Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3. Merged 11.5.12 Ridge CEQA report texteditsFINAL11.5
VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 I. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY The project applicant and landowner, Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., proposes a Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 35001 (VTTM), located within a portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment # 1 area, (ARSP # 1 Brighton), for future mixed land use development and a restated and amended Development Agreement (DA). The VTTM encompasses an approximate 400.3-acre area, within a portion of the overall ASRP Amendment #1, 998 total acres, for future construction of 1,401 dwelling units in: 1) two (2) minimum lot sizes for single family - 5,000 (SF 1) and 4,200sq. ft. (SF 11) areas on 334.4 gross acres (307.1 net area) with a total of 1,056 dwelling units; 2) one (1) high density multi-family residential (HDMFR) area with 225 units, maximum of 30 DU/acre on a 11 .5 gross acre lot, (7.5 acre net pad area); 3) two areas of Suburban Village (SV), for the mixed commercial, office, and residential use areas; the first SV area, is a 9.8 gross acre lot (4.3 acre net pad area) and the second area is a 34.6 gross acre lot (23.1 acre net pad area), which totals 44.4 gross acres (32.9 net pad areas) of SV. Within the two SV areas, there is a potential of approximately 120 dwelling units of high density residential, at 30 DU/acre, and 1,358,000 square feet of commercial/office land use; 4) there are two (2) Public Parks, one being a 6.90-acre area and the other is proposed as a 3.1-acre area, that is exclusive of a 1.1 acre underground water tank site; 5) a 14.6 gross acre area, (13.0 net acres), for an 850 student schools site, which is reserved within the 77-unit lotted SFR II residential area, next to the 6.90-acre public park'; and 6) a 38.8-acre linear park and restored perennial stream is to be located along the east side of Lake Street. If the DA is not extended and restated, the VTTM would add dwelling units and not contain the same level of public facilities and fees afforded the City through the DA. Possible consequences of the DA not being extended and restated are the addition of 55 additional single family dwelling units, the loss of the 2 public parks totaling 10 acres, the loss of a fire station site of 2 acres and fees, the loss of improvements to Nichols Road, and the loss of Development Agreement fees. The addition of 55 additional dwelling units, if the D.A. is not approved, is within the total number of dwelling units contemplated, evaluated, and approved within the ARSP EIR and SP Amendment#1 and EIR Addendum # 1. The Ridge VTTM No. 35001 400.3 acres overlays the current zoning described in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 (Brighton), encompassing a 998-acre area. No Specific Plan land use changes are proposed with the VTTM No. 35001. The remaining approximately 600 acres of the Brighton SP area is currently owned by the County of Riverside and designated in the land sale purchase agreements, (Tri-Valley Agreements), for permanent future Multiple Species Habitat Conservation. With the County 600-acre land purchase, approximately 1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500 square feet of commercial land uses were "removed" from the Brighton Specific Plan The two land ownerships(County/C&C)within the 998 SP area cuts through and divides certain SP land use areas.A pro-rated ratio between the 2 land ownerships was used to determine the respective maximum square footage allowed per planning area for commercial/office/light industrial and residential uses. These respective land uses by land owner are noted in Exhibit 23 below. 1 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 and consequently reduced the environmental impacts previously described within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR. The Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 35001 includes 1,056 Single Family lots. Zoning will permit 2,027 D.U.s, and the majority may be multi-family in three (3) areas. The purpose of the VTTM is to conditionally approve 1,056 Single Family D.U.s and locating future multi-family and commercial areas, which will be required additional review and approvals with additional conditions of approval. The following pages I-1 through I-10 are reprinted from the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) 89-2 and re-adopted in the Brighton Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum #1 summarizing the existing conditions, project impacts and mitigation measures for each environmental topical area that may be affected by the proposed Vested Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001 described in this EIR Addendum # IV to ARSP. This Brighton Specific Plan - VTTM No. 35001 Addendum #IV is prepared to provide information to the City decision makers on changes to the environmental impacts analyzed in the previous environmental documents of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 project areas. The results of this EIR Addendum #IV analysis note no significant environmental changes as a result of adopting the VTTM No. 35001 project. This conclusion is based on two primary factors. First, the proposed VTTM No. 35001 proposes no changes to the adopted Specific Plan land uses that were analyzed and mitigated through the ARSP EIR and Brighton EIR Addendum. Second, the County acquisition of the remaining 600 acres of the Specific plan area for conservation has reduced the total dwelling units and commercial square footage for the entire Specific Plan area. This 60% reduction in Brighton Specific Plan land use area resulting from the County 600-acre acquisition for conservation has lessened the intensity of potential human urban impacts from the planning area in all topical CEQA analysis areas. Since the environmental impacts have not been increased, but lessened, with the proposed VTTM No. 35001, the CEQA Addendum is the appropriate document to describe to the City decision makers the proposed project. The following Addendum analysis will describe the entire ARSP area, the historical entitlement activity within this ARSP Specific Plan area, and topical analysis of CEQA impacts proposed with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. This reprinted Mitigation section is a summary of the full ARSP EIR analysis of each environmental element contained in Section IV, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Pages IV-1 through IV-120) of DEIR dated April 1989 that was adopted August 18, 1989 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore via Ordinance No. 862 — adopting the ARSP and certifying Final EIR No. 89-2 (SCH No. 88090517) for the 1,853-acre property of which the proposed VTTN No. 35001 is a 400.3 acres area. In taking this entitlement action, the City of Lake Elsinore ("City") satisfied provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA, as amended ("State CEQA Guidelines") adopted as the City CEQA Guidelines, establishing a basis for the future subsequent discretionary actions upon the project area, including this VTTM No. 35001. 2 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Section 1.1, pages 14 through 26 within this VTTM No. 35001/EIR Addendum #IV provides an overview of the ARSP area entitlements, governmental activities affecting the land uses and history of those subsequent discretionary actions that have occurred within the 1,853- acre ARSP property area since adoption of the Specific Plan. The following reprinted pages are from the ARSP #1: EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROJECT IMPACTS: MITIGATION MEASURES; A.Geology, Soils & Seismicity Approximately 500 acres of From a geotechnical Within landslide areas, the 1,853 acre Alberhill standpoint, the site will be partial removal and/or Ranch Specific Plan silo suitable for development. buttressing will be have been mined for clay, Project implementation will required.Additional slope resulting in deep cuts and alter the existing natural stability analyses shall be several alteration of the landform.Remedial grading performed. The presence natural topography.Walker and recontouring will be or absence of suspected Canyon, containing necessary in the mined out faults on-site shall be Temescal Creek, crosses areas of the site. Grading confirmed by trenching. the site in a northwesterly will also be needed to Erosion of slopes shall be direction. On-site stabilize potential landslide controlled. Additional elevations range from areas. There is the study is needed to develop 1,200' to 1,900'. The site potential for soil mitigations for lique- contains extensive areas of settlement and liquefaction faction prone soils. 25`90 slope. A number of impacts during a seismic Project grading for the faults are present on-site, event. Project grading is Alberhill Ranch Specific although no conclusive anticipated to balance on- Plan will blend with the evidence for active faulting site. The project proposes natural topography as was found.Liquefaction is retention of the majority much as possible, by likely within the lower of the primary ridgeline clustering development, drainage areas in the which extends through the terracing on hillsides and northwest portion of the center of the site. Also, by preserving 531 acres of site. 169 acres are proposed for natural open space. development at a density of 0.2 d.u./acre,minimizing grading impacts in the southerly portion of the site. Another 133 acres are proposed for designation as 'RCD`, Residential Constraint Designed, clustering units to minimize grading.Areas of uncertified fills will require either full or partial removal and recompaction. I-1 3 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROJECT IMPACTS: MITIGATION MEASUR .S- B. Hydrology Drainage to the site is Project development will All drainage facilities tributary to the Santa Ana increase runoff on-site, shall conform to the River through Temescal increasing flows in Walker standards of the Riverside Creek, which ultimately Canyon Creek and other County Flood Control and flows into the Pacific downstream facilities.The Water Conservation ocean near Newport Beach. proposed storm drain District and the City of Temescal Creek is the main system would discharge Lake Elsinore Community drainage course on the flows into Walker Canyon Development Department. site,collecting runoff from Creek just west of 1-15. Erosion control devices the Walker Canyon area.In Due to the magnitude of and an energy addition, drainage flows the flow at the discharge dissipatating device shall from Rice Canyon into point,energy dissipatators be provided in order to Walker Canyon on-site, are required to prevent protect the existing then flows west to the erosion of the stream bed. stream bed of Walker Prado flood Control Basin. Some improvements Canyon Creek, if The City of Lake Elsinore (minimal)to Walker Canyon necessary. General Plan designates a Creek are anticipated small portion of the site adjacent to the proposed near Walker Canyon as commercial area to prevent "flood plain and flood channel erosion and to way"• respond to potential flood hazards in this area. Runoff entering the Creek will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use. C. Noise A major noise corridor Construction noise Construction hours will be exists along Interstate 15, represents a short term limited to minimize noise with noise levels directly impact on ambient noise impacts to existing adjacent to 1-15 exceeding levels.Traffic generated by residential development. 70 CNEL.Secondary noise the Alberhill Ranch All on-site residential lots corridors include Riverside Specific plan will result in and dwellings shall be Drive and Lakeshore Drive, substantially increased sound attenuated so as with noise levels exceeding noise levels along on-site not to exceed an exterior 65 CNEL. and off-site roadways. Of standard of 65 dB CNEL the off-site roadway links in outdoor living areas experiencing a noise and an interior standard increase greater than 3 dB, of 45dB CNEL in all only Iwo are adjacent to habitable rooms. The existing residential use: project proponent shall participate in any in-place City off-site highway noise mitigation program, I-2 4 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROJECT IMPACTS: MITIGATION MEASURES: Terra Cotta Road between Nichols and Lakeshore;and Robb Road between Coal and Terra Cotta. Along Terra Cotta Road, the 65 CNEL contour is projected to extend 2 feet past the right-of-way.Along Robb Road,the 65 CNEL contour is projected to extend 49 feet past the right-of-way. On-site lots along Lake Street,Robb Road and Coal Road may experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without mitigation. D. Climate and Air Quality The project site is located Temporary air quality To minimize dust gene- in the South Coast Air impacts will result from ration SCQAMD Rule 403 Basin Quality Management project construction.When requiring watering during District (SCAQMD). The the project is completed grading operations shall Basin has been designated and occupied, the project be adhered to. a nonattainment area for area will be directly ozone, carbon monoxide, affected by: (1) vehicle nitrogen dioxide, total emissions from project suspended particulates and traffic, (2) indirectly in- lead. The closest air fluenced by pollutants em- monitoring station to the itted by power generation site is in Perris. plants which serve the project in the South Coast Basin. Projected total emissions will increase existing subregional em- issions by 10.7%-23.3% within Source Receptor 25. The balanced land uses proposed by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan will allow residents to satisfy their recreational,commer- cial and educational needs within the project bound- ary,thereby reducing resi- dents' reliance on motor vehicles. Bicycle/Pedes- trian paths are provided between land uses. Air quality impacts are consid- ered a significant adverse impact of the project. i-3 5 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROJECT IMPACTS: MITIGATION MEASURES: E.Wildlife and Vegetation Native coastal sage scrub Project implementation will An erosion control plan vegetation is found over require the removal of shall be prepared for all the sleeper hillsides on- vegetation on approximately development areas site. Coastal sage scrub 1,300 acres of the site, draining into Temescal supports a moderate which will destroy wildlife Creek. Any modification diversity of wildlife. habitats as well.However, to the Creek will require Several bird species were the Alberhill Ranch permits from the observed foraging within Specific Plan retains 531 Department of Fish and the coastal sage scrub, acres of open space, Game and the U.S. Fish including raptorial birds. permanently preserving and Wildlife Service. Relatively large areas of sensitive riparian habitats Revegetation of slopes introduced grassland are along Temescal Creek, shall utilize native found on the more gentle avoiding impacts to the species.As the SKR is on southfacing hillsides of the least bells vireo. the Federal Endangered site, replacing native Development in areas Species List, project communities following presently occupied by the development will require a dryland farming. Native SKR will eliminate existing permit from the U.S.Fish species have been replaced populations of the species. and Wildlife Service. An with adventitious "weedy' The three sensitive plant Assessment Study shall be species. Introduced grass- species known to exist on undertaken regarding the land supports a limited the southwestern flank of potential existence of the diversity of wildlife. The Alberhill Mountain will be three sensitive plant riparian/freshwater marsh removed by project species believed to exist vegetation complex forms a development, resulting in on the southwestern flank continuous border along the loss of sensitive of Alberhill Mountain_ most of Temescal Creek, resources potentially varying in width from 30' occurring here. These to 1001. This habitat impacts are considered supports abundant and 'significant'. diverse wildlife habitats. These habitats serve as wildlife dispersion corridors important to regional wild- life populations. A Stephens' kangaroo rat trapping program deter- mined that the SKR (an endangered species)occurs on-site. The endangered least bells vireo may also be present on-site along Temescal Creek.There are three sensitive plant species believed to exist on the southwesterly flank of Alberhill Mountain on-site (Allium fimbriatutn var munzii.Dudlevamulticaulis andHarnagonella almeri). I-4 6 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROJECT IMPACTS_ MITIGATION MEASURES: F. Land Use All but eight acres of the Project approval will result The preparation of the 1,853 acre Alberhill Ranch in the annexation of 2,667 Alberhill Ranch Specific Specific Plan and all of the acres into the City of Lake Plan complies with the 822 acre Annexation Area Elsinore. On-site land use City of Lake Elsinore are currently located in within the Annexation Area General Plan designation unincorporated Riverside will not be altered by and it contains special County,within the Sphere project approval, as no land use and design of Influence of the City of development is proposed. controls that are not Lake Elsinore.Clay mining Proposed prezoning available when land activities were conducted designations within the develops on a tract by on the Specific Plan site Nichols Road/Terra Cotta tract basis. Adequate for the past 100 years, Road portion of the school facilities,parks and thought they were recently Annexation Area include 45 open space, circulation, discontinued.The 822 acre acres of R-1 zoning, etc. are provided, as are Annexation Area is allowing 270 d.u. and 71 design guidelines, site composed of five physically acres of R-S, allowing 36 planning criteria,etc.No separate areas to the d.u. The rest of the additional mitigation for north, west and south of Annexation Area is pro- impacts to land use are the Specific Plan site,The posed for designation as recommended. area is largely vacant, 'SPA",Specific Plan Area. though some residences For the Alberhill Ranch exist in the Nichols Specific Plan site, project Road/Terra Cotta Road approval will result in a area. The majority of the 'Specific Plan"designation Specific Plan site and some on the City General Plan of the Annexation Area is and the construction of designated for "Mineral 3,70S d.u. on 896 acres of Resources" on the County the site, 531 acres of open of Riverside Open Space space, 254 acres of and Conservation Map. commercial use, 30 acres Portions of the site and parks and 50 acres of Annexation Area are de- school/park sites. A gross signated 'Areas Not De- density of approximately 2 signated as Open Space and d.u./acre is achieved by the "Mountainous".Surrounding proposed Specific Plan, land use include clay which is comparable to the mining activities to the residential densities west of the site,near Lake immediately adjacent to the Street interchange. To the site. In the extreme north and east,where terr- southern portion of the ain is steeper, is primarily site, 169 acres are vacnat land with rural res- designated 'Rural idential uses. Residential Residential' (2 d.u./ac.), development has recently which is compatible with occurred immediately south the very low density and west of the project residential uses existing site. off-site east of Terra COtta Road. I-5 7 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT IMPACTS MITIGATION ME SA URES G. Population and Housing The City of Lake Elsinore Utili2ing the factors No mitigation measures had a 1988 population of established by the City of are recommended for the 12,800. SCAG GMA-1 Lake Elsinore for park increased housing and Baseline Projections call dedication requirements,a population generated by for a 20I0 population of population of 11,841 the project. Mitigation 45,597 within 20,739 d.u. persons would be generated measures relative to the Central Riverside had a by the Alberhill Ranch increased demand for 1988 population of 237,100, Specific Plan.A population service as a result of the with a projected population of 1,114 persons would be annexation request are of 581,400 for the year generated within the discussed in Section IV. 2010. portions of the Annexation M., Public Facilities and Area propsed for pre- Services. zoning as R-1 and R-S. The resulting 12,955 population represents a 100% increase to the 1988 City population; however, SCAG GMA-1 Baseline Projections are not exceeded. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan also proposed 254 acres of commercial use,creating an estimated 3,097 jobs for project and area residents, enhancing the job/housing balance in the region. H, Energy Resources Since the termination of The Alberhill Ranch The Architectural clay mining activities on- Specific Plan will create a Guidelines for the site, the project site demand for 749,200 cubic Alberhill Ranch Specific consumes little or no feet of natural gas per day Plan requires that future energy. and 182.946 kwh of development comply with electricity per day.The306 several measures relating units which could be to energy conservation, accommodated within the R-I and R-S zoning of the annexation area will consume 67,983 cubic feet of natural gas and 6,000 kwh of electricity. I-6 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 I. Aesthetics The 1,853-acre Alberhill Implementation of the The Specific Plan proposes Ranch site is traversed by Alberhill Ranch Specific land uses, standards and a major ridgeline located Plan will permanently alter design guidelines which west of and parallel to I- the nature and appearance mitigate visual impacts of 15, so that the primary of the site through grading project development. No appearance of the site from and development.Approxi- additional mitigation areas to the east is one of mately 531 acres of the m e a s u r e s a r e undeveloped hillsides and site will remain as open recommended. open space. Within the space, encompassing the interior of the site, the significant ridgeline located natural terrain has been west of and parallel to (- extensively altered by clay 15, as well as the riparian mining activities over the vegetation associated with past 100 years,resulting in Temescal Creek.No grading large pits, access roads, is proposed within this de-silting ponds, etc. area;therefore appearances Significant topographic of the site from portions features in the southern of 1-15 will not be portion of the site also impacted by project shield the interior of the development. Project site from view. The site's approval will significantly appearance is also improve the appearance of influenced by the riparian the mined area on-site. In habitat found along addition,the Specific Plan Temescal Creek on-site, contains Development Standards and Design Guidelines which regulate future development within the project. J. Historic and Prehistoric Resources One previously recorded Project grading could For archaeological archaeological site is result in the destruction of resources, data collection present on-site and two known and unknown on- for site one shall be now sites were located site archaeological and performed and data during survey activities. paleontological resources, collection/testing program One new site supported a without proper mitigation. shall be perforated for short-term use such as All known sites will be site two.An archaeologist stone tool manufacture. directly impacted by shall be contacted if any Site two appears to be a development. The mining cultural resources are male-oriented flaking historical site will be found during grading. station. One historical site removed as a result of Samples shall be collected is located on-site, project development; from known sites prior to consisting of remnant however,its recordation is project grading. Grading mining activities of Pacific adequate mitigation. in the sediments of the Sewer Pipe,possibly dated Silverado, Pauba and 1890. Five previously- Older Alluvium shall be recorded paleontological monitored full time to sites were identified and permit the collection of two new localities were specimens. found. I-7 9 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT IMPACTS MMGATIONMEASURES Fossils of several species were recovered within the Silverado Formation,which has a high paleontologic sensitivity. K. Mineral Resources Clay has been mined on- Project development will An amendment to a site for the past 100 years, preclude future use of the previously-approved though Pacific Clay site for clay extraction; Reclamation Plan for the Products recently however,this use has been mined area must be terminated mining on-site found to be economically reviewed and approved by because it became infeasible. The Specific the City and/or the State economically infeasible. Plan proposal would Mining Board. Clay mining has severely eliminate the State MRZ altered the natural zone from the site. The topography on mined area of the site will approximately 500 acres of require "reclamation' in the site. Portions of the order to accommodate the clay deposits on-site have project. been classified by the State Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ-2, Significant Mineral Deposits. In response to State MRZ zoning, the County of Riverside General Plan designates the site for 'Mineral Resources"use. L. Circulation Roadways that will be The Alberhill Ranch Improve Lake St.between utilized by the project Specific Plan proposes an Coal Rd, and I-15 to an include 1-15, Lake St., on-site circulation system Arterial;improve Coal Rd. Robb Rd.,Nichols Rd.,Coal which implements the between Lake St. and Rd., Terra Cotta Rd., Riverside county and City Terra Cotta Rd. to a Collier Ave.,Lakeshore Dr., of Lake Elsinore Major, improve Nichols Lincoln St. and Riverside Circulation Elements.Bike Rd.between Coal Rd.and Dr.All intersections in the trails,pedestrian walkways the project boundary east vicinity of the site operate and an equestrian/hiking of I-15 to a Major; at a Level of Service C or trail are also proposed.The improve Robb Rd. to an better for existing p.m. project will generate 80,070 Arterial between Coal Rd. peak hour condition,except external trips and 576.500 and Lakeshore Dr, and for the intersection of miles of travel per day.All improve Terra Cotta Rd. Machado St. at Lakeshore intersections but one in to a Modified Secondary Dr., which needs the project area are between Nichols Rd.and signalization. projected to operate at Lakeshore Dr.Intersection I-8 10 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT I1vIPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Service (LOS) C geometric&recommended or better in the p.m. peak by the Traffic Study hour, with proposed should be implemented. improvements. For future For existing plus project traffic conditions with area traffic conditions, traffic wide growth and signals are warranted at surrounding development 10 intersections. plus the project, all intersections but one in the vicinity of the site will operate at LOS C or better. To achieve LOS C at all intersections, Lake St. should be upgraded to an urban arterial between F IS and Coal Road. M. Public Facilities and Services The project area is There are presently no fire The project will be provided services by the stations within the required required to satisfy City following agencies: Fire response time for the and County Fire Depart- protection - California proposed Category II urban ment standards for fire Dept. of Forestry and development, though the stations. A Mello-Roos Riverside County Fire City of Lake Elsinore may District may be formed to Dept; Police protection- be acquiring a site on pay for certain project Riverside County Sheriff Lincoln St., north of expenses.The project will Dept.; Schools - Lake Machado which would be be subject to school Elsinore and Elsinore Union capable of providing an impact fees imposed by High School Districts; acceptable level of service. AB 2926. All conditions Parks and Recreation- Project implementation will pertaining to water and Lake Elsinore Recreational result in the need for 22 wastewater requirements and Park District; additional deputies in order as specified by the Electricity - Southern to achieve the desired Elsinore Valley Municipal California Edison;Natural officer/resident ratio.The Water Dist. shalt be Gas - Southern California Alberhill Ranch project followed. In order to Gas Co.; Telephone- would generate an conserve water, the General Telephone; Solid estimated 2,224 students project shall comply with Waste- County Dept. of and proposes two 15-acre Title 20 of the Calif. Waste Management. elementary school and one Admin. Code. Park lands 20-acre junior high school shall be provided in sites.The Alberhill Ranch accordance with City of Specific Plan and the 306 Lake Elsinore Ordinance units which could be 85-34. Building energy accommodated within the conservation shall be R-1 and R-S portions of achieved by compliance the Annexation Area would with Title 24 of the Calif. result in a 2.973 average Admin.Code.The Specific day and 5.776 MOD maxi- Plan includes guidelines mum day demand for water. for provision of trash collection stations. I-9 11 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES A water distribution system is proposed to serve the project area. Portions of the site would have to be served by the 1900.5 pressure zone system, which has no facilities at this time and will require a regional pump station,lines and storage reservoirs. Total average daily flows of 1.3893 MGD of sewage are anticipated.To provide sewage facilities, the master planned treatment plant westerly of Temescal Road must be constructed, although an interim plan is available for a portion of the project, utilizing the existing Cheney Street facility. The project will create a demand for 5833 acres of recreation facilities, per City Resolution 85-34. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan proposes a total of 80 acres of schools and parks, including a 30-acre Community Park, The project proposes a 14' equestrian/hiking trail from Nichols Road north through the open space,providing a connection to Lake Street for future off-site recreational uses as part of the County Park Depart- ment's proposed trail system. The project will create a demand for 182,946 kwh of electricity per day and 1,140,581 c.f. of natural gas per month. The project will generate 46 tons of solid waste per day,shortening the life of the Double Butte and El Sobrante Disposal sites. I-10 12 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview of the Alberhill Specific Plan Area Entitlements and Governmental Activities Affecting the Land Uses The original baseline Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan No. 89-2 ("Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan") was approved and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") SCH #88090517 was certified by the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City") on August 8, 1989. These City actions zoned the Specific Plan area which was annexed on May 5, 1990 as part of a larger 2,667-acre annexation area. The City also adopted amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Element and zoning code as a result of these entitlement actions. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) covers approximately 1,853 acres generally bisected by the Nichols Road, and Terra Cotta Road, and bordered by Interstate 15 on the east and north, and Lake Street on the west. (See Exhibit 1 — Regional Map, Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map of 400.3 acre VTTM No. 35001, Exhibit 3 — Aerial Vicinity Map), and Exhibit 4 - Location Map and VTTM No. 35001). 13 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 1 - Regional Map RIVERSIDE BANNING CORONA TO PALM SPRINGS O r�1 ORANGE COUNTY Lake Matthews PROJECT SITE * t., LAKE -� ELSINORE Lake Elsinore RANCHO CALIFORNIA TO SAN DIEGO 14 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 2 — Vicinity Map of 400.3 Acre VTTM No. 35001 t.ycsr�: q CQRONA ti RW� 6ME O R0. �S tio�� RIVE�S�DE O,Q VICINITY MA) 15 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 w _ } HORSETH/EF t` r LBERH/LL R/L7GE� �-� : • ALBERH/LL VIZ LAGES VTTM 35001 - *� f 1400 14C � -"00.1C l CLYAItEhY,Y4L PRa/ECT r ti, Exhibit 3 - �'.. -� COTTA Aerial Vicinity Ma a ERN/ L RAIVCN _ ALB L Y p TIPACT 28214 C/TY OF LAKE ELS/NORE, 16 . - 60 ;v, `� �,�4�►O' !fi' e►. ►1 u� c*\��'�, 83 s�q�.► ,. �, x a� � Q�;11 �QA_..Q� ia 'a�;ti '- '`��� � �]�` a� •�.�p����75t�BQy ®�ji,h,��i'�' ,_ _ _ -. _ ��'��Bd��E''��Q��'�ll�� PIC sue.? A rr'.�r�\� 949�a \V �QY H�. ��, AK VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area originally consisted of three ownerships: Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership; Brighton Alberhill Associates; and Long Beach Equities, and proposed 3,705 dwelling units, 254 acres of commercial use, 531 acres of open space, 30 acres of park, and 50 acres of school/park sites. Please refer to the following land use exhibit from the ARSP, Exhibit 5. 18 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 5 — Original 1989 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan No. 89-2 (ARSP) ............................... • ............. EXHIBIT 1 Land Use Plan �U I `-SP usp LEGEND UWYIIng C-P Land Ur.. Await OanYly U.N. RR RUmI 14-iftwa, IStl IJ illl of 04 �;�'ao. RCO Skypa-Falyly ll.suNn11Y ITT IU•WAU NIP 1 C-SP� 1•~ »-R ""_�_y R-SF Silgl.-Fmmly llNwbnlllll 100 IJ.11lw 1900 ...................................................... R-M Sinya-F-wy 11-i wo. 'A IU-tu An 507 Cs Spy C qpe�t SPAS R-J MWI14-11y 11—iMnllnl III to ,.NMI 120 -S C-I Neg"taxl l'...nl-n.IAI Il aN / C-H NIOlIWay GunnlwciY- n1 JHS °!• 'C-SP Ctlmlw taimIu:w I.I., :00 N: /P JH9 Jurkar HIOh d;lwul 70 a.e / � ES/P gm Eanlaly Schnd/PAIN :10 � `+ Owl Sllatla 531 Roads Da $� TOTAL tQ53 AC aloe ou '.t R. ! 4 � ` 1� 1 R-T qI Sinpa-Fnmlly Ii.v1lmllul •1'I f�NJ R��`` R ' ^— la.- /OH/••. y.I Residential Eslal- 11 AcS �^a„ J .•.r-. .� 9PAb Spa01110 Plan A— Residential Ik �intl OS e+ OPen 9lalq :0 •11 R "\a0, NS nSCF sER'iC n,Ic \ Oo SP TOTAL 022 R. 1Rjr CT 'F LrWD USE DESIONUMS WIIIW.WRIIAHIM It"Ilk BUT WtS1 sc 0E ALOEIMILL RANCIT snIcPC mm In!• .'• •, >eP L /,, '�"��:-�q F. •�r.mm..wWr.nm.•m.nn.� y rk INCLUDES B ACMS WIININ CITY OI LOE EL4IMAIE n Ac R-1y� aamwrlY cunrueNnY ilxrEO D-Ia \ K N-sP T 1 R- RS e R-1'k - '� AlberhillRanch ►Roo {-}� 19 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 In 1991, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was amended by Brighton Homes of Orange County to separate a 998-acre area from the ARSP area and redesign an entirely different Specific Plan (sub area) out of the original 1,853 acre Specific Plan area. The amendment became known as the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 (Brighton ARSP #1). It was the intent of the City in approving this Specific Plan Amendment #1 to add dwelling units and permit development of a maximum of 2,735 residential units, incorporating the first 18-hole championship golf course inside the City, and 89 acres in three locations of a Suburban Villages which would be mixed uses of commercial shopping, office and higher density residential opportunities, including affordable housing. The Specific Plan Amendment #1 area shares a common boundary of Nichols Road and the common corner with Lake Street, including a common collector Road (Alberhill Ranch and Ridge Road) with the adjacent Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. The ARSP #1 provides for smaller public parks, compared to the original SP, as an open space/park trade off for the adjoining 34 acre, now 22.4 acre, Murdock Alberhill Ranch Community Park at the corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road and for the 144-acre Golf Course-Open Space area newly added to the Specific Plan area in 1991 . Please refer to the following ARSP #1 Land Use Plan, Exhibit 6. The ARSP #1 City entitlements included a Development Agreement (D.A.) approved on July 11, 1990 and D.A. Amendment #1 approved on September 10, 1991 that vested the development's rights and terms for 15 years or until July 11, 2005. The original D.A. secured the development rights for 2,235 residential dwelling units, 2,722,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses, open space and related uses. The parties to the D.A. include the City of Lake Elsinore and Brighton Alberhill Associates and their assigns. The D.A. and Amendment #1 was supplemented on September 10, 1991 with a General Plan Amendment to the Lake Elsinore General Plan by Resolution No. 91-67 and ARSP Amendment No.1, which by Resolution No. 91-68 on August 27, 1991, increased the number of allowable dwelling units to 2,735 on 998 acres shown in ARSP #1 and the D.A. Amendment #1 detailed the development timing of the proposed golf course and alternate actions if the golf course was not built. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the County and City, some 13 years following the ARSP #1 and "Brighton" D.A. adoption and within the 15 year term of the D.A. (July 11, 2005). The MSHCP adoption by the City had the effect of "de facto" modifying the Specific Plan land uses and D.A. directed fees by removing certain development areas and replacing them with permanent open space pursuant to MSHCP criteria cell and cell group descriptions, and, according to the new VTTM No. 35001 owner, Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., arguably, "staying" or stopping the development agreement terms from expiring, on the date the MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003. The effect of the MSHCP on the ASRP #1 was to effectively modify the plan's residential, commercial and open space/golf course areas by placing large amounts of the Specific Plan area into MSHCP open space conservation and with a levy of new MSHCP development fees, contrary to the D.A., over the remaining areas outside 20 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 6 — 1991 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 (ARSP #1) Legend Single Family Residential I District(SFR I)(5 du/acre maximum density) --- 5,000Sq.Ft.Min Lot Stu Single Family Residential II — I District(SFR ll)(6 du/acre maximum density J 4,MO Sq.FI.Mln t-ot Sim � Gott Couna! 0 A1Z High Density Multiple Famil _ Residential District(HDMFR} l \ (30du/acre maximum density) Suburban Village(Mixed Residential, SFR a SFR 1 12mmemial and Related Macs) 191 A— Golf Acm •`•. Golf Course/Open Space Suburban Alberilill Ranch vm.6e I I Specific Plan Area le Arrrr 1t Acre. / ! �•� S.P.A.#1 Area o� \ Notes: 1-mMFR .1 In.m.nl...e with lie Might—Alh.rhal 011h.sold mi t of J wrlhnr.unit.Al—I 5A— • ^ Ikv.lap—I A gm,mt up la 47M,Jwclling within it,SFR II I W*i,Ihere.hall he nn ` unlb.nJup tr.z"lEZ.500 swwre lrtl.d Iex than nal.nJ nu mass lMny200.1 ling nd-yb.J.ndcumm ilhi I unlb....minlmun sal M.c al/.'.IW. Ical ` � yramme..1, ya.rt , 7 u.a•.mry be Jwelop�wllhln the Hnybinn "---- ----' `,� - Alberhill lhvelopment S.fi,nl,cbl..nJ rtllplau.in.Mlulf..n um..rt / ------ - _ prnnitled us.wahln the SFR I.SFRII,talk" cq^T the 1,41 numbercl dweII snub.11—W and Surt-..Vill."didnA. 1q�{ wllhln Ih.4,all na.k..lluo/.MI.mI no sort than S30Jwelling unlb.hdl be (:.It cmin..vd,.nJ.•pm.pace umn.rt n - ' d.velnped nn 1.1,.0,,0aD.qu.rt IM each p—a.d—.wllhln lb.SPR I and SPR II dutn --- and p.rk.nj npm.pace n.c..rt pclmfll.d un wllhln Ih.IIIIMI'.>t1.nl Salhnrbm VJl.ge duu-. d a 100a WW WOODCREST fIL.BERHU-L. o a DEVELOPMENT.INC tpedllc plan amendlnenl ll 6 Land Use Plan 21 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 the newly designated Criteria Cell and Cell Group locations. The ARSP #1 area owners (Brighton, and successor in interest Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc.,) had previously made, through the ARSP #1 and the accompanying D.A. and D.A. 1st Amendment, land use open space and fee trade-offs with the City in exchange for open space preservation, a golf course, and a 34-acre community park, all on approximately 180 acres of open space/park. The County and City adopted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program in 2004 prior to the termination date of the Brighton D.A. of July 11, 2005. This new program also added new fees not contemplated in the D.A. and D.A. 1 St Amendment. The following D.A. bullet point analysis provides a comparison between TUMF fees and MSHCP fees under the ARSP # 1 (Brighton): • "Fees, conditions and dedications. Developer shall make only those dedications and pay only those fees expressly prescribed in this Agreement, the Existing Development Approvals, and subsequent Development Approvals, provided that such fees are imposed on a city- wide basis." (Brighton D.A., §9.5.) Under the Brighton D.A., only fees expressly prescribed in the Brighton D.A. are permitted. Accordingly, new fees (generally) are prohibited by the D.A. • "Future tentative maps, specific plan amendments and development impact fees. Developer will be subject to conditions as a result of tentative map review or specific plan amendments and to any development impact fees that may be adopted by City on a city-wide basis." (Brighton D.A., §9.5 (4).) City-wide Development Impact Fees (DIF) are contemplated by the Brighton D.A. as an exception to the general prohibition against new fees — or fees that are not expressly prescribed in the Brighton D.A. TUMF and MSHCP fees do not fall within the category of "development impact fees that may be adopted by the City on a City-wide basis." Three major distinctions exist between the TUMF and MSHCP fees and a fee imposed on a City-wide basis: (1) the establishment of the MSHCP is based upon fundamental "regional" concepts and applies County-wide; (2) the MSHCP is fundamentally a Federal law process applied at a local level and it provides "take" authority under both the Federal and State Endangered Species 22 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Acts (e.g., the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and EIR reflect that the MSHCP is modeled after the Natural Communities Conservation Plan), and; (3) TUMF and MSHCP fees are not imposed on a City-wide basis where properties are not equally assessed. Comparatively, the City DIF is applied exclusively by, and at the discretion of the City, and applied equitably among property and is therefore imposed on a City-wide basis. • "Development Projects which are the subject of a Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et seq. prior to the effective date of this ordinance, if new fees are expressly prohibited, provided, however that, if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance, the TUMF shall be imposed. (See City TUMF Ordinance §4.F.v.) Because the Brighton D.A. was executed prior to the effective date of the TUMF Ordinance, it is exempt from TUMF fees. The MSHCP Resolutions and Ordinances pertaining to the MSHCP fee do not contain the same explicit exemption for Development Agreements, as does TUMF. Because the Brighton D.A. is being "tolled" in accordance with State law governing development agreements and changes imposed on the project area and D.A. by State and Federal laws, the term of the Brighton D.A. would be extended, restated and amended for purposes of the limitation of the exemption. TUMF and MSHCP fees are "new fees" that are not prescribed or contemplated by the Brighton D.A. and are therefore prohibited by the Brighton D.A. This MSHCP conservation land use changes, MSHCP fees, and new County-wide transportation fees were not contemplated in the Specific Plan or the Development Agreement. There is a body of development agreement law in California that stipulates when outside effects by the city or other public agencies makes the achievement of the Specific Plan and the D.A. terms impossible or by de facto governmental entitlement actions modifies the Specific Plan, the net affect is to stop, or toll, the term from running out as of the date of the subsequent governmental actions which modified or otherwise affected the Specific Plan and Development Agreement terms. This tolling of the D.A. term, by state law, permits the public agency, (City of Lake Elsinore), to take whatever time and legal action the two (2) 23 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 parties to the D.A. deem acceptable to rectify the D.A. contract and other related entitlement documents and actions, in view of these intervening actions (MSHCP/TUMF, in this project case the restatement and amendment to the D.A). TOLLING OF BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ARSP #1 The California Development Agreement Statute as set forth at California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. recognizes that unexpected circumstances or subsequent governmental actions, laws, policies, etc., may interfere with the compliance of the provisions of a development agreement. Post-enactment of law and regulation can affect the ability to implement a development plan, and thus, requires that a development agreement be modified or suspended. In particular, Government Code Section 65869.5 states that: "In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement, such provisions of the agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state and federal laws or regulations." While, the City-adopted MSHCP is a locally implemented regional plan, it is also founded upon and implements the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP only has authority for conservation under Federal and State law. This local (County/City) implementation of a Federal law is not unlike the California Regional Water Quality Control Board implementing the Federal Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 402. With the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issuance of a Biological Opinion and incidental take permit being a prerequisite to effectuating the MSHCP, the MSHCP is "state or federal law or regulation" pursuant to the D.A. State law. California Government Code Section 65869.5 establishes a mandatory modification or suspension requirement when subsequent State or Federal law prohibits compliance with any provision of a development agreement. According to the VTTM applicant's, Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., failure to address the mandatory modification or suspension requirement of Section 65869.5, results in a strong argument for tolling the term of the Development Agreement on the VTTM No. 35001 project area and require the City Council to revisit the D.A. in light of the MSHCP effects. Government Code Section 65869.5 provides the opportunity to extend the term of the Brighton (Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc.) Development Agreement and allow the City Council to consider a functional term that will allow Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., as the subsequent owner of the Brighton property, to exercise its acquired vested development rights underlying VTTM No. 35001. Following the Brighton Specific Plan Amendments and D.A. adoption, in 1992, the adjacent land owner, Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested an 24 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 7 - 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (MARSP) Exhibit 10 ! ��• ES/P C-SP t Sc'Is sollPark I I.V-.W-s„a_ y IlLllnc,rlcl S.Il ac.rw•In 16.7 ae.gmm S.N as;.gn �•� ....' ••� �' School os••`. R-3 �, Private Park 7.9 n•.net P Recreation 1 Community9Aac.gr v eo D. Facility I Park 2.7 D. JAC. `• I..ac.gmss ` 5 •`� ' 34.0 aC.groan j •` ' IF x1:R�gmss •� ! 75:�i g- 1� - I 124 D.U. C-I 252. net 3A J D.U.Ac. I 4.0 D.UJAc. ` DU .2(R-3" '' isac. 'A2 c.t-, RSF R-M t4 Private ' 631Sae.8mas 50.0ac.gm» I Dwelling Recreation ; s 256 D.U. 170 D.U. land Use Acres Density Units FAR Sq.H. Facility __ 4,0 D.UJAc. 3A D.U./Ac. 2.3 ac,gn>sa C (R-SF)Single Family Residential 258.3 3.8 975 IR..re, (R-M)Single Family Residential 80.6 3.6 294 .. .. .._ In.2 ac.nei B Y �.�- 11.2 as.gm. (R-3) MultHamily Residential 9.4 19.1 180 42.6xc•.gmas RSF ! (C-1/Neighborhood Com.nercial 15.4 24.0" 370" 0.50 335,412 163 D.U. 2l 9 ac.gram R-3) 3.8 D.U./Ac. 83 D.U. R$F I (C-SP)Commercial-Specl@ Plan 16.9 2.00 1,472,328 i 3.8 D.UJAc. 34.4 ac•.grms (ES/P)Elementary School/Park 22.5 os I 215 D.U. �s 411 D.UJAc 1P) Park 34.0 105) Open Space 41.9 �S os ' Roads 25.1 • Irr Private Parks 35 Tank Site 35.8ec, gross •• - Tank Site 3.6 3.6ac.A,- Total 511.4 2.8 1,449 1.807,740 3.5" 1,819" © "figures Reflect Muki-famly Development Option. 835, 1670' Land Use Plan MURDOCK ALBERHILL RANCH LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 46 25 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 amendment to its 511-acre portion ("Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan") of the previously approved Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, (See Exhibit 7, above). This separate Murdock ownership, adjacent to the Brighton ownership, held within the original 1,853 Specific Plan area, like Brighton, separated the 511-acre area out of the original 1,853 Specific Plan area with the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Plan's 2nd Amendment, its own D.A. and its separate accompanying CEQA Addendum. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (MARSP) proposed a number of minor technical revisions and modifications to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 land use plan, circulation plan, phasing plan, zoning standards, and design guidelines, and proposed a maximum of 1,819 residential dwelling units in various land use categories, an elementary school, open space, private recreational, public community park uses (shared with the ARSP #1 for open space credit) and commercial uses. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area is divided into three general planning areas: residential, commercial and schools/parks. Please refer to the following MARSP land use plan, Exhibit 7. At the time the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan entitlement was undertaken in 1992, the City, pursuant to Public Resources Code CEQA § 21166 and 14 California Code of Regulations CEQA §§ 15162 and 151632, determined that a supplemental EIR was not required because changes proposed to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan did not have potentially significant environmental effects different from those analyzed as part of the original Alberhill Ranch Final EIR. The impacts were determined to the same as or reduced from that analyzed in the original ARSP EIR. As a result, the City prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164, and adopted in June 1992, an Addendum to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR ("EIR Addendum #11"). The EIR Addendum #II noted only minor technical revisions and modifications to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and concluded that no new significant environmental effects were identified and no new mitigation measures were proposed or necessary. In March of 1997, the project applicant, Horizon Group, Inc., requested approval of a Specific Plan Amendment #3 (following Brighton 998 acres and Murdock 511 acres) for the eastern 202-acre portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area, north of the 1-15 and is bisected by Nichols Road. On June 10, 1997, ARSP Amendment #3 was approved by the City of Lake Elsinore providing additional phases of outlet center commercial uses as an extension to the existing Lake Elsinore Outlet Center located along Collier Avenue across the freeway, along with providing general commercial uses and open space. In accordance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to evaluate those land uses with the Specific Plan Amendment #3 area. See Exhibit 8, below, for the ARSP #3 Plan area. 2 For the Purposes of this Addendum, Public Resources Code§§ 21000 et seq., will be referred to as the California Environmental Quality Act or"CEQA" for short. Additionally, 14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq., the State implementing Guidelines for CEQA, will be referred to as"the CEQA Guidelines." 26 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 8 — 1997 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3 (ARSP #3) x J1 COUNT`( OF RIVERSIDE 2Ar',3 ,. I >� CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ss v t� � w (HILLSIDE) Z O ` N N O' J l w 1\� w � Q 0 Z \� ,\CNo`5 11111 RD U o AD V ant LIS KE ELLSIN $� �^ '�.�i, .••�\ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '�Ol7fLE��cR • '6o�e AREA ACREAGE LAND USE BUILDING AREA AREA'A' t20 Acres OS(Open Space) 0 SF `\v `\�• AREA'B' 32 Acres C—SP(Commercial—Specific Won) 340,000 SF AREA'C' 50 Acres C—Sp(Commerciol—Specific Plon) 380,000 SF �j TOTAL 202 Acres 720,000 S.F. *Land Use Plan Exhibit 2 YLT-ITI Alberhill Ranch Specific ]flan Amendment *3 No kale 27 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 In October of 2003, the project applicant, Murdock Development Company, on behalf of Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested approval of another third Addendum to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR ("EIR Addendum #III") for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'s ("VTTMs") 30836 (Hoist) and 28214 (Ranch). The EIR Addendum #III described two VTTMs. VTTM No. 30836 for 208 lots, 1 private park, school and 1 park site; and VTTM No. 28214 for 970 single family lots, 3 private parks and a public park, all as shown on Exhibit 9. On January 13, 2004, Addendum #III was adopted (Resolution No. 2004-9) and was found complete and adequate by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's environmental analysis procedures. Subsequent to the January 13, 2004 approval, an Administrative EIR Addendum #1 to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was approved by the City on December 27, 2005 and a Specific Plan Amendment #11 was approved by the City Council on November 25, 2008 along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2008-12. As of September 2012, there are three (3) Tentative Maps within Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan: VTTM Nos. 28214, 30836, and 35773. Subsequent Substantial Conformance Maps were prepared for both VTTM Nos. 28214 and 30836. VTTM No. 28214 consists of 913 SF home sites, 25.6 acres of multi-family sites, a 22.4-acre Community Park along with various private parks, an elementary school site and a community swimming center. VTTM No. 30836 consists of 280 single-family home sites, a 4.6- acre public park and a private park. In 2009, VTTM No. 35773 was approved for 72 Single Family home sites. VTTM No. 35773 is located within the boundaries of VTTM No. 30836. See Exhibit 9 below showing the recorded phasing map for VTTM Nos. 28214, 30836 and 35773. VTTM No. 28214 is currently shown to be developed in 18 recording phases. As of September 2012, five (5) phases have been recorded at the County Recorder's office. 28 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 9 — 2004 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum III for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'s (VTTMs) 30836 and 28214 �>6 TRACT 28214-8 MULTI FAMILY TRACT 30836-2 : 92 LOTS,SC TRACT 28214-9 = •� COMMERCIAL �rcu orsamav J nnrzwr+r a owr/evw '"��'� e�s3T.B.sl9iled14'� em nawrr nw wrr FLF-1 1 RAC — use rRmum�ce ARMfl�e1' O USTIf!C OKf -' ..W bA ' O m IOR .. � �reRw. �swd`� .,....,.� PHASING EXHIBIT �r v T Mie �Ii4 n&30836 29 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 In 2004, the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was adopted for all areas throughout western Riverside County, including the City of Lake Elsinore and the 1,853 ARSP areas, including the ARSP three Amendment areas. The MSHCP covers the ASRP #1 area and includes essentially an environmental land use overlay program converting, in many cases, urban land uses to permanent open space and imposing additional fees on areas devoted to development. Murdock/Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. ownerships at the time of MSHCP adoption were excluded from the MSHCP pursuant to litigation and a legal settlement agreement. These MSHCP excluded ownerships did not include the Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. 400.3-acre ARSP # 1 area that is the subject of VTTM No. 35001 due to it's acquisition following approval of the legal settlement agreement. The MSHCP, as previously noted, is fundamentally a "de facto" land use entitlement "permit" process; which, when completed through a habitat acquisition process, allows applicants, public or private groups, to "take, harm or harass" endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) program, usually, in exchange for open space land and/or money. This MSHCP 10(a) take permission was agreed to by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in exchange for setting aside long term conservation areas for protection of an assortment of endangered and non-endangered species and their respective habitats. The MSHCP, covering approximately 146 species, of which most are not listed as federally endangered, is primarily administered by the local land use authority "permittee" — the City or County - depending upon the property location of an applicant's project within Western Riverside County or the incorporated areas, such as Lake Elsinore. Without the USFWS 10(a) Federal "take" permission adopted through the MSHCP there would be no MSHCP program. Throughout the MSHCP process, there is a limited State and Federal Resource and Wildlife Agency oversight with no final discretionary land use authority by the County over the City or Wildlife Agencies over local decisions, except in limited circumstances when the MSHCP requires modification for Criteria Refinement (MSHCP Section 6.5, pp. 6 — 74), or for Minor or Major Amendments (MSHCP Section 6.10, pp. 6-112-6- 115). Only when the City processes criteria refinement or a MSHCP Plan amendment do State and Federal agencies, through the County RCA, (which have otherwise transferred the entirety of their permit authority to the local land use authority Permittee-City of Lake Elsinore), have discretion over local land use decisions. Criteria Refinement is a process that involves modification to the acreage criteria of a particular cell or cell group that requires Wildlife Agency approval to assure that the MSHCP Conservation Goals and Objectives will be achieved with the refinement. To date, the Criteria Refinement procedure of the MSHCP has been sparsely utilized by a local land use authority within Riverside County. Instead, local authority, usually in the County of Riverside, has been exercised in a "creative" manner that avoids the need for Criteria Refinement. The "creativity' usually involves the discretion of local lawmakers to direct staff to interpret the MSHCP, within the confines of the MSHCP, 30 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 so that the more intricate MSHCP Criteria Refinement or Amendment procedures are not exercised. The MSHCP program is intended to streamline the endangered species permit process for both public and private projects at the local government level. The major reason for the new MSHCP endangered species process, according to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, is to accelerate the countywide road building process in order to accept the increasing population growth occurring in Riverside County. The MSHCP, however, was not intended to be another layer of zoning, tract map or conditional use permit entitlement delay and bureaucratic paperwork in attaining "take" permission for endangered species on public and private lands. The MSHCP was meant to replace the more commonly used Section 7 Federal Endangered Species Permit process commonly associated with a Corps of Engineers Section 404 streambed filling or grading permit. However, the MSHCP does not obviate the need to conduct Corps 404 and CDFG 1602 permit reviews for impacts to State and Federal waters. This is the case with VTTM No. 35001 which is governed by the MSHCP program through a separate Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process described in the Tri-Valley Agreements. In 2004, as the MSHCP was being adopted by cities throughout the County, the County entered into a series of open space directed land acquisition agreements with Tri-Valley 1 Group, prior owners of the 998-acre ARSP #1 area which includes the Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. VTTM No. 35001 area. The Tri-Valley three "transactions" or agreements, (1 Acquisition Agreement and 2 Memorandums of Understandings - MOU's), included a sale of 598 acres of the 998-acre ASRP #1 to the County for conservation and included 2 additional Memorandums of Understanding between the County, Tri-Valley 1 partnership and the City of Lake Elsinore to describe the conditions of the sale or transaction. These three agreements essentially constitute a Habitat and Negotiations Program under the MSHCP. The 3 agreements finalized all biology requirements under the MSHCP, CEQA and NEPA. No further biology analysis or mitigation under CEQA is now required for this VTTM No. 35001 or subsequent discretionary actions within the VTTM area according to the agreements. Brief descriptions of the 3 "Tri-Valley 1" agreements covering VTTM No. 35001 are summarized below: • Acquisition Agreement, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County and Tri- Valley Partners. (This Acquisition Agreement is the original "contract" between the County and Tri-Valley 1 for the County's acquisition of 598 acres. This initial agreement does not include the City as a party and sets the terms of the sale and the MSHCP mitigation for the remaining 400.3 VTTM No. 35001 acres). • Memorandum of Understanding, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County, Tri-Valley and the City of Lake Elsinore. (This MOU adds the City of Lake Elsinore as a party to the agreement, clarifies the Acquisition Agreement, and in 31 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 one important area, notes the process to clarify and finalize the boundaries between the 400.3 Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., VTTM No. 35001 and the County 598 acres.) • Addendum to MOU between the County of Riverside, Tri-Valley I, and the City of Lake Elsinore with respect to the 598 acres of property within the City of Lake Elsinore. (This MOU Addendum deals with the application, terms and finalization of the conservation easement to the 598 acre County property once the east-west cross County transportation corridor is finalized and the County transfers their property to the RCA). Payment of an MSHCP fee, provided in the Tri-Valley Acquisition Agreement, completes the MSHCP process, providing "Take" permission of any protected species under the MSHCP and Endangered Species Act over the VTTM No. 35001 area. No additional CEQA biology assessment is required within the VTTM No. 35001 area after payment of the MSHCP fee for subsequent entitlement procedures. This Tri-Valley/County land exchange and fee program, for MSHCP purposes, was not provided for within the ARSP #1 and the Brighton Development Agreement. The City of Lake Elsinore was a party to the two MOU's, but did not amend the Brighton D.A. or ARSP #1 to accommodate the subsequent agreements land use actions. In May of 2006, the project applicant, Pacific Aggregates, a subsidiary of Pacific Clay Products, Inc., prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Nichols Mine Reclamation Plan Permit, within ARSP #3 area for the purpose of temporary extraction of clay and other raw materials within approximately 99 acres of the ARSP #3 211.40- acre site (Nichols Canyon Mine — under Pacific Clay's mining rights covered under Reclamation Plan No. RP-112). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified and the final Reclamation Plan was approved by The City of Lake Elsinore City Council on November 14, 2006. The approved `Mine Plan', Exhibit 10, plus `Mining and Reclamation Plan', Exhibit 11, are shown below and on the following pages. 32 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 10 — 2006 Nichols Canyon Mine Plan for Reclamation CALTRANS SLOPE --- 100,653 SF 1 2.31 AC RECLAMATION SLOPE TOE OF SLOPE— \ LIMITS OF FUTURE W DEVELOPMENT \� a`ribl \ -ADISTURBANCE AREA= 120' WIDE MIN. MR-1 \ 2.353,187 SF \ 54.02 AC \ ` REMAINDER AREA(NO.) ` 2,914,324 SF \\ 66.90 AC MR-2 `\ EXISTING1,336,281 SF NICHOLS RD. 30.68 AC NICHOLS MINING RECLAMATION SUMMARY 68,902 SF _ —— �\ 1.58 AC FUTURE NICHOLS RD. A ww+cam^- areo Cut (OvelLwden) —" 303,100 SF S.F. I Av .r L.Y. T n �tf F(J 6.96 AC MR-1 2,353.187 54.02 6,912,000 114059*000 Rf~~NiCHOL$ ROAO MR-2 1.336,281 30.68 305,000 486.000 NR-3 37'7.184 8.66 364,000 582.400 MR-3 MR MR-4 31,138 20.97 96,276 SF r 217,000 347.200 280.908 SIF ' DISTURBANCE ZONE 171,530 3.94 MR-4 8.45 AC 1.1.131,138 2-2T AC at2ftP REMAINDER AREA NO. Z9141324 66.90 T� 25.96 AC —�.... REMAINDER AREA SO. 452.314 10.36 EXIST.NICHOLS ROAD 68.902 L58 / REMAINDER AREA(SO.) FUTURE NICHOLS ROAD 303,100 6.96 452,314 SF 10.38 AC SUBTOTAL 9,107,980 209.09 7.276.000 11.641.000 522.000 835,200 TRANS SLOPE(OFF-SITE) 100,693 2.31 389,274 622.038 TOTAL 9.208,613 211.40 7.665.274 12.256438 822,000 835,200 PAGfW AtS REV= INC. NICHOLS ROAD SWT �I ENG/NEEHB ,W/NE A&W F1rJJ.9F.T 33 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 11 — 2006 Nichols Canyon Mining and Reclamation Plan MDUNt7n'4-0.a r`L' - —PHASE 1 c&2 2 *ALL AREAS 1-5.• HAS£2O. 10 A 's SITE£XCAVA \ PHASE 4 f7NAL CONTOURING, CLEANUP, WHICH LEADS TO REWGETA7701V c&MONITOR/NG (SEE M. 9 FOR RECLAMATION PLAN) (MR— • PHASE 1: 22 AC. ,\ i SITE EXC4MPON (MR-1) 7MIN. Su — �\ LAYS OF (MR-1) �, RE014M4710N _ �MSE /. U081LIZ477ON v CONT/NU£MINING r SE 3 RA14L EXCAVARON y _ ;.�' �' —"_ �"� ram= r. `•' __ �• N• f3uF — f �,o 1`u - (MR MOB/L/ZA770N � t .PRASE J.• f7NAL EX AI1A �? (MR-4),\9✓°J (MR-4); AN I a l 400 0 400 A•• SCALE.- 1'=400' PACAW AGWMA ,, ,AIG NICHOLS ROAO SITE \I ENGINEERS MINING&RECLAM477ON PLAN m aw.w.'.�ww".'brz in uroa�'iziS:P0"iu,o�"-�ab PNdSFS 1 9.6 -?_ FM.//RF R 34 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 The project applicant, Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., owners of property within the ASRP #1 area, proposes a Vested Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001, as shown below, encompassing an approximate 400.3-acre area, a portion of the overall ASRP Amendment #1, 998 total acres, for 1,056 single family lots, a high density multi-family residential area with 225 units, a 44.4 gross acre lot (32.9 net pad area) Suburban Village mixed use area (using a pro-rated formula to determine the maximum square footage allowed per planning area for commercial/office/light industrial and a percentage ratio for determining a total residential land use ratio), there is a potential of 120 dwelling units of high density residential and 1,358,000 square feet of commercial/office land use), and 10-acres within two (2) public parks. Development of the tract will include 334.4 potential gross acres of single family (SFI & SFII) residential development; and the 6.9-acre public park will be adjacent to a possible alternate use of an Elementary School site of 14.6 gross acres (for 850 students with 77 single family residential lots, 4,200 square feet in size as a residential land use overlaying the school site. With this land use inclusion of an Elementary School, the 77 single family residential lots, could be rearranged through a future Tri- Valley Agreement described Lot-Line Adjustment and Substantial Compliance administrative review or tract map amendment that will allow the 77 lots to be re-lotted into other areas of the single family lot land use area, pursuant to the Tri-Valley MOU's. See page 38 for further discussion on the Lot-Line Adjustment. The 400.3-acre VTTM No. 35001, depicted below, substantially follows the ARSP #1 land use areas noted on the graphic which is taken directly from the adopted ARSP#1 text, Figure 6. For purposes of comparing the ARSP # 1 land use areas to the proposed VTTM No. 35001, the number of dwelling units, the densities, and commercial areas square footage are shown on the graphic. The ARSP#1 land use categories have been given Planning Area (PA) numbers identifying the VTTM nomenclature and location. The subsequent Table 1, following the land use graphic Exhibit 12, indicates the VTTMs planning areas and ARSP #1 land uses. The ARSP #1 land uses and densities (D.U.s and commercial square footage) that remain within the 598 acre County area are shown on Exhibit 13 and are further described within Table 2. 35 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 12 — Proposed Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 EIR Addendum #IV — Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001 PA 8 PA OV \\ �. ►--ate-------- - !1 �I --------� ---�-----_ ��� j .ram PA 4 PA 2 i \ 1 PA I PA 5 i JV•, / ,�- -mil_ y _'---- ram"•-;� r--'�-�-' �'� � ,/'� ,\'\ 36 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Table 1 Land Uses, Densities & D.U.s for the Proposed Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 EIR Addendum #IV — Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001 Planning Land Uses of the C&C Max.Density Dwelling Areas(P.A.) VTTM No.35001 VTTM Property (Units/Ac.)/ Units and/or per VTTM No. (Land Uses are per ARSP#1) Gross Acres Commercial FAR Max. Commercial 35001 S.F. 1 Suburban Village (SV) 9.8 30 DU/Ac./ 40 2.0 FAR 299,739 2 Single Family Residential II 161.2 6 DU/Ac. 534 (SFR 11) 3 Suburban Village (SV) 34.6 30 DU/Ac./ 80 2.0 FAR 1,058,261 4 Single Family Residential II 18.7 6 DU/ac. 71 (SFR II 5 High Density Multiple Family 11.5 30 DU/Ac. 225 Residential HDMFR 8 Single Family Residential 1 164.5 5 DU/Ac. 451 (SFR 1) Totals 400.3 ac. -- 1,401 D.U./ 1,358,000 S.F. Notes: 1. Planning Area 2: Includes 6.9 gross acres of Public Park Site; a possible alternate use as of a SFR II 13.0 acres area as an Elementary School of 850 students adjacent to the 6.0-acre Park Site. 2. Planning Area 8: Includes a 3.1 gross acre Public Park Site. 3. A 38.8 net acre area Linear Park is shared by these P.A.s: P.A.#2 (27.3 acres of SFR-II), and P.A.#3 (11.5 acres of SV). 4. FAR= Floor Area Ratio—Defined as the Total Building Square Footage divided by the Total Square Footage of Site. 5. Total D.U.s permitted per Zoning 2,027. 37 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 13 — Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 - County 598-Acre Acquisition/ Ownership Area with the EIR Addendum #IV — Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001 (as an Overlay) J 6 ,L 38 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Table 2 ARSP #1 LAND USE THAT UNDERLIE THE 598-ACRE COUNTY ACQUISITION/OWNERSHIP AREA Planning Land Use Acres Max.Density Dwelling Area (DU/AC) Units/ Commercial Density Commercial S.F. FAR 1 Suburban Village (SV) 27.7 30/ 33/ 2.0 FAR 666,558.25 S. F. 4 Single Family Residential II 37.8 6.0 216 (SFR 11) 6 High Density Multiple 5.0 30 150 Family Residential HDMFR 7 Suburban Village (SV) 29.0 30/ 35/ 2.0 FAR 697,941.76 S. F. 8 Single Family Residential 1 354.4 5.0 900 SFR I 9 Golf Course/Open Space 144.00 0 0 (GC/OS) TOTALS --- 598 2.23 1,334 1,364,500 S. F. Lot Line Adjustment between Alberhill Ridge and County of Riverside In 2010, CCLEW applied to the County of Riverside for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) between the 400.3 acre Alberhill Ridge site and the ±598-acre County of Riverside property north and east of Alberhill Ridge. The LLA is contemplated pursuant to the terms of the Tri-Valley Agreements. The proposed LLA calls for adjusting the common property line between CCLEW and County to exchange approximately 50.8 acres of net land on each property. The LLA will result in an estimated cost savings to the County of Riverside in the amount of approximately $195,000 yearly easement maintenance per the Tri-Valley Agreement. In addition, the LLA will minimize view impacts of slopes higher than 175 feet and provide access of Alberhill Ridge Road to Nichols Road through County owned land in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element without utilizing the City of Lake Elsinore's powers of eminent domain of right-of-way acquisition. 39 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 1.2 Addendum Conclusion and Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(3), the proposed VTTM No. 35001 constitutes a "project" which is subject to CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. The proposed development contemplated within the VTTM No. 35001 proposes no changes to the ARSP #1 and is, therefore, deemed consistent with the ARSP #1. As described above, less residential (density) development within the ARSP #1 area will occur overall, as result of the approval of the VTTM than previously permitted under the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. This will result in a reduction of environmental impacts previously analyzed in the ARSP #1 EIR Addendum with or without the D.A. The County of Riverside has acquired 598 acres of the 998-acre ARSP #1 area for open space. The County MOU agreement with the City indicates this 598-acre area will be placed in a permanent conservation easement and, most likely, be transferred to the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) to be a part of the Multiple Species Habitat Plan program inside the City in exchange for certain, yet unidentified, City/County terms and conditions. These terms and conditions could be such things as public access and use of the 598-acre area. The VTTM No. 35001 provides multi- use trails into the MSHCP areas for both public and animal wildlife use. It can be reasonably anticipated that no urban development, according to the ARSP # 1 land plan, other than open space, will occur within the 598-acre area due to urban land use limitations contained in the three (3) Tri-Valley Agreements. The density and intensity of uses (1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500 S.F. of commercial/office uses) that underlie the County 598-acre ARSP #1 development area will not be constructed, even though the current zoning, ARSP #1, permits urban development. Therefore, the intensity of impacts associated with development for the ARSP and ARSP #1 area will be significantly reduced in all topical CEQA categories. While the 598 acres has been acquired by the County for conservation and future RCA acquisition, the zoning for the 598 County owned acres remains ARSP #1. Absent a General Plan change and a Zone Change or Specific Plan Amendment to the existing ASRP #1, therefore, the land uses within the 598 acres strictly remain urban land uses according to the ARSP #1 and as noted above on Exhibit 13 and Table 2. The City, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency (as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15367), has undertaken this environmental analysis for the purpose of identifying those major or minor technical changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum I through III, which may be required to accurately describe the environmental effects resulting from the adoption of the now proposed VTTM No. 35001. This Addendum #IV to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, prepared pursuant to CEQA and under authority of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, has been prepared to: 40 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 • Provide an environmental basis for the adoption of the VTTM and other discretionary actions in accordance therewith; • Identify those physical changes which may occur to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan areas resulting from the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and set forth the technical changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum I through Addendum #IV, resulting there from; and • Provide an analysis of those potential environmental impacts associated with the physical changes (as per CEQA Guidelines § 15358(b)), which are proposed to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The CEQA Guidelines (§15164(a) and §15162) allow the City, as Lead Agency, to prepare an Addendum to a previous certified EIR if all of the following conditions are met: • Changes to the project do not require major revisions to the previously prepared EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken do not require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • No new information becomes available which shows new significant effects, significant effects substantially more severe than previously discussed, or additional or modified mitigation measures; • Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and, • The changes to the EIR identified by the Addendum #IV do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. As detailed below, EIR Addendum #IV, concludes that the proposed VTTM No. 35001, if approved by the City, (1) will not require important revisions to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #IV, in that no new significant environmental impacts (not previously considered as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #IV), have been identified, (2) no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred, and (3) no new information or issues of substantial importance (which were not previously addressed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #IV) have been 41 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 identified through this subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I, together with EIR Addendum #11 and #III and proposed EIR Addendum #IV, its technical appendices and the technical changes identified herein, adequately analyze the proposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area, and provide an environmental basis for the City's discretionary action of approving the VTTM No. 35001. 1.3 Intended Use of Addendum The following planning and legislative bodies are anticipated to utilize this VTTM No. 35001 EIR Addendum #IV, in conjunction with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and EIR Addendum #1 through #III, as the environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions taken within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area: • City of Lake Elsinore. CEQA Guidelines § 15025(c) indicates that where an advisory body (i.e., Planning Commission) is required to make a recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the advisory body shall review and consider the environmental documentation in either draft or final form. CEQA Guidelines § 15169(c) requires that prior to taking action, the decision-making body of the lead agency (i.e., City Council) shall consider EIR Addendum #IV with the previously certified Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum I through EIR Addendum III. • Responsible Agencies. Prior to reaching a decision on a project, Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction hereupon must consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #IV (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15050(b) and 15096(f)). Those Responsible Agencies (identified during the preparation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR) may utilize the information contained in the Final EIR, as may be modified by this EIR Addendum #IV, as evidence of CEQA compliance. 1.4 Incorporated by Reference In an effort to avoid replication and redundancy in the planning process, several documents are hereby incorporated by reference, as permitted by CEQA Guidelines § 15150, which allows EIRs to incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public record. Where all or a portion of another document is incorporated by reference, language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the environmental impact report. The information presented in this Addendum #IV is based, in part, upon other environmental documents and technical studies (prepared subsequent to the certification of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III), which include the project site or which address issues affecting 42 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 the project area. These documents, incorporated herein by reference and found on file at the Planning Department counter in the City of Lake Elsinore, include: • "Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report" (SCH No. 88090517), June 1989, prepared by Douglas Wood and Associates, and adopted August 28, 1989; • "Addendum to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2 Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 88090517) for the Alberhill Ranch", April 1992, prepared by The Planning Associates, and adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore, June 1992; • "EIR Addendum II to Alberhill Ranch Plan EIR (No. 89-2) for Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'s 30836 & 28214" (SCH No. 88090517), November 28, 2003, prepared by The Planning Associates, and adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore on January 13, 2004; • Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Section 10(a) Permit to Allow Incidental Take of the Endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Riverside County, California (SCH No. 89061909), County of Riverside EIR No. 3041, March 19903; • Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plan (SCH No. 90020247), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, December 19, 19904; • "Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment", prepared by The Planning Associates, June, 1992; • "Brighton Homes Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment#1, prepared by J.L. Webb Planning, Inc. in association with The Planning Associates, UltraSystems Environmental Services and Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc., March 19, 1991; and 3 The Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ("Joint EIR/EIS") presents an analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of a permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA"), as amended, to allow the incidental taking of the Stephens' kangaroo rat ("SKR") in certain areas in western Riverside County and the adoption and implementation of both a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") and an Implementation Agreement pursuant to the ESA. The Short- term Habitat Conservation Plan is an interim program for the protection of habitat areas occupied by SKR within western Riverside County. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area was incorporated within the area analyzed under the Joint EIS/EIR and included in the HCP. 4 The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plan provides an environmental analysis of the impacts associated with the development and operation of a wastewater reclamation facility to accommodate service demands associated with development activities authorized under both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and development which may otherwise occur within the service area of that facility. 43 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 • "Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 3" — Lake Elsinore Outlet Center Expansion at Nichols Road, prepared by KTC Consultants, June 10, 1997. As noted above, copies of these documents are available for review at City Hall Planning Department (130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92330). For the purpose of the EIR Addendum #IV, the following are attached as technical appendices to this addendum: • "Acquisition Agreement, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County and Tri- Valley Partners; • "Final EIR Addendum to Alberhill Specific Plan" (for Brighton Homes), prepared by UltraSystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Environmental Services Division, adopted September 10, 1991; • "Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment Number 1" (for Brighton Homes), prepared by UltraSystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Environmental Services Division, March 19, 1991, adopted September 10, 1991; • "Geotechnical Summary of Geologic Conditions" Letter by Petra Inc., Grayson R. Walker and Doug Johnston , June 12, 2009; • "Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis for Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ridge", Report by KWC Engineers, Mike Taing, R.C.E. 64263 May 2009; • "Traffic and Circulation — CEQA Consistency" by Kyle Maberry of Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, December 21, 2011 and February 29, 2012; • Archaeology Present on Site — Reports prepared by Dr. Christopher Drover and Various Other Archaeologists and Paleontologists for the Castle & Cooke, Inc., Properties within the City of Lake Elsinore; • "Preliminary Water Facilities Plan" for Alberhill Ridge project prepared by KWC Engineers, Mike Taing R.C.E. 64263, dated December 6, 2011; • "Preliminary Sewer Facilities Plan" for Alberhill Ridge project prepared by KWC Engineers, Mike Taing, R.C.E. 64263, dated December 6, 2011; • "Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan" (PWQMP) dated August 23, 2012 by KWC Engineers Victor Elia, P.E.; • "Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Water Supply Assessment" (WSA) by MWH Americas, Inc., March 2012; 44 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan report on file with State of California Water Board SMARTS website — WDID No. 8 33C351094 The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) for Alberhill Ridge (VTTM No. 35001) is required by the City of Lake Elsinore as part of the review and approval of the VTTM No. 35001. A PWQMP is required for this project as part of the CEQA application per the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 7.D.1, the City of Lake Elsinore 2010 MS4 Permit (R8-2010-0033) and the County of Riverside Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) dated April 2007. A Project Specific PWQMP Report for VTTM No. 35001, dated August 23, 2012 has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department. The PWQMP addresses the Pollutants of Concern for the project based on the Receiving Waters and development type, and how the project proposes to mitigate for these pollutants through: site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Alberhill Ridge proposes eight (8) Extended Dry Detention Basins, for a total of +/- 6 acres with 10.6 acre-feet of storage, of which six (6) basins are proposed along the Lake Street Streambed / Linear Park which will provide more park area along the Lake Street Corridor. The proposed basins will mitigate the 2-year, 24-hour incremental increase in storm runoff so the project does not generate a Hydrologic Condition of Concern. Basins shall be owned and maintained by the City of Lake Elsinore, as described in the PWQMP and per the Brighton D.A., and shall be planted with a native plant palette to encourage growth of natural habitat. A Final WQMP will be prepared during the project development phase to refine the details of the WQMP design, maintenance and operation. Alberhill Ridge Water Supply Assessment In September 21, 2011, the City of Lake Elsinore requested that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Alberhill Villages (+/- 1400.3 Acre Pacific Clay site) and Alberhill Ridge (400.3-acre Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West site) projects located in the Alberhill area within the City of Lake Elsinore. EVMWD had contracted with MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) to prepare the WSA. A report entitled 'Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Water Supply Assessment (WSA)' was prepared by MWH in March 2012. The WSA was approved by the EVMWD Board of Directors on March 22, 2012. The 'Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Development Water Supply Assessment' was prepared in accordance with the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. (enacted as Senate Bill 9SB) 610 (Costa) in 2001). In accordance with the SB 610 standard, the WSA evaluates whether EVMWD's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, 45 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 in addition to EVMWD's existing and planned future water demands, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. As identified in the report, the Alberhill Ridge development has a projected potable water demand of 900 acre-ft/yr in the normal year, 700 acre-ft/yr in the wet year, and 900 acre-ft/yr in the dry year. The total annual water demand for the Elsinore service area is 37,700 acre-ft/yr, 33,300 acre-ft/yr, and 42,700 acre-ft/yr in the normal, wet, and dry year, respectively. The report further analyzes EVMWD's existing and future potable water supply sources and has identified a projected total available water supply of 62,300 acre-ft/yr for a single dry year, 60,800 acre-ft/yr in for multiple-dry years, and 59,500 acre-ft/yr for a single wet year scenario. Based on a comparison of the projected water demands and available water supply, the existing and planned supplies are sufficient to meet existing and currently committed future maximum day demands conditions including the Alberhill Ridge development during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20-year period. EVMWD has issued a will-serve letter for the VTTM No. 35001 Alberhill Ridge development dated July 31, 2012. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Alberhill Ridge The Alberhill Ridge project site is situated on a 400.3-acre former mining site, which is currently undergoing reclamation. The site being reclaimed under RP 2011-1 (formerly RP 90-1) and has an approved reclamation plan for reclaiming 90 acres of the 400.3 acres. The State Water Resources Control Board has issued a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number for the site on March 10, 2008 and the WDID number is 8 33C351094. This will allow the Discharger to discharge storm water associated with any proposed onsite construction or grading activity within the guidelines of the current State's Construction General Permit adopted by Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ on September 2, 2009. The General Permit went into effect on July 1, 2010 and will expire on September 2, 2014 or until a new permit is adopted. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Alberhill Ridge site and the report can be found at the designated job site location. The report is currently on file with the State under the State Water Board's SMARTS website. As proposed on the Alberhill Ridge SWPPP, 57 sediment basins were proposed as a Best Management Practices (BMP) at various locations within the site to control the potential of sediment leaving the site during construction and grading activities. Currently, all of these sediment basins have been graded and are in place on-site to comply with the General Permit. To date these sediment basins proposed as a BMP for the site have been effective in controlling the deposition of sediment and the discharge of turbid stormwater offsite within the guidelines of the General Permit. 46 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM #IV 2.1 Subsequent/Supplemental CEQA Analysis CEQA Guidelines § 15162 provides direction for when a lead agency has to undertake additional CEQA analysis for subsequent discretionary actions related to a project such as this VTTM No. 35001. According to the CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has been prepared and certified by the lead agency (in this case the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR), a subsequent or supplemental EIR may only be required if the lead agency, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, determines one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. An analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of VTTM No. 35001 conclusively demonstrates that development of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will not trigger any of the provision of CEQA Guidelines § 15162, and therefore a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. This is borne out by the 47 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 fact that if the City approves the VTTM No. 35001, such an action: (1) will not require important revisions to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III in that no new significant environmental impacts (not previously considered as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III) have been identified, (2) no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred, and (3) no new information or issues of substantial importance (which were not previously addressed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III) have been identified through this subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III, together with EIR Addendum #IV, its technical appendices and the technical changes identified herein, adequately analyze the proposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan areas, and provide an environmental basis for the City's discretionary action of approving the VTTM No. 35001. Additionally, the VTTM No. 35001 area is substantially consistent with the approved ARSP #1 so as to produce no additional environmental impacts or changes to the previous project. As discussed below, this VTTM No. 35001 EIR Addendum #IV reviews all 14 potentially significant environmental impact areas analyzed in the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and subsequent EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #111. This analysis concludes that because the Single and Multiple family residential, the Suburban Village mixed use and commercial development areas within the VTTM No. 35001 are reduced to only occupy the 400.3 acres from the original 998 acres, due to the Tri-Valley MOU's, the VTTM No. 35001 project will not directly or indirectly increase any impacts that were previously analyzed. In particular, for those impact areas with the most potential for change, (traffic, hydrology and geology), since they were last analyzed in 1991, this EIR Addendum #IV, as described within Section 4.0 - Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR addendum concludes through subsequent technical review that VTTM No. 35001 traffic, hydrological, and geological impacts will not directly or indirectly increase any impacts that were previously analyzed. This proposed VTTM No. 35001 area was given partial park credit for the proposed 34-acre community park that was subsequently developed with 22.4 acres on the Murdock Alberhill Ranch, thus, permitting via the ARSP #1 and Brighton D.A., a smaller than normally required Public Park Quimby requirement within the VTTM No. 35001 area. The City of Lake Elsinore City Council Resolution No. 85-34 states that the Park Code requires five acres of park land dedicated for eve? 1,000 residents. Based on a projected population of 8,766 (ARSP #1, Page 13, 3r paragraph), a total of 43.8 acres of parkland would be required for the entire 998-acre ARSP #1 area. 48 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The proposed VTTM No. 35001 would provide: 1) a centrally located public park (6.9 acres); 2) a 3.1 acre trail head/park site; 3) linear park and open space/corridor areas (38.8 net acres) providing a connectivity of the outer northern portion of the 998-acre areas to the corridors proposed along the major entry area and along the eastern perimeter of Lake Street and northern perimeter of Nichols Road; 6) plus the additional open space/ trails/slope areas (60.2 acres). The proposed VTTM No. 35001's 400.3 acres would provide for an overall total of 59.3 acres of park and/or open space including the partial 10.5 acre Murdock Alberhill Ranch park site credit. Adding the County-owned and planned open space areas bring the total planned and developed open space for the ARSP #1 area to approximately 646 acres with a net 269.165 acres developed for urban uses within the VTTM No. 35001 portion of the ARSP #1 area. In the context of potential cumulative impacts, the existing ARSP environmental baseline setting outside the VTTM No. 35001 project boundary area has not been altered in any way to significantly impact or increase the environmental impacts previously analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III. This conclusion includes environmental impacts, but not limited to, biological resources, traffic, noise, hydrology, or geology in the VTTMs immediate surrounding area. Furthermore, the following specific technical analyses, which are included with this Addendum #IV, support the conclusion that, traffic, hydrological, and geological impacts are substantially consistent with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #111, and will not significantly impact the VTTM area by any changed circumstances outside the VTTM project area. 2.2 Addendum #IV Approach EIR Addendum #IV, for the proposed VTTM No. 35001, will inform the City decision makers of any significant impacts, if any are identified through this Addendum #IV analysis, which were not previously reviewed or contemplated in previous entitlement approvals for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. EIR Addendum #IV first provides a brief overview of the overall project description as described in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, the minor changes to the project description as analyzed in EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #111 for the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, and the further minor changes to the project description resulting from the proposed VTTM No. 35001 to the ASRP #1. EIR Addendum #IV then compares the ARSP #1 project contemplated in 1991 (i.e., Multiple Family Dwelling Unit, High Density and Suburban Village Options), which was analyzed in EIR Addendum #1 to the project now proposed in 2012 (i.e., VTTM No. 35001) to determine if any significant changes or new "impacts" have occurred to the more detailed project "design" contemplated in ARSP #1 and now depicted in the VTTM No. 35001 or in the project area that were not previously contemplated and addressed in EIR Addendum and covered by adopted mitigation measures. EIR 49 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Addendum #IV reviews the 14 environmental impact topical study areas addressed in EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III, and specifically focuses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five environmental impact areas determined through an Initial Study with having the most potential for changed circumstances since the VTTM No. 35001 project area was last analyzed in 1992 and 2003 (i.e., biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geology, and hydrology). EIR Addendum #IV also analyzes whether the mitigation measures previously analyzed and adopted for the ARSP #1 are sufficient for City approval of the VTTM No. 35001 or whether additional or modification to existing mitigation measures are required to deal with any significant "changes" that have occurred since last analyzed in 1992 and 2003 in EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum# III, respectively. If as a result of this Addendum #IV analysis, additional or modified measures are deemed necessary by the City decision makers, these additional or modified mitigation measures can be added as part of the VTTM No. 35001 entitlement process, as conditions of the VTTM approval. No changes to the ARSP EIR are needed, as demonstrated below, and this EIR Addendum #IV concludes that that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is substantially consistent with the approved ARSP #1 topical CEQA analytical category and in the contemplated VTTM No. 35001 land use design. Further, because the VTTM No. 35001 design, density, and intensity of development, combined with the Tri-Valley agreements will reduce the amount of residential development overall within the ARSP #1 due to the land acquired for conservation, the EIR Addendum #IV concludes that no significant circumstances have changed in the ARSP project area that would cause the City decision makers to determine that new significant impacts are caused solely or cumulatively by the VTTM No. 35001 project implementation, requiring the preparation of a full, subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15163. The conclusion of this EIR Addendum #IV is that overall environmental impacts have been reduced below impact levels previously analyzed in the ARSP EIR. Finally, EIR Addendum #IV further concludes that the mitigation measures previously reviewed and adopted by the City decision makers in EIR Addendum #1 for ARSP # 1 and EIR Addendum #11 and #III for the Murdock Alberhill Specific Plan and it's attendant two VTTMs, previously described, are adequate to cover all the environmental impacts, specifically regarding biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geology, and hydrology impacts, for the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area forms the northwesterly boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, extending the City northward along the 1-15 Freeway corridor into 50 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Temescal Valley. The area governed by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan consists of approximately 1,853 acres and can generally be described as that geographic area bounded on the north by the 1-15 Freeway, on the south by Terra Cotta Road/Nichols Road, on the east by El Toro Road, and on the west by Robb Road/Lake Street. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan boundaries are illustrated on Exhibit 5. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan originally consisted of three ownerships: Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, now known as Castle and Cooke Alberhill Ranch, LLC and Castle and Cooke Lake Elsinore West, Inc., Brighton Alberhill Associates; and Long Beach Equities, and proposed 3,705 dwelling units, 254 acres of commercial use, 531 acres of open space, 30 acres of park, and 50 acres of school/park sites. 3.2 Description of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 and Changes to the Original ARSP As briefly explained in Section 1.1 of this EIR Addendum #IV, the original ARSP 89-2, approved on August 8, 1989, contained an approximate total of 1,853 acres, and proposed a broad variety of land uses. The ARSP #1, was Brighton Homes separation of a 998-acre area out of the 1,853 acre Specific Plan area, redesigned an entirely different Specific Plan out of the original 1,853-acre Specific Plan area. The primary changes to the original 1,853-acre ARSP by the approved Brighton Specific Plan and Development Agreement are listed below along on a two-page table comparison [shown as Exhibit 6 (table)] taken directly from the adopted ARSP #1 FEIR addendum text (pages 2-10 through 2-13): 1. A 135-acre increase in the site area allocated for residential use. In accordance with an executed Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City of Lake Elsinore, the total number of residential units may increase from 2,235 units to 2,735 units, representing a potential increase of 500 dwelling units. 2. A 42-acre increase in land area assigned to a commercial use (i.e., Suburban Village). No change in square footage of commercial development was proposed. 3. Pursuant to the proposed amendment (ARSP #1) to the project's zoning regulations, residential uses are authorized within that area designated for commercial use (i.e., Suburban Village). Development of residential uses within this area will not, however, result in an increase in the total residential uses over the 2,735 units authorized hereunder. 4. Inclusion of a potential 144± acre golf course within the project area. 5. Reduction in the land area allocated for natural open space and a conversion of that acreage to other open space and/or recreational uses, 51 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 including a golf course, natural open space, riparian areas and a water reservoir. Although project development would result in a minor reduction in open space areas, the extent of that reduction was not considered to be significant. 52 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 EXHIBIT 6 LAND USE COMPARISONS Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan' Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1' Difference Category Land Use Maximum Maximum Gross Allowable Development Gross Allowable Development Gross Development Acres Density Potential Acres Density Potential Acres Potential Residential RCD Single-family Residential 133.0 3.0 dujacre 399 units - (133.0) (399 units) R-SF Single-family Residential 337.0 4.0 dujacre 1,348 units - (337.0) (1,348 units) SFR 1/11 Single-family Residential - - 541.0 5.016.0 du/acre 2,400 units 541.0 2,400 units R-M Single-family Residential 31.0 8.0 dujacre 248 units - (31.0) (248 units) R-3 Multi-family Residential 10.0 24.0 du/acre 240 units (10.0) (240 units) HDMF 30 Multi-family Residential 16.0 30.0 du,racre 300 units 16.0 300 units Suburban Village3 Commercial;Residential _ - 89.0 30.0 du,racre 300 units B9.0 300 units Subtotal Residential 511.0 2,235 units° 646.0 2.735 units 135.0 500 Units' Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial 21.0 0.50 FAR 457,380 sJ (21.0) (457,380 s.f.) C-SP Commercial Specific Plan 26.0 2.0 FAR 2.265.120 s.1 (26.0) (2.265,120 s.f.) Suburban Village Commercial/Residential - 89.0 2,0 FAR 2722,500 s.0 89.0 2,722,500 s.f. Subtotal Commercial 47.0 2.722.500 s.t 89.0 2,722.500 s.f. 42.0 0 s.f. From Table 3(Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Statistical Summary),Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. z From Table 1 (Statistical Summary), Alberhill Specific Plan,Amendment No.1. Under the"Suburban Village'designation both residential and commercial land usesare authorized. As a result,this land use category has been included under both the residential and commercial groupings. ° Average overall density is set at 2.2 du/acre for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. ' The total number of dwelling units indicated herein(3,000 units)exceeds the total represented in this column(2,735 units). Pursuant to an existing Development Agreement,the total number of units authorized hereunder shall not exceed 2,735 units,resulting in an average overall density of 2.7 dujacre for the Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1. 6 Pursuant to the Development AOreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Brighton Alberhill Associatesfor Alberhill Ranch Development(July 20,1990). 53 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EXHIBIT6(Continued) LAND USE COMPARISONS Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan' Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1? Difference Category Land Use Maximum Maximum Gross Allowable Development Gross Allowable Development Gross Development Acres Density Potential Acres Density Potential Acres Potential Other JHS Junior High 20.0 N/A NIA N/A' N,A NA (9.0) N/A ES-P Elementary School/Park 15.0 N/A NIA N/A' N;A NA (8.0) N/A OS Open Space 404.0 NIA - - (404.0) GS OS Golf Coursel0pen Space -- 351.0 - 351.0 Subtotal Other 439.0 351.0 (70-01 Total 997.0 2,235 units 997.0' 2,735 units 04 500 units 2,722,500 s.f. 2,722.500 sJ. 0 s.f. 1 From Table 3(Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Statistical Summary),Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. From Table 1 (Statistical Summary),Alberhill Specific Plan,Amendment No. 1 3 Included within the"Suburban Village'land use designation. ` In response to the mixed use(commercial/residential)authorized under the'Suburban Village'designation,that acreage(89.0 acres)has been included under both the residential and commercial categories herein. To derive total acreage associatedwilh the Alberhill Specific Plan,Amendment No.1,these 89.0 acres have been included only once in the derivation of this total. 54 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 Within the ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan and D.A., there is a proposed public park (open space area) reserved in a much smaller acreage requirement than required under the City's Quimby Act park dedication and development ordinance. The amount of open space, including the 144-acre golf course and the adjoining Specific Plan described 22.4-acre Murdock Alberhill Ranch Community Park at the corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road were land use facts supporting the City Council findings for requiring less Public Park within ARSP #1. The initial D.A., included as part of the City's approval, secured the development rights for 2,235 residential dwelling units, 2,722,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses, open space and related uses. The D.A. was amended and the entitlements were supplemented in September of 1991 with a General Plan Amendment to the Lake Elsinore General Plan by two Resolutions which increased the number of allowable dwelling units by 500 to 2,735 shown in ARSP #1 and detailed the development timing of the proposed and potential golf course. 3.3 Brighton Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 Comparison to the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 As discussed above, the ARSP #1 was approved to allow 2,735 dwelling units and 2,722,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses open space and related uses on a 998-acre area of the original 1,853 acre Specific Plan area. The VTTM No. 35001, an approximate 400.3- acre area of the 998-acre area of the ARSP #1, is proposed as a ARSP #1 implementation project that will include 1,056 single family lots, a high density multi-family residential area with 225 units, two Suburban Village areas with mixed land uses including 120 DU's of high density residential, commercial, office that will permit for purposes of CEQA a pro-rated land uses with a potential of 1,358,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office/light industrial land uses). The overall dwelling unit count and commercial square footage allowed within the VTTM No. 35001 area will remain the same while the acreage numbers within the respective residential and commercial planning areas may vary in small degrees within the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The small difference in planning area acreage is due to the final location of the collector road running through the proposed VTTM No. 35001, which is located closer to Lake Street than the collector as graphically approved within the ARSP Amendment #1 . The only land uses shared in common and have relevance from the ARSP EIR Addendums #I, #II and #III, are the community park/open space, school land use areas, and traffic/ circulation roadway system. As discussed above, proposed VTTM No. 35001 was given partial (47.2%) park dedication and development credit for the Alberhill Ranch Community Park that was subsequently developed on 22.4 acres within the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area located south of Nichols Road at Lake Street by Castle & Cooke. It can be reasonably anticipated that no development will occur within the remaining ARSP #1 County owned 598-acre area due to the Tri-Valley Agreements negotiated and finalized between the 3 parties to the agreement (County, Tri-Valley and City of Lake Elsinore). The density and intensity of approved zoned land uses that underlie 55 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum IV November 13, 2012 the 598-acre ARSP #1 area will not be constructed according to the agreements but for the zoned open space. Therefore, the intensity of impacts associated with development for the ARSP and ARSP #1 area will be significantly reduced in all topical CEQA categories with the reduced residential and commercial land uses within the County ownership area. 3.4 Comparison Summary of ARSP #1 to the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan The following approved and permitted land uses, based on the current ARSP #1 zoning described in the ARSP Amendment #1 Specific Plan created by Brighton Homes in March 19, 1991, are: Currently Approved ARSP#1 Land Use Categories Dwelling Units SFR zones I and II: 2,735 D.U. on a total on 748 acres Mixed Use (Suburban Village): 2.7 million square feet on 89 acres High Density Multiple Family 600 D.U. on 17 acres Park Space: Included within SFR zones School Space: Included within Residential zones Golf Course and Open Space 144 ac. Golf course Totals 998 acres. Within the Brighton ARSP #1 998 acres, the Suburban Village category, multiple family, attached, residential structures, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments developed at a density of up to 30.0 dwelling units per acre are permitted. Higher density units, up to 30 D.U.s per acre and higher are permitted by the ARSP #1. The affordable housing 25% density increase component is not part of the total 2,735 units permitted within the S.P. area pursuant to the D.A. The additional affordable units could be built out with a 25% additional density factor within the affordable areas pursuant to state law and local ordinance. Within the Mixed-Use Suburban Village District, 2,722,500 million square feet of neighborhood community commercial uses are permitted including, but not limited to, general retail, office/professional, eating and personal service establishments, hotels and entertainment centers and park and open space will also be permitted. Public educational uses will also be permitted; however, they will include commercial opportunities within the same property. [ARSP Amendment #1, page 10]. 56 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan, for the 400.3-acre component, of the larger 998- acre ARSP #1, has the following Land Use Plan areas and uses: Single Family Residential I & II D.U.s: 1,056 D.U.s on 334.4 acres High Density Multiple Family Residential D.U.s: 225 D.U.s on 11.5 acres Suburban Village (Mixed- Use) D.U.s potential: 120 D.U.s on 44.4 acres Commercial/office/light industrial land use: 1,358,000, Sq. Ft. Total Residential D.U.s: 1,401 D.U.s Total Commercial Sq .Ft. 1,358,000 Sq .Ft. Within the Single Family Residential I & 11 334.4-acre land use areas, these following land uses are also proposed: (2) Public Parks : 10.0 acres Elementary School: 14.6 acres Additional Open Space: Linear Park, Open Space Slope, and Wildlife Corridor areas: 38.8 acres Total Open Space within the 400.3-acre VTTM: 48.8 acres The 1,4015 residential dwelling units and the 1,358,000 Sq. Ft. of commercial/ office/light industrial permitted ARSP #1 land uses proposed for VTTM No. 35001 Plan occupy substantially the same approximate land use areas of the Brighton ARSP #1 plan. (See ARSP 31 Figure 6.) The proposed VTTM No. 35001 is substantially the same permitted build-out for DU's and commercial square feet, consistent with the Brighton ARSP #1 land use plan. The reduction of overall ARSP #1 residential units and commercial/office/light industrial land use area is the result of the Tri-Valley agreements and subsequent 598-acre land sale to the County and the concomitant reduction of the DU's and commercial square footage permitted by the ARSP #1 in the County areas. The following chart, Exhibit No. 14, depicts the overall land use comparison of the adopted ARSP #1 998-acre area [taken from portion of the two-page table, shown as Exhibit 6, taken from the FEIR addendum text, as noted above on pages 2-12 and 2- 13) and the ARSP #1 with the VTTM No. 35001 Addendum changes for the overall 998-acre area. For purposes of this EIR Addendum #IV analysis, the assumption is made that the Development Agreement remains active, the golf course could be built on the County acreage and the 500 additional dwelling units are permitted, in exchange for the golf course construction, with a total of 2,735 D.U.s within the 998-acre area (Development Agreement — Pages 5, 6, 7 and 17). Should the golf course not be built, then the pro- rata share of the 2,735 D.U.' s, minus the 500 D.U.s allotted per the D.A. for golf 5 The residential land use components that make the 1,401 total of residential dwelling units within the VTTM No. 35001 are: 1,056 Single Family Residential I and 11, 225 of Multi-Family, 40 of Suburban Village High Density dwelling units and 80 of Suburban Village High Density dwelling units. 57 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 course development, will reduce the overall allowable total of D.U.s within the VTTM No. 35001. Within the 998-acre area the total reduction would revert to the original D.A. permitted 2,235 D.U.s. The VTTM No. 35001 area would lose approximately 200 D.U.s as a result of the golf course not being constructed. This non-golf course construction would result in total D.U.s of 1,201, excluding any affordable housing increases provided by law, i.e. 25% density increase for affordable housing categories plus other incentives (Government Code Section 65915-65918). The golf course construction, according to the Development Agreement (Page 7), was deemed to satisfy any and all deficiencies in the required park and recreational lands and or in-lieu fees pursuant to SP 89-2. Civic use of the golf course clubhouse with the City is the "contract" consideration for the in lieu fee offset (Development Agreement, Page 7). The potential reduction of 500 fewer units in the overall Specific Plan area will have less impact in all sectors and will be less intensive in D.U.s per acre. In addition, without the golf course, the biology impacts could be less impacting, yet the golf course, arguably, could add positive impacting/mitigating biology elements, as it relates to the restoration and creation of habitat within certain areas of the golf course. (i.e., Native trees, scrubs, water elements, etc.) It can be reasonably anticipated that no urban development, according to ARSP # 1, will occur within the 598-acre area due to urban land use limitations contained in the three (3) Tri-Valley Agreements. The density and intensity of uses (dwelling units and commercial/office uses) that underlie the 598-acre ARSP #1 development area will not be constructed, even though the current zoning, ARSP #1, permits urban development. Therefore, the intensity of impacts associated with development for the ARSP and ARSP #1 area will be significantly reduced in all topical CEQA categories. In respect of what the approved ARSP #1 permits, a reduction of D.U.s may come from any category (i.e., single family to high density). The D.U. density maximums have been set by the Development Agreement and the ARSP #1, which allows flexibility in the land use categories (i.e., the planning rationale of why a D.U. range with a maximum is provided for in the ARSP #1). Exhibit 14 summarily demonstrates that the 400.3-acre development area of the proposed VTTM NO. 35001 portion of the entire 998-acre S.P. area has reduced the SFR I & II in total acres by 16.1 acres primarily due to roadway alignments. This VTTM No. 35001 has increased the Suburban Village in land use area by 16.5 acres, again due to roadway shifting according to more precise grading. The VTTM No. 35001 slightly modified all land use categories acreages/boundaries, but has strictly maintained the maximum number of D.U.s and Sq. Ft. of commercial/office land uses as permitted within the ARSP #1. 58 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 14 LAND USE COMPARISONS Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1/EIR Category Land Use Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1' Addendum IV&VTTM No.35001 Difference Maximum Maximum Gross Acres Allowable Development Gross Acres Allowable Development Gross Acres Development Density Potential Density Potential Potential Residential 1,351 du's SFR I Single-family Residential 495.0 5 du/acre { 515.8 5 du/acre 821 du's 20.8 { SFR II Single-family Residential 253.0 6 du/acre { 2,135 units 210.8 6 du/acre 2,171 du's (42.2) { 0 units HDMF 30 Multi-family Residential 16.0 30.0 du/acre { 16.5 30.0 du/acre 375 du's 0.5 { Suburban Village2 Commercial/Residential 89.0' 30.0 du/acre { 600 units 101.1 30.0 du/acre 188 du's 12.1 { 0 units Subtotal Residential 853.0 2,73� 844.2 2,735 du'sL L29 0 units Commercial 101.1 12.1 Suburban Villages Commercial/Residential 89.0 2.0 FAR 2,722,500 s.f 101.1 2.0 FAR 2,722,500 s.f. 12 1 0 s.f. Subtotal Commercial 89.0 2,722,500 S.f.6 2,722,500 s.f 0 s.£ Other (Acreage is Public ES-P Elementary School/Park Included Park Open Space Open Space as part of 10.0 N/A Residential 10.0 s N/A Acreage) GS-OS Golf Course/Open Space G.C.: 144.0 G.C.: 144.0 Subtotal Other 144.0 144.0 0.0 2,735 units 2,735 units 0 units TOTAL 997.09 2.7 2,722,500 s.f 0.0 998 0 2.7 2,722,500 s.f. 0 s.f. Excerpted from Table 1(Statistical Summary),Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan,Amendment No.1. UUnder the Suburban Village designation,both residential and commercial land uses are authorized. As a result,this land use category has been included under both the residential and commercial groupings. 'In response to the mixed use(commercial/residential)authorized under the"Suburban Village"designation,that acreage(89.0 acres)has been included under both the residential and commercial categories herein. To derive total acreage associated with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan No.1,these 89.0 acres have been included only once in the deviation of this total. °Pursuant to an existing Development Agreement,the total number of units authorized hereunder shall not exceed 2,735 units,resulting in the average overall density of 2.7 du/acre for the Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.1.(Plus maximum of 600 units of High Density Multi-family) s Under the Suburban Village designation,both residential and commercial land uses are authorized. As a result,this land use category has been included under both the residential and commercial groupings. 6 This maximum development potential for commercial area is pursuant to the Development Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Brighton Alberhill Associates for the Alberhill Ranch Development(July 20,1990). 'Parks and Open Space-158 acres;Elementary School-23 acres. 8 Public Parks:6.9 gross acres,3.1 gross acres,and 38.8 acre Linear Park comprise of 11.5 acres of SV and 27.3 acres of SFR-II. 9 Average overall density is set at 2.7 for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No.1. 59 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 15 - Land Use Comparisons with ARSP Amendment #1 as the Base and the Proposed EIR Addendum #IV & VTTM NO. 35001 (as a Separate Acetate Overlay) ra»,duw l. atykb ,IK,.r.r IA aK Legend IkK�w At.... :ns O..Ibec..n .M s0 ro L71i700•Wu�ku d w.gfhotbod..a tUnnort/cwnuc..I Wa r.7 br 4c•.b4cd.r.�n Ih�&A*.Nbu+%a 0n.hn-.- Single Family Residential i oc,m car..�.d d..ai+R..a..n..ee r s District(SFR )(5 du/acre maximum density) a.site 1 0e ,b ks Ib...n."'.t,..c ta.. 5,000 Sq.Ft.Min.La Size 3)0 4-r t wa..Ya b.d....iryee m ia.d$,000 'q—k"`"'` Single Family Residential 11 N-..W,...tx.4#W$vF.,ca.a� d khk. District(SFR 11)(6 du/acre maximum density) ct tb,stR a D.M ta *0 t eo I-a.a 63D 4,200 Sq.FL Min.Lot Size ^, aed w sac H.e 7W 4.c&y sou m.a siaw �, ``._rti bt+,u.d.J00 Weise tal i Sd.a w .fir- ima..k. an .,. High Density Multiple Family �ut:u.e nee A h.•o SM 1,WR 11,HDW A Residential District(HDMFR) ud S t-b.e VAW di.m (30 du/acre maximum density) I..Z') Get<.ov.c Wk..d P.µDoc wcs sc r--d wMb.tk SFR t.M S►R n dWna...d w+ Suburban Villa a Dined Rc9en dtw, .e d W.y.m—re ka pusd.a.4bu 6c g --- --- --� HOW 30..4 Ssbub-VRW di.U;m CoRrnereial and RetaW UjW - --� Golf Course/Open Space rrC-1 S.b.m.. a .unas , S.P.A.Nl Area Alberhill Ranch -- - Specific Plan Area srRn axt wna..n v,lra.— la�.. HIp4FM ,1 (\ / 9 21A r I � i r 60 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 3.5 Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan Analysis Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Land Use Plan: The proposed VTTM No. 35001 land use plan is substantially consistent with the currently adopted "Brighton" ARSP #1 plan within the residential and commercial locations. The internal circulation system of the main collector road (Alberhill Ridge Road), though slightly adjusted from the ARSP #1 Land Use Plan graphic #6 for grading and alignment with adjacent built roadways, has created a consequent minor shift of planning uses within the ARSP #1 planning areas. This re-alignment of roadways has been accommodated by moving the main access collector loop road (Alberhill Ranch Road extension) northwest, southwest and southeast of the previous internal circulation within the ARSP #1. This main collector road can be characterized as the "general" dividing line between SFR I and SFR II ARSP #1 land uses according to the Specific Plan, although SFR I and SFR II land uses can be used interchangeably in some cases. There were no precise engineering alignments, grading design or metes and bounds descriptions of roadway boundaries adopted within the original ARSP #1 zoning, therefore, substantial consistency is the standard by which this Addendum evaluates the land uses between the VTTM No. 35001 and ARSP #1. As previously described in this Addendum, the major differences between the ARSP #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 are small and cumulative over the entire 998-acre ARSP #1 area including the reduction in the intensity of residential land uses, commercial land use and the provision of park and schools sites, which will be discussed below in a Planning area by area analysis. The VTTM No. 35001 planning areas are illustrated below in Exhibit 16. Also included in this Addendum Appendix, for the readers assistance, is a larger scale copy of the Exhibit 16 graphic. 3.5.1 Planning Area 1 — Suburban Village (SV) Planning Area (P.A.) 1, 9.8 gross acres, noted below, within the ARSP #1 western Suburban Village area is depicted on the VTTM No. 35001 and located generally at the northeast corner of Lake Street and the proposed central collector road extension of Alberhill Ridge Road (adjacent to and along the southern boundary of P.A. 1). This PA 1 area is located within the Suburban Village mixed-use commercial with a maximum density of 30 D.U.s acre zoning category of ARSP #1. The VTTM No. 35001 has noted 40 high density multi-family dwelling units for this area and 299,739 square feet of commercial/office/light industrial land uses. For purposes of determining the maximum number of units for CEQA review, the Addendum has applied a pro-ration between both the high density multiple-family and commercial/office/light industrial land uses. No apartment project or commercial development is proposed with the VTTM No. 35001 at this time. 61 Wmeae B�a�� �l;�S�QQ�►�,. �CE�`t'o��� !�%�i���'' Q�p ;�� -g�gQg�g�,,- 4 ,�'�G'� � is ! , .? RA ilaPioWWII E"�cQ �9Q -_a'}I ��p��r�.►`�6i� \\`�\ �Q ._+"EI°sill , A'r Ili:�� �����i' � Mi rf_ - _ �•��\�va� ��r'1�\A�� —_ ra MARM 1E� Can _ Dw _ o no LM WOVE— WR �Ag lam?®Q,,. b��_�, ►►►1�r11-_ __�..� .(� _�__ wo cry \ ffom® VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The 9.8 gross acre Suburban Village area proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 Suburban Village approximately 42-acre area is considerably less in area due to the Tri-Valley land sale of a larger portion (33 acre) of this total Suburban Village land use area to Riverside County. The result of this land sale for open space is an overall loss of commercial/office/light industrial land use opportunities and high density dwelling units which now reside on County owned property. As discussed above, the main collector road, Alberhill Ridge Road, within the VTTM No. 35001 has been shifted, due to grading, slightly further north into the ARSP #1's Suburban Village area, reducing the size of the P.A. In summary, much of the existing Suburban Village mixed-use area indicated as Suburban Village within the ARSP #1 land use plan is now occupied by the County of Riverside's open space and future MSHCP acquired land, which is located adjacent and north of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 plan's P.A. 1 which maintains the ARSP #1 land use plan and is consistent with this plan. See Exhibit 17 below. 3.5.2 Planning Area 2 — Single Family Residential II (6.9-Ac. Public Park) Planning Area 2 is similar in area location to the adopted ARSP #1 (along Lake Street north and/centrally located within the proposed VTTM) and land use designation. The VTTM No. 35001 does include four (4) sub-areas of Single Family Residential II with a maximum density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre, as permitted by the ARSP #1. The proposed P.A. 2 has also included a 6.9-acre Public Park site consistent with the Specific Plan requirements and portions of the 38.8-acre linear park. The VTTM proposes to include a 14.6-acre Elementary School site with capacity for 850 students within a 77-lot residential zone that can be converted to an elementary school upon land purchase by the School District. The ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan text notes an elementary school site accounting for approximately 23 acres of the project area with a portion of the site designated as a "combined" or shared public park area (5- acres). The proposed VTTM No. 35001, as the ARSP #1 noted, has the alternative elementary school site integrated or overlaid onto the residential portions of the project, located away from major thoroughfares and is in close proximity to residential developments, in order to reduce or mitigate vehicular trips. If the schools site is acquired by the school district, the 77 lots will be relocated to the northern boundary with the County of Riverside through a lot line adjustment. The area that the 77 units will be relocated into is consistent with the ARSP #1 Suburban Village land use category. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 has created along its western perimeter, at Lake Street, an approximate 1-mile+ restored drainage and wildlife passageway used for pedestrian access/utility corridor. A northeast local street intersecting with this restored drainage corridor contains an off street wildlife, multi-use corridor connecting into the future MSHCP 598-acre County of Riverside land area. 63 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 17 — Planning Area 1 / / / o PROPOSM / 0 LRADlAC LAWS IJ J,l(.auJ PA > ; % Sv / ' ( GROSS: 9.8 A C / \v PAD AREA=4.Jj AC T IJles / AREA = 5.51 AC p // ' sJ4 riot 'CM7/AC CR10AW&UZA/ENT PER j O 4 �4 /A6'T line 'All NO 1A?I-l0J6505 / a /� !T/TO/1qN , ,gyp / O _ lw.� l��.t»gq3a \ /J748 \ 9 I 1 47 `\ O /JIeJ Wa I PYGglECT \ PROP1rRTY BOUNOWY `\ 0 M7.0 1 W85 \ I `\ 10 / 1 / 49 IJ/LJ �I �EX/BOAC GRAppy(,`6lSEAI£N/PER rp \ AT, NO 2004-10J6505 / 121JO12004 / 12 Air i ! lROPOS/v / ,J/di ,moo )mLzh'F CROSS/!!G/TJP j-�' -- 0 N( �\` BI ll P1PQ°GtsED OFFsrlr ReHr ac AWY AOR ` PUHI C RCl1D DRAhUda'AND PUMIC ~ 64 I%�zl.2"1 age Elm N 1 ■ � .>� .,. _ �. a =r,�r 1� IIIRA 2A9 PAA W SO ACPUBLIC PARK �,,. r• p;, ',. -- I - • � ����`� p � '' � ..ram- 1µ � 1 � �. �.� - � Wil�. M Mae WIN,MIJ WN �,, I`;�A y.������y. _1r� a ■_�_� ��� ����► \.f : \�.;�� •, �@�.>/ � �/ . ♦.' ._ � ��'�� ;r�■�'\N a �, - ��.fi•--�� :• " � � ` ��" ,. I 1�''y� _\ Al � No VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The approximate 161.2 gross acre area of P.A. 2 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, compared to the ARSP #1 191-acre area is approximately 30 acres less in gross acreage compared to the ARSP #1 due to roadway precise re-alignments and thus the result is less SFR II residential land use units. These former SFR II units are now located within the SFR I area due to the main collector road adjustment. Overall single family dwelling unit count within the VTTM No. 35001 remains consistent with the ARSP #1 (See Exhibit 16 below). 3.5.3 Planning Area 3 — Suburban Village (SV) Planning Area 3 of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is located within the northeast corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road intersection adjacent to P.A. 2, and coincides with the same location and land use as noted within the ARSP #1: Suburban Village (Mixed Residential, Commercial, and related uses). The P.A. 3's acreage illustrated within the proposed VTTM is approximately 34.6 gross acres in size, which includes an approximate 27.5 gross area for Suburban Village land use development (with a net pad acreage of 23.1 acres), a Lake Street Detention Basin and a pedestrian access/utility corridor that encompasses approximately 3.3 acres of the total P.A. The ARSP #1 depicts 18 net acres for the Suburban Village land use. The VTTM P.A. 3 has consistently applied the adopted Suburban Village land use category (mixed use commercial with a maximum density of 30 D.U./ac.). For purposes of determining the number of units for CEQA analysis within this mixed land use area, the VTTM No. 35001 land plan has applied a pro-rated distribution of the land use densities between the permitted high densities multiple family and commercial/office/light industrial use. For example, this P.A. has allocated the commercial square footage as a percentage of the total commercial square footage within the entire ARSP #1 area. The approximate gross and net acre area proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 gross/net acre area, is consistent except for the additional detention basin, open space/wildlife and pedestrian corridors, which were are not illustrated within the ARSP #1 Land Use Plan given the very general level of details of the SP. (See Exhibit 19 below.) 3.5.4 Planning Area 4 — Single Fami1V Residential II (SFR ll) Planning Area 4 within the ARSP #1 SFR II area of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is located adjacent to and northeast of the proposed P.A. 3, located to the west of the interior collector roadway. The VTTM P.A. 4 area is similar in location to the designated land use area as shown within the ARSP #1: Single Family Residential 11 (with a maximum density of 6 D.U. /ac. respectively with 4,200 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes). The P.A.'4's acreage shown within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is approximately 18.7 gross acres in size and is completely consistent with the ARSP #1 SFR 11 Land Use Category. As reviewed previously, the main collector road within the VTTM No. 35001 has been shifted slightly north into the ARSP #1's Single Family Residential II area, reducing the size of the P.A. Also, an area once referred to as 66 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 19 — Planning Area 3 I W � Aua',•�APR° Atlt° 11 , ,� �, � - we all Y I rrr -JJN/ My, p1 JA ice° Aw.l __/ •�• j \ ,moo - AV HP J1 i ' r�r uii• i GROSS PAalr ; $46 AC 4r JIJ AW! � JJ! •atr � -- uAr +wuP i v5E /09aTs AREA=19.8 AC Y/ AIrI 1 � 1 r - t yi 1060 EXISTING LAKE STREET ` V MY C'"' mmanv IME Nn DETENTION BASIN �• p•o-a�.jto/w/2,010 - Afq—JJ4 ACADD cm �\ 69R7f veer w,pw f 1059 se.E+cn ww=�.ar^A sPtixw see nsnw 10avr a<wr .ems a�wr eisncre Ftw uvsr no ! y i nrcv+�sea•e OF I4£ 20Qr . 12Z?OlIV21 M < . , Rr1fRF s 1• Wf.a /� / 1 -PA'AK'I Al9EF�tnti HV. Rxwrivr )DUCTS, INC .0 R4MCF PAXC 1/I/MN A'.FYY.�S left nw.iS0010 ,'� TRACT 28214-4 35000 CITY PARK 67 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 20 — Planning Area 4 1955 1907 OIL 910 l�rl! -� 95.7 loss fe$5 101! aw ,ac. ,1052 ate, ,afL, 10AB 9l1 laa, 10/7 /012 It s ,MRI �6 l 911 1045 Jail! 1044 1 Agw16,11, i Jo2B M pe \ W KT ,lwf! ,d _ / 10M1QJ0 \ \ IWO 1041 I1�7 ,U9J 1 /102 > ILW \Iw-f taw /la91? / INJJ l'aw JSR_,� lafl� fi 'NIRamys! IOU ' J11f/d 1O?5 raw Jox IWJ 1 L TS hw.7 ` ' ;A , \ ,aa, 1a te7 ,l o, 1022 Alox la, J� \ V4 9pa9p /lazo ,lot JOJ9 , , lINtO to/s 1010 --i TitAli Imo, 99i6f \ \ \ `Jl 110M iAMJ 1014 III O f � .Rql J� \,mot, 14415 tow J�s 999 \ �• low S26 I __ '^'•� I�IR 10rt3 IX4 /005 IMS i 6 ,l�l /aft♦ las! /eu! IJw.S -- I /!2J 68 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Single Family Residential II within the ARSP #1, is now occupied by the County of Riverside MSHCP acquired land to the northeast of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 P.A. 4. The approximate 18.7 gross acre area of P.A. 4 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 approximate 28-acre area is consistent with the ARSP #1, given the SFR II land use absorbed by the County of Riverside into future open space, (i.e. total ARSP#1 D.U.s of 2,735 with the VTTM No. 35001 portion of ARSP#1 of 1,422 D.U.$). (See Exhibit 20, above.) 3.5.5 Planning Area 5 — High Density Multi-Family Residential ( HDMFR) Planning Area 5, proposed as a High Density Multiple Family Residential (HDMFR) land use area within the proposed VTTM No. 35001, is located adjacent to and northeast of Nichols Road along Alberhill Ranch Road and is in the same general location of the ARSP #1 and has applied the zoned land use adopted as the ARSP #1. The only change is precise location of the HDMFR area due to the slight relocation of Alberhill Ranch Road where the HDMFR area continues to reside on the east side of Alberhill Ranch Road, but is now adjacent to the higher traffic volume collector Nichols Road due to the grading constraints and VTTM/County property line creation. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 P.A. 5 has a 11.5 gross acre area compared to the approximate 11.0 acres as shown within the ARSP #1. The maximum density shared by both the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the ARSP #1 is 30 D.U.s/ acre and the VTTM is consistent with the ARSP #1 in this PA. The 11.5 gross acre area of P.A. 5 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 11.0-acre area is substantially consistent in the overall area. The result is a minor overall gain of residential dwelling units due to the VTTM/County lot line location vis a vis the ARSP #1 land use category boundaries, (24 Du's); however, the overall VTTM is consistent with the ARSP #1 pro-rated portion of total dwelling units between the County and VTTM land use areas of 2,735 D.U.s. (See Exhibit 21 on the following page.) 3.5.6 Planning Area 8 — Single Family Residential I (SFR 1) Proposed Planning Area 8 most resembles the land use category of the current zoning, ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan, covering the developable land uses area, adjoining the County owned property, to the east and northeast of the main collector for the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The VTTM main east/west collector road (Alberhill Ranch Road easterly extension) within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan has been shifted southwest of where the main collector road was shown within the approved ARSP #1's land use plan. There were no precise alignments of this collector road and an estimate of relocation of the roadway has been made based on relatively un-scaled graphics from the ARSP #1. 69 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 21 — Planning Area 5 � 1011 1019 1�2* >, 1".4 7.�9 , ° COUNTY OF RIVERS/DE 1i o 1018 1ts76 1010 1017 — — 1I.5,xB \ 140..1 1016 1015 1014 O �\ � 745Q7 l4sz.1 !*s�o O ROPOSEO 1009 CR40INC usae L/M/TS 1 11008 PRO✓ECT EX/SANG GRAOING EASEMENT 7007 — Is'Ho PR0PER7Y O PER INST. NO. 2004—f035505 B 1219012004 OUNDARY '� \ l�*19 1002 1003 1004 1007 l4t90 IRSo2 1005 1008 '4-"8 IlSl.f 7151-6 715J.6 O y O & O OFFS17F RIGHTS—OF—WAY / TO BE ACQUIRED FROM / 01 \� C04MY OF R/✓ERS/DE / y / O � / y PA 115 ° HDMOW ° y o GROSS711 115 AC 1057 I/ GROSS AREA=9.5 AC ° ° I y o//\\o / / / O` / / LOr 5 i _ c ODOD" PROPOSED — �1 RECIPROCALAA1" .. __ / RESS/ECRES' r — — — 12-~ f _ r COUNTY OF RAZRSIDE, DED/C.4170N OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY TO NCH PROPOSED ALIGNMENT C17Y OF LAKE ELSINORE'PER DOC. Aug R I D 08-0482210, REC. NICHOLS ROAD NO 20EC. — — 0910212008 EX/SANG RIGHT BF--WAY DEDIG4740 TO CITY OF LAKE——_ � \ ELSINORE PER--CT 28214-4 70 \� I"MR-40-1W ME �� rill Mil 04 Wil kq,WI Rh .47 lo w '09 ,,1,� ., fig MW � ► + Al i .1� _ VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The proposed VTTM No. 35001 has the same single family residential I (SFRI) applied land use category zoning and land use density adopted in the ARSP #1, showing a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 S.F. Overall lot sizes average more than 5,000 Sq. Ft. P.A. 8 of the VTTM No. 35001 occupies 164.5 gross acres, while the ARSP #1 SFR I total acreage for this land use category extends into the County owned ASRP #1 Golf Course/Open Space interface area. As previously noted above in P.A.s 1, 4 and 5, the 598-acre ARSP #1 Land use category areas outside the proposed VTTM No. 35001 boundaries are now occupied by the County of Riverside MSHCP acquired land. The approximate 164.5 SFR I gross acre area of P.A. 8 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 495-acre County area, is less in overall SFR I zoned area contained within the County ownership. Thus the result is an overall potential loss of residential land use SFR I dwelling units if the County chooses to not develop housing within their ownership area. (See Exhibit 22 above.). 3.6 Transportation and Land Use The Land Use Plan of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan is very similar with regard to circulation or roadway elements and location to the land use categories. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 and adopted ARSP #1 Brighton plan incorporates commercial areas (Suburban Village) at the intersections of 2 major arterials, Lake Street and Nichols Road. This transportation system includes the east/west collector at Lake Street (northern portion of VTTM No. 35001), and the collector intersection at Lake Street and Nichols Road (in the southern portion of VTTM No. 35001). Even though the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the ARSP #1, have both their Suburban Village (mixed use high density multiple family residential, commercial, office, light industrial) land use designations at these two intersections, the VTTM No. 35001, as discussed above (within P.A. 1 and P.A. 3) will result in less acreage for the development of multi-use and residential dwelling units. This VTTM lesser acreage is a direct result of the bifurcation of these ARSP #1 land use categories by the County land acquisition. This bifurcation results in the following: the higher traffic volume intersections at these commercial/high density areas, as anticipated within the ARSP #1 (with the commercial potential and high visibility), will be reduced in volume within the VTTM No. 35001, as a result of less mixed use acreage available within the proposed VTTM. Note again that that the remaining Suburban Village area is occupied County owned land within the SP area. The ARSP #1 has 2,722,500 square feet of Suburban Village mixed use space on approximately 89 acres at two important collector/arterial intersections within the County and VTTM areas. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan does propose a pro- rated 1,358,000 square feet Suburban Village mixed use on approximately 44.4 acres at the same two important collector/arterial intersections identified in the ARSP #1 Land Use Plan, Exhibit #6. 72 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The proposed VTTM results in 1,364,500 less square feet of Suburban Village mixed use with the remaining square footage residing on County owned land. For CEQA preparation purposes, the VTTM No. 35001 allocated square footage of Suburban Village has been pro-rated by a acreage ratio between the VTTM acreage and the County acreage to determine both the high density multiple family residential land use and commercial, office, light industrial land use. 3.7 Comparison of Fiscal-Revenues of the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the ARSP #1 The VTTM No. 35001 by 2028 (when the build out is estimated to be complete) will generate to the City approximately $3,493,7926 yearly revenue for 44.4 commercial acres in new City commercial tax revenue generation for the approximately 1,358,000 square feet of retail mixed use office commercial. This is in total comparison to the ARSP #1 potential total commercial development generating approximately $7,214,6257 yearly sales tax revenue, (now including County owned land), over approximately 57 total County owned commercial acres in new City commercial tax revenue for the approximately 1,364,500 square feet of retail mixed use office commercial land use area in the County owned area. If the County owned commercial land is never developed, there could be a net loss of $3,720,8338 tax revenue to the City at ARSP #1 build out by 2028. This could be viewed as a "cost" of the MSHCP program to the future tax revenue stream of the City of Lake Elsinore. The County could decide to develop or sell for development these important and strategically located commercial parcels or the City could decide to acquire the property by negotiated sale or condemnation for future commercial development purposes. The commercial tax revenue generation rate used was based on the Direct Sales Tax of approximately $230.00 per square foot for neighborhood commercial (P.A. 1) and $265.00 for super community power commercial center (P.A. 3), which is based on the International Council of Shopping Center's National Research Bureau Census, 20089, for commercial development. 3.8 Parks and Open Space The adopted ARSP #1 has the following allotment for parks and open space. Nearly 28% of the total adopted ARSP #1 area has been set aside for parks, golf course, and natural open space. 6 P.A. 1 = 299,739 Sq. Ft. commercial @ $2.30/Sq. Ft. _ $689,400, and P.A. 3 = 1,058,261 Sq. Ft. @ $2.65/Sq. Ft. for a total of$3,493,792 as estimated yearly sales tax revenue for VTTM No. 35001. AVSP #1 permitted overall 2,722,500 Sq. Ft. of commercial area @ $2.65/Sq. Ft. _ $7,214,625 of estimated yearly sales tax revenue. 8 ARSP #1's $7,214,625 yearly sales tax revenue minus the VTTM No. 35001 $3,493,792 yearly sales tax revenue yield a net loss of$3,720,833 tax revenue to the City 9 The Sq. Ft. Direct Sales Tax dollar figures per square feet of $2.30/Sq. Ft. (for neighborhood commercial centers) and $265.00 (super community power commercial centers) were updated and provided by Alonzo Padrin of Alfred Gobar & Associates, Inc., by a telephone call with him on September 26, 2012. 73 . MO • • K7 �� �,.o, Qi�6p�q ?►�i►� oa�m�e, 3� yr OUNIS RIOT �► /s�, ��1,� � �e� �o�naannond oQ � 111� � 6� 'o'• �=��a�!��'�`°-=""��5�9���` '��p 4G�n�GaGpQ' �ltj '� � a, w�t� Q94[79r er i VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The ARSP #1 includes: The use of one five-acre park adjacent to the elementary school site land use area and the 18-hole golf course and associated "rough" natural open space. A standard golf course will contain between 90-120 acres of fairway. The ARSP #1 contains 144 acres of golf course and open space located now within the 598-acre property ownership of the County. The ARSP #1 grants park and open space acreage value or credits through a reduction in required on site public park site. The ARSP #1 grants park credit for the 22.4-acre community park site located within the original ARSP and now located and fully developed within the Murdock Specific Plan area and the (County owned) 144-acre golf course and open space area. The open space area has grown within the ARSP #1 to over 598 acres with the County acreage acquisition for MSHCP purposes with the probable elimination of the golf course. If the golf course is built, then the `in lieu' fees will be rebated by the City to any residential developer pursuant to the D.A. Section 30.4.1 . City Quimby Park Resolution 85-34 states that five acres of park land must be dedicated for every one thousand residents. The projected population of 8,766 for the ARSP # 1 would normally require 43.8 acres for the ARSP #1 planning area under City ordinances. The ARSP #1, however, required only 5.0 acres of public park land in conjunction with the proposed elementary school site, the golf course and partial park credit associated with the adjacent 30-acre community park located on the south side of Nichols Road. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 open space areas include two (2) public parks, an elementary school site, multi-purpose (pedestrian/utility access) trails, open space/wildlife corridors, dual-use park overlay to an underground tank area and open space associated with the slope throughout the proposed plan for the 400.3-acre area. The open space areas cover approximately 48.8 acres of the 400.3 gross total acres. Based on the total projected dwelling units of 1,401 within VTTM NO. 35001, a projected population of 4,721 (3.37 residents per D.U.), results in 23.6 acres of required public park dedication acres, based on the 5 acres per 1,000 resident requirement of the City park dedication ordinance. Of the 48.8 acres of open space that has been set-aside in the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan, 47.3 acres of the 48.8 acres is usable park area and usable pedestrian/trail system areas in addition to the other open space restored riparian and multi-use trails. The VTTM meets or exceeds the City Quimby Act requirements. The D.A. Section 3.6 requires a "turn key" park operational with the opening of the phase 1 model complex. Per the Brighton Development Agreement, the Alberhill Ridge project shared in the development of the 22.4 acre Alberhill Ridge Community Park located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. Utilizing a prorated share of park credit between Alberhill Ridge and Alberhill Ranch, the 10.5-acre portion, Alberhill Ridge has met the obligation of providing a "turn key" park operational with the opening of the phase 1 model complex. Additionally, it has been determined by Conditions of Approval for VTTM 35001 that the first public park to be constructed within VTTM 35001 shall occur by the 498th Certificate of Occupancy of equivalent residential dwelling units (EDU). 75 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Brighton Development Agreement The Brighton Specific Plan Development Agreement (D.A.) covers the ARSP #1 Specific Plan area. The D.A. was adopted on September 10, 1991 and had a 15-year time frame taking the D.A. term to a September 10, 2006 expiration date. The MSHCP environmental land use "overlay" was adopted in 2003 and had the effect of "de facto" modifying the ARSP #1 land uses and Brighton D.A. by "potentially" removing development area, replacing it with permanent open space and imposing new fee conditions. The MSHCP adopted after the approval of the ARSP #1 and its accompanying D.A. may "stay" toll or postpone the expiration of the D.A., arguably when the MSHCP activity over the Specific Plan area was contemplated by the County/City. This is a decision the City Council must consider. The land use, zoning and contract transactional effect of the MSHCP, on the Brighton D.A. and ARSP #1 Specific Plan, was to effectively modify or abrogate all aspects of the plan's urban land category uses overlaid by MSHCP Criteria Cells and Cell Groups. This 2003 MSHCP conservation change was not contemplated by the project proponent or City Council in the ARSP #1 or the Brighton D.A., nor was the ARSP #1 zoning and D.A. reviewed, as required, by the City Council. California State law contemplates such post entitlement changes to local D.A. contracts and State law stipulates when outside effects by the City or other public agencies makes the achievement of the Specific Plan impossible or by "defacto" governmental zoning type entitlement actions that modifies the Specific Plan or the D.A.. The net affect of this City/County MSHCP action is to stop the D.A. 15-year term from running as of the date of the contemplation of the matters, adoption and application of these subsequent governmental actions which modified or otherwise affected the Specific Plan and Development Agreement terms on this VTTM No. 35001 area. Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement and MOU between City and County on the ARSP #1 The successors in interest to Tri-Valley I (former owners of the VTTM No. 35001 area), Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., applicants for VTTM NO. 35001, had 5 years from the Acquisition Agreement execution date on February 10, 2004 or until February 10, 2009 to gain entitlements from the City of Lake Elsinore to utilize the acquisition agreement reduced MSHCP mitigation fees. Upon entitlement acquisition, Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. must then pay to the City a MSHCP mitigation fee of $472 per EDU for each residential dwelling unit constructed. There appears to be a scrivener's error between the Acquisition Agreement (Agreement) and the MOU as to another mitigation fee. In the Agreement, there is a mitigation fee of $821 payable to the County. In the MOU this fee of $821 is payable to the City. This apparent "scrivener's error" or MOU change from the Agreement matter must be clarified and better understood by all parties. 76 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 All VTTM No. 35001 MSHCP mitigation over the entire VTTM No. 35001 area is satisfied with the payment of MSHCP mitigation fees. After 10 years from the execution date of the Acquisition Agreement or February 10, 2014, the nominal MSHCP Ordinance 810 fees are paid at the prevailing rates. In addition, according to the Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement, if any resource agency mitigation is required of or on the VTTM No. 35001 site, the adjacent County owned 598-acre can be used for such State or Federal mitigation. For example, the VTTM No. 35001 will require both a Corps of Engineers 404 permit, a California Department of Fish and Game 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 permit for modifications to the unnamed ephemeral stream course along Lake Street from Nichols Road to near Temescal Road and Lake Street. According to the Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement, any mitigation for impacts to on-site "waters" can be mitigated with reference to the environmental resources found on the adjacent 598-acre County portion of ARSP #1, such as Temescal Creek, MOU February 10, 2004 page 3 of 5 Section 3. The ARSP #1 proposed up to a maximum of 2,735 residential dwelling units (2,135 single family residential units and 600 high density multi-family units), several Suburban Village areas (mixed use with 2,722,500 square feet) and a 144-acre golf course — open space land use. The amount of area devoted to residential land use in the proposed VTTM No. 35001 have either reduced or is very similar, but altogether less, in total dwelling units residential and commercial areas identified in the ARSP #1. This EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 analyzes the addition of a 6.9 gross acre public park site and a 3.1 gross acres public park site; plus a 38.8 public linear park area that includes open space/wildlife corridors areas allowing connectivity through the proposed VTTM No. 35001 to the County owned MSHCP future RCA lands along the western and southern project boundary at Lake Street and Nichols Road, respectively. The 598-acre County owned open space portion of the ARSP #1 area is not currently planned to be developed. This 598-acre open space area, as described in the ARSP #1, includes a portion of the 144-acre golf course and adjacent open space, clubhouse and SFR I and II areas of 392.2 acres containing approximately 1,116 dwelling units of single family residential, a HDMFR 5-acre area containing 150 dwelling units, and two areas of Suburban Village (56.7 total acre area) that would allow 68 high density multi- family residential units and 1,364,500 square feet of commercial/off/light industrial mixed use. This 598-acre County owned area will not be developed according to the County Tri-Valley I Agreements and thus will have a reduction in urban land uses in the City for the County acquired property within ARSP #1. In all areas of topical CEQA study areas, non-development will have a net reduction in the previous areas of adverse impacts. The following Table 3 summarizes the land use elements of the Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment #1 998-acre plan. 77 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 TABLE 3 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment#1 - Land Use Summary (Category) Land Use Acreage Dwelling Percentage Units (SFR I & II) Single Family Residential 748+ 2,135 75% (HDMF) High Density Multi-Family & 16.5 600/ 2% (SV) Suburban Village Mixed Use 89+ 2.0(FAR) 9% (GC-OS) Golf Course-Open Space (OS) Open Space — Neighborhood Park 144 0 14% (OS) Riparian Resource Area Total 998 2,735 DU 100% 3.9 Proposed VTTM No. 35001 The VTTM No. 35001 is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area: portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, Township 5 South, Range 5 West of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle and, Sections 27, 34 & 35, Township 5 South, Range 5 West of the Alberhill USGS Quadrangle. The geographic area of VTTM No. 35001 is located north of Nichols Street, east of Lake Street and south and west of Interstate 15, approximately 4,000 feet from 1-15/Nichols Road interchange. The VTTM No. 35001 boundary is shown on Exhibit 4. The entire VTTM No. 35001 site and adjacent areas have been subject to historic surface mining activities which are currently in some form of in-active mining maintenance. Clay and coal were discovered in the project vicinity in the 1800's and have been extensively mined since that time. The majority of property north, east, and west of the VTTM No. 35001 site is undeveloped or is being used for rock crushing activities and mining reclamation activities. The VTTM No. 35001 area and adjacent property are now within an area set aside by the Tri-Valley I Agreement for 598 acres of proposed MSHCP County conservation lands. A future conservation agreement is contemplated by the County land owner in coordination with the City pursuant to the Tri-Valley MOUs. To the east of the VTTM No. 35001 area there is vacant land and a commercial Outlet Mall located south and adjacent to Interstate 15. To the south, residential development known as the Murdock Alberhill Ranch currently exists in partial development form. This Alberhill Ranch is predominately single-family detached housing and contains the ARSP #1 and D.A. required 34-acre (now 22.4-acre) Community Park. To the west, on 1,374 acres near the Lake Street and the 1-15 Freeway, Pacific Clay Products conducts a variety of mining, related production and operates a brick and ceramic factory. The 78 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 majority of recent development in the City has occurred south and west of the VTTM No. 35001 site. Remaining land uses immediately south of the project site, in the Terra Cotta area of the City, consist of a small number of very low-density residences. In the vicinity of Collier Avenue, commercial and industrial uses are developing near and along the 1-15 Freeway. A number of Specific Plans, both inside the City and in the nearby, adjacent unincorporated portion of Riverside County, (Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan), have been approved in the vicinity of the ARSP #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 EIR Addendum #IV including: Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, Horsethief Canyon Ranch (to the west), North Peak, Ramsgate, and Tuscany Hills (to the east). The following Table 4 summarizes the land use breakdown of the VTTM No. 35001 as a portion of the remaining ARSP #1 areas. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 land uses, as compared to impacts evaluated in ASRP #1 EIR Addendum #I, are analyzed in this EIR Addendum #IV for the VTTM No. 35001 400.3-acre portion of the original ARSP #1. Table 4 - Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Portion of the ARSP #1 and Remaining ARSP #1 Mer ed Land Use Summary Land Use Category VTTM NO. 35001 Remaining ARSP#1 D.U. %of Portion of ARSP#1 Portion (County) Total D.U. (Castle&Cooke) Acres D.U.s Acres D.U.s (SFR 1) Single Family Residential 161.4 451 354.4 990 1,229 44.9 (SFR II) Single Family Residential 173.0 605 37.8 216 894 32.7 (HDMF) High Density Multi-Family 11.5 225 5.0 162 480 17.6 (SV) North Suburban Village Mixed Use 9.8 J-40 27.7 31 47 1.7 With HDMF Residential and With SFR 11 (incl.) 11 0.4 Residential and Commercial (299,739 Sq. Ft.) (666,558.25 -- -- Sq. Ft. (SV) South Suburban Village Mixed Use 34.6 80 29.0 33 73 2.7 With HDMF Residential and Commercial (1,058,261 Sq. Ft.) (697,941.76 -- -- Sq. Ft.) (GC-OS) Golf Course-Open Space -- -- 144.010 -- -- -- (PP) Public Park 10.0 -- -- -- -- -- (LP) Lineal Park 0.011 -- -- -- -- -- TOTALS 400.3 1,401 598 1,334 2,735 100% 10 *'The 144.0 acres for the Golf Course-Open Space permits an additional 500 D.U.s 11 38.8 acres of Linear Park is comprised of 11.5 acres of SV and 27.3 acres of SFR-II 79 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 24 — EIR Addendum #IV Merged Land Use Plan LIS County-Suburban Village -- _ 27.7 Acres County-Golf Course/Open Space • 144 Acres C&C-Suburban Village 9.8 Acres County-SFR 1 354.4 Acres C&C-SFR II 173.0 Acres C&C-SFR 1 \� 161.4 Acres Sri P P� • C&C-Suburban Village • ``', 34.6 Acres 1 C&C-HDMR County-SFR II • • { �, ! 11.5 Acres 37.8 Acres 1 County-HDMR •• I ,�� 5.0 Acres o� • 1 County-Suburban Village m , 29.0 Acres r 80 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 25 - Development/Recording Phases - EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 - VTTM No. 35001 I Pf>r4we . i -------- r \ I 1 1 I PHASE13 ------ +-- -- i i FMSE "SF PHASEFHMWO2 1 i PHASEIO PHASE 1 PHA6FI/,I.L— �\ \PHA SE9 % T 81 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The VTTM has included the various land use categories of the Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment #1 and is considered substantially consistent with the Specific Plan. (See Exhibit 24, above.) Also see Exhibit 25 for the General Phases of the VTTM No. 35001. As discussed above in this Addendum analysis, the incorporation of the VTTM NO. 35001 into the ARSP #1 plan shows that there is a reduction in the County owned ARSP #1 acreage land area, which has a net overall reduction in the land use categories, number of D.U.s within the County owned property and a concomitant reduction in overall or cumulative impacts from the original EIR and its related Addendums. Discussed more fully below, this EIR Addendum #IV concludes that reduced environmental impacts will occur within the proposed VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the impacts previously analyzed in EIR Addendum I because of: the decrease in overall urban development intensity for ARSP #1 approved land uses due to the land use changes contemplated in the 598-acre County owned property portion of ARSP #1 according to the 3 Tri-Valley agreements. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Introduction The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR analyzed the following 14 environmental topics as environmental areas that could be adversely affected by the implementation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan: • Mineral Resources • Geology/Soils and Seismicity • Hydrology/Water Quality • Noise • Climate and Air Quality • Wildlife/Vegetation (i.e., Biological Resources) • Land Use • Population and Housing • Energy Resources • Aesthetics • Historic and Prehistoric Resources • Traffic and Circulation • Public Facilities and Services; • Fiscal The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR for the 1,853-acre planning area, which includes the VTTM NO. 35001 plan areas concluded that only Air Quality and Biological Resources would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan; all other impact areas were either insignificant or potentially significant, but capable of full mitigation. 82 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EIR Addendum #1 prepared for the 998-acre ARSP #1 planning area analyzed these same topical CEQA impact areas in the context of the proposed modifications associated with the implementation of the Brighton proposed Specific Plan amendment and D.A. In the context of the Multiple-Family Dwelling Unit Option, EIR Addendum #1 concluded that the project contemplated in 1989 (i.e., the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan) to the project proposed in 1992 (i.e., Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan) would not cause any significant changes or new "impacts" that were not previously contemplated and addressed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum and covered by adopted mitigation measures. EIR Addendum #11 prepared for the Murdock Alberhill Ranch portion of the ARSP area reviews the identical 14 environmental impact areas addressed in EIR Addendum #1 and specifically focuses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five environmental impact areas with the most potential for changed circumstances since last analyzed in 1992 (i.e., biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geology, and hydrology) per the prepared Initial Study. EIR Addendum #III prepared for the project applicant, Murdock Development Company, on behalf of Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested approval of another Addendum to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR ("EIR Addendum III") for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'s ("VTTMs") 30836 and 28214. The EIR Addendum III was found complete and adequate by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's environmental analysis procedures. This EIR Addendum #III reviewed the identical 14 environmental impact areas addressed in EIR Addendum #1 and specifically focuses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five environmental impact areas as per the prepared Initial Study. 4.2 Environmental Impacts Analysis This section of VTTM No. 35001 , EIR Addendum #IV presents an analysis of potential impacts, as compared to those actual environmental impact areas, identified and analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1. Specifically, each of the 14 environmental impact areas, which were addressed in the Final EIR Addendum, to the ARSP #1 have been re-examined in this Addendum #IV based upon their proposed changes to the ARSP #1 to determine whether land use changes, associated with the implementation of proposed VTTM No. 35001 , will result in additional environmental impacts upon the environment beyond those levels previously identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1 . For each environmental topic discussed below, the corresponding discussion in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 are referenced. 83 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Mitigation measures referenced and contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and EIR Addendum I for ARSP # 1 , have been examined to determine the continuing application of those conditions for the VTTM No. 35001 areas. In compliance with CEQA § 21081 .6, the "mitigation reporting and monitoring program" developed in conjunction with EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures identified through the CEQA process will be included as conditions of approval for VTTM No. 35001 , in order to avoid significant environmental effects. This ARSP #1 mitigation and monitoring program, incorporating both the mitigation measures from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , as identified herein, is included within this Addendum #IV of this report and should be referenced in the VTTM NO. 35001 conditions of approval by staff. 4.2.1 Biological Resources (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.5, Pages 3-5 to 3-8; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-38 to IV-47) The proposed VTTM No. 35001's construction area of 400.3 acres and planned phases of the VTTM No. 35001 will directly impact biological habitats through cut, fill, and other grading activities, resulting in the loss of vegetation. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be destroyed or will be displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they may crowd and disrupt local populations or occupy otherwise non-occupied habitat. However, as the VTTM No. 35001 is compared to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the overall project area is less impacted acreage area overall (400.3 acres vs. 998 acres) and, therefore, the construction of the VTTM No. 35001 will not result in the introduction of any new environmental impacts on the areas biological resources and will likely reduce environmental impacts due to reduced grading, Existing Wildlife and Vegetation on the Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Project Site As discussed within the ARSP Amendment #1, there will be certain amounts of open space set aside to serve as buffers between the urban land uses and the sensitive riparian habitats. The open space will change from an undefined, unmanaged area to a defined, managed area. Wildlife Corridors will help in preserving and will allow wildlife to move about in a more restricted manner. The previous year's biological studies have discussed and included mitigation measure that would implement certain conservation actions (i.e. mitigation fees submitted to purchase replacement habitat). Also, as stated within the ARSP Amendment #1, site grading will necessitate alterations of drainage courses and other waters of the United States. Consequently, Regulatory Agencies (ACOE, CDFG and CRWQCB) and their respective permits will be required before any grading or construction activity will be permitted. 84 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Proposed VTTM 35001 Biological Resources Impacts The conclusion in the assessment of this report determined that the compendium of species observed during previous years biological surveys offers little change from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 and approved EIR/Addendum. Implementation of the mitigation measures previously identified in Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 and EIR Addendum, requiring updated biology surveys, have adequately addressed the potential of biological resources impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The existing 2 MOUs and Tri-Valley Agreement provides for a MSHCP and CEQA/NEPA biology pre-mitigation process previously described in this Addendum. Payment of MSHCP mitigation fees at building permit issuance will satisfy all ASRP #1 and MSHCP mitigation for biology impacts within the VTTM No. 35001 area and will reduce potential biological resources-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No further biological studies and mitigation is required within the VTTM No. 35001 . It should be noted that the MSHCP mitigates for both State and Federal endangered species that may reside on the VTTM No. 35001 project site. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the creation of any significant impacts upon existing biotic resources. Previous mitigation in the ARSP EIR and ARSP #1 EIR Addendum and associated project conditions are satisfied by terms of the Tri-Valley Agreements and should be so referenced in the VTTM conditions of approval for biology mitigation. 4.2.2 Traffic and Circulation (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.12, Pages 3-14 to 3-15; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-79 to IV-97) Development of the VTTM No. 35001, like the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1, will result in the generation of motor vehicle trips for residential, commercial and school/park land uses. Existing Traffic and Circulation Traffic impacts of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were detailed in the "Alberhill Ranch Traffic Study" prepared by Kunzman Associates (June 1988) for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Traffic and Circulation Impacts Traffic and circulation impacts will be less, considering that the development area of the proposed VTTM NO. 35001's 400.3 acres and 1,401 dwelling units is significantly less in overall acres and dwelling units totals than the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 85 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Amendment #1's 998 acres and 2,735 dwelling units. With the reduction of potentially 1,313 less residential dwelling units within the County owned portion of the ARSP #1 area, the project-specific traffic impacts for the VTTM No. 35001 would be less, as compared to the impacts analyzed in the Final EIR Addendum to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1. The primary reason of the reduction in traffic impacts is due to the reduced developable area created by the conversion of 598 acres to open space by the MSHCP process. This conclusion is supported by a letter dated June 17, 2009 (See Appendix `A') from Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (Keil Maberry) to Mr. Tom Tomlinson (of Castle & Cooke, Inc.), which reviewed and analyzed the traffic for the VTTM No. 35001, 400.3-acre area as compared to the previously studied and analyzed Project Zones from within the approved Alberhill Ranch Traffic Study, prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (January 25, 1991) for Brighton Homes, Inc., which was contained in the Addendum to the Final EIR for the ARSP #1 (May 1991). The proposed VTTM No. 35001 project, evaluated through this ARSP #1 Addendum #IV process and based on both the rates from the approved Alberhill Ranch Traffic Study and the equations and/or rates found in Trip Generation, Eighth Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008) is projected to generate 2,578 fewer net daily vehicle trips (one half arriving, one half departing) with 156 fewer trips forecast during the AM peak hour and 37 fewer trips forecast during the PM peak hour. This comparison represents a decrease in daily and peak hour traffic between the two development programs, such as the traffic impacts and mitigation measures identified for the baseline ARSP #1 project, as well as this Addendum #IV. Therefore, the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is consistent from a CEQA standpoint, as less daily vehicle trips will be generated. The approved ARSP FEIR and ARSP #1 EIR Addendum street infrastructure, and as previously reported, the proposed VTTM No. 35001's infrastructure for the project overlay area will be sufficient to handle projected traffic associated with the proposed VTTM. Circulation improvements are repeated here: 1) Nichols Road (Coal Road) will be widened to become a Major Street which will ultimately connect Lake Street (Robb Road) with Interstate 15; 2) A new collector Street "A" (Alberhill Ridge Road) will improve access between Lake Street (Robb Road) and Nichols Road (Coal Road); and 3) Lake Street will be realigned and widened to become a Major Street. Other specific additional upgrades to project roadways will be undertaken, including road widening, curb construction, signalization and turn pockets. In conjunction with the roadway system, non-vehicular systems will be provided throughout the ARSP #1 EIR Addendum #IV area. The County Plan of Bicycle Routes identified a Class II bike lane along Lake Street (in the original EIR), which will continue along Temescal Canyon Road, located within the road right-of-way. A City bikeway plan has now been implemented in the VTTM No.'s 30836 & 28214. The majority of pedestrian facilities will be provided in the form of sidewalks situated along all Major, Arterial, Secondary and Collector Streets. 86 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Implementation of the mitigation measures previously identified within the baseline ARSP FEIR and Final EIR to ARSP Amendment #1, remain applicable and will adequately address and mitigate potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and EIR Addendum #IV. The staff engineering conditions to this VTTM No. 35001 should be so constructed as to differentiate and tie the roadway construction and conditions together between the existing VTTM No.'s 30836 and 28214 and the now proposed VTTM No. 35001. Background traffic and future traffic from the remaining parts of the City and County should also be identified in the traffic conditions so as to create a "fair share" apportion of the future traffic impacts of the VTTM No. 35001 to the existing and future projects outside the VTTM No. 35001 area of influence. Incorporation of those existing ARSP #1 measures will reduce potential impacts to traffic and the circulation system to a level of insignificance. 4.2.3 Noise (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.3, and Page 3-4; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-20 to IV-28) Noise impacts to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were discussed within the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , of which the proposed VTTM No. 35001 project site is a part. Existing Noise During the development of Phase 1 of the VTTM No. 35001 , construction noise will be generated, which represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. This was previously evaluated in the ARSP EIR. Grading activities typically represent one of the highest potential for noise impacts with lesser impacts from on- and off-site construction traffic. Within the EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , it was reported and identified that the greatest short-term noise impacts produced from grading would occur adjacent to, or near to, residences located near Lake Street, Nichols Road and Terra Cotta Road. Grading will be accomplished by phases (see Exhibit 25) in accordance with Exhibit 26, as shown below, in this Final EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP Amendment #1 - VTTM No. 35001 . Phases 1 and 2 will be graded concurrently to balance earthwork quantities on site, and to limit the impact to neighboring residences. No new short-term noise impacts are anticipated than those already analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Regarding long-term noise impacts, the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, indicated that increased traffic (associated with the additional 500 additional residential units) would be the predominate source of noise and may be greater then previously identified within the original ARSP. The assessed impacts 87 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Exhibit 26 - Grading Phases - EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 - VTTM No. 35001 /• �• ` �---- � � 'i __-_it � 1i , \\• / 1 i CMDAG i l t 88 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 associated with the ARSP #1 was reported of having further impacts as a result of the adjacent and off-site land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project. The Final EIR estimated roadway noise along various streets (Robb Road and Terra Cotta Road) would be further exacerbated. Proposed VTTMs Noise Impacts The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, estimated future noise impacts for the approved ARSP #1 Addendum and the proposed VTTM No. 35001, which is a part of the ARSP #1, based on the existing noise, the project-related short-term construction noise, and the long-term traffic noise levels determined in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR (Kunzman Associates, August 1988). Based on this analysis reported in the approved Final EIR and Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, the development of the proposed EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 and VTTM No. 35001 would result in 1,334 less residential dwelling units and 1,364,500 Sq. Ft. less commercial development being built within the ARSP#1 study area (assuming the 598 acres remain MSHCP open space). Potentially there would be no warrant for an additional noise analysis required for approval of the VTTM No. 35001 based on the reduced traffic volumes assessing that the VTTM No. 35001 and the subject area is consistent with the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1. The Final Map/Plot Plan reviews will assess the architecture, windows and fencing types that will be used within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 to reduce noise to the EIR mitigated acceptable levels. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 will adequately address potential noise impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No. 35001's conditions of approval will reduce potential short-term and long-term noise- related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.4 Hydrology (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.2, and Pages 3-3 to 3-4; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-14 to IV-19) The hydrological impacts to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were also discussed and considered within the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 of which the proposed VTTM No. 35001 project area is a part. Existing Hydrology The Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the implementation of the approved ARSP Amendment #1 would result in an increase in the amount of project area allocated for urbanized (non-permeable) surface areas (e.g. commercial uses, school properties, and roadways). Additionally, by shifting the 89 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 emphasis towards a higher density residential development pursuant to the D.A., individual lot coverage may be increased (e.g., smaller percentage of individual lots allocated for landscaping). Open space areas will increase. However, by increasing the percentage of area which may be covered with impervious materials, the quantity of storm water and/or irrigation run-off may increase. The increased runoff will increase flows into the unnamed Lake Street wash and then to Walker Canyon Creek/Temescal Creek and other downstream facilities such as Prado Santa Ana River Basin, but channel improvements, detention and storm water cleaning systems determined during final engineering will ensure that the effect to properties directly downstream of the discharge point is minimal. Actual flows will be calculated and reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. An additional source of concern, as indicated in the Alberhill Specific Plan Final EIR, was the former surface mining depressions which were inundated with water. The Final EIR indicated that these depressions could be considered a serious hazard and a danger to the community if left unsupervised. The Alberhill Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1 would minimize potential impacts to hydrology to a level of insignificance. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Hydrology Impacts KWC Engineers was asked to complete a Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis (May 2009) on the proposed VTTM No. 35001 site (in addition to the Pacific Clay property to the west) to hydrologically model the project site's onsite and offsite tributary watersheds, to determine the existing and proposed peak runoffs and to also determine the existing and proposed peak runoffs and to approximate the peak storage required to mitigate any increased runoff due to development for the most critical storm and duration event (See Appendix — Section `C'). State law requires retaining on-site water in containment areas for a period to complete purification of storm water runoff. This can be accomplished through fossil filters, retention basins and natural biology filters located at strategic locations on-site. Such retention basins would be required pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 402 requirements. KWC has proposed, within the VTTM No. 35001, a series of above and below ground drainage facilities, strategically located, to pick up, contain as necessary, and convey the surface runoffs through the site to their respective discharge points. Figure 4 of the KWC_Engineers Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis report shows the approximate master drainage facilities for the proposed VTTM No. 35001, inclusive of the Pacific Clay project area. The Land Uses proposed and their effect of impervious surfaces, and soil groups determined the average infiltration rates KWC reported that design criteria of the onsite detention facilities were found to be effective in mitigating the 90 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 impacts of frequent events (i.e., 2-year to 10-year storm events) and, however, had little impacts on low frequency events (i.e., 100-year storm event). The FEIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 reported these mitigation measures will apply: 1) All drainage facilities shall conform to the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department; and 2) Erosion control devices and an energy dissipating device shall be provided in order to protect the existing streambed of Lake Street and Walker Canyon Creek/Temescal Creek, if necessary. Incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Specific Plan Final EIR, the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the Water Supply Assessment (WSA), Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will reduce potential project impacts upon hydrology associated with the development of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.1 , Pages 3-2 to 3-3; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-1 to IV-13) The impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity were considered and discussed within both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the proposed VTTM' No. 35001 project site 400.3 acre areas is a part. Existing Geology, Soils, and Seismicity According to, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the existing geologic conditions for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan did not change significantly from those previously analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Although unit type and location may vary, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that no additional geotechnical constraints or impacts were identified within the ARSP Amendment #1 area which would preclude development of the project or result in the exposure of people or structures to geologic hazards (Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, 388.1 acres and 107.9 acres Alberhill Ranch, Riverside, California, Petra, January 1990). Seismic risk in Southern California is a well-recognized factor, and is directly related to geologic fault activity. Seismic damage potential depends on the proximity to active or potentially active fault zones, and on the type of geologic structures. Seismic risk associated with the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 Plan, of which VTTM No. 35001 is a part, is similar to the seismic risk associated with the approved Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. 91 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 noted that a large portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan has been mined by the Alberhill Coal and Clay Company and by Pacific Clay Products. The mining areas are generally located in Planning Area 3 and that area east of Lake Street, south of Nichols Road and north of Collector A. Mining operations will be phased out over time within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. In addition, numerous clay pits, access roads, desilting ponds, and large fill spoil piles are present within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan boundaries, as well as abandoned mine shafts and tunnels that are present in the pit area. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 portion of the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, lies within areas that have been devoted to mineral extraction and mining activities and are, therefore, subject to impacts related to these past land uses. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 found that land use modifications from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 site plan and associated reconfiguration of the project's circulation system (i.e., the slight overall location of the collector road through the project) would result in localized changes in project grading. However, the boundary of grading operations has remained unchanged, and the grading will be designed so that earthwork quantities balance on site. Balancing of the earthwork quantities will be performed during the final engineering phase of VTTM No. 35001 taking into account changes in the topography from RP2011-1 (formerly RP90-1) along with adjustments to the project grading design resulting from shrinkage and subsidence conditions that will be experienced during the rough grading operations of VTTM No. 35001 . Therefore, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the VTTM No. 35001 is a part, concluded that incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would minimize potential environmental impacts from geology and seismicity to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts Petra Geotechnical, Inc. was asked to submit a Geological Feasibility Review of the proposed VTTM No. 35001, a 400.3-acre plan area. The purpose of the feasibility review is to provide an assessment of the currently applicability of the various geologic and geological issues, constraints and mitigation measures contained within the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 CEQA Addendum related to future VTTM No. 35001 mixed land use development within the subject portion of the property. The geological constraints have been identified in an earlier assessment, which was performed in support of the 1989 EIR (Douglas Wood and Associates, 1989, Nicoll, 1988), and carried forward in the ARSP #1 CEQA Addendum. After the analysis of the existing site conditions, Petra Geotechnical Inc. concluded that the geological condition of the site remained unchanged from previous studies, and is consistent with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1. Supplemental 92 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 site-specific geotechnical investigations will be required and performed in the future as the final plans for the development are formalized through the Final Tract Map process. The surface mining and remediation plans have not changed since analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1. The major remediation includes the filling and stabilizing or buttressing of various landslide areas and water cavities (mining pits), minor remedial earthwork/grading, to properly abandon mining access roads and pre-existing mining tunnels, and soil sampling and laboratory testing. This work was undertaken in conformance with all local, state, and federal laws, and has not significantly impacted the geological condition of the site. Therefore, since there are no significant changes in the geological conditions at the site, which is consistent with the Petra Geotechnical, Inc. investigation and review, the previous impacts and mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential geological impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of the existing measures into the VTTM No. 35001 conditions of approval will reduce potential geological-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.6 Land Use (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.6, Pages 3-8 to 3-10; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-48 to IV-61) Land Use was considered and discussed within both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the proposed VTTM' No. 35001 project site 400.3-acre areas is a part. Existing Land Use Assessment As explained in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the adoption of the ARSP #1 would result in land use changes as previously approved in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The changes reflected refinements to land use configuration adopted as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and reflected modifications to the size, precise location and design parameters of specific land uses rather than substantive changes to the ultimate development concept envisioned under the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The approved land use designations currently apply to the 998-acre property ARSP Amendment #1, which allows a total of 2,735 dwelling units on 764 acres as well as 89 acres of Suburban Village Mixed Use, and 144 acres of Golf Course-Open Space, Neighborhood Park-Open Space and Riparian Resource Area-Open 93 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Space. Comparing these totals with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 , the proposed VTTM No. 35001 land uses are very similar in location, but with a slight variation in acre sizes. The 400.3-acre area of the ARSP Amendment No.1/EIR Addendum #IV and proposed VTTM No.35001 , which is a portion of the overall 998 gross acre ARSP #1 area, is proposing a decrease in the amount of area devoted to residential use and a decrease of commercial use, respecting the other remaining 598 acres will become MSHCP open space and not be developed. The amount of Public Park (6.9 gross acres) , plus the additional open space that is proposed as a Linear Park for open space/wildlife corridors (38.8 net acres) within the 11 .5 acres of the SV and 27.3 acres of the SFR-II providing recreation pedestrian trails while serving dual use as utility access. A Public Park adjacent to the underground water tank (3.1 acres) is provided as a "trailhead" to the future MSHCP open space area. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 ) totals approximately 48.8 acres of open space. This does not include the 144 acres of golf course area located within the 598.3-acre area of the ARSP #1 and the existing 22.4-acre park located in the southeast corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road. Additional but lesser open space variations also occur in relation to the amount of on-site area devoted to on-site roadways and other infrastructure elements. It also must be noted that should the golf course not be built within the remaining ±598-acre portion of the ARSP #1 area, then 500 dwelling units will be decreased from the allowable 2,735 overall dwelling units permitted in accordance with the 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Applicant. According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , although the size and location of individual land uses were revised, the type and distribution of land uses within the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed project objectives of the VTTM No. 35001 would be similar to the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, and, therefore, fully consistent with the land uses contemplated in the proposed VTTM No. 35001 portion of the ARSP #1 . Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that land use modification, as specified in the proposed VTTM No. 35001, will not result in the creation of significant adverse land use environmental impacts. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Land Use Impacts The main land use variances between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP #1 is that the residential land use development is reduced by 1 ,334 dwelling units and ,1 ,364,500 Sq .Ft. of commercial development due to the potential MSHCP open space on the remainder of the 598-acre area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed. Land use modification, as specified in the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will not result in the creation of a significant adverse land use environmental impacts. Incorporation of those planning and design criteria identified in the 94 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 ARSP #1 will minimize potential on-site and off-site environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.7 Climate and Air Quality (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.4, Pages 3-4 to 3-5; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-29 to IV-37) Climate and Air Quality were both considered and discussed within both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the proposed VTTM No. 35001 project site 400.3-acre areas is a part. Existing Climate and Air Quality The proposed land use changes that were approved for the ARSP #1 did not result in a change to existing on-site or off-site climate conditions, and therefore, the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will also not create a change to existing on-site or off-site climate conditions. According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, short-term air quality impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Additionally, long-term air quality impacts of the ARSP #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 , which is a part of the ARSP #1 , will result from the introduction of additional mobile source (i.e., vehicular) and stationary source (i.e., on-site consumption of natural gas, off-site generation of electricity) emissions and with the additional 500 residential units, which was stated within the approved ARSP #1 , may increase total vehicular trips generated by the project and corresponding mobile source emissions, thereby exacerbating those air quality impacts identified in the FEIR to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that pollutant levels associated with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, as applied, would exceed the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and the reactive organic gases would also exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's thresholds for significance. As a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was required for its approval. Consistent with this, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1's air quality analysis for the ARSP #1 and proposed VTTM No. 35001 , it was determined that air quality impacts associated with the development of the ARSP #1 were considered significant in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and reactive organic gases, and immitigable. Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of those mitigation measures 95 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will reduce, but not eliminate, the significance of the impact. However, these impacts were found not to be substantially different or worse than those impacts previously analyzed. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Air Quality Impacts The main air quality difference between the projects analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP #1 is that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 residential land use development is reduced by 1 ,334 dwelling units and the commercial areas are reduced by 1 ,364,500 Sq. Ft., due to the potential MSHCP open space use on the remainder of the County 598- acre area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of short-term and long-term air quality impacts due to less homes being built. Therefore, although the air quality impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 are still considered significant; these impacts are not substantially different or worse than those impacts previously analyzed within the, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1. Implementation and incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR Addendum #I, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 into the proposed VTTM No. 35001 conditions of approval will reduce, but not eliminate, the significant air quality impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.8 Population and Housing (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.7, Pages 3-10 to 3-11; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-62 to IV-64) Existing Population and Housing When the FEIR to the ARSP Addendum #1 , of which the VTTM No. 35001 is a part, was compared to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR which included 3,705 dwelling units (estimating 13,338 individuals), the FEIR was considered to be consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth parameters for the City. The approved ARSP #1 FEIR, which authorized the additional 500 residential dwelling units, concluded that the revised land use and population projections (an additional 1,800 individuals at the City's assumed 3.6 individuals per unit) identified for the ARSP #1, were substantially in compliance with the previous Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR analysis. As a result, potential changes in project-related population or housing characteristics were not considered significant. 96 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Population and Housing Impacts The main differences of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 is that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is a smaller 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP Amendment #1's total 998-acre area. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 , creating 1 ,401 residential dwelling units, which is a residential development reduction of 1 ,334 dwelling units, results in less population by 4,802 individuals and housing impacts and a consequential reduction in commercial development impacts. The reduction is due to the remaining 598 acres of the ARSP #1 potentially becoming a MSHCP open space land use area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of population and housing impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR have adequately addressed potential population and housing impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No. 35001's conditions of approval will reduce potential population and housing- related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.9 Energy Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.8, Pages 3-11 to 3-12; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-65 to IV-66) Existing Energy Resources The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimated that natural gas and electrical usage for the residential units are assumed to consume an average of 6,081 kWh/unit/year and 3,918 cubic feet of natural gas/unit/month. Based on the ARSP #1's revised project and the increased consumption by approximately 3,040,500 kWh/year and the 235,800 thermos of natural gas/year, (for the approved 2,735 dwelling units) the energy demand, however, is not considered significant and can be readily provided by the area's utility purveyors. When comparing this usage to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimates, the proposed VTTM No. 35001, there will be a decrease in consumption of energy due to the fact that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will have fewer residential dwelling units and less commercial development than the ARSP #1 land use development plan. The incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would minimize potential impacts upon those energy resources to a level of 97 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 insignificance. As a result, no additional mitigation measures are recommended. Proposed VTTMs Energy Resources Impacts The main differences of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 is that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is a smaller 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP Amendment #1's total 989-acre area, and that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 of 1 ,401 residential dwelling units -- a residential development reduction of 1,334 dwelling units and reduced commercial development, resulting in less population, housing impacts and reduced commercial energy consumption with an overall reduction in energy resources (which yields a reduction of 8,112,054 electrical kWh per year and also a reduction of 5,226,612 cu. ft. of natural gas per year). The reduction is due to the remaining 598 acres of the ARSP #1 potentially becoming a MSHCP open space land use area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of energy resources impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 will adequately address potential energy resources impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No. 35001's conditions of approval will reduce potential energy resources-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.10 Aesthetics (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.9, Pages 3-12 to 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-67 to IV-69) Existing Aesthetics According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the ARSP #1 site is characterized by rolling terrain, ranging in elevation from 1 ,200 feet to 1 ,800 feet and situated within a large section east of Lake Street and north of Nichols Road. A major ridgeline is also located west of and parallel to Interstate 15. The primary appearance of the site, from off-site areas to the east, is one of undeveloped rolling hills and open space. Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that implementation of the ARSP #1 will permanently alter the nature and appearance of the area by introducing development into a largely undeveloped area. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 also noted that the most notable change to the ARSP Amendment #1 was the modification to the 404 acres of natural open space represented in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which will 98 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 include the development of a golf course, riparian resource area along Temescal Creek and other open space areas on-site. Slopes of 25% or greater, has been proposed for retention as open space to provide an aesthetic transition from residential land uses and the 1-15 Freeway to the north and along the perimeter of the project area of the ARSP #1 . The proposed VTTM No. 35001 , 400.3-acre project area, which is a portion of the 989-acre area of the ARSP #1 , would not create any additional impacts over those associated with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. Implementation of those standards and guidelines identified in the ARSP Amendment #1 would reduce visual impacts of project development to a level which is not significant. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Aesthetics Impacts The main land use difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP #1 , is that the residential land use development is reduced by 1 ,334 dwelling units and 1 ,364,500 S.F. due to the potential MSHCP open space on the remainder of the 598-acre area, and as a result, there will be fewer homes constructed. Additionally, the ARSP #1 contains specific development standards and design guidelines for each land use component. These guidelines apply to the proposed VTTM No. 35001 project development and will ensure the incorporation of appropriate landscaping and design standards to protect (enhance) the site's visual environment. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of aesthetics impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential aesthetics impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . Incorporation of those measures into the proposed VTTM conditions of approval will reduce potential aesthetics-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.11 Historic and Prehistoric Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.10, Page 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-70 to IV-74) Existing Historic and Prehistoric Resources According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , no known archaeological sites exist on the ARSP #1 site plan area. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan contains a total of eight paleontological sites, three of which are located within the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan boundaries. A historic site, located near Nichols Road and Terra Cotta Road, is located within the Murdock Alberhill 99 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Ranch Specific Plan area. This site contains remnants of mining activity. According to the Archaeological Assessment prepared for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, given the condition and disturbances to this historic site, mitigation efforts are not warranted. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that impacts on paleontological resources for both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the ARSP #1 , as a result of grading operations for project development, have the potential to be significant. These potential impacts, however, were reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 . Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Historic and Prehistoric Resources Impacts The main difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 (989-acre site area) and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is the reduction in total overall development area. The VTTM No. 35001 proposes to develop only 400.3 acres total of the 989 acres within the approved ARSP #1 project site. The result will be a reduction in the overall size and potential impact to any possible historic and prehistoric resource found while grading. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of historic and prehistoric impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential historic and prehistoric impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval will reduce potential historic and prehistoric-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.12 Mineral Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.11 , Page 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-75 to IV- 78) Existing Mineral Resources Project development will preclude future use of the site for clay extraction, however, this use has been found to be economically infeasible. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 would eliminate the State MRZ zone from the site. The mined area will require reclamation in order to accommodate the project. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the approved ARSP #1 would have the same impacts upon mineral extraction activities as would have occurred from 100 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 implementation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, since mineral extraction activities would be phased and reclaimed under either development scenario. Therefore, incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would reduce impacts upon mineral resources to a level of insignificance. Proposed VTTMs Mineral Resources Impacts The main land use difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 are that residential development area is less in area, resulting in less grading and fewer impacts to mineral resources. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of mineral resources impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential mineral resources impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval will reduce potential mineral resources-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.13 Public Facilities and Services (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , Section 3.2.13, Pages 3-15; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-98 to IV-118) According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the additional dwelling units, as proposed under the ARSP #1 would result in an incremental increase in demands on various public facilities and services (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, water and sewer, parks and recreation, utilities, and solid waste). Each of these public facilities/services impacts as analyzed in Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 are summarized below and relate to the proposed VTTM No. 35001 in comparison. Fire Protection According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the implementation of the ARSP #1, including conversion of natural open space to other urban, recreational and open space uses, will minimize fire hazard risks associated with natural open space areas. Additionally, the introduction of additional landscaping (and irrigation), including fuel modification zones adjoining urbanized areas, will minimize risks associated with brush fires by establishing a buffer between developed areas and natural open space areas. 101 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The approved ARSP Amendment #1 permitted the projected increase of residential development and the projected service demands upon both paramedic and fire protection services area. It was concluded that the mitigation measures within the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would, however, reduce potential impacts upon those services to a level of insignificance. As a result, no further or additional measures have been identified herein. Police Protection According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, the development of the ARSP #1 would generate a population of 5,147. This increase in population would incrementally increase the criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, assaults, etc. The approved Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the ARSP #1 would generate the need for 22 additional deputies, to provide adequate protection to future residents. This represented an increase in the amount of police officers required due to the increase of generated resident population of 14,820 persons. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 also concluded that although the total number of dwelling units may increase within the ARSP #1 area, the impacts upon police services were not anticipated to significantly increase beyond those levels analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. The potential reduction in overall residential and commercial land use over the entire ARSP #1 area may result in a decrease in the number of additional deputies examined in the ARSP #1 Addendum. This should be examined if and when the County area is rezoned to open space. Schools According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the approved ASRSP #1 lies within the service boundaries of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District for grades K-12. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimated that the ARSP #1 was anticipated to generate 300 additional students (i.e., 200 students within the Lake Elsinore School District and 100 students in the Elsinore Unified High School District). In order to accommodate elementary school age children, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 included an approximate 23-acre area with a portion of the site designated as park area, which would be acquired and developed by the 102 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Lake Elsinore Unified School District and developed at the time when it was needed. Accordingly, Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that the proposed school site would meet the School District's criteria. Impacts on elementary school, junior high school and high school facilities would be mitigated by payment of a school impact fee by the developer imposed by AB 2926. Therefore, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the measures contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would mitigate potential impacts upon local school district to a level of insignificance. Parks and Recreation According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the development of the approved ARSP #1's site total acreage allocated for recreational uses within the project site will increase substantially. This increase in population to the area would create additional demand for local and regional recreational facilities. Due to the close proximity of the Lake Elsinore State Recreation Area, residents would visit the Lake for recreational purposes. Although the proposed ARSP #1 recreational amenities on-site would not entirely alleviate the impact to water recreation at the Lake, they would provide opportunities for other activities for future residents. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the project would be required to adhere to the City of Lake Elsinore Resolution No. 85-34, adopted on May 28, 1985, requiring five-acres of parkland per 1 ,000 in population or payment of in lieu fees. Based on this, the ARSP #1 would create a required overall demand for 58.73 acres of recreation facilities. This park acreage would include a 34-acre Community Park located at the southeast corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road. With the potential development of the 144+ acre golf course and the open space on both sides of Temescal Creek,_the parkland provisions exceed the required demand. The Developmental Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership specifies that the (collectively, "Community Park Improvements") Developer must contribute but may not exceed $1,500,000 for all community park improvements. This sum shall be adjusted by the percentage increase, if any, in the Index during the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on the date the Developer commences the Community Park Improvements. Any remaining costs of improvement of the Community Park will be incurred by the City. 103 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that implementation of the ARSP #1 would result in a beneficial impact upon area recreational opportunities. As a result, no additional mitigation measures have been identified. Solid Waste According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final development of the ARSP #1 would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, in turn placing increased demand upon services of waste haulers in the area. Based upon the solid waste generation factor for Riverside County (7.9 pounds/person/day), the projected increase of ARSP #1's 500 dwelling units and 3.6 individuals per unit, the amount of solid waste would increase approximately 14,220 pounds/day. The entire ARSP #1 project area will generate 46 tons of solid waste per day, shortening the life of the Double Butte and El Sobrante Disposal sites In addition, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the conversion of natural open space areas to other land uses (including the 144+ acre golf course) will result in the generation of additional organic wastes which will require landfill disposal or composting. The golf course will include a composting/landscape refuge area and/or composting program designed to minimize potential project-related impacts upon County sanitary landfill facilities. The facilities and services demand projections for the ARSP #1 are expected to be substantially consistent with the demand projections analysis in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would reduce potential impacts upon solid waste facilities and services to a level of insignificance. Telephone According to Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, the ARSP #1 would place additional demand upon the existing telephone service, and these demands are well within the parameters of GTE. However, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR noted that the ARSP #1 would require new lines to serve future project residents. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the increased telephone demands, as a result of implementation of the ARSP #1, were not considered significant. Therefore, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR for telephone impacts would reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 104 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 Water and Sewer Regarding water demand, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the ARSP #1 would be provided water service by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District ("EVMWD"). According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the water consumption to be demanded by the R-1 and R-S portions of the Annexation Area would result in 2.973 million gallons per day ("mgd") average day demand and 5.776 mgd for the maximum daily demand. The ARSP #1 , due to its increase in the 500 units will require a minor increase in water supply, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would minimize potential impacts upon the water system to a level of insignificance. Also in order to conserve water, the project shall comply with Title 20 of the California Administration Code. A water distribution system is proposed to serve the project area. Portions of the site would have to be served by the 1601 and 1801 pressure zone systems, which have no facilities at this time, and will require a regional pump station, lines and storage reservoirs, Regarding sewer service, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the ARSP #1 area was provided sanitary sewer service by EVMWD. According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 , the total anticipated average daily flows and the sewage generation associated with the ARSP #1 , was estimated to be 1 .3893 mgd. To provide sewerage facilities, this master planned treatment plant westerly of Temescal Road must be constructed. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would minimize potential impacts to the sanitary sewage system to a level of insignificance. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Public Facilities and Services Impacts The main land use difference between the project areas analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 is a portion of the overall ARSP #1 project area. Therefore producing smaller or lesser impacts overall. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of public facilities and services impacts (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, water and sewer, parks and recreation, utilities, and solid waste) due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential public facilities and services impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval 105 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 will reduce potential public facilities and services-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 4.2.14 Fiscal (See Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-119 to IV- 120) Existing Fiscal Impacts A fiscal impact report was completed for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan which indicated an overall positive fiscal impact at specific plan build out. The incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would minimize potential fiscal impacts on the City to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Fiscal Impacts The main land use difference between the project area analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 53001 , is that the project area of the VTTM No. 35001 is a part (400.3 acres) of the overall project area of ARSP #1 (989 acres). Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a slight reduction of fiscal impacts due to less homes being built. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address potential fiscal impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 . Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No. 35001's conditions of approval will reduce potential fiscal-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum. 106 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 5.0 REPORT PREPARERS Lead Agency City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main St Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530 Planning Manager - Senior Planner - Kirt Coury Telephone: (951) 674-4124, Fax- 951-471-1419, Cell: 949-547-9570 Engineering Consultant KWC Engineers 1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100 Corona, CA. 92881-3370 Ken Crawford ken.crawford@kwcengineers.com Mike Taing mike.taing@kwcengineers.com Telephone: (951) 734-2130 EIR Consultant The Planning Associates 3151 Airway Ave., Suite R-1 Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 Hardy M. Strozier, AICP hardyesq@aol.com Telephone: (714) 556-5200/ CeII#: (714) 366-3828/ Fax: (714) 556-3905 Legal Consultants Miles Law Group 3151 Airway Ave., Suite R-1 Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 Stephen M. Miles Esq. smiles@mileslawgroup.com Telephone: (714) 556-5200/ Cell: (714) 393-3389 107 VTTM No. 35001 CEQA Addendum#IV November 13, 2012 EIR Technical Consultants Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers - Traffic and Circulation 1580 Corporate Drive, Ste. 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Keil Maberry Tele: (714) 641-1587 KWC Engineers - Preliminary Hydrology Analysis 1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100 Corona, CA. 92881-3370 Ken Crawford & Mike Taing Tele: (951) 734-2130 Petra Geotechnical, Inc — Geology and Soils Doug Johnston & Grayson Walker 38655 Sky Canyon Dr., Suite A Murrieta CA 92563 Tele: (951) 600-9271 Dr. Christopher Drover— Archaeology 54 Sea Pine Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tele: (949) 760-2522 108