prepare deficiency plans. These plans would outline specific mitigation measures and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element provides the definition of an intersection deficiency and therefore,the required Level of Service(LOS)for the City's circulation system. LOS is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions in terms of the level of flow,congestion, or delay experienced by motorists. The LOS,which can range from A(best)through F (worst),rates traffic congestion at intersections and along roadway segments. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan states that peak hour intersection operation of LOS D or better is generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E and F would be considered deficient. 4.13.1.2 Existing Conditions Project Area Roadways The proposed project is located east of Camino del Norte and adjacent to Elsinore Hills Road in the City of Lake Elsinore. The existing roadway network and intersections for the traffic study area roadways within the project vicinity are shown in Figure 4.13-1. The following roadway classifications are derived from the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element: • 1-15 Freeway: I-15 is the closest freeway to the project site. I-15 traverses in a generally north/south direction along the east side of the lake and central city. To the north, l-15 connects faSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-2 City of Lake Elsinore \ Revised Draft EIR May 20;W-J nuary 2008 X.•1010570 City_of Lake_Elsinore152664_Spyglassl6 CEQAIFinal EIR14.13 Spyglass_Transportation_Traffic.doc r- 4.13 Transportation/Traffic with the Riverside Freeway(SR-91),the Pomona Freeway(SR-60), and the San Bernardino Freeway(I-10)and is the link to greater Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. To the south,I-15 connects with the Escondido Freeway(I-215)and is the link to San Diego County. • Central Avenue/SR-74: This two-lane undivided urban arterial is a major interregional route between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Perris. • Main Street: Main Street is a one-way secondary roadway that travels in a general north/south direction from its intersection with Lakeshore Drive to Camino del Norte. • Railroad Canyon Road: Railroad Canyon Road is designated as an urban arterial from its _ intersection with Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail, east to the I-15 interchange and through t!c:C-ity of Canyon Lake. This roadway is a major link between I-15 and I-215 east of the City of Lake Elsinore. • Dexter Avenue: Dexter Avenue is identified as a major roadway between Nichols Road and Central Avenue/SR-74. • Cambern Avenue: This roadway is identified as a collector from Central Avenue/SR-74 to Chaney Street. • Camino del Norte: This roadway parallels I-15 to the north and is classified as a major roadway between Central Avenue/SR-74 to Main Street and secondary roadway from Main Street to Summerhill Drive. • Franklin Street: Franklin Street is identified as a major roadway from Bella Vista to Lakeshore Drive. t l • Summerhill Drive: This roadway is identified as a secondary roadway from Greenwald Avenue to Franklin Street, a major roadway between Franklin Street and Camino del Norte, and as a collector from Camino del Norte to Lakeshore Drive. Study Intersections Based on consultation with the City of Lake Elsinore,the following 14 intersections in the project area have been analyzed to determine operating conditions: • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74 (EW) • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) at Main Street(EW) • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW) I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74(EW) • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS) at Main Street(EW) • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW) • Dexter Avenue(NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74 (EW) • Cambern Avenue(NS)at Central Avenue/SR-74(EW) • Camino del Norte(NS)at Main Street(EW) • Camino del Norte(NS)at Elsinore Hills Road(EW) • Camino del Norte(NS) at La Strada Parkway(EW) • Camino del Norte(NS) at Franklin Street(EW) L Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-3 City of Lake Elsinore jI DE Revised Draft EIR X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152664_spyglassl6_CEQA1Rnal EIR14.13_Spyglass_Transportation_Traflic.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic • Summerhill Drive(NS)at Canyon Estates Drive (EW) • Summerhill Drive (NS)at Railroad Canyon Road(EW) Alternative Transportation Facilities Local Public Transit Service Riverside Transit Agency(RTA)provides public transportation within a 2,500 square mile service area, including the City of Lake Elsinore. RTA maintains a total of 38 fixed route services (primarily using buses and vans),five commuter services, and one trolley system. In total,the RTA fleet includes 111 buses, 56 Dial-a-Ride vans, 58 fixed-route vans, and 6 trolleys.Annual ridership on RTA exceeds seven million passengers. Currently,there are two RTA bus routes near the project site. These routes include Route 7 and Route 8 along Railroad Canyon Road.No existing routes are directly adjacent to the proposed development. Park-and-Ride The County of Riverside and Caltrans provide park-and-ride lots to facilitate ride-sharing and car-pooling. Three park-and-ride lots are located in the City of Lake Elsinore,near the intersection of SR-74 and 1-15; near the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall at Collier Street and Nichols Road; and at Ortega Market near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway. None of these park-and-ride lots would serve the project site. Traffic Volumes and Intersection Conditions The following scenarios were identified by the City for evaluation: • Opening year(2009)without and with project conditions • General Plan buildout without and with project conditions Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes on roadways throughout the study area were obtained from the 2005 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways by the California Department of Transportation,traffic counts obtained by Kunzman Associates, and factored from peak hour counts made for Kunzman Associates for each intersection leg. Older counts have been factored up to existing(2006)conditions and have been adjusted for flow conservation. This is a conservative estimate but is consistent with those used in the City's General Plan Update. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Level of Service(LOS)is a professional industry standard by which the operating conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection are measured. LOS ranges from A through F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. LOS A facilities are characterized as having free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering or operating speeds;traffic volumes are low and travel speeds are high. LOS F facilities are characterized as having forced flow with many stoppages and low operating needs. Table 4.13-1 shows the average daily traffic volumes (ADT), average travel speeds, and delay ranges that are equivalent to each LOS. toSpyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-4 City of Lake Elsinore ` Revised Draft EIR anuar 2008 X:1010570_City_of Lake_E1sinore152684_Spyglassl6_CEOMFinal EIRA13_Spyglass Transportation_Tra(fic,doc JQ' PJ2� Q � f 3D7 '. �CZo 5D . 0 sa 4 0�� :q`P r..` r'r 90 Bello Vista 2U � 2 1J/ 2nd Street I 2U Street 'A" dOl 2U r- -- -------- o TOPS9 y ��o - S _ street „� ! L�oo/ sa IE N� - 2U sr� 3 \9 2U L Street "D"J � ' �/ Main 2 Street ? 10 \ Canyon Estates 2D 1 / Drive 6a •� Franklin 21,11 12 Street'-, Leggy 2U 130 2U cR Railroad Canyon Q= Traffic Signal ZU Road s TV = Stop Sign [� 4 = Through Travel Lanes 5D D = Divided /( 14 Grape U� = Unved � Street diid Auto Center O , > = Right Turn Overlap Drive o 5D el 10 H2—{>carac+ I coo 1 N !4 ti 3 a a 'tea 4 4+ 1 5 ^p 8Tj-6 �02 7 ip 6 �1 4--2 c a 4-2 G 3 02 �1 � b6--o 0-4, i° —' �I t' z—p —a^ 2-p �a^ 2-4 ^— 2—D - " e 0 e �9w-, 10 4 p 12 13 4 q 14 �p ® 4^q o 0 o 4--0 0 0 0 +_0 o_o 0--0 raw 4-1 d 3 b s--o of S b a-0 of to 0 — �t I� q-g 2-P °I f 0—� eee p- Ceea V q� S Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. ; i; Existing Circulation Network FIGURE 4.13-1 ONE COMPANY Many Solutions- Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan I City of Lake Elsinore I Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13 Transportation/Traffic f ' Table 4.13-1.Level of Service Ranges Intersections Signalized Intersection Unsi nalized Intersection 1 LOS Average Delay Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) (Seconds/Vehicle)' A Less than or equal to 10.0 Less than or Equal to 10.0 r B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01-15.00 C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00 D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00 E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00 F Greater than 80.00 Greater than 50.00 Note: 1 The delay ranges shown are based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Existing intersection peak hour LOS are summarized in Table 4.13-2. As shown, all analyzed intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better under existing conditions with the following exceptions,which operate at unacceptable LOS E or F,respectively, during the AM and PM peak hour { conditions: • I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)at Main Street(EW)—AM peak hour I • Summerhill Drive(NS) at Railroad Canyon Road(EW)—PM peak hour Table 4.13-2. Existing Intersections Summary Traffic Delay(Secs.)—LOS1 Intersection Contro12 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1-15 Freeway SB Ra_mps(NS)at. Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 20.8-C 25.0-C Main Street(EW) CSS 12.6-B 13.6-13 Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 30.4-C 50.1-D 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 20.2-C 28.5-C Main Street(EW) CSS 35.8-E 30.8-D Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 24.2-C 28.3-C Dexter Avenue(NS)at. Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 27.6-C 26.7-C Cambern Avenue(NS)at: Central Avenue SR-74(EW) TS 23.6-C 20.1-C Camino Del Norte(NS)at. Main Street(EW) CSS 8.9-A 9.5-A Franklin Street(EW) CSS 10.4-B 11.5-B Summerhill Drive(NS)at. Canyon Estates Drive(EW) TS 17.7-B 18.7-B Railroad Canyon Road(EW) TS 43.8-D 81.2-F Notes: 1 Delay and Level of Service has been calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.8.0115(2006). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 2 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop FDR�J• Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-7 City of Lake Elsinore 1 Revised Draft EIR May 2AA�January 2008 X.•1010570 Cily_of Lake_Elsinore152684_Spyglass18 CEQA1Rnal E1R14.13_Spyglass_Transportation—Traffic.doc 4.13 Transportation/Traffic In addition, a traffic signal warrant analysis was performed and indicated that a traffic signal is currently warranted at the following intersections: • I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) at Main Street(EW) • I-15 Northbound Ramps(NS) at Main Street(EW) 4.13.2 Project Impacts 4.13.2.1 Thresholds of Significance As defined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,project impacts to the transportation system would be considered significant if the project is determined to: • Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections); • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Result in inadequate parking capacity; or • Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks). 4.13.2.2 Environmental Impacts Site Access and Circulation As shown in Figure 4.13-2,major north-south access to the project site would be provided by I-15,which connects the project area to San Diego County to the south and central Riverside County and San Bernardino County to the north. Additionally, SR-74 provides connection to the City of Perris to the east and south Orange County to the southwest. Specifically,vehicular access to the project site would be provided by the existing Main Street off-ramp of the I-15 freeway and the Camino del Norte frontage road. Major north-south access through the project site would be provided via Elsinore Hills Road. Roadway classifications within the project site have been designed in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Construction-Related Impacts The project is planned to be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year period in response to market demands. During this time,project construction may result in short-term traffic impacts. Because the grading is balanced on-site,there would be no significant impacts associated with the importation or exportation of fill material. Heavy construction equipment would be delivered to the site and remain Spyglass Ranch Specific Plan 4.13-8 -City of Lake Elsinore-- .\ Revised Draft EIR May-209�January 2008 X..V10570_City_of Lake_Elsinora152684 SpyglasslB_CEQAIFinal_EIR14.13 Spyglass_Transportation Tra(/ic.doc