HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHE FEIR Canyon Hills Estates
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lake Elsinore, CA
State Clearinghouse No. 2006051073
CITY OF
41�-
`J [BREAM EXTREME
Prepared for:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Prepared by:
RGP Planning& Development Services
8921 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Applicant:
Trumark Companies
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
January 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Canyon Hills Estates Final EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2006051073
1 Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan
2 Canyon Hills Estates Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3 Responses to Comments on the Canyon Hills Estates Draft EIR
4 Canyon Hills Estates Draft EIR (under separate cover)
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE CANYON HILLS ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN
State Clearinghouse Number 2006051073
SECTION I
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
A. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan
("Specific Plan")and related discretionary actions in the City of Lake Elsinore.The Draft EIR addressed the
potential environmental effects associated with the development of a 302 unit residential community on a
total of 246.4 acres.' The community includes 302 single-family dwelling units (DU) on 91.1 acres, a 5.4
acre public park, and 149.9 acres of open space. Implementation of the Project will require the following
discretionary approvals by the City of Lake Elsinore:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2006-04—Change the Project Site land use designation from Very
Low Density Residential(VLDR)and Mountainous(M)to Low Density Residential(LDR);
• Annexation No.75—Completion of the annexation of the Project Site into the City of Lake Elsinore;
• Zone Change/Pre-Zone No. 2005-09 — Adoption of the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan in
conformance with pre-zoning;
• Tract Map 34249—Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to permit subdivision of the Project Site;and
• Annexation of Project Site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD).
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EIR SCOPING
This document complies with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA,"Public Resources Code
§21000 et seq.)and the State CEQA Guidelines(Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, §15000 et seq.). In compliance
with CEQA,the City of Lake Elsinore has solicited and considered comments from Responsible and Trustee
Agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties during the Project's various environmental
review processes:
• The City held two public hearings on Negative Declaration (ND) No. 2006-02 for General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-08, Zone Change (Pre-Zone) No. 2005-09, and Annexation No. 75 for the
Project Site in February 2006 and April 2006 (ND 2006-02 adoption hearing).
• The City issued a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of a Draft EIR for a period of 30 days beginning on
May 12,2006.
'The 246.4 acres only includes onsite acreage;3.1 acres of offsite road improvements are also part of the Project.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 1
• The City issued an Amended NOP on June 30,2006 for another 30-day public review period. The
Amended NOP provided a revised Project description stating that the existing Canyon Hills Specific
Plan would not be amended,but that a new Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan would be prepared.
• The City held a Scoping Meeting for Responsible Agencies,Trustee Agencies,and other agencies on
October 5,2006 at the Lake Elsinore City Hall.
The comments on Negative Declaration No. 2006-02 and the comments on the May and June 2006 NOPs
were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the Draft EIR.
C. FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The City Council(the decision-making body)of the City of Lake Elsinore(the CEQA Lead Agency)certifies
the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2006051073) and the Responses to Comments.
Since the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation, the City
Council must also prepare"findings"as part of its action to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and to approve the Project.Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified,which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur
if the Project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible
findings,which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and have been,or
can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations for
the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Draft EIR identified several significant environmental effects (or "impacts") resulting from
implementation of the Project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided/mitigated through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a
level of significance, the City Council is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological,or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining
whether to approve the Project. The State CEQA Guidelines at Section 15093(a) provide that if specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered"acceptable."
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 2
As indicated in Section III (Environmental Findings), two environmental effects of the Project cannot be
reduced to less than significant levels by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible
environmentally superior alternatives.Short-term air quality impacts and cumulative transportation and traffic
impacts have been identified as unavoidable and significant and require the preparation of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Those effects are described in Section III and outline the City's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the Project.The Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided as
Exhibit B.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) has been prepared to monitor and report the
implementation of the mitigation measures,Project Design Features,and Standard Conditions(SCs)identified
for the Project. The MMRP will be adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be implemented
through the final design, construction and post-construction periods. To the extent that these findings
conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded,or withdrawn,the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures.These findings,in other
words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City Council formally approves the Project.
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
The City Council will review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR,as well as submissions
from public officials,public agencies and the general public.Prior to Project approval,the City Council shall
certify that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Having considered the
foregoing information, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City Council shall make
findings pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council shall adopt the Findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the
Project.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 3
SECTION II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located between Interstates 15 and 215, and is part of a developing area along the Railroad
Canyon Road — Newport Road corridor connecting the two freeways. The Project Site is located in
unincorporated Riverside County,adjacent to the southern City limits of the City of Lake Elsinore,but within
the City's Sphere of Influence ("SOl"). The Project Site is bounded by the existing Canyon Hills Specific
Plan development to the north,Pine Avenue to the east,and Crooked Arrow Drive and Crab Hollow Circle to
the west and south, respectively. Access to the Project Site is from Lost Road, Navajo Springs Road and
Cottonwood Canyon Road. Cottonwood Creek flows through the northeast corner of the site adjacent to
Cottonwood Canyon Road.
B. EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Project Site is vacant and undeveloped with the exception of one residential unit with outbuildings on the
eastern portion. Cottonwood Creek flows through the northeast corner of the Site on the eastern side of
Cottonwood Canyon Road.The Site is primarily a north-facing hillside with a relatively flat area adjacent to
the existing Canyon Hills development and north of the hill.An aerial photograph of the Site dated August
2005 reveals that areas in the north and western portions of the site were extensively used by heavy off-road
vehicles.The northeast portion of the Site has been used for agricultural activities in the past.Evidence of fire
is found throughout the southern half of the site.
The Canyon Hills Estates site is bounded on the north by the existing Canyon Hills development, which
includes low,medium and high density residential,commercial,institutional,schools,and recreational land
uses. The Project Site is bounded on the south by the Sedco(Southern Elsinore Development Corporation)
Hills and very low density residential units along Crab Hollow Circle.The Project Site is bounded on the west
by very low density residential units along Crooked Arrow Drive and Navajo Springs Road and on the east by
very low density residential units with access from Pine Street east of Cottonwood Creek.
C. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Project Site is designated in the City's General Plan as Mountainous (1 DU/10 acres) and Very Low
Density Residential(1-3 DU/acre). The Site has been pre-zoned Specific Plan(SP).
D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Canyon Hills Estates (CHE) Specific Plan is intended to provide for the orderly and efficient
development of the Specific Plan area in accordance with the provisions of the City of Lake Elsinore General
Plan goals and policies.The Specific Plan will establish the site-specific type,location,intensity and character
of development and the required infrastructure to support the planned land uses.The CHE Specific Plan has
the following objectives:
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 4
1. Design a planned community that implements the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan development
goals for this portion of the City.
2. Create a planned residential development of appropriate density, scale, and infrastructure which
respects the existing topography and environmental sensitivity of the Project Site and surrounding
land uses.
3. Maximize the efficiency of infrastructure services by connecting to the closest existing public
services and utilities in the adjacent planned community of Canyon Hills in the City of Lake Elsinore.
4. Anticipate and provide for the needs of the community residents through annexation of the site into
the City of Lake Elsinore to allow for the timely provision of facilities and services.
5. Provide areas for active and passive recreation.
6. Provide a comprehensive circulation system that includes vehicular circulation,pedestrian walks,and
bike paths.
7. Maintain the integrity of the natural environment through design,preservation and conservation to
the extent possible of open space areas and natural resources.
8. Ensure a high quality lifestyle by providing for public facilities such as a neighborhood park and high
quality architectural design.
9. Provide for a mix of market rate residential products and densities in neighborhood clusters so that
implementation of the plan can respond to changing market demands.
10. Enhance and advance the image of Lake Elsinore in the region.
11. Exhibit respect to the existing Canyon Hills residents through thoughtful design and interface
methods.
12. Create visual diversity within the community through a mix of architectural styles.
E. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
Implementation of the Project will require the following discretionary approvals by the City of
Lake Elsinore:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2006-04—Change the Project Site land use designation from Very
Low Density Residential(VLDR)and Mountainous(M)to Low Density Residential(LDR);
• Annexation No.75—Completion of the annexation of the Project Site into the City of Lake Elsinore;
• Zone Change/Pre-Zone No. 2005-09 — Adoption of the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan in
conformance with pre-zoning;
• Tract Map 34249—Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to permit subdivision of the Project Site;and
• Annexation of Project Site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD).
Because the Project Site lies outside the City's corporate boundary,several planning actions were initiated in
January 2006 and were approved by the City of Lake Elsinore in April 2006. On April 11, 2006,the City
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 5
Council approved General Plan Amendment (GPA)No. 2005-08, Zone Change (Pre-Zone)No. 2005-09,
Annexation No.75,and Negative Declaration No.2006-02.These approvals resulted in the following actions:
• GPA No.2005-08—Amended the City's General Plan Land Use Map to change the City's southern
boundary(sphere of influence or SOI)to incorporate the Project Site;
• Zone Change (Pre-Zone)No. 2005-09—Changed the zoning designation of the Project Site to SP
Specific Plan subject to the completion/approval of Annexation No. 75 by the Riverside County
Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO);
• Annexation No. 75 — Approved the commencement of proceedings for the SOI and annexation
boundary change through LAFCO pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000;
• Negative Declaration No. 2006-02—Determined that the Negative Declaration was adequate and
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for GPA No.2005-
08,Zone Change(Pre-Zone)No. 2005-09, and Annexation No. 75.
The Project Site was originally located in the City of Lake Elsinore's SOI. In 1997, LAFCO removed the
Project Site and some other areas from the City's SOI. The City's General Plan has not been amended to
reflect these changes in the City's S0I2.Therefore,the City has retained the Project Site's residential General
Plan designation. GPA No. 2005-08 therefore only amended the City's SOI and boundary.
On October 26,2006,Riverside LAFCO approved LAFCO 2006-105-1&3,Sphere of Influence Amendment
(addition) to the City of Lake Elsinore and Amendment to the Wildomar Unincorporated Community
(removal). Therefore,the Project Site is back in the City's SOI.However,the environmental analysis in the
Draft EIR assumed no City or LAFCO approvals for the Project Site.
Implementation of the Project may also include the following discretionary approvals by other responsible
and/or regulatory agencies:
• California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),Fish and Game Code Section 1600
• U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)
• Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),Federal Clean Water Act(CWA), Section 404
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Federal CWA, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification
• RWQCB,National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)
• City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside's Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Planning Program(WRC MSHCP/NCCP)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)
• Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD)
2 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan adopted November 27, 1990, Exhibit 1-2,Study Area.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 6
F. LAND USES
The CHE Specific Plan divides the Project Site into three basic land use categories:Residential,Public Park
and Open Space. Table 1 shows the CHE Specific Plan Land Use Statistical Summary. The Residential
category has two subcategories: Single Family Residential-1 (SF-1);and Single Family Residential-2(SF-2).
TABLE 1
CANYON HILLS ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN--LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Density Target
Plan Range Density Target
Land Use Designation Acres' (DU/ac)Z (DU/ac)Z Yield
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family- 1 SF-1 81.7 2-4 2.9 238 DUs
Single Family-2 SF-2 9.4 6-12 6.8 64 DUs.
PUBLIC PARK
Neighborhood Park P 5.4
OPEN SPACE
Open Space OS 149.9
TOTAL ACREAGE 246.43
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL YIELD 1.23 302 DUs.
Notes:
'Gross acreage.
2 Dwelling units per acre.
3 The 246.4 acres only includes onsite acreage.Approximately 3.1 acres of offsite road improvements are also part of
the Project.
Single Family Residential 1 (SF-1)
The SF-1 designation is allocated to the majority of the development area,comprising 33.2 percent of
the Project Site.The SF-1 area will contain a maximum yield of 238 single family detached DU at a
target density of 2.9 units per gross acre.The residential products planned for this area are detached
homes of one and two stories on a mix of lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 7,200 SF to over
20,000 SF.The largest lot sizes are located on the southwesterly and southerly portions of the Project
Site.
Single Family Residential 2 (SF-2)
SF-2 is allocated to a 9.4 acre area in the northeasterly portion of the Project Site adjacent to
Cottonwood Canyon Road. The SF-2 use comprises approximately 3.8 percent of the Project Site.
SF-2 will contain a maximum yield of 64 single family units at a target density of 6.8 units per gross
acre. Residential products may be made up of detached homes compact lots or other similar
residential products.The location of the SF-2 area in Canyon Hills Estates is reflective of the adjacent
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 7
existing and planned higher density residential community to the north in Canyon Hills and the SF-2
area's proximity to the planned public park and major circulation routes.
Public Park
The public park designation is allocated to 5.4 acres,or approximately 2.2 percent of the Project Site.
The park facility is located in the northeast corner of the Project Site and the park will be the focal
point for neighborhood interaction and a natural and aesthetically pleasing gateway feature for the
Canyon Hills Estates development. The park concept will preserve and enhance the oak woodland
and riparian character of the Cottonwood Creek corridor which passes through the park area while
blending in active and passive park facilities.The Public Park will have public street frontage along
Cottonwood Canyon Road to provide high visibility and access as well as on-street parking. The
public park will include active and passive park facilities that will be constructed to City standards.
Facilities may include, but are not limited to, a tot lot and children's play area, picnic tables and
barbeques,turf play areas, a half basketball court,pedestrian paths and passive areas.
Open Space
The open space designation is allocated to approximately 149.9 acres,or 60.8 percent,of the Project
Site. The open space stretches east to west through the central portion of the Project Site. This area
will provide a natural appearing visual backdrop to the lower residential development area and the
community of Canyon Hills.
Access Streets
Vehicular street access to the Project Site is provided by Cottonwood Canyon Road,on the north,and
Lost Road via Navajo Springs Road on the west. Due to its proximity to Canyon Hills Road, the
entrance on Cottonwood Canyon Road is considered the CHE community's primary access. A
description of current planned road improvements is as follows:
• Cottonwood Canyon Road will have a 48-foot pavement section with one 12-foot travel lane in
each direction and 12-foot auxiliary lanes on both sides within a total right-of-way of 70 feet.
This configuration conforms to the existing improvements to the north of the Project Site in the
Canyon Hills development.
• Lost Road south of Canyon Hills is currently a two-lane dirt road. As a part of the Project's
access improvements,Lost Road,from its intersection with Navajo Springs Road northerly to the
existing Lost Road improvements in the Canyon Hills development,will be enhanced to a 36-
foot pavement section,including 2-foot shoulders where possible with a 4-foot sidewalk within
the existing right-of-way.This road section is designed to accommodate Project traffic and bring
a significant access improvement to the surrounding area.
• Navajo Springs Road is an existing unimproved local street abutting the west side of the Project
Site,and provides a vehicular connection from the Project to Lost Road.The subdivider of Tract
Map No. 2910, containing the majority of Navajo Springs Road, made an irrevocable offer of
dedication of Navajo Springs Road to the County of Riverside for public use for street purposes.
Pursuant to its standard procedures, the County has not yet accepted this irrevocable offer of
dedication because Navajo Springs Road has not yet been improved to County specifications.On
May 26, 2006, an application to vacate the offer of dedication was submitted to the County of
Riverside Transportation Department. The County may only grant the vacation if it finds that
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 8
Navajo Springs Road is"unnecessary for present or prospective public use"(Streets&Highway
Code,§8324;Riverside County Resolution No.85-330).The Riverside County Fire Department
has already recommended the County deny the vacation. Should the Riverside County
Transportation Department deny the vacation of the offer of dedication on Navajo Springs Road,
it is expected that the County will accept the offer of dedication once Navajo Springs Road is
improved. This existing connector will have its existing road section enhanced to 24 feet,
including 2-foot shoulders where possible,providing one travel lane in each direction with a 4-
foot sidewalk.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 9
SECTION III
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO
A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be
mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. The applicable environmental issue areas
include Noise,Air Quality,Biological Resources,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,Aesthetics,and Cultural
Resources.
1. NOISE
a. Impact: Any grading operations within 100 feet of an existing off-site residence would have
the potential to cause the noise ordinance standard to be exceeded. (DEIR Impact 3.4-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM3.4-1:Project construction operations within 100feet ofany off-site residences shall be
monitored by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that the construction noise level
limit of the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance is not violated.At the recommendation of
the acoustical consultant, the operation may utilize temporary noise control measures,such
as limiting the duration of hourly construction activity,placement of temporary barriers,or
equivalent measures, to ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Facts in Support of the Finding: MM 3.4-1 would reduce the noise levels below the City
of Lake Elsinore noise standard through limiting construction activity that would result in
noise that exceeds noise standards or by using temporary barriers that would reduce noise
levels below noise standards. (DEIR pp. 3.4-6 - 3.4-10).
b. Impact: Any construction operations (particularly dozer operations)within 57 feet of an
existing off-site residence would have the potential to cause the noise ordinance vibration
threshold to be exceeded. (DEIR Impact 3.4-2)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 10
MM 3.4-2:Project construction operations within 57 feet of any off-site residences shall
utilize a smaller dozer for this portion of construction so that vibration impacts will be
lessened to below the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance standard, or the dozer
operations within 57 feet of the residence must be performed when the residence is
temporarily unoccupied. Such work shall be monitored by a qualified acoustical consultant
to ensure that the vibration standard of the Noise Ordinance is not violated.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Use of a smaller dozer during construction in areas within
57 feet of any off-site residences or limiting dozer operations within 57 feet of the off-site
residence to times when the residence is temporarily unoccupied would avoid the noise
ordinance vibration threshold to be exceeded. (DEIR pp. 3.4-6- 3.4-10).
2. AIR QUALITY
a. Impact: Construction-related emissions will exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds
established by the SCAQMD for VOCs during construction. The primary source of VOC
emissions during construction is painting. (from DEIR Impact 3.5-1:)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate the significant effects on the environment.
The VOC impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure:
MM3.5-1 b:The following measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction,
including paving and architectural coating applications, in order to reduce construction-
related emissions of VOCs:
• Only Zero-VOCpaints(assumes no more than 100 gram/liter of VOC)shall be used
for architectural coatings during initial construction; and
• No more than 18 homes per week shall be painted.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related VOC levels would be reduced below the
SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day through the use of Zero-VOC paint. The use of
coating application equipment that improves transfer efficiency above that of typical air
atomized spray equipment would further reduce VOC emissions. In addition, mitigation
limiting the daily number of homes that can be painted will ensure that VOC emissions are
kept below levels of significance for the duration of project construction.(DEIR pp.3.5-17—
3.5-18).
3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Impact: The Project would remove 46 coast live oak trees during site grading. (DEIR
Impact 3.8-1)
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 11
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM 3.8-1: All coast live oak trees to be removed during grading shall be identified and
tagged in the field by the Project biologist and verified prior to final removal. The applicant
shall mitigate the removed trees at a 4:1 replacement ratio using one 24-inch box container
tree, two 15-gallon container trees,and one 5-gallon container tree. The replacement coast
live oak shall be planted on-site as directed by the Project biologist or Landscape Architect
pursuant to the Tree Preservation Plan. The planting locations include the Project
neighborhood park,fuel modification areas, and along common area landscape buffer
areas. All tree removal and mitigation requirements shall be reviewed and approved in
writing by the Project biologist or Landscape Architect prior to Project acceptance.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The oak woodlands mapped on-site are classified as coast
live oak woodlands (Quercus agrifolia). Coast live oak is not a Covered Species under the
MSHCP,nor is it assigned sensitive or protected status by USFWS or CDFG,according to
CNDDB criteria (71.060.19 Coast Live Oak Woodland).Although the Project is not subject
to the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines (1993), that document was
referenced to determine whether a countywide standard had been adopted regarding optimal
oak planting and replacement guidelines. Since no legislative or scientific standards were
found, the Project biologists relied on their expertise, in consultation with a licensed
landscape architect,to formulate an oak tree planting and maintenance program at a ratio of
4:1.
The planting plan at a 4:1 ratio is also deemed consistent with MSHCP criteria for
maintaining Riparian/Riverine habitat value. Although three wildlife species have the
potential to occur on-site due to the presence of the oak woodland habitat,none are MSHCP
Covered Species that would be adversely affected by the project-related temporal loss of
habitat functions associated with live oak woodland.The loss of approximately 46 coast live
oak trees over 3.0 acres due to grading will be substantially offset by the establishment of
184 oak trees of varying size planted in small clusters throughout the manufactured slopes,
fuel modification zones, and park as recommended by the project biologist.Moreover,the
Tree Preservation and Planting Plan incorporates structural diversity in oak planting.Per the
Plan,each removed tree will be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio using one 24-inch box container tree,
two 15-gallon container trees and one 5 gallon container tree.
The Tree Preservation and Planting Plan is intended to accommodate the normal life cycle of
affected plant and wildlife species by providing migration corridors, food availability,
nesting,and other functions necessary to complete a life cycle.Based on the type and extent
of proj ect-related impacts,the mitigation ratio of 4:1 is sufficient to mitigate impacts to oak
woodlands on-site and to support the plant and animal species diversity that is presently
found on the affected oak woodlands.
b. Impact: The removal of vegetation during the breeding season and possible disturbance of
nests and nesting activities would be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR Impact 3.8-2)
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 12
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM3.8-2: Potential impacts to migratory bird species shall be mitigated below a level of
significance through one of the following two ways:
• Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season to avoid
potential impacts to nesting birds. The nesting season is typically February 15
through August 15. This would insure that no active nests would be disturbed and
that habitat removal could proceed rapidly.
• Prior to commencement of clearing or grading during the nesting season, all
suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a
qualified biologist. To minimize impacts, if any active nests are detected, a buffer of
at least 100 feet(300 feet for raptors)shall be delineated,flagged,and avoided until
the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by the biological monitor.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The methods for reducing impacts to migratory birds
during nesting season are consistent with the standard of professional care exercised
throughout the State of California by wildlife biologists.The survey and mitigation protocols
indicated are supported by California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and are promulgated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
C. Impact: Potentially suitable Stephens'kangaroo rat habitat occurs within the study area and
the Project may impact this species. (DEIR Impact 3.8-3)
Findin : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure:
MM 3.8-3a: The Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the USFWS approved Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP)for Stephens'kangaroo rat.
MM 3.8-3b: The Applicant shall pay the required standard Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) developer impact fees.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The MSHCP functions as a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B)of the FESA and as an NCCP under the NCCP Act of
2001. The USFWS and CDFG have authorized the take of a number sensitive plant and
wildlife species within the MSHCP Plan Area in exchange for the assembly and management
of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area.
The HCP authorizes incidental take of the Stephens' kangaroo rat during otherwise lawful
activities conducted within the established plan area.In addition,Stephens'kangaroo rat is a
covered species under the MSHCP. No further mitigation is required for impacts to this
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 13
species due to the location of the study area within the Stephens'kangaroo rat HCP Fee Area
boundary. Therefore,payment of the fees and compliance with the HCP will mitigate any
impacts to below a level of significance.
d. Impact: The Project will result in potentially significant impacts to ACOE, RWQCB and
CDFG jurisdictional features onsite. (DEIR Impact 3.8-4)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM 3.8-4: The following measures shall reduce impacts to ACOE, RWQCB and CDFG
jurisdictional areas to below a level of significance:
• On- and off-site replacement of ACOE and RWQCB jurisdictional waters and
wetlands at a ratio no less than 2:1. Off-site replacement shall include the purchase
of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.
• On- and off-site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated
riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1. Off-site replacement shall include the
purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.
• On-site mitigation includes 2.30 acres of riparian enhancement, restoration, and
creation within ACOE/RWQCB and CDFG jurisdiction. This includes an
approximately 50 foot wide riparian buffer around Cottonwood Canyon Creek
covering approximately 1.20 acres.Riparian enhancement shall include the removal
of fill material that has encroached on the floodplain, eradication of non-native
species, and seeding and staking of native plants. The riparian buffer shall be
planted adjacent to the riparian areas and will include additional riparian habitat
within CDFG jurisdiction.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Cottonwood Canyon Creek mitigation areas will be
placed in a conservation easement or deed restriction ensuring that the areas remain open
space in perpetuity. The language of the conservation easement or deed restriction will be
submitted to the ACOE and CDFG for approval prior to recordation. In addition, the
Covenants,Conditions,and Regulations of the residential development will stipulate that all
associated mitigation areas be preserved and managed as natural open space in perpetuity.
The final acreage of mitigation will be determined for the final HMMP/WQMP submittal,
and may be influenced by agency input.
Impacts to ACOE and RWQCB jurisdictional areas will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio for a total
of at least 0.92 acre and 0.98 acres,respectively,and impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas
will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio for a total of at least 8.28 acres. The on-site mitigation will
cover approximately 2.30 acres and consist of the restoration and preservation of the on-site
portion of Cottonwood Canyon Creek and adjacent uplands. All ACOE and RWQCB
mitigation will be accomplished on-site within Cottonwood Canyon Creek. In order to
satisfy the balance of the mitigation necessary to offset impacts to CDFG jurisdiction that
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 14
cannot be accomplished on-site, the Project biologist is coordinating with the CDFG and
investigating mitigation bank options for a combination of restoration and enhancement
opportunities within the watershed and surrounding areas.
4. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Impact: Previously unsampled building materials contained within the existing residential
structure and outbuildings could contain unknown quantities of asbestos-containing materials
and/or lead-based paint. (DEIR Impact 3.9-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM 3.9-Ia: Documentation of the ACM and LBP survey per SCAQMD and State
regulations shall be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore upon characterization of
potentially hazardous materials. If one or both of these substances are found, appropriate
remediation measures shall be undertaken pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 b and/or
3.9-1 c, as applicable.
MM 3.9-1b: If determined necessary as an outcome of the ACM survey, and as part of
structural demolition activities, a State-licensed abatement contractor shall abate any
material with asbestos content of one percent or greater by transportation under manifest
and disposal at a State-licensed disposal facility consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1403.
Documentation shall be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore upon characterization of
potentially hazardous materials and upon completion of abatement operations.
MM 3.9-1c: If determined necessary as an outcome of the LBP survey, and as part of
structural demolition activities, a State-licensed abatement contractor shall abate any LBP
materials by transportation under manifest and disposal at a State-licensed disposal facility.
All other types of hazardous materials shall be characterized and quantified, with removal,
transport and disposal methods specified for each waste type. Documentation shall be
submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore upon characterization of potentially hazardous
materials and upon completion of abatement operations.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The regulations and programs noted in the mitigation
measures above would be implemented as necessary during demolition activities associated
with the existing single family residence and outbuildings.Compliance with the regulations
indicated above would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be
exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during demolition
activities. As such, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and the
public to hazardous materials during demolition activities would be mitigated to a level that
is less than significant. (DEIR p. 3.9-8).
5. AESTHETICS
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 15
a. Impact: The Project has the potential to produce significant impacts from light and glare to
nearby residents from nighttime street lighting. (DEIR Impact 3.10-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM3.10-1:The Project shall utilize downshielded high-pressure sodium street lighting(or
similar standard low-glare lighting) to ensure minimization of light and glare at off-site
properties.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Nighttime light, glare and skyglow will be minimized
through the use of high-pressure sodium lighting(or similar form of lighting),which produce
less light and glare than other forms of lights.Additionally,the lights will be down-shielded
to confine the dispersal of light downward. (DEIR p. 3-10-13).
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Impact: The Project development footprint would have potentially adverse impacts on
cultural resources at Site TS-01 (prehistoric/archaeological) and Site TS-02 (historic/
archaeological). (DEIR Impact 3.11-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM 3.11-1a: TS-01 shall be avoided and preserved where feasible including a 10 meter
buffer surrounding the boundaries of TS-01 to protect the delineated site area and any
associated subsurface components.Protective fencing during construction shall be provided
to protect TS-01 where feasible.
MM 3.11-Ib:Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a Phase II cultural resources
testing and evaluation program shall be conducted for TS-01 and TS-02. The Phase II
evaluation plan shall contain a research design and field methodology designed to evaluate
the significance of the sites pursuant to applicable law and in accordance with general
archaeological reporting standards for such.If Phase II testing determines the presence of a
"unique archaeological resource"under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the report
shall include recommended measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to the sites. Where
avoidance of significant resources is not feasible, Phase III investigations (data recovery)
shall be completed. All testing and evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or
individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards as
a qualified prehistoric archaeologistfor Site TS-01 and as an historic archaeologistfor Site
TS-02 and/or a Registered Professional Archaeologist(RPA) with similar qualifications.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 16
MM3.11-1 c:If the Phase II cultural resources evaluation program determines that a given
resource is eligible for listing on the California Registry of Historic Resources (CRHR)
and/or local listings and therefore meets the definition of an "historical resource," or if
there is a determination by the City in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe that a resource
is "unique"pursuant to applicable law, an impact determination shall be made prior to
issuance of grading permits. If the impacts are determined to be significant, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be designed in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe to mitigate
impacts to below a level of significance with preservation as the preferred mitigation if
feasible. If preservation is not the chosen alternative, a data recovery program shall be
implemented. The data recovery program shall entail, at a minimum, the collection of
surface materials and a sufficient sample of buried materials, analysis, and reporting of
recovered materials consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring
Agreement by and between the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe as required in MM
3.11-2a.
MM 3.11-Id:Prior to issuance of grading permit(s)for the Project, the Project Applicant
shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities with
special emphasis on the vicinity of TS-01 and TS-02 in an effort to identify any unknown
archaeological resources.Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject
to a cultural resources evaluation (see MM 3.11-1 b and 3.11-1 c).
Facts in Support of the Finding: Treating TS-0I and TS-02 as significant and requiring a
defined further evaluation process itself would require that a professional archaeologist
expose the cultural resources and artifacts sufficiently for examination in order to determine
whether they constitute historic resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
and Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(g).This process would likely require some level
of resource excavation and handling by a registered archaeologist, subject to the oversight
authority of a Native American monitor. This process will avoid disturbing buried cultural
resources unless ground disturbance activities are imminent.
Evaluation will take place prior to the issuance of any grading permits. If it is clearly
demonstrated that there is a high probability that the resource meets one of the criteria,then
the resource will be subject to the mitigation measures requiring preservation.(DEIRp.3.11-
5).
b. Impact: Ground disturbance activities such as site clearing, grading, excavation, and
archaeological site testing have the potential to adversely impact undiscovered cultural
resources, sacred sites, and human remains. (DEIR Impact 3.11-2)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM3.11-2a:At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall
contact the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for the purpose of noting the Tribe of the
grading, excavation and monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 17
Elsinore and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to develop a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment ofknown
cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American
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. The City ofLake
Elsinore shall be the final arbiter of any disputes concerning the conditions included in the
Agreement.
MM 3.11-2b: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 MM3.11-
2a, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in order to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors
from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 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 3.11-2c: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 shall apply and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD
may inspect the site of discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and provide its
recommendations pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.
MM 3.11-2d: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including all Luiseno sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are
found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band ofLuiseno Indians for proper treatment and
disposition.
MM3.11-2e:All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved as the
preferred mitigation iffeasible.Ifpreservation is not the chosen alternative,a data recovery
program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall entail, at a minimum, the
collection of surface materials and a sufficient sample of buried materials, analysis, and
reporting of recovered materials consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement by and between the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe as
required in MM3.11-2a.
MM 3.11-2f.• If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are
discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Indians shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and
confer regarding the mitigation for such resources.If the Developer and the Pechanga Band
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 18
cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be
presented to the City Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make his
decision 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 Pechanga Band. The decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable
to the City of Lake Elsinore.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Since Luiseno/Pechanga resources are known to exist
within the City of Lake Elsinore area, and given the presence of a prehistoric cultural
resource site on the Project Site, the presence of a Native American monitor is warranted
during site grading and excavation,as well as during evaluation testing and any subsequent
studies of the known archaeological sites.
In order to address the potential for accidental discovery of sub-surface cultural resources
during ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant will be required to negotiate an
agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the participation of
Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and other ground disturbance activities, and in
decisions regarding the treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources,sacred sites,
and human remains discovered on the Project Site. Due to the close relationship of the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to this area,the agreement will be between this
Tribe and the developer.
The City also held a consultation meeting on January 8,2007 with Laura Miranda,Deputy
General Counsel and Dale Foster, Pechanga Cultural Resources Analyst of the Pechanga
Tribe.At this meeting,the Pechanga Tribe presented proposed clarifications to the mitigation
measures,which have been largely incorporated. (DEIR pp. 3.11-7—3.11-8).
C. Impact: Grading activities in Pleistocene older fan deposits could destroy or otherwise
adversely impact unknown paleontological resources. (DEIR Impact 3.11-3)
Findin : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s):
MM 3.11-3a:Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a reconnaissance survey of the
Pleistocene older fan deposits shall be required. This survey shall determine the
paleontological sensitivity of these deposits through analysis of soil lithology.
MM 3.11-3b:As required in the grading permits, any paleontologically sensitive deposits
shall require the preparation and implementation of a paleontological mitigation plan that
may include full-or part-time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist, as well as protocols
for recovery, identification, analysis,reporting and curation ofsignificant resources should
they occur. Deposits not considered likely to produce fossils may be graded without
monitoring by a qualified paleontologists)with the caveat that work be halted in the area of
fossil resource finds until such time as a qualified paleontologist can determine the nature of
the find and makes appropriate recommendations (e.g., recovery and curation).
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 19
MM 3.11-3c:All excavation in areas likely to contain paleontological resources shall be
monitored by a qualified vertebrate paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped
to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples
ofsediments that are likely to contain the remains ofsmall fossil vertebrates. This monitor
will be empowered to halt construction activities as necessary to protect any resources
uncovered. Recovered specimens will be identified and curated into a museum repository
with retrievable storage. A report will be made offindings, including an itemized inventory.
This report will be submitted to the County of Riverside and the San Bernardino County
Museum Department of Earth Sciences.
Facts in Support of the Finding: A reconnaissance survey of the Pleistocene older fan
deposits located along the northern portion of the Project Area of Potential Effect(APE)will
be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit.The discovery of any sensitive deposits
will require implementation of a paleontological treatment plan that may include full- or
part-time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist, as well as protocols for recovery,
identification, analysis, reporting and curation of significant resources should they be
present.Deposits not considered likely to produce fossils may be graded without monitoring
by a qualified paleontologist with the caveat that work be halted in the area of fossil resource
finds until such time as a qualified paleontologist can determine the nature of the find and
make recommendations, e.g.,recovery and curation. (DEIR p. 3.11-8).
B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be
fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. The applicable environmental
issue areas include Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality.
1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Transportation Improvement Uncertainties: For the Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)planning Years 2010
(Project completion/occupancy) and 2025 (City General Plan Buildout), the TIA evaluated the future
circulation system conditions and the Project's effects thereto.The Project will construct certain transportation
improvements concurrent with the planned residential development.To minimize incrementally small Project
traffic effects that may be cumulatively considerable,the Project will participate in the City of Lake Elsinore
Transportation Impact Fee(TIF)and County of Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF)
transportation improvement programs. Due to changing traffic patterns, economics, demographics and/or
other variables,those programs limit their planning and capital allocation horizons to approximately 5 to 10
years,and with effective and reliable results.For those same reasons,however,and until such time as studies
similar to the Project TIA are prepared, some geographic areas and types of transportation facilities do not
have well-defined improvement plans, schedules, or funding sources. The Project will contribute an
incrementally minor volume of vehicle trips to various roadways and intersections that lack definite plans,
schedules,and funding sources.The transportation improvement uncertainties are few in the Year 2010,but
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 20
increase substantially by the horizon Year 2025.Therefore,the ability to predict the entirety of the Project's
incremental effects and fair-share funding obligations are similarly constrained.
a. Impact: Year 2010 Transportation Improvements: The Project will participate in the
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
transportation improvement programs; however, the possibility exists that some of the
necessary Year 2010 intersection improvements might not be constructed by 2010.As such,
a significant impact could remain after Project mitigation (fee payment) and until the
improvements are constructed.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which partially mitigate the significant effects on the environment.
The Project's fair-share financial responsibility toward mitigating the Year 2010 intersection
impacts will be fulfilled through participation in the TIF and TUMF programs. However,
those necessary improvements may be delayed such that Project effects extend out for a
period of time until the mitigation is implemented.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project must participate in the TIF and TUMF
programs. Building permits are contingent upon development fee payment, so TIF and
TUMF contributions need not be monitored in the project MMRP as Standard Conditions
because these existing laws require payment before the Project can be constructed.However,
the Project applicant has no control over the timing of mitigation improvements under the
TIF and TUMF programs.
b. Impact: Year 2025 Transportation Improvements:The Project will contribute incrementally
(from<1%to approximately 6.3%of total trips)to cumulative level of service deficiencies at
five study area intersections in Year 2025.
Finding: Specific economic and legal considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
The Project cannot feasibly mitigate its share of those future cumulative impacts because
those intersections are not scheduled for improvements under a City or County fair-share
funding and implementation program,nor can the Project feasibly implement the full scope
of improvements required at each of the cumulative impacted intersections.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
Specific, feasible improvements can be implemented to reduce the Year 2025 intersection
capacity impacts under cumulative conditions,both with and without the Project.The future
LOS deficiencies identified on Table 3.3-9 of the Draft EIR would occur with or without the
Project.Although feasible from a program-wide perspective,there are presently no City or
County mitigation programs or other financial mechanisms in place to accept fair-share
contributions for future improvements to those intersections or the roadway segments.
Despite the establishment of the TIF and TUMF programs, some of the necessary future
intersection improvements in Tables 3.3-10 are not covered by either program,nor are they
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 21
anticipated for construction under any known fee credit agreements. Furthermore, an EIR
must demonstrate that impact mitigation fee contributions will result in specific programmed
improvements that will directly minimize or avoid the Project-related effect(s). At the
present, the City and County transportation agencies cannot point to any mechanism by
which the Project can mitigate its incremental future impacts at those intersections.
While the Proj ect would be willing to contribute its fair-share(ranging from<1%to<4%of
total vehicle trips on Cottonwood Canyon Road and Lost Road, respectively) toward the
identified intersection improvements in the County,it is unlikely that a funding mechanism
will be in place by the time building permits are issued.Furthermore,additional mitigation
would be required independent of the Project in order to provide a Level of Service of E or
better at the five intersections that are cumulatively impacted and for which improvements
are unfunded in Year 2025. Since it cannot be assured that the Project impacts will be
mitigated to below a level of significance,the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, supported by these Findings,pursuant to CEQA.
2. AIR QUALITY
a. Impact: Construction-related emissions will exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds
established by the SCAQMD for PM10 and PM2.5 during grading activities. The primary
sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction are fugitive dust from grading
(PM10)and from heavy equipment exhaust emissions(PM2.5).(from DEIR Impact 3.5-1:)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which partially mitigate the significant effects on the environment.
The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation
measure(s):
MM 3.5-1 a: The following procedures shall be implemented daily during all phases of site
clearing,grading,and excavation in order to reduce construction-related emissions ofPM10
and PM2.5:
• Disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered three times per day;
• Construction equipment with low emission factors and high energy efficiency shall
be used;
• All construction equipment shall be properly and routinely maintained as
recommended by manufacturer manuals during all phases of construction;
• During all phases of construction, all contractors shall restrict idling time to five
minutes or less in any given hour.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity
include adjacent residential uses located to the north in Canyon Hills and the future residents
of the Project.As shown in Table 3.5-11,Localized Significance Summary(Construction--
Unmitigated), CO and NOz emissions do not exceed localized thresholds for construction
activity. However,the LSTs for PM10 and PM2.5 would be exceeded during site grading
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 22
and excavation activities,assuming that no emissions control mitigation measures are in use.
The quantities of cut and fill that would occur in close proximity to existing residences
would create airborne dust and equipment exhaust particulates that,when dispersed,would
create ambient PM10 and PM2.5 emissions levels above the allowable localized standard of
10.4 µg/m3 for both pollutants. (DEIR p. 3.5-18)
Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 402,combined with additional project-specific
mitigation(MM 3.5-1a),would substantially reduce PM10 emissions from an unmitigated
concentration of 212.0 µg/m3 to a maximum concentration of approximately 56.27 µg/m3
after mitigation.Likewise,the mitigation measures will reduce PM2.5 emissions from 44.5
µg/m3 to 11.8 µg/m3. However, Table 3.5-12, Localized Significance Summary
(Construction — Mitigated), shows that it will not be possible to achieve the allowable
threshold of 10.4 µg/m3 for either PM10 or PM2.5,even with aggressive control measures in
place during grading. (DEIR p. 3.5-19)
The SCAQMD recommended that the Air Quality Analysis for the EIR be prepared in
accordance with the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the CARB-approved
URBEMIS 2002 Model. In addition, SCAQMD recommended a localized significance
analysis and a mobile source health risk assessment(for heavy duty diesel-fueled vehicles).
The Canyon Hills Estates Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared in conformance with
these recommendations(with the exception of a Health Risk Assessment)and in consultation
with the SCAQMD. A Health Risk Assessment was not prepared because the Project is a
residential development and there would be no heavy diesel-fueled vehicles expected to
routinely access the Project once constructed.
C. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA requires that the EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project,or to the location of the
Project,which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and to evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1)of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "... discussion ofalternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly."
The Project has been compared to three alternative development scenarios, including the No Project
alternative as prescribed by CEQA. These alternatives include: (1) No Project/County of Riverside
Development(the No Project alternative; (2)No Project/No Development; and(3)Reduced Footprint.
1. NO PROJECT/COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT (NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE)
Under the No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative(the No Project alternative under CEQA),
the City of Lake Elsinore would not annex the Project Site and any future development would occur under
Riverside County's jurisdiction. The No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative would allow
the development of up to 33 rural residential single-family detached dwelling units(DU)at an average density
of approximately one DU/7-8 acres. This alternative assumes any development would be according to the
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 23
County General Plan designations and not the County zoning designations. County zoning would allow for
approximately 240 DU at an average density of 1.03 DU/acre. There is an inconsistency between the
County's General Plan and zoning land use designations. The County is currently undertaking a review of
existing zoning in the unincorporated area to conform to the County's new General Plan. Therefore, this
alternative uses the County's General Plan designations rather than zoning designations.
Summary of Major Environmental Effects
Implementation of the No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative will result in a
Project that is consistent with the County's General Plan Land Use Element rather than the City's
General Plan Element. The No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative would result in
up to 33 DU rather than 302 DU.Therefore,most environmental impacts would be reduced because
of fewer DU on the Project site.The No Proj ect/County of Riverside Development alternative would
generate 2,574 less trips per day. Potential noise and air quality impacts would be less than the
Project because of the significant reduction in vehicular trips. This alternative would involve less
grading and landform alteration and surface runoff.Exposure to wildland fires would be the similar
to the Project. The No Project/County of Riverside Development would reduce impacts to cultural
and biological resources.Fewer school age children would be generated by this alternative.Demand
for public services and utilities would be reduced.However,the alternative would not eliminate the
pre-existing storm drain deficiencies downstream of the existing Canyon Hills planned development.
The Project includes an expanded detention area to mitigate the pre-existing storm drain deficiencies.
Project Objectives
Implementation of rural residential development of the No Project/County of Riverside Development
alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives.
Feasibility
The No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative is considered feasible insofar as rural
residential uses are economically viable uses of the Project property. Rural residential construction
would probably occur on an individual basis for each DU following County approvals of one or more
parcel or tentative maps for the site. There would be more limited responsiveness to the site's
environmental opportunities and constraints. There is an available supply of rural residential
development to the south of the Project site. Therefore, there may not be market demand for
additional rural residential development with higher infrastructure costs per DU. There may be
financial and environmental constraints to implementation of this alternative.
Comparative Merits
While the No Project/County of Riverside Development alternative would reduce many of the
environmental impacts identified in the EIR,many of the Project's impacts have been reduced to a
level of less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This alternative would not mitigate the
pre-existing storm drain deficiencies downstream of the existing Canyon Hills planned development.
As indicated above, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives established by the
applicant.
2. NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 24
In this alternative,the Project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future.However,the Project
site is designed for residential development under the City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside General
Plan and is not consider habitat desired for conservation under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan(MSHCP).
Summary of Major Environmental Effects
As a result of no development,none of the environmental consequences identified in Chapter 3.0 of
the EIR would occur. However, the pre-existing storm drain deficiencies would continue for the
existing Canyon Hills development.
Project Objectives
The Project objectives would not be met by implementing the No Project/No Development
alternative.
Feasibility
Implementation of the No Project/No Development alternative would involve no alterations to the
site in the short-term. However,it is unlikely that the property owner would maintain the site in its
existing condition in the future and would probably seek development entitlements at a later date or
sell the property. Public or private purchase of the site as open space in not a feasible alternative to
private development of the property because any purchase price would reflect the highest and best
use of the site as residential development. Future development of the site is assumed,as indicated in
the County and City's General Plan designation for the site,and any entitlement restrictions would be
legally and economically infeasible for the County or City to consider.
Comparative Merits
The No Project/No Development alternative has very little merit since development will eventually
occur on the Project site and some level of environmental impact will ultimately result. The pre-
existing storm drain deficiencies will continue for the existing Canyon Hills development.
3. REDUCED FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative development scenario avoids more of jurisdictional drainage A and sensitive cultural
resources.The Reduced Footprint Alternative would have the same number of DU(302)as the Project.This
alternative has two distinct development areas without connecting access. The western development area
would have approximately 147 DU and the eastern development area would have approximately 155 DU.
This alternative reduced the overall development footprint by approximately 2 acres.
Summary of Major Environmental Effects
This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project because of the same number of DU with
the exception of biological and cultural resources.This alternative avoids more sensitive biological
and cultural resources than the Project. However, the Reduced Footprint alternative results in
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 25
increased fire hazards because of decreased emergency access.The Fire Department has opposed this
alternative for this reason. This alternative would distribute more trips to the west than the Project.
This alternative also reduces the opportunity to mitigate the pre-existing storm drain deficiencies of
the existing Canyon Hills development.
Project Objectives
The Reduced Footprint alternative could potentially meet most of the Project objectives.
Feasibility
Since this alternative would result in increased fire hazards because of reduced emergency access,the
Fire Department has indicated their opposition to this alternative.
Comparative Merits
Implementation of the Reduced Footprint alternative would provide no significant environmental
advantage over the Project.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 26
SECTION IV
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings,the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following
documents, at a minimum:
• The May and June 2006 NOPs issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
• The November 2006 Draft EIR and Final EIR,including appendices and technical studies included or
referenced in the Draft EIR;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public comment
period on the Draft EIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in addition to
timely comments on the Draft EIR;
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City decision makers in connection with the Project,and
all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the
Project;
• All documents and information submitted to the City by responsible,trustee,or other public agencies,
or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the Project, up through the date the City
Council approved the Project;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City,including,but not limited to federal,state,and local laws
and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
• Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code section
21167.6, subdivision(e).
The custodian of the record of proceedings is the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department,whose office is
located at 130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.
The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project,even if every
document was not formally presented to the City Council decision-makers as part of the City's files generated
in connection with the Project.
Exhibit A
Environmental Findings
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 27
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires a public agency to balance the benefits of the
Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project.The Final
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan has identified and discussed
significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With implementation of the Project Design
Features,Standard Conditions,and/or Project-specific mitigation measures identified for each environmental
topic,most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant,
except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section III of the Findings.
The City of Lake Elsinore has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate
the potential impacts resulting from the Specific Plan. Impacts, in these and all other cases, have been
mitigated to the extent considered feasible. All significant adverse impacts are identified in the Final EIR and
are addressed in the Findings,which accompany this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Project will result in the following significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant
levels:
1. Traffic and Circulation
Year 2010 Transportation Improvements: The Project will participate in the Transportation Impact
Fee(TIF)and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF)transportation improvement programs
However, the possibility exists that some of the necessary Year 2010 intersection improvements
might not be constructed by 2010.As such,a significant impact could remain after Project mitigation
(fee payment)and until the improvements are constructed.
Year 2025 Transportation Improvements: The Project will contribute incrementally(from<1%to
approximately 6.3% of total trips) to cumulative level of service deficiencies at five study area
intersections in Year 2025.The Project cannot feasibly mitigate its share of those future cumulative
impacts because those intersections are not scheduled for improvements under a City or County fair-
share funding and implementation program.
2. Air Quality
Localized Significance Thresholds:Even with the application of Standard Conditions and the use of
all feasible mitigation,the Project will result in short-term(Project construction-related)air quality
impacts associated with localized PM10 and PM2.5 levels adjacent to residences in the existing Canyon
Hills community.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093,the City Council must balance the benefits of the Project
against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits
of the Specific Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be
considered"acceptable."
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 28
The City has determined that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from Project implementation are
acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the Project. In making this
determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. The City further finds that
except for the Specific Plan, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would
prohibit the realization of Specific Plan objectives and/or of specific economic,social and other benefits that
this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Specific Plan to the extent feasible by
adopting the mitigation measures;having considered the entire administrative record on the Specific Plan;and
having weighed the benefits of the Specific Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation,the
City Council has determined that the following social,economic,and environmental benefits of the Specific
Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental
impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
Environmental Benefits of the Project
• The Open Space conservation easements will benefit biological resources through preservation of
approximately 126 acres of natural hillside and riparian areas in perpetuity and designation of an
additional 24 acres of open space. (Draft EIR,p. 3.8-17)
• The Open Space conservation easements will benefit the City by contributing to the City's overall
conservation acreage under the MSHCP program. (Draft EIR,p. 3.8-27)
• The Project will benefit biological resources and provide quality Riparian/Riverine habitat through
the enhancement of Cottonwood Creek and existing riparian oak woodland,including the removal
invasive non-native plant species and revegetation with appropriate native species. (Draft EIR,p.
3.8-35)
• The Project will enhance the value of Cottonwood Creek as a wildlife movement corridor extending
beyond the Project Site via a 155.3-acre open space and park plan. (Draft EIR,pp. 2-8—2-11, 3.8-
35)
• The Project will eliminate existing erosion conditions that have compromised the structural facilities
and have caused siltation and temporary capacity reductions in the existing debris/detention basin in
Tract 30492. (Draft EIR,pp. 3.7-19, 3.7-24)
• The Project will provide water quality and flood control benefits by reducing and detaining some of
the existing storm flows passing through the Project Site,much of which originates from existing and
developing residential properties upstream in the study area watershed. (Draft EIR,p. 3.7-32)
• Through expanded detention/water quality basin design, the Project will negate more than its
incremental share of runoff volumes by releasing stormwater from the Project Site at rates that are
below the 100-year storm flow capacities of downstream storm drains in the Canyon Hills
development. (Draft EIR,pp. 3.7-19, 3.7-32)
Social Benefits of the Project
• The Project will improve local traffic circulation and emergency vehicle access to the Project Site and
surrounding properties through the road improvements. (Draft EIR,p. 2-11,2-15—2-16; 3.9-3)
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 29
• The Project will remove a potential health risk through demolition and clean up of debris,including
possible asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints. (Draft EIR,p. 3.9-7—3.9-8)
• The Project will benefit the community as a whole,by removing the potential for illegal dumping,
trespass, and other activities. (Draft EIR,p. 3.2-22)
• The Project will provide recreational opportunities for City residents and visitors including a 5.4-acre
park. (Draft EIR,p. 2-8—2-11)
• The Project will provide an emergency access road that will promote emergency response and
accessibility not only for the Project Site,but also for the adjacent residential areas in the County of
Riverside to the south,which are currently accessible only by unimproved roads. (Draft EIR,p.3.9-
3)
• The Project will provide trails and bikeways,including a special modified roadway section with an
expanded eight-foot parkway on one side to facilitate a public trail system throughout the Project.
(Draft EIR,p. 2-15)
• The Project has prepared a Fire Protection Plan that will reduce wildfire risk in the general vicinity of
the Project site. (Draft EIR,p. 3.13-7)
Economic Benefits of the Project
• The Project is expected to be built out by 2010, providing steady construction jobs over the
construction period.
• The Project will contribute fees toward traffic improvements, school facilities, park facilities, fire
services,police services,water facilities, and sewer facilities.
• The payment of parkland mitigation fees will benefit the City's park programs. (Draft EIR,p.3.13-
13)
The City Council has determined that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and
implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the
Specific Plan, which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those
impacts to be acceptable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 30
EXHIBIT C
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The City of Lake Elsinore has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Canyon Hills Estates
Specific Plan.The City finds that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with
CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines; and that the Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Lake Elsinore;and that no new significant impacts as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which
would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings.
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and,although subject to all
applicable and feasible Project Design Features, Standard Conditions and mitigation measures,the impacts
cannot be mitigated to less than significant:
1. Traffic and Circulation: Although the Project will commit to TIF and TUMF transportation
improvement program funding, the timing of some improvements necessary to mitigate Year
2010 Project-related impacts remains uncertain. Additionally, incremental Project traffic
contributions to cumulative level of service deficiencies at five study area intersections in Year
2025 cannot be mitigated because they are not currently included in City or County
transportation improvement programs. Moreover, the improvements cannot be feasibly
implemented by the Project alone.
2. Air Quality: Short-term emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 will exceed localized significance
thresholds during earthmoving activities that are adjacent to the existing residences in the
Canyon Hills development.
B. Conclusions.
3. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Specific Plan have been
identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for the impact(s) listed above and described in
Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations).
4. Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan that could feasibly achieve most of the basic
objectives of the Specific Plan have been considered. Since the alternatives considered did not
serve to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts,and because the alternatives offer no
feasible means of avoiding the significant effects identified in Exhibit B (Statement of
Overriding Considerations), the alternatives are rejected in favor of the Canyon Hills Estates
Specific Plan. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived
from the development of the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan override and make infeasible any
alternatives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into
the Specific Plan.
Exhibit C
Certification of the Final EIR
Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan,City of Lake Elsinore
Page 31
Canyon Hills Estates
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CITY OF
LA IJE COLSINOKE
l)It E A Ni F)(T It I-M E
Prepared by:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
January 2007
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Description of Proposed Canyon Hills Estates Project................................................................................1-1
1.2 Mitigation Matrix...........................................................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures................................................................................................................1-2
1.3.1 Coordination with Contractors......................................................................................................1-2
1.3.2 Recognized Experts.......................................................................................................................1-2
1.3.3 Arbitration/Dispute Resolution.....................................................................................................1-2
1.3.4 Enforcement..................................................................................................................................1-3
Appendix
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Canyon Hills Estates I City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act(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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 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 21O81(a)of the Public Resources Code,findings must be adopted by the decision maker coincidental
to certification of the EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must be adopted when making the
findings(at the time of approval of the project).
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, "reporting" is suited to projects that have readily 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.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Canyon Hills Estates project (SCH #2006051073), provided an
analysis of the environmental effects resulting from construction and operation of the project. A thorough scientific and
engineering evaluation of each alternative was undertaken in compliance with CEQA, including the identification of
measures designed to avoid or substantially reduce the potential adverse effects of each alternative.
1.1 Description of Proposed Canyon Hills Estates Project
The Proposed Project is a residential planned community development on a total of 246.4 acres,known as the Canyon Hills
Estates(CHE)Specific Plan.The CHE includes 302 single family dwelling units(DU)on 114.4 acres,a 5.4 acre public park,
and 126.2 acres of open space.
The entitlement approvals for the Proposed Project include:
• General Plan Amendment(GPA)No.2006-04 to re-designate the Project Site from Very Low Density Residential
(VLDR)and Mountainous(M)to Low Density Residential(LDR);
• Annexation No.75 -Completion of the annexation of the Project Site into the City of Lake Elsinore;
• Zone Change/Pre-Zone No.2005-09-Adoption of the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan in conformance with
pre-zoning;and
• Tract Map 34249 -approval of a Tentative Tract Map to permit subdivision of the Project Site;
• Annexation of Project Site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD).
In addition,the following ministerial actions are included in the discussion of the Proposed Project:
• Grading Permit(s)
• Building Permit(s)
Implementation of the Proposed Project may include the following discretionary approvals by other responsible and/or
regulatory agencies:
• California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG), Fish and Game Code Section 1600
• U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)
• Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE), Federal Clean Water Act(CWA),Section 404
• Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB), Federal CWA,Section 401 Water Quality Certification
• RWQCB, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)
• City of Lake Elsinore,County of Riverside's Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
and Natural Community Conservation Planning Program(WRC MSHCP/NCCP)
Canyon Hills Estates City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Introduction
• South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)
• Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD)
1.2 Mitigation Matrix
In order 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. Prior to issuance of grading permit
2. Prior to issuance of building permit(s)
3. During construction
4. Prior to issuance of certificate of use and occupancy
1.3 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures
The City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department is the designated lead agency for the Canyon Hills Estates
Specific Plan project.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.,archaeologists,biologists,etc.)as accurate and
up-to-date and will field check mitigation measure status as required.
1.3.1 Coordination with Contractors
The construction manager/superintendent is responsible for coordination of contractors,and is also responsible for
contractor completion of required measures in accordance with the provisions of this program.
1.3.2 Recognized Experts
The use of recognized experts as a component of the mitigation monitoring team is required to ensure compliance with
scientific and engineering based mitigation measures. While the mitigation monitoring team assesses compliance with
required mitigation measures,consultation with the City of Lake Elsinore planning staff shall take place in the event of a
dispute.
1.3.3 Arbitration/Dispute Resolution
If the mitigation monitor has identified an action which,in the opinion of the monitor, has not been implemented or has not
been implemented correctly,the problem will be brought to the attention of the City of Lake Elsinore Community
Development Director for resolution. The City will have the authority to issue stop work orders until the dispute is resolved.
Canyon Hills Estates 1-2 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Introduction
1.3.4 Enforcement
Agencies may enforce conditions of approval through their existing police power, using stop work orders,fines,infraction
citations, loss of entitlements, refusal to issue building permits or certificates of use and occupancy or,in some cases,
notice of violation for tax purposes. Criminal misdemeanor sanctions could be available where the agency has adopted an
ordinance requiring compliance with the monitoring program,similar to the provision in many zoning ordinances which
affirm the enforcement power to bring suit against violators of the ordinances provisions.
Canyon Hills Estates 1-3 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
APPENDIX A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
NOISE
MM 3.4-1 Project construction operations Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
within 100 feet of any off-site implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
residences shall be monitored by a construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
qualified acoustical consultant to measures as construction. Construction Department
ensure that the construction noise detailed.
level limit of the City of Lake
Elsinore Noise Ordinance is not
violated.At the recommendation of
the acoustical consultant,the
operation may utilize temporary
noise control measures,such as
limiting the duration of hourly
construction activity,placement of
temporary barriers,or equivalent
measures,to ensure compliance
with the City's Noise Ordinance.
MM 3.4-2 Project construction operations Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
within 57 feet of any off-site implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
residences shall utilize a smaller construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
dozer for this portion of measures as construction. Construction Department
construction so that vibration detailed.
impacts will be lessened to below
the City of Lake Elsinore Noise
Ordinance standard,or the dozer
operations within 57 feet of the
residence must be performed when
the residence is temporarily
unoccupied.Such work shall be
monitored by a qualified acoustical
consultant to ensure that the
vibration standard of the Noise
Ordinance is not violated.
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-1 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
AIR QUALITY
MM 3.5-1a The following procedures shall be Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
implemented daily during all phases implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
of site clearing,grading,and construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
excavation in order to reduce measures as construction. Construction Department
construction-related emissions of detailed.
PM10 and PM2.5:
• Disturbed soil surfaces shall be
watered three times per day;
• Construction equipment with
low emission factors and high
energy efficiency shall be used;
• All construction equipment
shall be properly and routinely
maintained as recommended
by manufacturer manuals
during all phases of
construction;
• During all phases of
construction,all contractors
shall restrict idling time to five
minutes or less in any given
hour
MM 3.5-1b The following measures shall be Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
implemented during all phases of implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
construction, including paving and construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
architectural coating applications, measures as construction. Construction Department
in order to reduce construction- detailed.
related emissions of VOCs:
• Only Zero-VOC paints(assumes
no more than 100 gram/liter of
VOC)shall be used for
architectural coatings during
initial construction;and
• No more than 18 homes per
week shall be painted.
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-2 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM 3.8-1 All coast live oak trees to be Biologist shall Construction plan CDD* Condition of CDD* CDD*
removed during grading shall be prepare final Tree check against Tree Grading Permit
identified and tagged in the field by Preservation Plan Preservation Plan;
the project biologist and verified subsequent to field site inspections
prior to final removal.The applicant review by biologist during construction.
shall mitigate the removed trees at for CDD* review
a 4:1 replacement ratio using one and approval.
24-inch box container tree,two 15-
gallon container trees,and one 5-
gallon container tree.The
replacement coast live oak shall be
planted on-site as directed by the
project biologist or Landscape
Architect pursuant to the Tree
Preservation Plan.The planting
locations include the project
neighborhood park,fuel
modification areas,and along
common area landscape buffer
areas.All tree removal and
mitigation requirements shall be
reviewed and approved in writing by
the project biologist or Landscape
Architect prior to project
acceptance.
MM 3.8-2 • Vegetation removal activities Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
shall be scheduled outside the implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
nesting season to avoid construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
potential impacts to nesting measures as construction. Construction Department
birds.The nesting season is detailed.
typically February 15 through
August 15.This would insure
that no active nests would be
disturbed and that habitat
removal could proceed rapidly.
• Prior to commencement of
clearing or grading during the
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-3 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
nesting season,all suitable
habitat shall be thoroughly
surveyed for the presence of
nesting birds by a qualified
biologist.To minimize impacts,
if any active nests are
detected,a buffer of at least
100 feet(300 feet for raptors)
shall be delineated,flagged,
and avoided until the nesting
cycle is complete,as
determined by the biological
monitor.
MM 3.8-3a The Applicant shall pay fees in Building Prior to issuance of Building Building Permit City of Lake City of Lake
accordance with the USFWS Department shall building permits, Department Issuance Elsinore Elsinore Building
approved Habitat Conservation Plan require payment of Building Building Department
(HCP)for Stephens' kangaroo rat. required fees prior Department shall Department
to issuance of confirm fees have
building permits. been paid.
MM 3.8-3b The Applicant shall pay the required Building Prior to issuance of Building Building Permit City of Lake City of Lake
standard Western Riverside County Department shall building permits, Department Issuance Elsinore Elsinore Building
Multiple Species Habitat require payment of Building Building Department
Conservation Plan(MSHCP) required fees prior Department shall Department
developer impact fees. to issuance of confirm fees have
building permits. been paid.
MM 3.8-4 • On-and off-site replacement of
ACOE and RWQCB
jurisdictional waters and
wetlands at a ratio no less
than 2:1.Off-site replacement
shall include the purchase of
mitigation credits at an agency-
approved off-site mitigation
bank.
• On-and off-site replacement of
CDFG jurisdictional streambed
and associated riparian habitat
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-4 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
at a ratio no less than 2:1.Off-
site replacement shall include
the purchase of mitigation
credits at an agency-approved
off-site mitigation bank.
• On-site mitigation includes
2.30 acres of riparian
enhancement, restoration,and
creation within ACOE/RWQCB
and CDFG jurisdiction.This
includes an approximately 50-
foot wide riparian buffer
around Cottonwood Canyon
Creek covering approximately
1.20 acres. Riparian
enhancement shall include the
removal of fill material that has
encroached on the floodplain,
eradication of non-native
species,and seeding and
staking of native plants.The
riparian buffer shall be planted
adjacent to the riparian areas
and will include additional
riparian habitat within CDFG
jurisdiction.
HAZARDS
MM 3.9-1a Documentation of the ACM and LBP Project applicant Project applicant Applicant- Prior to issuance CDD* CDD*
survey per SCAQMD and State shall retain a shall submit an retained of demolition
regulations shall be submitted to hazards specialist ACM and LBP hazards permits
the City of Lake Elsinore upon to prepare an ACM survey to the CDD* specialist/
characterization of potentially and LBP survey per prior to issuance of CDD*
hazardous materials. If one or both SCAQMD and State demolition permits.
of these substances are found, regulations.
appropriate remediation measures
shall be undertaken pursuant to
Mitigation Measures 3.9-1b and/or
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-rJ City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
3.9-1c,as applicable.
MM 3.9-1b If determined necessary as an If necessary, project Site inspections Contractor Demolition City of Lake City of Lake
outcome of the ACM survey,and as applicant shall during construction. Permit Issuance/ Elsinore Elsinore Building
part of structural demolition retain a State- Construction Building Department
activities,a State-licensed licensed abatement Department
abatement contractor shall abate contractor.
any material with asbestos content
of one percent or greater by
transportation under manifest and
disposal at a State-licensed
disposal facility consistent with
SCAQMD Rule 1403.
Documentation shall be submitted
to the City of Lake Elsinore upon
characterization of potentially
hazardous materials and upon
completion of abatement
operations.
MM 3.9-1c If determined necessary as an If necessary, project Site inspections Contractor Demolition City of Lake City of Lake
outcome of the LBP survey,and as applicant shall during construction. Permit Issuance/ Elsinore Elsinore Building
part of structural demolition retain a State- Construction Building Department
activities,a State-licensed licensed abatement Department
abatement contractor shall abate contractor.
any LBP materials by transportation
under manifest and disposal at a
State-licensed disposal facility.All
other types of hazardous materials
shall be characterized and
quantified,with removal,transport
and disposal methods specified for
each waste type. Documentation
shall be submitted to the City of
Lake Elsinore upon characterization
of potentially hazardous materials
and upon completion of abatement
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-6 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
operations.
AESTHETICS
MM 3.10-1 The Project shall utilize Contractor to Construction plan Contractor Grading and City of Lake City of Lake
downshielded high-pressure sodium implement check;site Building Permit Elsinore Elsinore Building
street lighting(or similar standard construction inspections during Issuance/ Building Department
low-glare lighting)to ensure measures as construction. Construction Department
minimization of light and glare at detailed.
off-site properties.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM3.11-1a TS-01 shall be avoided and Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- During project CDD* CDD*
preserved where feasible including the services of a archaeologist shall retained grading
a 10 meter buffer surrounding the qualified monitor all ground Archaeologist/
boundaries of TS-01 to protect the archaeologist. disturbing activities. CDD*
delineated site area and any At the monitoring
associated subsurface phase,a summary
components. Protective fencing report,including a
during construction shall be daily log of all
provided to protect TS-01 where monitoring activity
feasible. and any
recommendations.
MM3.11-1b Prior to the issuance of any grading Applicant to retain Applicant shall CDD* Prior to the CDD* CDD*
permits,a Phase II cultural the services of a furnish the qualified issuance of
resources testing and evaluation qualified archaeologist's grading permits.
program shall be conducted for TS- archaeologist who qualifications and
01 and TS-02.The Phase II will conduct a scope of work to
evaluation plan shall contain a Phase II cultural the CDD*for review
research design and field resources testing and approval.
methodology designed to evaluate and evaluation Qualified
the significance of the sites program for TS-01 archaeologist shall
pursuant to applicable law and in and TS-02 provide the Phase II
accordance with general report to the CDD*
archaeological reporting standards for review and
for such. If Phase II testing approval.
determines the presence of a
"unique archaeological resource"
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-7 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
under Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2,the report shall
include recommended measures to
avoid or mitigate impacts to the
sites.Where avoidance of
significant resources is not feasible,
Phase III investigations(data
recovery)shall be completed.
All testing and evaluation shall be
supervised by an individual or
individuals meeting the Secretary of
the Interior's Professional
Qualifications Standards as a
qualified prehistoric archaeologist
for Site TS-01 and as an historic
archaeologist for Site TS-02 and/or
a Registered Professional
Archaeologist(RPA)with similar
qualifications.
MM3.11-1c If the Phase II cultural resources Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- During project CDD* CDD*
evaluation program determines that the services of a archaeologist shall retained grading
a given resource is eligible for qualified monitor all ground Archaeologist/
listing on the California Registry of archaeologist. disturbing activities. CDD*
Historic Resources(CRHR)and/or At the monitoring
local listings and therefore meets phase,a summary
the definition of an"historical report,including a
resource,"or if there is a daily log of all
determination by the City in monitoring activity
consultation with the Pechanga and any
Tribe that a resource is"unique" recommendations.
pursuant to applicable law,an
impact determination shall be
made prior to issuance of grading
permits. If the impacts are
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-8 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
determined to be significant,
appropriate mitigation measures
shall be designed in consultation
with the Pechanga Tribe to mitigate
impacts to below a level of
significance with preservation as
the preferred mitigation if feasible.
If preservation is not the chosen
alternative,a data recovery
program shall be implemented.The
data recovery program shall entail,
at a minimum,the collection of
surface materials and a sufficient
sample of buried materials,
analysis,and reporting of recovered
materials consistent with the
Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement by and
between the Project Applicant and
the Pechanga Tribe as required in
MM 3.11-2a.
MM3.11-1d Prior to issuance of grading Applicant to retain Prior to the Applicant- Prior to the CDD* CDD*
permit(s)for the Project, the the services of a issuance of grading retained issuance of
Project Applicant shall retain an qualified permits,the Project Archaeologist/ grading permits
archaeological monitor to monitor archaeologist. Applicant shall CDD*
all ground-disturbing activities with provide the CDD*
special emphasis on the vicinity of the retained
TS-01 and TS-02 in an effort to archaeologist's
identify any unknown qualifications and
archaeological resources.Any newly scope of work.At
discovered cultural resource the monitoring
deposits shall be subject to a phase,a summary
cultural resources evaluation(see report,including a
MM 3.11-1b and 3.11-1c). daily log of all
monitoring activity
and any
recommendations.
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-9 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
MM3.111e Mitigation measures 3.11-2a Applicant's Project Applicant CDD* Prior to the Cdd* CDD*
through 3.11-2c include provisions qualified shall provide the issuance of
for Native American consultation archaeologist will excavation and grading permits
and monitoring,and shall apply to coordinate Native monitoring program
all activities undertaken with American monitors to the CDD* prior to
respect to Site TS-01. with the Pechanga the issuance of
Tribe. grading permits.
MM3.11-2a At least 30 days prior to seeking a Applicant shall Project Applicant CDD* Prior to the CDD* CDD*
grading permit,the project contact the shall provide the issuance of
applicant shall contact the Pechanga Band of excavation and grading permits
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Luiseno Indians for monitoring program
for the purpose of notifying the the purpose of to the CDD* prior to
Tribe of the grading,excavation and notifying the Tribe the issuance of
monitoring program,and to of the grading, grading permits.
coordinate with the City of Lake excavation and
Elsinore and the Pechanga Band of monitoring
Luiseno Indians to develop a program,and to
Cultural Resources Treatment and coordinate with the
Monitoring Agreement.The City of Lake
Agreement shall address the Elsinore and the
treatment of known cultural Pechanga Band of
resources,the designation, Luiseno Indians to
responsibilities,and participation of develop a Cultural
Native American monitors during Resources
grading,excavation and ground Treatment and
disturbing activities; project grading Monitoring
and development scheduling;terms Agreement.
of compensation;and treatment
and final disposition of any cultural
resources,sacred sites,and human
remains discovered on the site.The
City of Lake Elsinore shall be the
final arbiter of any disputes
concerning the conditions included
in the Agreement.
MM3.11-2b Prior to issuance of any grading Applicant-retained Applicant-retained CDD* Prior to the CDD* CDD*
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-10 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
permit,the project archaeologist Archaeologist shall Archaeologist shall issuance of
shall file a pre-grading report with file a pre-grading file a pre-grading grading permits
the City and County(if required)to report with the City report with the City
document the proposed and County(if and County(if
methodology for grading activity required). required)prior to
observation.Said methodology shall the issuance of
include the requirement for a grading permits.
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
3.11-2a,the archaeological
monitor's authority to stop and
redirect grading will be exercised in
consultation with the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Indians in order to
evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources
discovered on the property.Tribal
monitors from the Pechanga Band
of Luiseno Indians 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.
MM3.11-2c If human remains are encountered, Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- During project CDD* CDD*
State Health and Safety Code the services of a archaeologist shall retained grading
Section 7050.5 shall apply and no qualified monitor all ground Archaeologist/
further disturbance shall occur until archaeologist. disturbing activities. CCD*
the County Coroner has made a At the monitoring
determination of origin and phase,a summary
disposition pursuant to Public report,including a
Resources Code Section 5097.98. daily log of all
The Riverside County Coroner shall monitoring activity
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-11 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
be notified of the find immediately. and any
If the remains are determined to be recommendations.
prehistoric,the Coroner will notify
the Native American Heritage
Commission(NAHC),which will
determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant(MILD).With the
permission of the landowner or
his/her authorized representative,
the MLD may inspect the site of
discovery.The MILD shall complete
the inspection and provide its
recommendations pursuant to
Public Resources Code 5097.98.
MM3.11-2d The landowner agrees to relinquish The Project Project Applicant CDD* During project CDD* CDD*
ownership of all cultural resources, archaeologist will shall provide the grading
including all Luiseno sacred items, relinquish excavation and
burial goods and all archaeological ownership of monitoring program
artifacts that are found on the cultural resources to the CDD* prior to
Project area to the Pechanga Band to the Pechanga the issuance of
of Luiseno Indians for proper Band of Luiseno grading permits.
treatment and disposition. Indians in
accordance with the
Cultural Resources
Treatment and
Monitoring
Agreement.
MM3.11-2e All sacred sites within the Project The Project Project Applicant CDD* During project CDD* CDD*
area are to be avoided and archaeologist will shall provide the grading
preserved as the preferred treat sacred sites in excavation and
mitigation if feasible. If preservation accordance with the monitoring program
is not the chosen alternative,a data Cultural Resources to the CDD* prior to
recovery program shall be Treatment and the issuance of
implemented.The data recovery Monitoring grading permits.
program shall entail,at a minimum, Agreement.
the collection of surface materials
and a sufficient sample of buried
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-12 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
materials,analysis,and reporting or
recovered materials consistent with
the Cultural Resources Treatment
and Monitoring Agreement by and
between the Project Applicant and
the Pechanga Tribe as required in
MM 3.11-2a.
MM3.11-2f If inadvertent discoveries of The Project Project Applicant CDD* During project CDD* CDD*
subsurface archaeological archaeologist will shall provide the grading
resources are discovered during treat inadvertent excavation and
grading,the Developer,the Project discoveries of monitoring program
archaeologist,and the Pechanga subsurface to the CDD* prior to
Band of Luiseno Indians shall archaeological the issuance of
assess the significance of such resources in grading permits.
resources and shall meet and accordance with the
confer regarding the mitigation for Cultural Resources
such resources. If the Developer Treatment and
and the Pechanga Band cannot Monitoring
agree on the significance or the Agreement.
mitigation for such resources,these
issues will be presented to the City
Planning Director for decision.The
Planning Director shall make his
decision 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
Pechanga Band.The decision of the
Planning Director shall be
appealable to the City of Lake
Elsinore.
MM3.11-3a Prior to the issuance of any grading Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- Prior to the CDD* CDD*
permits,a reconnaissance survey of the services of a paleontologist shall retained issuance of
the Pleistocene older fan deposits qualified provide the CDD*a paleontologist grading permits.
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-13 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
Mitigation Atnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party (Y/N)&Date Record)
shall be required.This survey shall paleontologist who copy of his findings /CDD*
determine the paleontological will conduct a from the
sensitivity of these deposits through reconnaissance reconnaissance
analysis of soil lithology. survey. survey prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.
MM3.11-3b As required in the grading permits, Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- During project CDD* CDD*
any paleontologically sensitive the services of a paleontologist shall retained grading
deposits shall require the qualified monitor all ground paleontologist/
preparation and implementation of paleontologist. disturbing activities. CDD*
a paleontological mitigation plan At the monitoring
that may include full-or part-time phase,a summary
monitoring by a qualified report,including a
paleontologist,as well as protocols daily log of all
for recovery,identification,analysis, monitoring activity
reporting and curation of significant and any
resources should they occur. recommendations.
Deposits not considered likely to
produce fossils may be graded
without monitoring by a qualified
paleontologist(s)with the caveat
that work be halted in the area of
fossil resource finds until such time
as a qualified paleontologist can
determine the nature of the find
and makes appropriate
recommendations(e.g.,recovery
and curation).
MM3.11-3c All excavation in areas likely to Applicant to retain Qualified Applicant- During project CDD* CDD*
contain paleontological resources the services of a paleontologist shall retained grading
shall be monitored by a qualified qualified monitor all ground paleontologist/
vertebrate paleontological monitor. paleontologist. disturbing activities. CDD*
The monitor shall be equipped to At the monitoring
salvage fossils as they are phase,a summary
unearthed to avoid construction report,including a
delays and to remove samples of daily log of all
monitoring activity
*CDD*—City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-14 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
Appendix A
1V4tigation Nbnitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Documentation
Responsible Verification/ Measure Location
Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Approval Implemented? (Monitoring
No. Mitigation Measure Action Method Party Monitoring Phase Party WN)&Date Record)
sediments that are likely to contain and any
the remains of small fossil recommendations.
vertebrates.This monitor will be
empowered to halt construction
activities as necessary to protect
any resources uncovered.
Recovered specimens will be
identified and curated into a
museum repository with retrievable
storage. A report will be made of
findings, including an itemized
inventory. This report will be
submitted to the County of
Riverside and the San Bernardino
County Museum Department of
Earth Sciences.
'CDD'-City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Canyon Hills Estates A-15 City of Lake Elsinore
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2007
CANYON HILLS ESTATES
City of Lake Elsinore, California
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
The Canyon Hills Estates (CHE) Draft EIR dated November 2006 was made available for public
review and comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section
15087) from November 10 to December 27, 2006. During this public review period, the City of Lake
Elsinore, as the CEQA Lead Agency, received fourteen (14) comment letters and/or emails on the
Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations, tribes, and individuals. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines §15088, the City of Lake Elsinore has evaluated the comments and has prepared written
responses to each pertinent comment relating to the adequacy of the environmental analysis
contained in the Draft EIR.
The public review comment period of the CEQA process serves an important and essential role.
Comments are solicited under CEQA for the purposes of disclosing additional possible impacts,
alternatives, or mitigation measures. Comments need to be supported by substantial evidence such
as data, references, expert opinion, or other facts. This allows the Lead Agency to assess the impacts
of a project based on the analysis provided by other responsible or concerned agencies and provides
the opportunity to amplify and explain better the analysis that the Lead Agency has undertaken to
determine the potential environmental impacts of a project. To that extent, these responses to
comments are intended to provide complete and thorough explanations to commenting agencies
and individuals and to improve the overall understanding of the project for the decision-making body.
The following agencies, organizations, and interested persons submitted comments during the 45-
day public review period. Each comment document is identified with a letter in the upper right corner
of the first page of the letter. The individual comments in each comment document have been given
reference numbers that appear in the margin next to the bracketed comment.
Agency or Organization Name Date
A. State of California - Health and Human Bridget Binning Nov. 17, 2006
Services Agency, Department of Health CDHS Environmental Review Unit
Services(CDHS)
B. The Gas Company Dick Gebhardt Nov. 20, 2006
Technical Services Supervisor
C. - Katherine Celli Dec. 19, 2006
D. State of California - Department of Toxic Greg Holmes, Unit Chief Dec. 7 &20,
Substances Control (DTSC) So. Cal. Cleanup Operations Branch 2006
- Cypress Office
E. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Terese Quintanar Nov. 22, 2006
(EVMWD) District Secretary/Administrative
Services Supervisor
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-1
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Agency or Organization Name Date
F. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Erica Helms Nov.30, 2006
Soboba Cultural Resources Dept.
G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karen A. Goebel Dec. 21, 2006
(USFWS)/California Department of Fish & Assistant Field Supervisor(USFWS)
Game(CDFG)
Leslie MacNair
Staff Environmental Scientist(CDFG)
H. County of Riverside Transportation and Juan C. Perez Dec. 21, 2006
Land Management Agency,Transportation Deputy Director
Department
I. Wildomar Incorporation Now(WIN) Sheryl Ade Dec. 27, 2006
Secretary
J. Pechanga Indian Reservation,Temecula Laura Miranda Feb. 8, 2006
Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Deputy General Counsel (sic)
K. Southern California Association of Sylvia Patsaouras Dec. 15, 2006
Governments(SCAG) Manager, Environmental Division
L. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Teresa Tung Dec. 26, 2006
Conservation District(RCFC&WCD) Senior Civil Engineer
M. Lake Elsinore Unified School District Kira Falsetto Nov. 15, 2005
Assistant Director, Facilities Planning (sic)
N. State of California - Governor's Office of Terry Roberts, Director Dec. 28, 2006
Planning and Research,State Director, State Clearinghouse
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-2
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document A
State of California—Health and Human Services Agency
Department of Health Services
s
Calirotnn
Department of -
hlea1111Services
SANDRA SHEWRY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Director J , Governor
November 17, 2006
Wendy Worthey ......_j
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
RE: Canyon Hills Estates—SCH2O06051073
The California Department of Health Services(CDHS)is in receipt of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the above project.
If the City of Lake Elsinore plans to develop a new water supply well or make
modifications to the existing domestic water treatment system to serve the Canyon Hills
Al Estates project site, an application to amend the water system permit must be reviewed
and approved by the CDHS Riverside District Office. These future developments may
be subject to separate environmental review.
Please contact the office at(619)525-4159 for further information.
Sincerely,
i
t
Bridget Birining
California Department of Health Services
Environmental Review Unit
Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management
Environmental Review Unit/Slate Revolving Fund/Prop 50
1616 Capitol Avenue,MS 7418.P.O.Box 997413,Sacramento CA 95899-7413
(916)449-5600 Fax:(916)446-5656
Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.nnv/ns/rldwFm
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-3
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Ms. Worthey
Page 2
November 17, 2006
cc:
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-0613
Steve Williams, District Engineer
CDHS Riverside
1350 Front Street, Room 2050
San Diego,CA 92101
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-4
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document A
State of California - Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Services (DHS)
November 17, 2006
Response No. Al
There is no existing domestic water treatment system or other water facilities on-site (EIR Section
3.12.5.2). The Project does not propose construction of any groundwater wells because public water
sources will be provided to the Project Site via transmission mains from the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District(EIR Section 3.7.5.5).
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-5
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document B
Southern California
Gas Company
1981 tV.L uciZa Avr:nue
The RM1Wnds.CA 92314-9720
Gas maiiinq Address:
Confpafey Pe Lax 100,
Redlands.CA 92373-0.306
h
A "Sempra Energy utility
November 20,2006
City of lake Elsinore t' -•- _
" t —
Community Development Department
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530 !
Attention: Wendy Worthey
Re: (EIR)Canyon Hills Estates—Tract Map 34249
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that
Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is
B1 proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the
environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension
rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements
are made.
You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve
the proposed project,but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service,
as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.
As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is tinder the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory
agencies_ Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised
conditions.
B2 Typical demand use for:
a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Mcler)Yearly
Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern
California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or
tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-6
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
November 20,2006
Page 2
b. Commercial
B2 Due to the fact that construction varies so widely(a glass building vs.a heavily
insulated building)and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and,a
typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations
would need to be made after the building has been designed.
We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy
conservation programs,please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-
2000.
Sincerely,
Dick Gebhar t
Technical Services Supervisor
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-7
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document B
The Gas Company
November 20, 2006
Response No. 1131
The comment states that gas service to the Project could be provided without any significant impact
on the environment. Consistent with the comment, Section 3.12.7 of the Draft EIR states that
project-specific impacts to energy utilities, including gas, are less than significant. Section 3.12.8 of
the Draft EIR states that the Project will not cause cumulatively considerable impacts on energy
utilities or resources, including gas.
Response No. B2
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-8
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document C
-----Original Message-----
From:Katherine[maifto:katherine@nbgi.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 19,2006 8:14 AM
To:Kirt Coury
Subject:Canyon Hills Estates-Noted Opposition
Importance:High
RE: Canyon Hills Estates: Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02,General
Plan Amendment No. 2006-04, Specific Plan No. 2006-01 and Tentative
Tract Map No. 34249
Mr.Coury,
I am writing to you today to have my objection on the above mentioned project filed as a matter public
C1 record. I have been in objection since the inception of this idea and any subsequent plans to build high-
density homes in this area. The community is vehemently opposed as I have made a matter of record
with over 700 signatures to this fact.
Canyon Hills Residents are not opposed to growth that is responsible and reasonable however we are
C2 and I am opposed to this project as it does not improve the area. It will overcrowd the community,
C3 [ overburden it's residents with a myriad of traffic problems&overcrowding of schools. In addtion
to plummeting property values of the local nieghbrohoods.
I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission take all the residents in the area's concers in to
mind and vote against this project.
Thank you,
Katherine Celli
32013 Cottage Glen Drive
Lake Elsinore,Ca 92532
Katherine Celli
Business Development&
Compliance
Tel.:323.850.2200
FAX:323.850.2285
Los Angeles, 00.:
www.nbai.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:The information contained in this message is legally
privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s)or
entity named in this document.If you have received this in error,please advise the sender
by e-mail or phone and immediately delete this message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-9
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document C
Katherine Celli
December 19, 2006
Response No. C1
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues. The decision
on the Project's merits will be made by the City's decision-makers, who will consider all the
comments.
Response No. C2
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues. The decision
on the Project's merits will be made by the City's decision-makers, who will consider all the
comments.
Response No. C3
The potential for traffic impacts as a result of the project is addressed in Draft EIR Section 3.3
(Traffic and Circulation). The Draft EIR explains that the Proposed Project will contribute to the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program and will not create adverse local traffic conditions in
surrounding neighborhoods.
The potential for school overcrowding as a result of the project is addressed in Draft EIR Section
3.13 (Public Services). Per the July 2004 LEUSD School Facilities Master Plan, existing school
facilities are insufficient to serve students generated from both existing and future residential
development. Therefore, the LEUSD will be expanding and/or upgrading/modernizing existing
facilities and building new schools to accommodate future growth. The LEUSD has established
school impact mitigation fees in the amount of $3.18 per square foot for residential construction.
The Project will also be forming a Communities Facilities District (CFD) with LEUSD, which will
increase the school facility fee from $3.18 to $4.35 per square foot and ensure that the entirety of
the school facility fees will be paid at the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Impacts to property values are not an environmental issue and are the opinion of the commenter.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-10
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document D
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maureen F.Gorsen,Director
Linda S.Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue ^" �,.._ Arnold schwarcenegger
Secretary for Cypress,California 90630 CF �Cl I It ' �,-- rn Geveor
Environmental Protection fl i/ ��C,,
December 20,2006 111C 2 s, J�
DR-OFiAf,r %S;; t
Ms.Wendy Worthey I'fnrFtr„� t:flytf
City of Lake Elsinore --
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,California 92530
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) FOR CANYON HILLS ESTATES (SCH#2006051073)
Dear Ms.Worthey:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)has received your submitted
(EIR)document for the above-mentioned project. The proposed project includes
several components,as follows:
• General Plan Amendment No.2006-04-Change the Project Site land use
designation from Very Low Density Residential(VLDR)and Mountainous(M)to
Low Density Residential (LDR);
• Annexation No.75-Completion of the annexation of the Project Site into the City
of Lake Elsinore;
• Zone Change/Pre-Zone No. 2005-09-Adoption of the Canyon Hills Estates
Specific Plan in conformance with pre-zoning;
• Tract Map 34249-Approval of a Tentative Map to permit subdivision of the
Project site;and Annexation of Project Site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District(EVMWD).
DTSC sent you NOP comments on 6/12/06,and has additional comments on the EIR
report,as follows:
1. All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remedialion should be
D1 conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that
has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup. The findings and sampling
results from the subsequent report should be clearly summarized in the EIR.
e Printed on Recycled Paper
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-11
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Ms.Wendy Worthey
December 20, 2006
Page 2
2. Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be
D2 conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and
overseen by a regulatory agency.
3. 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,
D3 Division 20, chapter 6.5)and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(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.
4. If hazardous wastes are(a)stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety
D4 days, (b)treated onsite,or(c)disposed of onsite,then a permit from DTSC may
be required. If so,the facility should contact DTSC at(818)551-2171 to initiate
pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to
the facility.
5. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from
D5 the local Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA). Information about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
6. If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be
D6 required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
7. If structures on the Project Site contain potentially hazardous materials,such as;
asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and mercury-or PCB-containing
D7 material, such materials should be removed properly prior to demolition, and
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).
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-12
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Ms.Wendy Worthey
December 20,2006
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at(714)484-5461
or call Mr.Al Shami, Project Manager, at(714)484-5472 or at"ash ami@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.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA# 1595
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-13
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
`\ r
Department of Toxic Substances Control
M
Maureen F.Gorsen,Director Arnold Schwarzenegger
Unda S.Adams 1001 "I"Street,25`'Floor
Secretary for Governor
Environmental Protection Sacramento,California 95814
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Holmes, Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office, Region 4
FROM: Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning&Environmental Analysis Section ;/
DATE: December 7, 2006
SUBJECT: CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT REVIEW FOR: DRAFT EIR GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT(Lake Elsinore),SCH#2006051073
The Office of Environmental Analysis and Regulations(GEAR)received the attached document
from an outside agency for DTSC review as a potential Responsible or Interested Agency
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). A preliminary review of this
document by our office shows that the project may fall within the regulatory authority of DTSC
D$ because it involves one of the following land uses that could potentially expose individuals to
hazards or hazardous materials:
❑ AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE
® SENSITIVE LAND USES(e.g.,daycare facility,nursing home,hospital)
❑ NON-SENSITIVE LAND USES(e.g.,commercial or industrial facilities)
This document is being forwarded to your office for further assessment. Please provide the
Lead Agency that is identified on the attached Notice of Completion Form with any comments
you may have on this document before the close of the comment period(12127/2006). After
your review,please complete the information requested in the box below and return this
form to our office at the following address:
CEQA Tracking Center
Office of Environmental Analysis and Regulations
1001 1 Street,22nd Floor/P.O. Box.806
Sacramento,CA 95812
COMMENTS WERE SENT TO THE LEAD AGENCY and a copy for OEAR is attached to
this memo
❑ COMMENTS WERE NOT SENT TO THE LEAD AGENCY because:
❑ The project did not fall within the jurisdiction of DTSC
❑ The document adequately assessed impacts from the proposed project as it relates to
DTSC's area of jurisdiction
❑ Other(explain)
Printed on Recycled Paper
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-14
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document D
State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control(DISC)
December 20, 2006
Response No. D1
The potential for release of hazardous wastes/substances as a result of current or historic uses is
addressed in Draft EIR Section 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), which summarizes an
environmental assessment that was prepared for the project site. Onsite soils were investigated for
pesticide residues, VOCs, and other potentially hazardous substances. The Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment summarized in Section 3.9 sufficiently describes the environmental conditions at
the project site. All information relating to the need for future site investigation and/or remediation
has been provided in Draft EIR Section 3.9. Provisions for pre-demolition inspections and
remediation contingencies have been established as standard conditions and mitigation measures
in the Draft EIR. Compliance with standard conditions and the implementation of mitigation
measures would ensure that construction workers and the general pubic would not be exposed to
any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during demolition activities (Draft EIR,
Section 3.9.6).
Response No. D2
All information related to future site investigation and/or remediation has been provided in the Draft
EIR. Precautions against lead-based paint and ACM disturbance and exposure are discussed in
Section 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the Draft EIR. Specifically, mitigation measures
require that a licensed Asbestos Inspector be retained to determine the presence of asbestos-
containing material (ACM) within structures to be demolished. If ACMs are present on-site, the
project shall comply with all applicable State and federal ACM abatement policies and procedures for
removal of ACMs, including SCAQMD Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions from Demolition and
Renovation Activities. The standard conditions cited in Section 3.9 further provide that if any building
material encountered during demolition activities is found to contain asbestos fibers, removal shall
be conducted in accordance with the remediation and mitigation procedures established by all
federal, State, and local standards including federal and California Occupation Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regulations for the removal and
proper disposal of ACMs. The material shall be disposed of at a certified asbestos landfill.
Mitigation measures also ensure that, prior to demolition of residential structures constructed before
1978, the applicant shall retain a licensed Lead-Based Paint Inspector to conduct a survey of
buildings for lead-based paint. Documentation of the lead survey will be consistent with existing
State and federal regulations for the management and mitigation of lead-based paint. Where lead-
based paint exists, abatement will be completed prior to any demolition activities that would create
lead dust or fume hazard. Lead-based paint removal will be performed in accordance with California
Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure
monitoring, respiratory protection and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead.
Based on the findings in the Phase I ESA, those mitigation measures will reduce potential ACM and
lead-based paint impacts to levels that are less than significant. All other types of hazardous
materials shall be characterized and quantified, with removal, transport, and disposal methods
specified for each waste type (Mitigation Measure 3.9-1c).
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-15
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. D3
The comment requires hazardous waste management in accordance with applicable State health
and safety regulations if any hazardous waste is generated by the Project. As indicated in Draft EIR
Section 3.9.5.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), only household hazardous wastes (HHW) will be
generated by individual occupants, and in quantities similar to those of other households in the City
of Lake Elsinore. The HHW will be subject to the same usage, storage, and disposal regulations that
govern other households. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials),
no aspect of the project would result in long-term generation or storage of hazardous wastes in
substantial quantities.
Response No. D4
The comment requires hazardous waste management and on-site storage in accordance with
applicable State health and safety regulations if any hazardous waste is generated by the Project.
Please refer to Response No. D3.
Response No. D5
The comment requires that authorization be obtained from the local Certified Unified Program
Agency for certain project-related hazardous waste treatment processes. If found applicable to the
disposal of potentially contaminated ACMs or lead-based paint materials, the applicant will contact
the local CUPA for authorization. However, as indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.9 (Hazards and
Hazardous Materials), the project will not include any hazardous waste treatment processes.
Response No. D6
The comment addresses the need for regulatory clearance if the project would involve the discharge
of wastewater to a storm drain. As appropriate and necessary during project construction, the
applicant will obtain all necessary NPDES permits from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Region 8). Long-term operation of the proposed project would not involve wastewater
discharges to storm drains.
Response No. D7
The comment requires that appropriate health and safety procedures be implemented if
contamination is suspected or identified during project construction and demolition activities.
Although the Phase I ESA summarized in Draft EIR Section 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Wastes)
found no evidence of hazardous materials, the presence ACMs and lead-based paints will be
investigated and, if necessary, remediated prior to demolition activities. Demolition waste that is
contaminated would be properly disposed of off-site, subject to applicable regulatory oversight.
Response No. D8
The December 7, 2006 document on which this comment is identified is not a Draft EIR comment
document. It is an environmental document review form that is used internally by DTSC staff to
solicit comments on CEQA documents. As it pertains to the Draft EIR, the comment incorrectly
identifies the Project as potentially involving a "Sensitive Land Use (e.g., daycare facility, nursing
home, hospital)" that could potentially expose individuals to hazards or hazardous materials. The
Proposed Project is entirely residential and does not include any of the potential Sensitive Land
Uses. No further response is necessary.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-16
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document E
Board of Directors I � r3e11ural Manager
Phil Williams.President Ronald E.Young
W.Ben Wicke.Vice President Board Secretary
Harvey R.Ryan,Treasurer Teresa Quintanar
Christine Hyland,Director Legal Counsel
Kris Anderson,Director >f/sinore Vaffey MunF¢ipal Watev Disffvct Best Best&Krieger
November 22, 2006 u t r
City of Lake Elsinore
Attn:Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental Planner
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
RE: COMMENT ON DEIR FOR CANYON HILLS ESTATES (General Plan
Amendment#2006-04, Annexation No. 75, Zone Change/Pre-Zone No. 2005-
09, Annexation by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Tract Map
34249
Dear Ms. Worthey.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced DIER. In Appendix
B2, the Canyon Hills Estates Annexation Report and Plan for Providing Services,
section 3.2, annexation is addressed. Since EVMWD receives imported water from
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) through its member agency. Western Municipal
Water District (WMWD), no territory can be annexed into EVMWD without also
E1 annexing into MWD and WMWD. Therefore, please amend this section of Appendix
13.2 to list the requirement for annexation to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) and the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), in addition to the
annexation to EVMWD and the City of Lake Elsinore service boundaries. Please be
E2 [ advised that grading water will not be provided, nor will water meters be set for the
project until the annexation into all three agencies is complete.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (951) 674-3146,
extension 8223.
Sincerely,
Terese Quintanar
District Secretary/Administrative Services Supervisor
g ladmmll-207i wrtaspwidencaYJ3777W.doc
Our Mission...
EVMWD will provide reliable,cost-effective,high quality water and wastewater services
that are dedicated to the people we serve.
951.674.3146 31315 Chaney Street
Fax 951.674.9872 P.O.Box 3000
www.evnrvvd.com Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-17
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document E
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD)
November 22, 2006
Response No. E1
The Project site is already in the Western Municipal Water District's (WMWD) territory. Refer to
www.wmwd.com/mapsabout.htm. The Project site is also within the Metropolitan Water District's
(MWD)territory.
Response No. E2
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-18
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document F
4 og r.�iA,
J/t
Mission:
Bducnte and communicate the rich heritage of Soboha peoples;Lead and assist individuals,organizations and
communities in understanding the needs and concerns of Native American monitoring of traditional sites;Advocate
Nalivc Anus ican participation in slate agencies and boards:Advocate legislation and enforcemera of laws affecting
Native Amcrictm peoples and protecting historical and archaeological resourccs.
November 30,2006
Attn:Wendy Worthy
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Re:Canyon Hills Estate
The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians appreciates your observance of 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
F1 fall within the bounds of our Tribal Traditional Use Areas.
At this time the Soboba Hand does see a direct need for Native American Monitoring.
The Tribe requests a Native American Monitor be present during any and all ground
disturbing activities.Soboba requests this,until deemed unnecessary by both
FArchaeological and Native American Monitors.Also the Tribe requests to be involved in
F2 any and all consultation throughout the project.if you have any questions or concerns.
please do not hesitate to contact the Cultural Resource Lepartment.
ISNX IAL NOTE(for projects other than cell towers):lthis project is associated with a city or county specific plan or
general plan action it is subject to the provisions of SI118=I'rallional'Tribal('Uhural Places(law became cr(cclivc
January 1.2005)and will require the city or county to participate in formal,government-to-government consultation
with[lie Tribe. If the city or county are your client-you navy wish to make them aware of this requirement. By law.
they are required to contact the Tribe.)
m ,
rice Helms
Soboba Cultural Resource Department
Cell(951)663-8333
Phone(951)487-8268
ehelms®soboba-nsn.gov
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-19
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document F
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
November 30, 2006
Response No. F1
As specified in Section 3.11 (Cultural Resources) of the Draft EIR, the Project mitigation measures
require the participation of Native American monitors during grading, excavation and other ground
disturbance activities, and in decisions regarding the treatment and final disposition of any cultural
resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the Project Site. The mitigation measures
describe monitoring activities, testing and recovery protocols, and timing and implementation
responsibilities.
Response No. F2
The City recognizes the Soboba Tribe's cultural affiliation with the Project Area, and the Draft EIR
includes mitigation requiring the presence of a Native American Monitor during any and all ground
disturbance activities. If the Project is approved, it will require a Section 404 permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE), with the City as the applicant. That process requires a Section 106 review
under the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the ACOE will initiate all necessary Tribal
consultation(s) pursuant to the Section 106 review process, including consultation regarding cultural
resources mitigation measures and subsequent cultural resources surveys/testing, etc.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-20
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document G
&— U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Nish&Game
""`"` Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Eastern Sierra Inland Deserts Region
U
60I0 Hidden Valley Road 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Ste C-220
Carlsbad,California 92011 Ontario,California 91764
(760)431-9440 - (909)484-0459
FAX(760)431-5902•+•9618 FAX(909)481-2945
In Reply Refer To: !r.'
FWS/CDFG 5122.1 Q j�'' ��^ { !)h C
- ! , � 1' zoos
Ms.Wendy Y Worthe
Principal Environmental Planter ;
City of Lake Elsinore
ss,;130 South Main Street ��N:.;::: X
Lake Elsinore,Cali fornia 92562 ~- -
Subj: Draft Environmental Impact Report,Canyon Hills Estates,City of Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County,California
Dear Ms.Worthey:
The California Department of Fish and Game(Department)and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service(Service),hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies,have reviewed the
Canyon Hills Estates Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). The Canyon Hills Estates
proposed housing development is approximately 126.2 acres of a 252.5 acre site and is located in
Sedco Hills,east of Interstate 15 and south of Railroad Canyon Road. Access to the northeast
comer of the proposed project will be via Cottonwood Canyon Road and access to the northwest
will be Navajo Springs Road. This project is proposed for annexation into the City of bake
Elsinore.
The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory
birds,anadromous fish,and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The
Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973(Act),as
amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a trustee agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of
fish and wildlife resources including rare,threatened,and endangered plant and animal species,
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act,and administers the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Program(NCCP).
On June 22,2004,the Service issued a section I0(a)(1)(B)permit for the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). The MSHCP establishes a
multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental
take of covered species in association with activities covered under the pcnnit. The Department
also issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Audtorizatiott for the
MSHCP as per Section 2800,el seq.,of the Califot•nia Fish and Game Code. The proposed
project occurs within the MSHCP Plan Area. Although the proposed project is located outside of
TAKE PRIDE"`&T---
I IMAM E R I CAS
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-21
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Ms.Wendy Worthy(FWS/CDFG 5122.1) 2
the MSHCP Criteria Area,other MSHCP policies and procedures apply to the proposed project.
These include,but are not limited to,the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban Wildlands Interface
(MSHCP section 6.1.4)and the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Arcas
and Vernal Pools policy(MSHCP section 6.1.2).
The project,as proposed,will result in 4.23 acres of pennanent impacts and 0.81 acres of
temporary impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. Although the acreage is not explicitly stated in the
DEIR,some of the riparian impacts would be to oak woodlands. Of the 8.4 acres of oak
woodlands identified on the project site,3.5 acres would be permanently impacted due to
G 1 construction grading and fuel modification. An additional,0.2 acres of oak woodland will be
temporarily impacted. The majority of the impacts to oak riparian would occur from the
development proposed within the southeastern portion of the project site along Drainage A,a
perennial tributary to Cottonwood Canyon Creek. We recommend that other project design
alternatives be thoroughly examined that would avoid and/or minimize impacts to Drainage A.
The DEIR states that mitigation for the impacts to oak woodlands would consist of planting
individual oaks based on a 4:1 ratio. Oaks would be planted within the fuel modification zone,
within the proposed park,and along the roadways.
Oak woodlands typically support a high level of biodiversity and there is a temporal loss of
habitat support functions associated with their removal due to the long time period required for
re-growth of oak trees_ Oak woodlands arc recognized broadly as a sensitive habitat and the City
of Lake Elsinore's Background Report supporting their General Plan recognizes coastal live oak
woodlands as a sensitive habitat as well. As stated in our comments on the MSHCP
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(Determination),the temporal
loss of habitat functions associated with oak woodlands is greater than for other riparian habitat
G2 types, We recommend that the oak riparian impacts be mitigated on the order of a 10 to 1 ratio.
Oaks that arc not associated with riparian areas and are larger than saplings should be also be
avoided or mitigated in a manner that takes into account the long term impact of tree removal.
It appeared from our site visit on December 4,2006,that structurally complex oak habitat would
be impacted. Structurally diverse oak woodlands can be important for nesting,roosting,donning,
food storage,and plant-species habitat. We recommend that the planting of the oak trees be
clustered such that they form a structured community rather than simply replacing individual
trees along roadways,the park,and fuel modification zone.
Although the central portion of Drainage A would be avoided,the proposed development and a
road would bound this area. We are concerned that the proposed development would alter the
watershed of Drainage A and potentially degrade the avoided habitat areas. We recommend that
G3 measures be incorporated into the proposed project to maintain existing quantity and quality of
flow rates into the stream. In addition,we recommend that alternatives be exarnincd that would
shift the fuel modification zone away from Drainage A to avoid riparian habitat including
individual oak trees.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-22
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Ms.Wendy Worthy(FWS/CDFG 5122.1) 3
In regards to the proposed 2.30 acres of onsite mitigation,we are concerned that this area may
not adequately offset project related impacts. The proposed 2.30 acres of onsite mitigation will
be surrounded by a park and is paralleled by Cottonwood Canyon Road,which will possibly be
widened. The proposed widening of the road and the potential increase in human use due to the
park and the proposed development(which has its highest density adjacent to the Cottonwood
G4 Canyon Road)should be considered when assessing the contribution of this area to mitigation.
We recommend measures be incorporated into the project that protect and conserve the onsite
mitigation area for the purposes of wildlife habitat.
In addition to the 2.30 acres of onsite mitigation,the project includes the purchase of 5 acres of
offsite credits from an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. We are not aware of any
approved mitigation bank from which the project can purchase credits to offset the proposed
G5 impacts to oak riparian woodlands. Most in-lieu fee programs that we are aware of are primarily
restricted to enhancement efforts such as invasive plant removal and do not include habitat
restoration. Enhancement credits for the acres needed for the proposed mitigation would not be
adequate given the extent and type of habitat that would be impacted from project
implementation.
The proposed project will impact a large area that could support breeding migratory bird habitat.
The DEIR states that the site will be cleared outside of the breeding season to minimize impacts
to Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)species. However,the DEIR also states that if clearing is
conducted during the breeding season,surveys will be conducted to locate the nests of breeding
birds and these nests will be avoided through the use of a 100 to 300 foot buffer. Due to the
G6 large size of the project site,we anticipate that it will be difficult to find all of the nests of MBTA
species on the site. Therefore,we recommend that vegetation clearing occur outside of the
breeding season to ensure that no impacts occur to MBTA species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed project. If you have any
questions pertaining to these comments,please contact Scott Dawson of the Department at(909)
987-7764)or Kathleen Pollett of the Service at(760)431-9440,extension 357.
Sincerely,
Karen A.Goebel Leslie MacNair
Assistant Field Supervisor Staff Environmental Scientist
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game
cc:
Stephanie Gasca,PCR Services Corporation,Irvine,California
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-23
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document G
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG)
December 21, 2006
Response No. G1
Impact avoidance and minimization alternatives were considered throughout the planning and
design stages of the project, and impacts to Drainage A have been reduced to the maximum extent
feasible. Although not illustrated in the DER, the oak tree planting locations provide the greatest
opportunity for restoring and creating riparian oak woodland in areas disturbed by project grading
and thinned by fuel modification. Throughout much of the site interior, the numerous rock outcrops
and rocky soils may preclude successful oak woodland establishment. Therefore, the planting plan
locates oaks among the other native plant species that will comprise the fuel modification zones,
development edges, and preserved natural drainages.
In the northern portion of the site, just west of Drainage A13, much of the impact to Drainage A is
due to the expanded detention basin area that is necessary to mitigate pre-existing stormdrain
deficiencies downstream in the existing Canyon Hills development. The expanded detention area
became a Project Design Feature toward the latter stages of site planning and preliminary
engineering; otherwise, Drainage A would have included additional preservation area. However,
project design has not been guided by any single issue area, but rather has resulted from the careful
attention given to reconciling competing environmental and engineering factors. In responding to the
issue of inadequate off-site conveyance capacity for 100-year storm flows, the project applicant has
designed the expanded detention/water quality basin in a manner that is responsive to flood control
and safety, water quality enhancement, and habitat preservation needs.
In the southern portion of the site, opportunities to avoid Drainage A6 were investigated by the
project engineer (RBF Consulting). Impacts to Drainage A6 are a result of the road that is needed to
access the cluster of homes in the southern portion of the project site, as well as the water tank. RBF
evaluated the feasibility of maintaining Drainage A6 as a natural channel by investigating two culvert
options: 1) using standard drain pipe with wing walls at the ends, and 2) an arched culvert with a
wing wall at the northern end.
1) Using standard drain pipe, the length of the culvert can be shortened a few feet but requires
the addition of 15-foot wing walls at either end. The added cost of the wing walls does not
justify the savings of only a few feet of the drainage. Therefore, the standard drain pipe
option is only feasible without the wing wall.
2) Using an arched culvert would preserve a large portion of the natural soft-bottom of the
Drainage A6 but would require a 20-foot or greater wing wall at the northern end and a nearly
60-foot wide arch for the length of the drainage. Grading to construct the arched culvert
would still be necessary and would fragment the drainage. In addition, the cost to construct a
60-foot wide arch and 20-foot wing wall is not feasible for this type of project.
An additional alternative was explored that would omit the southeastern cluster of homes. This would
have the advantage of preserving additional oak woodland and chaparral habitat, a portion of
Drainage A, and tributaries Al through A7. However, the loss of 38 premium view lots and the water
tanks would not allow the developer to realize the goals and objectives of the proposed project.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-24
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. G2
The oak woodlands mapped on-site are classified as coast live oak woodlands (Quercus agrifolia),
and their level of sensitivity and biodiversity is acknowledged. Unlike Engelmann oak (Quercus
engelmannii), coast live oak is not a Covered Species under the MSHCP, nor is it assigned sensitive
or protected status by USFWS or CDFG, according to CNDDB criteria' (71.060.19 Coast Live Oak
Woodland). Chapter 3, Biological Resources Background Report for the Lake Elsinore General Plan
Update considers oak woodland a sensitive community, likely due to its general wildlife value, as
reflected in State and County regulations and policies that encourage oak woodland impact
avoidance, preservation, and enhancement.
Three wildlife species have the potential to occur on-site due to the presence of the oak woodland
habitat in the open space portions of the study area and/or within the drainage in the southwestern
portion of the study area. These species include long-eared owl, Pacific tree frog and California toad,
none of which are MSHCP Covered Species that would be adversely affected by the project-related
temporal loss of habitat functions associated with live oak woodland. Similarly, species protections
associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pools policies presented in Section 6.1.2 of the
MSHCP are not applicable to any species present in the on-site oak woodland areas.
To clarify the nature and extent of temporary and permanent impacts to oak woodland on-site, the
following paragraph from the Biological Resources Assessment(p. 63) has been revised as follows:
A total of 8.4 acres of oak woodland occurs within the study area. The proposed project would
permanently impact 3-23.0 acres due to grading (i.e., remove approximately 46 coast live oak
trees) and temporarily impact 0.2 acre of oak woodland within the construction buffer. and 0.3
re due to fuel .v,,,diP ti , Trees within the fuel modification zones will not be removed but
may require thinning and pruning to comply with fuel modification requirements, thereby
temporarily impacting an additional 0.3 acre.
t r46, ; aeted ,.,;thin the pstr-uetier bu Similarly, trees within the construction
buffer would not be removed but may require pruning to allow passage of construction
equipment. A total of 4.9 acres (58 percent) of the oak woodland on-site would be preserved
within the study area's open space.
Since Project entitlements are sought through the City of Lake Elsinore, the Project is not subject to
Senate Bill 1334 (chaptered as Pub. Res. Code Section 21083.4), which authorizes counties to
require mitigation for the significant effects of oak woodland conversion. For the same reason, the
Project is not subject to the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines (1993). In mitigating
the potentially significant impacts to oak woodland, however, the Project will be consistent with the
County Oak Tree Management Guidelines and PRC 21083.4 provisions that conserve oak
woodlands on-site through the use of Open Space conservation easements. The Project will also
include an oak tree planting and maintenance program at a ratio of 4:1. Although a tree replacement
ratio of 5:1 to one was originally proposed in SB 1334, PRC §21083.4 and the County Guidelines do
not require tree replacement as a mitigation alternative.
As shown in Figure 3.8-9 of the DEIR, a total of 184 oak trees of varying size will be planted in small
clusters throughout the manufactured slopes, fuel modification zones, and proposed park as
recommended by the project biologist. The Tree Preservation and Planting Plan incorporates
structural diversity in oak planting. Per the Plan, "The Project developer shall mitigate the removed
Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, September 2003. The Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Program, List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The
California Natural Diversity Database.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-25
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
trees at a 4:1 replacement ratio. Each removed tree will be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio using one 24-
inch box container tree, two 15 gallon container trees and one 5 gallon container tree. These
replacement oak trees shall be planted on-site as directed by the project biologist or landscape
architect."
The proposed Tree Preservation and Planting Plan is intended to accommodate the normal life cycle
of affected plant and wildlife species by providing migration corridors, food availability, nesting, and
other functions necessary to complete a life cycle. Based on the type and extent of project-related
impacts, it is the City's opinion that the proposed mitigation ratio of 4:1 is sufficient to mitigate
impacts to oak woodlands on-site and to support the plant and animal species diversity that is
presently found on the affected oak woodlands.
Response No. G3
Drainage and Water Quality Issues
The comment expresses concerns about alterations to the Drainage A watershed and potential
degradation of avoided habitat areas. Chapter 3.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) explains that the
proposed hydrology and hydraulics plan will maintain the existing quantity and quality of flow rates
into Drainage A, as per the City's hydrologic/hydraulic design requirements. As stated previously in
Response No. G1, the site design around Drainage A is constrained to a large extent by the area
needed for expanded detention/water quality basin facilities. Hydrology studies prepared for the
Proposed Project found that a substantial capacity deficiency exists downstream in the existing
Canyon Hills development. The Project proposes to correct those off-site stormdrain deficiencies. As
indicated in Chapter 3.7, "[t]he Proposed Project eliminates the existing deficiency for controlling
existing flows and ensures there is no increase in surface water discharging from the Project Site
after development. The Proposed Project would also eliminate several existing erosion and
sedimentation problems at the adjacent Canyon Hills storm runoff collection basins." (p. 3.7-17)
Although the proposed development area will bound Drainage A, the proposed hydrology and
hydraulics plan will ensure that flow rates are maintained in the area. The proposed Stormwater
Management System was specifically designed to: 1) prevent on-site flooding control and minimize
impacts to the capacities of downstream storm drain facilities, 2) protect on-site water quality and
designated beneficial uses in receiving waters, and 3) avoid and/or minimize project impacts to
drainage courses and their dependant plant and wildlife species (DEIR p. 3.7-16).
As illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 3.7-7 (Post-Development Hydrology and Water Quality Features),
the proposed Stormwater Management System maintains separation between urban runoff and
natural/undeveloped area runoff via the following two types of stormwater facilities: 1) Off-Site
facilities to convey stormwater from undeveloped watershed subareas, and 2) On-Site facilities to
manage urban runoff from the project development areas. Complete descriptions of the flood
control, biological resource avoidance, and water quality protection functions of the Stormwater
Management System are provided in Section 3.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality). As indicated in
Chapter 3.8, Biological Resources, the Proposed Project is designed to avoid on-site jurisdictional
drainages to the maximum extent practicable. More than 60 percent of the linear extent of all on-site
drainages will be preserved in place, including the on-site segment of Cottonwood Creek. While
avoidance of the drainages is intended to provide distinct biological resource benefits, the extent of
avoidance was based in part on the ability of those drainages to adequately convey storm flows
through the Project Site and safely discharge to off-site stormwater facilities. Therefore, the proposed
stormwater management system was designed to incorporate on-site natural drainages to the extent
feasible, while also avoiding adverse impacts to already deficient downstream flood control facilities
in the Canyon Hills community.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-26
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
The Off-Site system will include a series of natural drainages, large culverts, and detention basins for
stormflows entering the Project Site from off-site sources. In the case of Tributary A6, off-site flows
from the 126-acre upstream drainage subarea were calculated assuming a 100-year storm event.
Hydrologic modeling indicated that stormwater could be conveyed beneath the project development
via a ±42-inch culvert at a rate of about 300 cubic feet per second. The culvert would essentially
replace Tributary A6 and discharge stormwater to Drainage A, which will remain a natural channel for
most of its length through the Project Site. Upon project completion, overall flow rates in Drainage A
will decrease slightly because the tributary area will be reduced and runoff from the development
areas will be routed through detention/water quality basins and a separate stormdrain system. The
combination of lower flow velocities, urban and natural runoff separation, water quality detention,
elimination of existing soil erosion conditions, riparian vegetation enhancements, oak woodland
planting, and slope/bank stabilization in the preserved on-site drainages will positively affect
biological and hydrologic conditions.
Fuel Modification Issues
The project applicant has examined alternatives that would decrease the extent of fuel modification
within Drainage A to the maximum extent possible without compromising project goals and
objectives or impacting additional "waters of the U.S." or wetlands. If the western portion of the
development were shifted to the west, Drainage B1 would be impacted creating greater impacts to
ACOE "waters of the U.S." and wetlands. This impact is considered more substantial than fuel
modification within CDFG jurisdiction in this area which will not remove oak trees.
Some of the impacted riparian areas, particularly those that support oak trees, might not be
substantially affected by County fuel modification requirements. For instance, if riparian species are
present that meet Fire Department plant palette requirements for fuel modification zones, those
species could remain. Similarly, coast live oaks in the fuel modification zones can generally remain
provided that they are in good health and do not pose a fire hazard due to disease or other
conditions of failing health. In some instances, plant and shrub species that are in the riparian/fuel
modification overlap area might not meet Fire Department requirements and could require
replacement by other fire-safe, native riparian species.
Response No. G4
The Proposed Project will improve Cottonwood Canyon Road to its ultimate width through the Project
Site, consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element standards. The DEIR evaluated the
biological impacts of the road at its ultimate width in the project area.
The Cottonwood Canyon Creek mitigation areas shall be placed in a conservation easement or deed
restriction ensuring that the areas remain open space in perpetuity. The language of the
conservation easement or deed restriction will be submitted to the ACOE and CDFG for approval prior
to recordation. In addition, the Covenants, Conditions, and Regulations of the residential
development will stipulate that all associated mitigation areas be preserved and managed as natural
open space in perpetuity. The final acreage of mitigation will be determined for the final
HMMP/WQMP submittal, and may be influenced by agency input.
To minimize disturbance to preserved wildlife habitat, exclusionary fencing will be used adjacent to
the avoided riparian areas and restoration/enhancement areas. To minimize trampling and
unauthorized recreational use, the HOA will be responsible for providing educational materials to the
homeowners describing the sensitivity of the avoided habitat areas. Signage will be posted adjacent
to the avoided riparian areas and conservation areas to alert the public as to the sensitivity of the
habitat. Public trails are designed outside of the riparian area to minimize trespassing.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-27
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. G5
Impacts to ACOE and RWQCB jurisdictional areas will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio for a total of at least
0.92 acre and 0.98 acres, respectively. All ACOE and RWQCB mitigation will be accomplished on-site
within Cottonwood Canyon Creek.
On Friday, January 12, 2007, PCR representatives met with CDFG representative Jeff Brandt at the
Canyon Hills Estates project site. Mr. Brandt identified additional areas on-site that would be suitable
for mitigation. The areas included restoring the avoided northern reach of Drainage A, and
enhancement opportunities along the remainder of the avoided portions of Drainage A (on-site).
Further,there are significant areas that are being conserved by the proposed development within the
open space area. Mr. Brandt acknowledges these conserved areas of prime vegetation as a benefit
and will apply mitigation credit to conserving such resources and placing them under a conservation
easement. Taken together, these additional mitigation opportunities will satisfy a larger acreage of
mitigation on-site rather then having to depend largely on off-site resources.
The following mitigation banks have been contacted to determine the availability of mitigation land in
each: San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District (RCD), Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza RCD, Mission
RCD, Riverside-Corona RCD, Inland Empire West RCD, Coachella Valley RCD, and the Santa Ana
Watershed Association. It was determined that the Mission RCD, Riverside-Corona RCD, Inland
Empire West RCD, and the Santa Ana Watershed Association have mitigation land available to help
off-set the mitigation requirements identified in the Draft EIR. Land is currently not available through
the San Jacinto Basin RCD, although the RCD will be purchasing more acreage soon for upcoming
restoration and enhancement projects. The Coachella Valley RCD does not have any restoration or
enhancement acreage available. The Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza RCD land is currently under review to
determine mitigation availability.
Response No. G6
The developer will make every attempt to schedule the project so that all vegetation clearing occurs
outside of the breeding season. If it is still not feasible, the developer will attempt to phase the
vegetation clearing so that a thorough nesting bird survey can be completed prior to clearing. Once
one phase is complete, the next phase will be surveyed and cleared.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-28
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document H
i ASV OF RtyFN \ COUNTY- OF RIVERSIDE
l_ ,������°��..
GO 0P ` 40�oO •r____.
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
e
arblANOµP�P/ rlransportation Department George A.Johnson,P F.
Director of Transportation
December 21, 2006 AFC ~~
CITYG`it/ -
Wendy Worthey rtattyr;u`:(51NORE
Principal Environmental Planner isfv
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
for Canyon Hills Estates (General Plan Amendment#2006-04,Annexation No. 75,Zone Change/Pre-
Zone No.2005-09,Annexation by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,and Tract Map 34249)
Dear Ms. Worthey:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project.
The Transportation Department is highly concerned about adding development traffic to
currently unimproved roads in the County, including Lost Road and Cottonwood
H1 Canyon. It is our general position that development that connects to unimproved roads
needs to be responsible for improving the roads to a standard that can adequately carry
the additional traffic and that can be maintained by a public agency.
This development proposes to make a connection to Lost Road (via Navajo Springs),
H2 and to Cottonwood Canyon, both unimproved dirt roads. The project also appears to
have an emergency connection to Turtle Green,Crab Hollows, and Crooked Arrow.
The study indicates that in 2025, at such time as Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon
are anticipated to be improved, 28% of the project traffic will use Lost Road to the
south and 17%will use Cottonwood Canyon. However, given the level of congestion at
H3 the Railroad Canyon/I-15 Interchange, the fact that these dirt roads are drivable
today(and carry significant traffic levels for a dirt road in the case of Lost Road), and
that they are convenient short-cuts to access Wildomar, Bundy Canyon Road, I-15 and
I-215 to the south, it is expected that some level of project traffic will immediately use
these roads.
4080 Lemon Sweet,801 floor•Riverside,California 92501 •(951)955-6740
RO. Box IMO•Riverside,California 92502-1090•FAX(951)955-5198
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-29
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Therefore, The Transportation Department requests that the project be designed and
conditioned to mitigate its anticipated impacts as follows:
H4 1. Pave Navajo Springs and Lost Road (north of Navajo Springs) to County
standards.
2. Participate financially in a funding mechanism for the paving of Lost Road
southerly to Lemon. The County is considering establishing a funding
H5 mechanism for development in the County to participate, which should also
include a substantial contribution from this project that will directly access Lost
Road and is anticipated to use it substantially in the future.
3. Participate financially in a funding mechanism to improve Cottonwood Canyon
H6 Road (south to Bundy Canyon). The Transportation Department would be
pleased to work with the City to jointly develop a funding mechanism for
improving Cottonwood Canyon Road.
4. The traffic study identifies that project traffic will use Holland Road to the east
and references that the Pardee Homes project is responsible for the paving of
Holland. It also states that the road will be paved up to the City boundary. The
H7 project should be conditioned to provide the paving in the event the Pardee
project does not move forward (if the paving has not already been done)and the
paving should extend east to meet the existing paved section beyond the City
limits.
5. If it is found that it is not feasible to improve either Lost Road or Cottonwood
H8 Canyon, alternative forms of access for the project need to be explored.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment, please do not hesitate to contact us should
you wish to discuss our comments.
Sincerely,
V
Juan C. Perez
Deputy Director
CC: Supervisor Bob Buster
George A. Johnson, Director of Transportation
JCP:dlp
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-30
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document H
County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, Transportation Department
December 21, 2006
Response No. H1
The Project proposes to connect to Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road, but only as means of
providing vehicular access to the improved segments of those arterials in the City of Lake Elsinore.
Concurrent with Project construction, both Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road would be
improved to City of Lake Elsinore approved equivalent road standards (i.e., the equivalent of County
standards) from the project access points northward to connect to the currently improved segments
in the City. All related improvements to those roadway segments will be complete by project
occupancy, which is anticipated to be Year 2010.
As summarized in Section 3.3 (Traffic and Circulation) of the Draft EIR and in the following
responses, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) recognized and analyzed the potential for project-related
traffic to travel southbound on Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road during the interim period
between Project completion and improvement of those roads to their County Circulation Element
standards. The TIA and the Draft EIR both indicate that the Project traffic contribution to those
roadways will not cause an intersection Level of Service standard to be exceeded. Therefore,
operational impacts will be less than significant under short-term (Year 2010) cumulative traffic
conditions.
The comment, however, focuses more on the physical conditions on Lost Road and Cottonwood
Canyon Road, and implies that the Project's contribution to their use is reason enough to "participate
financially in a funding mechanism" to improve both roads. Following are several of the points that
the City and the applicant consider pertinent to a reasonable evaluation of the issue:
1) On the basis of traffic volumes and local circulation efficiency, the Project alone does not
warrant improvements to the two County roads.
2) The approach to implementing the improvements is not consistent with the City's approach
to major infrastructure investments, which relies on a thorough needs assessment;
evaluation of risks and benefits; financial review; and planning and environmental
considerations.
3) The suggested roadway paving improvements are not only disproportionate to the Project's
traffic impacts, but they have no direct nexus with the Project's circulation system impacts.
4) The roadway paving improvements would invite higher traffic volumes through Wildomar, and
the "receiving ends" of these arterial improvements are not prepared to handle those higher
volumes (i.e., signal warrants could be met sooner than anticipated, particularly at
Cottonwood Canyon Road/Bundy Canyon Road).
5) The County is suggesting improvements that the applicant has no ability to implement and
for which a funding plan has not been formulated.
6) Improvements could have other environmental effects not adequately considered to this
point, such as growth-inducement in the areas to the south in Wildomar.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-31
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. H2
The Project proposes to improve Navajo Springs Road and Lost Road (north of Navajo Springs Road),
as well as Cottonwood Canyon Road through the Project Site, according to City and County
equivalent roadway standards. These improvements will provide project residents with direct access
to improved roads in the City of Lake Elsinore.
In addition, the Project will construct all emergency access roads pursuant to the Riverside County
Fire Department's required standards for vehicular access and response. Proposed improvements to
Turtle Creek Road are for emergency access purposes only, and will provide the Fire Department
with a new access connection to Crab Hollow Circle. This access improvement will permit Fire
Department vehicles to access the Project Site from several unimproved roads that ultimately lead to
the site's southern boundary. By the same token, the Turtle Creek Road emergency access will
provide the Fire Department with improved roadway access through Canyon Hills Estates to the
County residential properties along Crab Hollow Circle. The Project does not propose any new
roadway connections to, and would not contribute any project-related trips to, Crooked Arrow Drive.
Any use of Crooked Arrow Drive would be incidental to emergency vehicle response and/or
evacuation situations.
Response No. H3
Draft EIR Section 3.3 (Traffic and Circulation) summarizes a sensitivity analysis conducted as part of
the TIA that assumed up to five percent of the total Project traffic could use the dirt segments of Lost
Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road south of the Project Site as an alternate route to destinations
south of the Project Site under Year 2010 conditions. The following two intersections were analyzed
for potential project-related traffic impacts:
• Orange Street(NS) at Lost Road/Lemon Street(EW)
• Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at Bundy Canyon Road (EW)
The TIA determined there will be no additional impacts to intersections along Lost Road or
Cottonwood Canyon Road under the assumption that up to five percent of the project traffic will use
the dirt portions of Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road to gain access to the 1-15 Freeway or
other areas to the south. If Project implementation led to unexpected increases in the use of those
roads by Project residents, then the County might be justified in seeking some form of participation
in a road maintenance agreement.
Response No. H4
As discussed in the Draft EIR Project Description and in Responses H1 and H2, Navajo Springs Road
and portions of Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road will be improved to City of Lake Elsinore
approved equivalent road standards (i.e., the equivalent of County standards). Those improvements
will be completed prior to project occupancy.
Response No. H5
Although the number of Project-related trips will remain constant, Project trip distribution would
change under long-term (Year 2025) conditions as a result of anticipated future improvements to
Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road by the County. Those roadways are not currently
programmed in the City TIF or the County TUMF; therefore, the precise timing of those future roadway
improvements is currently unknown. Upon completion of those future roadway improvements, the
Project would incrementally contribute to future LOS deficiencies at the Lemon St. (EW)/Orange St.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-32
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
(NS) and Cottonwood Canyon Rd. (NS)/Bundy Canyon Road (EW) intersections. Those future LOS
deficiencies would occur with or without the Proposed Project and there are presently no City or
County mitigation programs or other financial mechanisms in place to accept fair-share contributions
for future improvements to those intersections or the roadway segments. Furthermore, an EIR must
demonstrate that impact mitigation fee contributions will result in specific programmed
improvements that will directly minimize or avoid the project-related effect(s). At the present, the
Draft EIR cannot point to any mechanism by which the Project can mitigate its incremental future
impacts at those intersections.
Specific, feasible improvements can be implemented to reduce the Year 2025 intersection capacity
impacts under cumulative conditions, both with and without the Project. Contributions to a near-term
road paving program are not among those feasible improvements. While the Project would be willing
to contribute its fair-share (ranging from <1% to <4% of total vehicle trips) toward the identified
intersection improvements in the County, it is unlikely that a funding mechanism will be in place by
the time building permits are issued. Since it cannot be assured that the Project impacts will be
mitigated to below a level of significance, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, supported by Findings of Fact, pursuant to CEQA.
Response No. H6
Please refer to Response No. H5 above.
Response No. H7
As indicated in Table 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR, Holland Road will be improved to one lane in each
direction from just east of Cottonwood Canyon Road to the City limit. This improvement is underway
by Pardee and expected to be completed within two years.
Project-related traffic will be primarily drawn toward the west due to the location of I-15, public
services and facilities, and retail opportunities. However, the trip distribution in the Traffic Analysis
indicates that up to 32 percent of the project trips, or approximately 1,000 daily trips, would travel
east along Holland Road in 2010. That figure would decrease in the Year 2025 to approximately 19
percent(i.e., 600 daily trips), or less than two percent of the total average daily traffic.
The Proposed Project and most other recently-completed and planned development projects would
only incrementally affect the future capacity of Holland Road and, unlike Pardee, would not be
individually responsible for major arterial improvements. Rather, it is the City's intent to mitigate the
incremental effects of cumulative development by including Holland Road in the City of Lake
Elsinore's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. At the City's discretion, the Project's TIF
contributions may be directed toward future improvements on Holland Road. Ultimately, all TIF-
programmed circulation improvements will be based on development projections and traffic models
maintained by the City.
Response No. H8
As discussed in Response H1, both Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road would be improved to
City of Lake Elsinore approved equivalent road standards (i.e., the equivalent of County standards)
from the project access points northward to connect to the currently improved segments in the City.
The TIA determined these improvements are sufficient to accommodate Project traffic to access the
existing improved roads and public services that are north of the Project Site. Therefore, no other
forms of Project Site access are necessary.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-33
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document I
'WiN Wildomar Incorporation Now
Protecting (909)330-0355 1 P.O. Box 1476 1 Wildomar, CA 92595
Wildomar
Independence
December 27, 2006
Kirt A. Coury
Project Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Ref: Draft EIR for Canyon Hills Estates(State Clearinghouse#2006051073)
Mr. Coury:
Below is my response to the DEIR referenced above. Please respond in writing to my
questions and concerns.
A. Scope of Project
I request a clarification on the scope of the project: At the April 11, 2006 City of Lake
Elsinore City Council meeting, Rolf Preisendanz(Director, Community Development)
informed all present that Tract Map 34249 had been withdrawn from documents pertaining
to this project(General Plan Amendment 2005-8, Zone Change(Pre-Zone) No. 2005-09,
Annexation No. 75 and Negative Declaration No. 2006-02),the application money had
been returned to the developer(Trumark)and that no tract was being processed.
At the LAFCO SOI hearing, it was stated there was not a project—the consideration for
LAFCO Commissioners was undeveloped land only.
11 Without benefit of a scoping meeting or public hearing of any type specific to the current
project as it is described in the DEIR noted above,we now have a draft EIR for something
called Canyon Hills Estates,which is deemed a specific plan.
The DEIR indicates it is using concerns and comments brought up at previous public
hearings related to this project. Those concerns and comments were specific only to those
conceptual plans presented at that time; clearly the scope of the project has changed.
How can the City possibly believe they are meeting their legal obligation under CEQA
statutes when there has been no public presentation, hearing or scoping meeting to
present the revised project plan and revised project scope and obtain comments/questions/
concerns specific to these changes?
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-34
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Kit Coury- Project Planner
Canyon Hills Estates DEIR—Comment Ltr.
Dec. 27, 2006
Page 2
I do not believe it would be appropriate to submit comments on the Canyon Hills Estates
12 DEIR and Technical Appendices other than what I have outlined in this letter until there has
been a public scoping meeting/hearing on the revised project plans.
I would therefore request that the City of Lake Elsinore extend the comment period for the
13 Canyon Hills Estates DEIR until such time as the legal public hearing process has been
held and public comments are duly noted and responded to in a revised DEIR.
I look forward to your written response to these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
WILDOMAR INCORPORATION NOW
Sheryl Ade
Secretary
cc Rolf Preisendanz, Director, Lake Elsinore Comm. Devel. Dept.
Robert Brady, City Manager
Bob Buster, Supervisor, 1 st District, County of Riverside
George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency
Riverside County Flood Control &Water Conservation District
Bob Cashman, Chair,Wildomar Incorporation Now
Rick Estes, President,Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Dan Wildish,Wildish & Nialyis
File
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-35
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document
Wildomar Incorporation Now(WIN)
December 27, 2006
Response No. 11
As discussed in Chapter 1.4 Scoping of the Draft EIR, the City of Lake Elsinore issued two Notices of
Preparation (NOP) - one in May 2006 and one in June 2006, with a 30-day public review period for
each as required by CEQA. The May and June 2006 NOP comments and the comments on Negative
Declaration No. 2006-02 (circulated in January 2006) were used to establish the scope of the issues
addressed in the Draft EIR. These NOPs identified the Proposed Project that is the subject of the
Draft EIR analysis. WIN submitted three comment letters on the May 2006 NOP. WIN did not submit
any comment letters on the June 2006 NOP. All May and June 2006 NOP comments and Negative
Declaration No. 2006-02 comments were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The collective
"scoping comments" included in Appendix A were addressed in each environmental topic subsection
of the Draft EIR, as applicable.
WIN's comment letters on the May 2006 NOP requested that the Draft EIR provide information
regarding land use compatibility with Wildomar's pending incorporation effort before LAFCO, land use
density, traffic, growth-inducing impacts, aesthetics, wildlife, blueline streams/springs, and project
scoping. In addition, WIN requested that previous public comment letters on Negative Declaration
No. 2006-02 be addressed in the Draft EIR. All of these topics have been addressed in the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 (c)(1), in order to expedite the consultation regarding
the scope and content of the environmental information in the EIR, the City held a duly noticed
scoping meeting.
Response No. 12
The City of Lake Elsinore has met the CEQA requirements for scoping as discussed in Response 11.
Response No. 13
The public review period will not be extended, as discussed in Responses 11 and 12. CEQA Guidelines
Section 151O5(a) provides that the public review period for a draft EIR shall be not less than 45
days. The Draft EIR was made available for public review on November 10, 2006, and the public
review period lasted 46 days through December 27, 2006 (Draft EIR, Section 1.6). CEQA does not
require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (CEQA Guidelines Section
15202). However, the City held a scoping meeting on October 5, 2006, and the Planning
Commission and City Council will consider the EIR at future public hearings (CEQA Guidelines Section
15O87(i)).
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-36
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document J
oe
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION General Counsel
s Temecula Band of Lufseno Mission Indians John L.Macarro
a
i
4,11W0 �o`� OFFICE OF THE GENERAL.COUNSEL Deputy General Counsel
FAE4l1QN PNEe'S Post Office Box 1477•Temecula.CA 92593 James E.Cohen
Telephone(951)676-2768 Ext.2138 Fax(951)587-8162 Laura Y.Miranda
February 8,2006
Sent via Email
Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Department
130 Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Re: Pechanga Tribe's comments on Canyon Hills Estates DEIR,November 2006
Dear Ms.Worthy:
This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
(hereinafter,"Pechanga Tribe"),a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign
government. The Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting,pursuant to Public Resources
Code§21092.2,to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review
process for the duration of the above referenced project(the"Project"),and requests to
receive notices of all public comment periods and public hearings.
We submit the following comments on the above listed document for the Project.
We request that all comments be part of the official record for the approval of this
Project.
The Pechanga Tribe is not opposed to this development project.The Pechanga
Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American
cultural resources. The Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique
and irreplaceable cultural resources,such as Luiseho village sites and archaeological
items which would be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the project,and on the
proper and lawful treatment of cultural items,Native American human remains and
sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work.
THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN
J 1 ITS REVIEW PROCESS
i
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-37
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
It has been the intent of the Federal Governments and the State of California2 that
Indian tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual
resources,as well as other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with
Indian tribes stems from the unique government-to-government relationship between the
United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the
actions of governmental agencies and departments such as approval of General Plans,
Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case,it is undisputed that the project lies within the
Luiseno tribe's traditional territory.Therefore,in order to comply with CEQA and other
applicable Federal and California law,it is imperative that the Lead Agency consult with
the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate
J 1 evaluation of the project effects,as well as generating adequate policies and mitigation
measures.
In addition,if the Project requires a 401 or 404 permit or some similar action
which triggers federal law,then the National Historic Preservation Act(16 U.S.C.§§470
et.seq)requires that a Section 106 review be performed for all Federal undertakings.(16
U.S.C.470w(7);36 CFR§800.16(y)) The issuance of permits such as a Section 401 or
404 permit are considered undertakings under Section 106_ Id. As such,the Army
Corps,and the City as applicant,must initiate the Section 106 review process,which
includes consultation with,among others,federally-recognized Indian tribes.(Id. at
§800.16(f)and(m)). Consultation is required whether the property in question is on or
off tribal lands(Id. at§800.2(c)(2)(ii)).
THE CITY OF MURRIETA MUST CONSULT WITH THE PECHANGA TRIBE
PURSUANT TO CAL.GOW.C.$S 65351,65352,65352.3,AND 65352.4
(SENATE BILL 18—TRADITIONAL TRIBAL CULTURAL PLACES LAW)
The Lead Agency,the City of Murrieta,is required to consult with the Pechanga
Tribe pursuant to a State law entitled Traditional Tribal Cultural Places(also known as
SB 18)(Cal.Govt.C.§65352.3)prior to adoption or amendment of a general plan or a
J2 specific plan and when a scared site is placed in Open Space. Such consultation shall be
for the purposes of identifying any Native American sacred places and any geographical
areas which 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.Govt.C.65352.3;SB 18,Chapter 905,
Section I(4)(b)(3)). All official consultations shall be government-to-government,
meaning they shall be directly between the Tribe and the Lead Agency;and seeking
agreement where feasible(Cal.Govt.C. §65352.4;SB 18,Chapter 905,Section
See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November 6,2000 on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
2 See California Public Resource Code§5097.9 et seq.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-38
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
1(4)(b)(3)). The DEIR states that the City and/or Applicant have received no request for
SB 18 consultation(DEIR,November 2006,Page 3.11-2). This is not true. The
Pechanga Tribe submitted a request for consultation pursuant to SB 18 to City Planner
Kirt Coury on 2/21/06. To this date the Tribe has not received a response to this letter
nor have we received any contact from the City or the Applicant about commencing with
the SB 18 consultation. Further,the Tribe noticed the 2/21/06 letter was not part of the
public record of approval for this Project. We request that it be made part of the public
J2 record and that the City and the Applicant contact us to begin such consultations. We
further request that such consultations be completed prior to any approval of this Project.
Lastly,any such information conveyed to the Lead Agency concerning Native
American sacred places shall be confidential in terms of the specific identity,location,
character,and use of those places and associated features and objects. Such information
shall not be subject to public disclosure pursuant the California Public Records Act(Cal.
Govt.C.6254(r)).
THE PECHANGA TRIBE IS CULTURALLY AFFILIATED
WITH THE PROJECT AREA
The Pechanga Tribe has a legal and cultural interest in the proper protection of
sacred places and all Luiseno cultural resources. The Tribe is concerned about both the
protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources,such as Luisei5o village sites
and archaeological items which will be displaced by development,and on the proper and
lawful treatment of cultural items,Native American human remains and sacred items
likely to be discovered in the course of development and improvements within the City.
The Pechanga/Luiseno people traditionally occupied the geographical area known
J3 today as the City Lake Elsinore and the surrounding area for thousands of years. This is
verified through stories and songs of the Pechanga people that are cultural evidence of the
Tribe's cultural affiliation with these lands. Occupation is also evidenced through
anthropological studies,archaeological studies,and histories of the area,including the
archeological assessments prepared for this Project(Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment,Canyon Hills Estates,September 22,2006,Pg.3). In addition,Tribal ties to
these territories have been maintained to the present day through cultural and
governmental actions.
The Tribe would welcome the opportunity to meet with the City and/or Applicant
to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation
to lands within your jurisdiction.
PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
AThe Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area contains cultural resources that
must be properly evaluated and assessed pursuant to the CEQA. It is the Tribe's position
that the DEIR has failed to do this,and that the conclusions and mitigation measures
contained with the DEIR are inadequate.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-39
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Per the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment,there is at least one archeological
site on the property with another site,CA-RIV 4154,located either on the edge of the
property or within the Project property(Phase I Report,Page 8). Thus far,the only
archeological evaluation that has been completed is a Phase I surface survey and a site
records search. The site records search resulted in the conclusion that"none of the
Project APE has been previously surveyed"(Phase I Report,Page 7). This fact coupled
with the fact that this area has not been subject to a Phase II test program leads the Tribe
to believe that the proposed mitigation measures are likely inadequate or incomplete
mitigation pursuant to the CEQA. Until the Phase II program has been completed the
City cannot set appropriate mitigation as the specifics of the sites are not fully known. It
is not prudent to defer the Phase II testing to post-project approval as this could be
construed as"deferred mitigation"pursuant to CEQA,which is only allowed in certain
circumstances. Here we have a situation where the due diligence concerning the nature
of the cultural resources can be completed to prior to Project approval,which will give
the City has a full understanding of the impacts to cultural resources and the potential for
inadvertent discoveries. It is prudent to gather all information possible prior to Project
approval so that all issues can be dealt with through the CEQA process. For example,if
the Phase II is allowed to be completed post-project approval the City may not be able to
condition the project appropriately without going through another approval process. In
J4 addition,if resources are uncovered of a nature not analyzed or assessed in the DEIR
another DEIR process may be required anyway. The only type of mitigation concerning
cultural resources that may make sense to defer is a process for inadvertent discoveries of
cultural resources,but even in that case the process should be as detailed as possible. In
the interest of time and the goal to accurately and adequately perform an environmental
assessment,the Tribe asserts that the Phase II must be completed prior to Project
approval,so that a clear understanding of Project impacts can be analyzed and
appropriate mitigation can be set.
The DEIR recommends that the sites be treated as"significant"or"unique"until
the Phase 11 proves otherwise. It is the Tribe's contention that the Phase II will likely
result in the cultural resources being"unique"or"significant"pursuant to CEQA. As
such,any Phase II testing and mitigation measures should be created accordingly. This
area is a number of cultural resources sites in the vicinity as well as two sites on and
immediately surrounding the Project property. In addition,the topography and
vegetation is indicative of subsurface resources.
As stated above,the area known as,and immediately surrounding,the City of
Lake Elsinore is culturally important to the Tribe as many of our oral histories,including
our creation stories tell of Luiseno places in the area. These places are likely to contain
resources that are of an archeological and cultural importance to the Tribe.
We commend the City for proposing a mitigation measure to preserve the
J5 archeologicaI/cultural site known as TS-01. However,the DEIR calls for only avoidance
of certain portions of the archeological/cultural site designated at TS-01. The Tribe is in
disagreement with this conclusion for two reasons. First,the full nature of the site is not
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-40
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
known without a Phase II. In addition,because Phase II subsurface testing has not been
completed the exact site boundaries are not known. The City should make provisions for
determining this exact site boundary and the full nature of the site,and should make
provisions for the possibility that part of the site may be subsurface and may extend
beyond what is believed to be the current boundary. Second,the Tribe is also in
disagreement because the emphasis is only on preserving the portion of the site that
contains a large feature,a bedrock mortar feature(DEIR,November 2006,Page 3.11-4,
mitigation measure PDF 3.11-1). This is not appropriate mitigation because the other
J 5 portions contain artifacts and resources that are no less important than the bedrock
mortar. This emphasis on the scientific value of the site rather than both the
archeological value and the cultural significance is insulting and an inappropriate form of
mitigation. Moreover,if one was going to attempt to make a value judgment regarding
the"most important"portions of the site there is an argument that the most important part
may not even be the bedrock mortar,but a different portion. This value judgment has
been made by only the archeologist and does not employ any input by the Pechanga Tribe
or any application of the cultural significance of the area. The Tribe is in support of
preservation of the entire site,surface and subsurface,currently known and unknown.
In addition,the Pechanga Tribe requests that in the case of discovery of new or
additional sites or resources that the Lead Agency commit to re-evaluating the Project
J6 impacts to cultural resources and adopting appropriate mitigation measures to address
such inadvertent discoveries. The Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its legal rights with
respect to additional finds of significant sites or cultural resources which are of sacred
and ceremonial significance to the Pechanga Tribe.
The Tribe would also like to point out that a preferred method of treatment for
J7 archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance(California Public Resources
Code§21083.1),and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies
concerning cultural resources.
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES INADEQUATE
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate
to bring this Project in compliance with the CEQA.
The mitigation measures do not take into account the cultural significance of the
resources,but focus on the scientific value and practices of archeology. All of the
,J 8 mitigation measures do not provide for treatment of the resources in a culturally
appropriate manner,i.e.no mechanisms to take into account Tribe's treatment practices j
and preferences,and no acknowledgement that all resources,including ceremonial and
sacred resources should be treated in accordance with tribal customs and traditions as
they are affiliated to a present-day community that retains practicing beliefs and customs I
associated with such resources. Moreover,it is common practice of the lead agencies in
our area to require repatriation of the resources back to the affiliated Indian tribe and to
protect sacred and ceremonial places. The Pechanga Tribe requests the same here,and 3
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-41
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
requests a requirement that the resources,especially sacred and ceremonial resources be
J8 relinquished to the Pechanga Tribe for appropriate treatment.
The Pechanga Tribe is adamantly opposed to any type of scientific testing on
Native American human remains,ceremonial cultural resources and sacred cultural
resources. Such testing is not required or necessary to meet the legal obligations of this
AProject,and should not be required in any mitigation measures or conditions for this
Project.The Pechanga Tribe requests that any requirement for the resources be curated or
housed at a curatorial facility pursuant to federal law be removed from the mitigation
measures and conditions. There is no such federal requirement for a project of this
nature.
Further,the Pechanga Tribe believes that if human remains are discovered,State
law would apply and the mitigation measures must account for this. According to the
California Public Resources Code,§5097.98,if Native American human remains are
J 10 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 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.
Because the cultural resources and Project area are within the traditional territory
of the Pechanga Tribe,it is prudent for the City to include the Pechanga Tribe as a partner
in mitigating the Project impacts to cultural resources as the CEQA authorizes such
J 11 action(CEQA Guidelines, 15086(b)). The current mitigation measures fail to include
Pechanga in a consistent manner. Not clarifying the role of the Tribe positions the City
for a possible violation of State law,including CEQA. The Tribe must be allowed to be
involved and participate with the Lead Agency and the Project Applicant in developing
all monitoring and mitigation plans for the duration of the Project.
Further,given the potential for archaeological resources within the Project area,it
is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that Pechanga tribal monitors should be required to
be present prior to and during all ground-disturbing activities conducted in connection
J 12 with the project,including any archeological testing performed,not just for the areas
immediately surrounding known archeological sites. It is further the position of the
Pechanga Tribe that an Agreement regarding appropriate treatment of cultural resources
be drafted and entered into.
In addition,since no subsurface archeological surveys were conducted for the
purposes of the cultural resources assessment,grading may reveal additional significant
archaeological resources and sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the historic site
register,and may contain human remains or sacred items. Therefore,we request that the
J 13 Lead Agency commit to evaluating Project environmental impacts to any cultural sites
that are discovered during archeological testing and grading,and to adopt appropriate
mitigation for such sites,in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. CEQA authorizes a
Lead Agency to adopt provisions for responding to"accidental discoveries"or
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-42
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
inadvertent discoveries during construction. We ask for mitigations measures to account
J 13 for inadvertent discoveries of this nature as we believe there is a good likelihood of such
discoveries.
REQUESTED MITIGATION
Given that Luiseno cultural resources will be affected by the Project,the
Pechanga Tribe,for the reasons stated above,requests the following changes to the
currently proposed mitigation measures(strike-outs are deletions and underlines are
additions):
MM 3.11.la: PFieF to the issuance of any grading permits,a pr-esen,afion easement shall
be esiabli..hed to estri6t a e, .,a development of r, s 3 a TS-01 shall be avoided
and preserved— including a10 meter buffer surrounding the boundaries of TS-01
eetside the r sh-" be to protect the delineated site area and any
J 14 associate subsurface components. Protective fencing during construction shall be
provided to protect Leeus--3TS-01. ift addition,
shall be selleeied, , eindirec4resulting
MM 3.11-1b: Prior to Project approval the issua e of any g-.,a.,g p fmits a Phase II
cultural resources testing and evaluation program shall be conducted for TS-01 and TS-
02. The Phase 11 evaluation plan shall contain a research design and field methodology
designed te r-eeever data arnandable te testing the site's ability to yield answefs to
estiens of interest to the Public. and r-. .nsWi.,. lyevaluate the significance
of the sites pursuant to applicable law, including CEOA,and in accordance with general
archeological reporting standards for such. Testing shall inelude supplememal mapping,
samples(e.g. ear-bon andMr-soil samples),analysis,and Fepw pr-eduetieft pf:esenting the
J 15 r-e--;u4s A-f 4-he. Phase. Irstudies. If Phase 11 testing determines the presence of a"unique
archaeological resource"under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the report shall
include recommended measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to the sites. 44iewe
avoidanee of signifleant resoumes is net feasible,Phase M investigations(data reeoyefy)
shall be.
All testing and evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards as a qualified prehistoric
archaeologist for Site TS-01 and as an historic archaeologist for Site TS-02 and/or a
Registered Professional Archaeologist(RPA)with similar qualifications.
MM 3.11-1c: If the Phase II cultural resources evaluation program determines that a
given resource is eligible for listing on the California Registry of Historic Resources
J16 (CRHR) and/or local listings and therefore meets the definition of an "historical
resource," or if there is a determination by the City in consultation with the Pechanga
Tribe that a resource is "unique"pursuant to CEQA or other applicable law, an impact
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-43
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
determination shall be made prior to issuarise-of gEa tsPro;el ct approval. If the
impacts are determined to be significant, appropriate mitt ag lion
measures shall be designed in consultation with the Pechanga. Tribes to
mitigate impacts to below a level of significance with preservation as the preferred
mitt ag tion. If preservation!hreugh easereent-is not feaeMethe chosen alternative,a data
J 16 recovery program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall entail, at a
minimum,the collection of surface materials and a sufficient sample of buried materials,
analysis, and reporting of recovered materials consistent with the Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring_Agreement by and between the Proiect Applicant and the
Pechanga Tribe required in MM 3.11-2a, o well as ewiitien of these .-..,*eiads at a
MM 3.11-1d: As required in ih, Prior to issuance of grading permits) for the Project,
the Project Applicant shall retain an archaeological monitoring shall be eandueted as-part
J 17 monitor to monitor all ground-
disturbing activities with special emphasis on the vicinity of TS-01 and TS-02 in an effort
to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural
resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation (see MM 3.11-lb
AND 3.11-1c).
MM 3.11-1e: Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2c include provisions for
J18 Native American consultation and monitoring,and shall apply to all activities undertaken
with respect to Site TS-01.
MM 3.11-2a: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant
shall contact the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for the purpose of notifying the Tribe
of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of
Lake Elsinore and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to develop a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of
J19 known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native
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. The
City of Lake Elsinore shall be the final arbiter of any disputes concerning the provisions
included in the Agreement.
MM 3.11-2b: 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
J20 to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the Agreement required in
MM 3.11-2a, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be
exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in order to evaluate
the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal
monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be allowed to monitor all
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-44
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
J20 Cgrading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to
stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist
MM 3.11-2c: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 shall apply and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner shall be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric,the Coroner will notify the
.121 Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),which will determine and notify a Most
Likely Descendant(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site discovery. The MLD shall complete the
inspection and provide its recommendations pursuant to Public Resourced Code 5097.98
"mefie n h-Urice's. Adherence to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 is required as a
matter of course.
In addition,we request to add the following three(3)mitigation measures:
J22 The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all
Luisefio sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found on the
Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and
disposition.
J23 E All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved.
If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during
ceding, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer
regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Pechanga Ban
J24 cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will be
presented to the City Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make
his decision 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 Pechanga Band. The decision of the Planning Director shall
be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore.
The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Lake
Elsinore in protecting the invaluable Luiseno cultural resources found in the Project area.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at(951) 676-2768, Ext.
2137. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-45
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Sincerely,
1 • .
aura M' da
Deputy eneraI Counsel
cc: Dale Foster,Pechanga Cultural Resources Analyst
Jeremy Krout,RGP Planning&Development Services
i
I
i
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-46
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document J
Pechanga Indian Reservation, Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
December 27, 2006
Response No. A
The City of Lake Elsinore has and will continue to consult with the Pechanga Tribe. The City of Lake
Elsinore sent the May and June 2006 NOPs to the Pechanga Tribe. In addition, a SB18 Consultation
Letter was sent to the Tribe on September 6, 2006. The City (Wendy Worthey, Principal
Environmental Planner) also held a consultation meeting on January 8, 2007 with Laura Miranda,
Deputy General Counsel and Dale Foster, Pechanga Cultural Resources Analyst of the Pechanga
Tribe, Brian Glenn, applicant's cultural resources consultant (BonTerra Consulting), and Jeremy Krout
and Sue Lamoureux, applicant's entitlement and CEQA consultant (RGP Planning and Development
Services). The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Tribe's comment letter on the Canyon
Hills Estates DEIR.
The Project will require a 401 and 404 permit which requires a Section 106 review under the
National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) with the City as the
applicant will also initiate the Section 106 review process which also involves consultation with the
Pechanga Tribe.
Response No. J2
The City sent a SB18 Consultation Letter to the Tribe in February 2006 regarding a previous project
approved by the City Council in April 2006. These April 2006 approvals included a sphere of
influence change for the Project site. The City and Pechanga representative Stephanie Gordon
agreed that because there was no development footprint for the sphere of influence project, the
Tribe would defer comment until subsequent CEQA documentation on a development plan and more
specific information was available regarding cultural resources.
In addition, the City sent a SB18 Consultation Letter to the Tribe on September 6, 2006 regarding
the current Proposed Project. Further, a consultation meeting was held on January 8, 2007 with the
City and the Tribe (see Response No. J1 above). It is noted that any information conveyed to the Lead
Agency concerning Native American sacred places will be confidential and will not be subject to
public disclosure. The City will continue consultation with the Pechanga Tribe regarding cultural
resources mitigation measures and subsequent cultural resources surveys/testing, etc.
Response No. J3
The City recognizes the Pechanga Tribe's cultural affiliation with the Project Area and will continue to
consult with the Tribe regarding the cultural resources on the Project site.
Response No. J4
The City acknowledges the Tribe's position that a Phase II test program is necessary to adequately
assess the cultural resources impact conclusions and mitigation measures. As a result of the
consultation meeting held between the Tribe and City on January 8, 2007, an extended Phase I
evaluation was conducted on January 12, 2007 on the TS-01 site.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-47
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
The DEIR acknowledges that TS-01 is a "significant" or "unique" under CEQA. Phase II testing was
not conducted previously because of concerns regarding disturbance of sensitive cultural resources
prior to any Project approvals by the City and the potential for disclosure of confidential site location.
Per Society for California Archaeology v. County of Butte (3d Dist. 1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 832, 838
{Cal.Rptr. 6791, "when comments suggest that further data be gathered, it is not `mandatory for an
agency to conduct every test and perform all research, study and experimentation recommended to
it to determine true and full environmental impact, before it can approve a proposed project...Just as
an agency has the discretion for good reason to approve a project which will admittedly have an
adverse environmental impact, it has discretion to reject a proposal for additional testing or
experimentation." (Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, and Whitman F. Manley,
Guide to the California Environmental Ouality Act(CEQA), 1999 [Tenth] edition, p. 317.
Response No. J5
The planning approach for Canyon Hills Estates was mitigation-by-design which resulted in the
avoidance of Locus 3 of TS-01. However, the preservation and avoidance of all three loci of TS-01 is
not a feasible alternative as discussed in Chapter 4, Project Alternatives, Reduced Footprint
Alternative (Section 4.5.3, pp. 4-3, 4-17). This alternative would have preserved the known
boundaries of Loci 1 and 2. This alternative was rejected because of fire safety concerns which
required a roadway connection between the eastern and western portions of the Proposed Project. In
addition, much of the impact to Drainage A in the northern portion of the site is due to the expanded
detention basin area that is necessary to mitigate pre-existing stormdrain deficiencies downstream
in the existing Canyon Hills development. The expanded detention area became a Project Design
Feature toward the latter stages of site planning and preliminary engineering; otherwise, Drainage A
would have included additional preservation area.
Response No. J6
The City will continue to consult with the Pechanga Tribe regarding new or additional sites or
resources. The Pechanga Tribe will be invited to participate in Phase II testing and any cultural
resources monitoring on the Project site. The City acknowledges that the Tribe intends to assert its
legal rights to cultural resources on the site. The Project will require a 401 and 404 permit which
requires a Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the Army
Corps with the City as the applicant will also initiate the Section 106 review process which will also
involve consultation with the Pechanga Tribe.
Response No. J7
The City acknowledges that preservation or avoidance is the "preferred" method for mitigating
cultural resources impacts. However, analysis of Project alternatives determined that avoidance of
Loci 1 and 2 of TS-01 was infeasible due to the concerns state above in Response No. J5. Therefore,
mitigation measures have been included that require Phase II testing, Phase III recovery, if
necessary, and other mitigation measures.
Response No. J8
The Tribe requests repatriation of cultural resources to the Tribe for appropriate treatment. The
Project will require a 401 and 404 permit which requires a Section 106 review under the National
Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) with the City as the
applicant will also initiate the Section 106 review process which will also involve consultation with
the Pechanga Tribe. The ACOE will determine the affiliated Indian Tribe as part of this process and
this to will allow for repatriation of cultural resources.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-48
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. J9
The DEIR does not recommend scientific testing on Native American human remains, ceremonial
cultural resources and sacred cultural resources. The Section 106 process discussed above in
Response No. J8 above will determine the disposition of any cultural resources on the Project site.
MM 3.11-1a states "recovered artifacts shall be housed at a curatorial facility in complete with State
36 CFR 79. MM 3.11-1a has been revised as shown in Response No.J14.
Response No. J10
The DEIR states that California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 would apply if human remains are
found. It is acknowledged that the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its rights to any Native American
human remains per California Public Resources Code, § 5097.98.
Response No. J11
The City recognizes that the Pechanga Tribe is the probable Indian affiliate for the Project site. This
determination will ultimately be made during the Section 106 process by the ACOE. The Pechanga
Tribe was specifically mentioned in Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a to 2c (see pp. 3.11-7 and 8 in the
DEIR). The City has initiated SB18 consultation with the Tribe and will continue to involve the Tribe in
the cultural resources mitigation measures following Project approval. The City will revise the cultural
resources mitigation measures per some of the recommendations of the Tribe as shown in Response
Nos. J14 - J24 below. The Tribe will also be consulted in the preparation of a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (see Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a on page 3.11-7 of the DEIR).
Response No. J12
Tribal monitoring was included in MM 3.11-2a in the DEIR. MM 3.11-2a has been revised as
discussed in Response No. J19.
Response No. J13
Undiscovered cultural resources and recommended mitigation measures are discussed on pp. 3.11-
7 and 8 in the DEIR. MMs 3.11-2a through 2c have been revised as shown in Response Nos.J19
through J21 below.
Response No. J14
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1a addresses the preservation of Locus 3 of TS-01. The Tribe would like
this mitigation measure be revised to include all of TS-01. As discussed in Response No. J5 above,
the DEIR determined that it was infeasible to preserve all of TS-01 due to fire safety concerns that
require a through connection between the eastern and western portions of the Proposed Project.
However, MM 3.11-1a has been revised as follows per the Tribe's recommendations:
MM 3.11-1a: Prior to the assuanoo of a , grading permits a preservation easement shall ho
established to restrinf the use and development of Locus 3 of TS-01 shall be avoided and
preserved where -feasible including aA 10 meter buffer outside the ' eoi,c area surrounding
the boundaries of TS-01:hall-be established -to protect the delineated site area and any
associated subsurface components. Protective fencing during construction shall be provided
to protect '�3TS-01 where feasible. in addition any surfane and/or s bsurfane artifa Gt
shall be celleE)ted, analyzed, and reported to avoid the indireGt impaGts resUlting
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-49
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
ty
nomnlianno with 36 CPR 7-9
Response No. J15
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1b addresses a Phase II cultural resources testing and evaluation program
for TS-01 and TS-02. The Tribe suggested revisions to this mitigation measure to require Phase II
testing prior to Project approval. Per Response No. J4 above, Phase II testing was not performed at
part of the DEIR because the cultural resources were determined to be "significant" and "unique"
under CEQA. Phase II testing was also not conducted previously because of concerns regarding
disturbance of sensitive cultural resources prior to any Project approvals by the City and the potential
for disclosure of confidential site location. However, MM 3.11-1b has been revised as follows per the
Tribe's recommendations:
MM 3.11-1b: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a Phase II cultural resources
testing and evaluation program shall be conducted for TS-01 and TS-02. The Phase 11
evaluation plan shall contain a research design and field methodology designed to evaluate
the significance of the sites pursuant to applicable law and in accordance with general
archaeological reporting standards for such. reGever data—a„^TeRable to testingthe sate's
Testing shall OnGlude supplerneRtal mapping, surfaGe GellectieRs with spatial ability to yield answers te questions of interest to the publiG and/er sGientifiG GGMMUR#Y.
,
�C�}n�lysic and r or redo the results of the Phase II studies. If Phase 11
ur�..rr..�,�rrcrTe�vrt�aF,t��--p-re�e{�t�}���-r�.. r,�u�rr�cavrc��.
testing determines the presence of a "unique archaeological resource" under Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2, the report shall include recommended measures to avoid
or mitigate impacts to the sites. Where avoidance of significant resources is not feasible,
Phase III investigations (data recovery) shall be completed.
All testing and evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards as a qualified prehistoric
archaeologist for Site TS-01 and as an historic archaeologist for Site TS-02 and/or a
Registered Professional Archaeologist(RPA) with similar qualifications.
Response No. J16
See Response No. J15 above. MM 3.11-1c has been revised as follows per the Tribe's
recommendations:
MM 3.11-1c: If the Phase II cultural resources evaluation program determines that a given
resource is eligible for listing on the California Registry of Historic Resources (CRHR) and/or
local listings and therefore meets the definition of an "historical resource," or if there is a
determination by the City in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe that a resource is "unique"
pursuant to applicable law, an impact determination shall be made prior to issuance of
grading permits. If the impacts are determined to be significant, a treatment plan shall be
appropriate mitigation measures shall be designed in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe
, plemented to mitigate impacts to below a level of significance with preservation as the
preferred mitigation if feasible. If preservation through easement is not-feasA);e the chosen
alternative, a data recovery program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall
entail, at a minimum, the collection of surface materials and a sufficient sample of buried
materials, analysis, and reporting of recovered materials consistent with the Cultural
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement by and between the Project Applicant and
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-50
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
the Pechanga Tribe as required in MM 3.11-2a, as well as rati r of these materials at
E Fateriol faeolity in eemplianee with 36 GFR 79
Response No. J17
MM 3.11-1d has been revised as follows per the Tribe's suggestions:
MM 3.11-1d: As required it the Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the Project, the
Project Applicant shall retain an archaeological MGROWFORg shall be ,,,,nduGted as part Of aRY
monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing
activities with special emphasis on the vicinity of TS-01 and TS-02 in an effort to identify any
unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be
subject to a cultural resources evaluation (see MM 3.11-1b and 3.11-1c).
Response No. J18
No revisions for MM 3.11-1e were recommended by the Tribe.
Response No. J19
MM 3.11-2a has been revised as follows per the Tribe's suggestions:
MM 3.11-2a: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant shall
contact the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for the purpose of notifying the Tribe of the
grading, excavation and monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 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 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. The City of Lake Elsinore
shall be the final arbiter of any disputes concerning the conditions included in the
Agreement.
Response No. J20
No revisions for MM 3.11-2b were recommended by the Tribe.
Response No. J21
MM 3.11-2c has been revised as follows per the Tribe's suggestions:
MM 3.11-2c: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 shall apply and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD
may inspect the site of discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and provide its
recommendations pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. �^� 24 hours of
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-51
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response No. J22
The following mitigation measure recommended by the Tribe will be included as Project mitigation:
MM 3.11-2d. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including all Luiseno sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found
on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and
disposition.
Response No. J23
The following mitigation measure recommended by the Tribe will be included as Project mitigation
with revisions:
MM 3.11-2e. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved as the
preferred mitigation if feasible. If preservation is not the chosen alternative, a data recovery
program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall entail, at a minimum, the
collection of surface materials and a sufficient sample of buried materials, analysis, and
reporting of recovered materials consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement by and between the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe as
required in MM 3.11-2a.
Response No. J24
The following mitigation measure recommended by the Tribe will be included as Project mitigation:
MM 3.11-2f. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are
discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the Pechanga Band
of Luiseno Indians shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer
regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Pechanga Band cannot
agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented
to the City Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make his decision
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 Pechanga Band. The decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to
the City of Lake Elsinore.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-52
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document K
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of December 15,2006
1_.
f�OVERNMENTS
Ms.Wendy Worthey
fftin office Principal Environmental Planner
Rt(;Wy,51 Seventh Street City of Lake Elsinore
Ird)rkurtf 130 S. Main Street
Lis Angeles,Caii((trnla Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
9001/-3435 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120060754 Canyon Hills Estates
Dear Ms.Worthev
([rt'•12ibIRrS
Thank you for submitting the Canyon Hills Estates for review and comment.
As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the
consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This
oBlan:p,r.,,r,:, ,tqn^:c e,wt'.II, activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization
4nnryM(0,^'!r.te1M!�In,d^:(arx(nm.
pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by
P"raie Fr•,dn{Mc:Sams?en tamen>Q•`''a'r'"" these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take
-
actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.
.aen,•im:mr,S.IHeNIr.
to A,,-, hat, Ir
Ay:m Fn4111 We have reviewed the Canyon Hills Estates, and have determined that the
ruhut'•hni•MmuM VAn_I 6'.0•I imn;
i—.11-PW1L,rlr:'I—- proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review
,eea�trrydsr R.IAM-I—fn, .'.Ir (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Fro<h,•tl.r turd It IIeM.Nn'thI•
wa:,a:r(e(A,ra•nlac•,.,.MM' (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at
P,ra!ma•.,"N.,Dup.,r,enGek•hq:
;_41Innie•,aq.ILowMA:n,anlh..r this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we
•tan.,(.1.:"D.mN;
would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time.
iullwrN9p.,oll:plai
K1 A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's November 1-30,
""-.•p"�' `` 2006 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
IalalNt•I'a^0(ala:.Sanu'.aa,.tae.
P,^al..le.anrr.><..hrrn,uA r.•!: :r comment.
Aap,.:,•Ianrrr,:..Algri!;.tepA'y.:!�
F•gr1..•eS CnwMXi.,a.Amp:-..(.<,:
smm,.�u•An:pv:,•I{a:'.NO,YYallr:•-Na
us.Sarah pauewr•iom,ArH,twalty.la< The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
k'uh I—Ye"r,aor,.,1. a•grh•,
p am rumor' 01A.a.•w,Yrrn:1'. coi respondence wid i SCAG (U 1cCi i ill ty ilii5 �l JU%,i. I-Vi I6 IJui1d81 iGc Should be
imlrlr•..I"i.1Ynvr.. (a',kq!h-.
D'u-1-;., k.. sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions,
0,9'(oomr-nnria'b� l ,.l^ please contact me at(213)236-1856. Thank you.
(ovaw:'F.:•n-.I,talon.ra.,sawn,.•..
Lr,, e„Yae.1-!aw,•k:Lnsr Fhry
:,,oqx: tax»:-•IkhhN;oo. Sincerely,
IhlMmglal(trot,•lrJn p+x^• t:rnTnr'
Fhu.'-•"cr.m:i:+m Ir•im!,t•peu;C:+el: '
Rwel+de(ounty:hl'ka•r CnrevY:cmmt //�' ` / �. �, /.J-
.then.;.6w{i!ry:ao-Irumr•Rawxs L'C f2.('-'�-- f�._. � _
(W1mT'kWmn VAIY:•Fe!.Iwe<iMr J !/
A,w.,d:•(+rg pro,;,Ltd^'(w5•L.- SYLVIA PATSAOURAS
N^M:o.initalLr
sa e.r.ee6w(araT wr L I:"s, Manager,Environmental Division
f rnrbxv(m,n,y•[avne!ur IW.Gn,trc
I'ar Iab,tirnNla••I rr Anr.Aa:{u Warn
r••Irn uq�.hxn @+pl+Yehn•oir:
N�4Y.a.NwNaM•fMinlahMdnbna.kgnn
venlwa(ouolp P•ily S(mrh Y<elaa(onek
,•ran<,:..4nc Yab•y. r;V-.4n."
ktn�D`nt:•Yllwa•qn YaL'4:1 Wit.Iln!Mn^'
orange(oulny waspoltetion Authority.
.w(a•r,(c.xl.';rat ika,w
N."r(aunty Treapertot_
(ommn w:Whol I-ill- Doc#129346
vrmw,e County Tramperuti^n
(ommittien:hnlb!.5nw,nut.l:,M<Iun '
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-53
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document K
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Dec. 15, 2006
Response No. K1
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-54
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document L
WARREN D.WILLIAMS
1995 MARKIA'STUT'l
RIVERSIDE,CA 92501
951.935.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
ww.11cuulcontrol.co.rix'midc.cu.us
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CON
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTR
sp
December 26,2006
Ms.Wendy Worthey
Principal Environmental Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Dear Ms. Worthey: Re: Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the
Canyon Hills Estates Pro.icet
This letter is written in response to the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Canyon Hills Estates Project. The proposed project would consist of General Plan
Amendment 2006-04; Annexation No. 75; Zone Change/Pre-Zone No. 2005-09; approval of
Tentative Tract Map 34249; and annexation of the project site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District. The project is bounded by the existing Canyon Hills Specific Plan development to the north,
Pine Avenue to the east,and Crooked Arrow Drive and Crab Hollow Circle to the west and south,
respectively. The site is located in unincorporated Riverside County adjacent to the southern City
limits of the city of Lake Elsinore.
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following
commcnt/concern that should be addressed in the DEIR:
Page 3.7-19 of the DEIR states that all drainage facilities shall be constructed to District
Ll standards- 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 Cities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review 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 Jason Swenson at 951.955.8082 or me at 951.955.1233.
Very truly yours,
,/I I
TERESA TUNG
Senior Civil Engineer
c: TLMA
Attn: David Mares
JDS:mcv
P8\1 11244
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-55
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document L
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFC&WCD)
Dec. 26, 2006
Response No. L1
The City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Division will condition the Project to submit grading plans and
Hydrology/Hydraulic Reports for approval by the City Engineer. Plans for extended detention/water
quality basins will also be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, though the basins
must be designed consistent with RCFC&WCD standards.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-56
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document M
November 15,2005
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Wendy Worthey,Principal Environmental Planner
Wendy,
In response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report received by the
District on November 11,2006 regarding the Canyon Hills Estates project,located by the existing
Canyon Hills project to the North,Pine Avenue to the East and Crooked Arrow Dr.and Crab
Hollow Circle to the West and South,totaling approximately 246.4 acres of land and a potential
302 SFRs,the Lake Elsinore Unified School district offers the following response:
The Lake Elsinore Unified School District is currently operating at capacity. Additional
development projects will impact existing schools and create a need for additional facilities.
School impact fees shall be paid pursuant to state law. Even after such payment,district schools
will become increasingly impacted and overcrowded. Based on information provided in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report,the following is a projection for the number of students this project
M 1 may generate:
K-5" 302 X.3698= 112 students
6-8"' 302 X.1640= 50 students
9-12d'302 X.1776= 54 students
=total of 216 students generated from project.
Please contact me should you have any questions and/or comments at(951)253-7015 or
kira.falsetto 4lcusd.kl2.ca.us.
Respectfully, L�t✓//�.
Kira Falsetto
Assistant Director
Facilities Planning
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-57
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document M
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
November 15, 2006
Response No. M1
The comment reiterates the student generation calculations provided in the Draft EIR. Those
calculations serve as the basis for the Project's school impact mitigation fees, which are to be paid
prior to construction of the proposed residential units. While the fees will not eliminate the
overcrowding in District facilities that is the result of cumulative development, the fees will reduce
the project-related effects to levels that are less than significant.
The Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prepared a School Facilities Needs Analysis on
February 15, 2006 to provide the factual basis for LEUSD to consider and, if desired, adopt
alternative school facility fees that may be collected from residential development in the District
consistent with Section 17620 of the Education Code and Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, 65995.7,
and 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. The Alternative No. 2 Fee, which is the maximum
Alternative Fee that may be imposed during periods when State funds for new construction are
available, is currently being levied by LEUSD. The School Facilities Needs Analysis determined the
maximum Alternative No. 2 Fee that can be adopted by LEUSD and imposed on residential units is
$3.18 per square foot, which is intended to cover the cost of construction of the new school facilities
that would be required as new development occurs. This fee would be collected at the time of
issuance of building permits as homes are built. Although according to State Law, the $3.18 per
square foot fee is the maximum required fee to offset development impacts, the Project will also be
forming a Communities Facilities District (CFD) with LEUSD, which will increase the school facility fee
from $3.18 to $4.35 per square foot and ensure that the entirety of the school facility fees will be
paid at the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-58
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comment Document N
_ ,f,�4Of PLl/i;4/pC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
" Governor's Office of Planning and Research '
v� x
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit FaF�A„FOP"'
Arnold Sebwamenegger Sean Walsh
Governor Director
Fit..
December 28,2006 11
1 L
Wendy Worthey
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S.Main Street.
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Subject: Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment#2006-04,Annexation No.75,Zone Change/Pre-Zone
No.2005-09,Annexation by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,and
SCH#: 2006051073
Dear Wendy Worthey:
The State Clearinghouse submitted die above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 27,2006,and the conmtents from the
responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
NI activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for drab
environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environtrrental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerj ly,
vv
Terry Roberts
Director,State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENT11 STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA ON12.3044
TEL(916)446.0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-59
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2006051073
Project Title Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment#2006-04,Annexation No.75,Zone Change/Pre-Zone No.
Lead Agency 2005-09,Annexation by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,and
Lake Elsinore,City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description (1)General Plan Amendment#2006-04-Change the project site land use designation from Very Low
Density Residential(VLDR)and Mountainous(M)to Low Density Residential(LDR);
(2)Annexation No.75-Completion of the annexation of the project site into the City of Lake Elsinore;
(3)Zone Change/Pfe-Zone No.2005-09-Adoption of the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan in
conformance with pre-zoning;
(4)Tract Map 34249-Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to permit subdivision of the project site:and
(5)Annexation of project site by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District(EVMWD).
Lead Agency Contact
Name Wendy Worthey
Agency City of Lake Elsinore
Phone (951)674-3124 x288 Fax
email
Address 130 S.Main Street
City Lake Elsinore State CA Zip 92530
Project Location
County Riverside
City Lake Elsinore
Region
Cross Streets Canyon Hills Road/Lost Road/Navajo Springs Road and Canyon Hills Rd./Cottonwood Canyon Rd.
Parcel No. 365-220-026,027;365.230-001,005,006,007,009 through 013
Township 6S Range 4W Section 13 Base SB
Proximity to:
Highways 1-15
Airports
Railways
Waterways Canyon Lake
Schools Cottonwood Canyon ES,Canyon Lake MS
Land Use Z:Specific Plan
GP:Very Low Density(VLD)Residential and Mountainous(M)
Project Issues AestheticlVisual;Agricultural Land:Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Biological Resources;
Cumulative Effects;Drainage/Absorption;Flood Plain/Flooding;Forest Land/Fire Hazard;
Geologic/Seismic;Growth Inducing;Landuse;Noise;Public Services;Schools/Universities;Sewer
Capacity:Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;
Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife
Reviewing Resources Agency;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8;Department of Parks and
Agencies Recreation;Native American Heritage Commission;Office of Emergency Services;Department of
Health Services:Office of Historic Preservation;Department of Forestry and Fire Protection;
Department of Fish and Game,Region 6;Department of Water Resources;California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans,District 8;Department of Toxic Substances Control
Date Received 11/13/2006 Start of Review 11/13/2006 End of Review 1212712006
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-60
State Clearinghouse No.2006051073 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Comment Document N
State of California - Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Dec. 28, 2006
Response No. N1
No response is required because the comment does not address environmental issues.
Canyon Hills Estates January 2007
City of Lake Elsinore Page RtC-61