HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATION NO. 77 - INITIAL STUDY Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12
Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03
State Clearinghouse No. 2006051003
Annexation No . 77
Prepared For:
City of Lake Elsinore
Applicant:
City of Lake Elsinore
Prepared By:
R ONE COMPANY Many Solutions- �
1
�. V August 2006
INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12
PRE-ZONING No. 2006-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-03
ANNEXATION NO. 77
Prepared For.
M City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore,CA 92530
Prepared By:
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutionst,
fDR
D72 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200
L� U �'�;1 San Diego,CA 92123
J
CITY OF�SIr�—J
PLANNING DIVISIDNIRE
August 2006
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1
ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4
EnvironmentalChecklist.............................................................................................................................10
EnvironmentalAnalysis..............................................................................................................................21
Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................................................21
AgriculturalResources.....................................................................................................................................................22
AirQuality..........................................................................................................................................................................22
BiologicalResources.........................................................................................................................................................24
CulturalResources............................................................................................................................................................28
Geologyand Soils.............................................................................................................................................................30
{ Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................................................32
Hydrologyand Water Quality.........................................................................................................................................34
LandUse and Planning....................................................................................................................................................36
rMineral Resources.............................................................................................................................................................37
Noise...................................................................................................................................................................................37
Populationand Housing..................................................................................................................................................39
PublicServices...................................................................................................................................................................40
Recreation...........................................................................................................................................................................43
Transportation/Traffic....................................................................................................................................................43
Utilitiesand Service Systems...........................................................................................................................................47
MandatoryFindings of Significance...........................................................................................................50
Personsand Organizations Consulted........................................................................................................51
References ...................................................................................................................................................52
Mitigated Negative Declaration.................................................................................................................53
List of Appendices
(included on CD)
Appendix A Biological Resources Letter Report
Appendix B Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix C1 Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix C2 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum A
Appendix C3 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum B
Appendix D Service Letters from Reviewing Agencies
i
F
List of Figures
Figure1. Regional and Vicinity Map..................................................................................................................5
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph/Project Site.................................................................. 6
Figure3a. Site Photos.............................................................................................................................................7
_ Figure 3b. Site Photos.............................................................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Surrounding Land Uses Under Existing Conditions....................................................................11
Figure 5. Surrounding Land Uses Under Proposed General Plan Amendment.......................................12
rFigure 6. Existing Conditions:Average Daily Traffic (ADT)......................................................................45
1
r List of Tables
ITable 1. Land Use and Zoning Designations of Project Site........................................................................4
Table 2. Land Uses and/or Vegetation Communities..................................................................................25
Table 3. Summary of Noise Limits for Residential Uses.............................................................................37
Table 4. Student Generation Impacts Without Proposed Project Maximum Build Out in the
Countyof Riverside............................................................................................................................41
Table 5. Student Generation Impacts With Proposed Project Maximum Build Out if Annexed
intoCity of Lake Elsinore.................................................................................................................42
Table 6. Traffic Generation With Proposed Project Maximum Build Out if Annexed into the
Cityof Lake Elsinore..........................................................................................................................44
l Table 7. Traffic Generation Without Proposed Project Maximum Build Out in County of
Riverside...............................................................................................................................................44
f Table 8. Future 2025 LOS Without and With Proposed Project...............................................................46
I` Table 9. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation....................................................................................49
I
f
� Il
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation
of the proposed Annexation No. 77 project, as requested by the City of Lake Elsinore. For purposes of
' this document, this annexation as described in Section II, Project Description will be called the
"proposed project".
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS
As defined by Section 15063 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an
Initial Study is prepared to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for
determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration
(ND), or Addendum would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation
and clearance for any proposed project.
iThis Initial Study has determined that although the project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (MND)will be prepared.
This Initial Study and MND have been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental
l Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the
l State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of
the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible
Ipublic agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law.
r The City of Lake Elsinore is designated as Lead Agency in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency,which has the principal responsibility for carrying out
or approving a project,which may have significant effects upon the environment. In addition,Riverside
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is the Responsible Agency. The Responsible
Agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or
I approving a project.
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
l This Initial Study and MND are informational documents intended to inform City of Lake Elsinore
decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential
environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established
to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement
methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that
consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public
agencies must balance or override adverse environmental effects based upon other public objectives,
including economic and social goals.
As the Lead Agency, the City of Lake Elsinore has determined that environmental clearance for the
proposed project can be provided with an MND. The Initial Study and Draft MND were circulated for a
period of 30 days for public and agency review beginning on May 1 and ending May 30, 2006. No
l written comments were received during the public comment period. On May 17, 2006, the City of Lake
Elsinore hosted a public meeting for residents living in the annexation area to review and comment on
the project. Several community members participated in the meeting and offered comments on the
project. However, none of the comments pertained to environmental issues or the adequacy of the
1
environmental document, and therefore, are not specifically addressed in this document. Many of the
j comments did pertain to overall planning issues and were addressed in writing by the City in a letter
dated June 19,2006.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental
implications of the proposed project as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake
Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental
procedures,and incorporation by reference documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary
I approvals and permits required for proposed project implementation is also included.
i
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form.
The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those
issue areas that would have either a significant impact,potentially significant impact,or no impact.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS evaluates each response provided in the environmental
checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient
data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts
anticipated with proposed project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also
recommended, as appropriate, to reduce adverse impacts to levels of "less than significant" where
possible.
t
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with
Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
j VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons consulted and
involved in preparation of this Initial Study.
VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
lf For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is
stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All
1 responses will take into account the whole action involved,including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative
as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project
impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified,when appropriate. To each question, there are four
possible responses,including:
1. No Impact: A"No Impact"response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project.
2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the
potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of
thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.
3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact" The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and explain how the
measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
2
f1
- 4. Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are considered
significant and additional analysis and possibly an FIR are required to identify mitigation measures
that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
F. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND TECHNICAL STUDIES
Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on incorporation by
reference of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR and the Riverside County Integrated Project
j (RCIP) General Plan EIR,which are discussed in the following section.
Incorporation by Reference
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and/or NDs and is most
appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background
information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the proposed project itself. This
procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or ND relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of
cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Mirgcnes Homemners Federation P. County of Los Angeles [1986,
{ 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or ND relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the
`I public, the EIR or ND cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology
Center P. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). This document incorporates by
r reference the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (1995), and the Riverside County General Plan Elsinore
Il Area Plan (2003).
When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must
comply with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
i
• The incorporated documents must be available to the public or be a matter of public record
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]). All incorporated documents shall be made available,along
with this document, at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department,
130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore CA 92330, ph. (951) 674-3124, during normal business
f hours.
i • The incorporated documents must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the
lead agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]). These documents are available at the City of
Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore CA
92330,ph. (951) 674-3124,during normal business hours.
• This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or
briefly describe information that cannot be summarized. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c])
• This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). The State Clearinghouse Number for the City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan EIR is 91122065.The State Clearinghouse Number for the RCIP General
( Plan FIR is 2002051143
• The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information
i
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]).
Technical Studies
The following technical studies were prepared specifically for the proposed project. These technical
studies are presented on a CD located at the back of this study in a pocket.
• Biological Report(Appendix A)
• Cultural Resources Assessment(Appendix B)
• Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix C)
• Service Letters from Reviewing Agencies (Appendix D)
3
I
r II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The 154 acre area to be annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore is located to the east of I-15 freeway,west
of I-215 freeway,primarily south of SR-74,and north of the I-15/ I-215 split. Specifically, the annexation
site is bounded by Trellis Lane to the west, Sharon Street to the South,Wasson Canyon Road to the east
{ and primarily SR-74 to the north. (Figures 1 and 2 . The topographyof the project site contains
� p Y ( � ) P 1
moderately steep undulating hills, and is highly disturbed. The majority of the vacant parcels contain
intact Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat with rock outcrops and the remaining parcels include ruderal,
disturbed vegetation. (Figures 3a and b)
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
IThe proposed project is a request to annex the 154 acres project site into the City of Lake Elsinore. This
area is comprised of 26 parcels already developed with single family houses and 19 vacant parcels.
Development plans are not being proposed concurrently with this action. If individual development does
occur in the future,it is anticipated that such development would be subject to CEQA review at the time
of development.
Within the County of Riverside, these parcels are primarily designated Very Low Density Residential
(1 dwelling unit per 0.5 acre) with 17 acres designated Commercial Retail. Upon acceptance of the
General Plan Amendment(GPA), 128 acres will be designated Low-Medium Density, 17 acres designated
Medium-High Density, and 9 acres designated Very Low Density within the City of Lake Elsinore. The
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan defines Very Low Density as one dwelling unit per two acres, Low-
Medium Density as six dwelling units per acre and Medium-High Density as 18 dwelling units per acre.
1 Table 1 shows the existing and proposed land use designations and zoning for the proposed project site.
Table 1. Land Use and Zoning Designations of Project Site
Land Use Zoning Acres
Existing(County of Riverside) Very Low Density Residential R-A-20,000-Residential 137
(1 du/.5 acre)* Agriculture
Commercial Retail C-P-S-Scenic Highway 17
(FAR=0.3)** Commercial
Total 154
Proposed (City of Lake Elsinore) Very Low Density RR-Rural Residential 9
(1 du/2 acres)
Low-Medium Density R-1 Single Family Residential 128
(6 du/acre)
Medium-High Density(18 R-3 High Density Residential 17
du/acre)
Total 154
*DU= dwelling unit
**FAR=Floor to Area Ratio
I
1
Project Background
Centex Homes is currently in the process of annexing three parcels of property (Assessor Parcel
Numbers: 349400005, 349430011, 349430012) into the City of Lake Elsinore. The Lake Elsinore
Planning Commission and City Council approved the annexation of the Centex parcels in December of
2004. During this process, LAFCO expressed concerns regarding the 45 parcels of land located adjacent
to the Centex parcels remaining in the County of Riverside. LAFCO recommended that the City of Lake
4
CL r O
rn CCCc �
cm
O C co
C a
_ W cn
Y M C Z / `` •rI
W J CD
J—) I �
Si d U d Ucc E2
\.
}
L=E
Y • V ' N
N 1 • � O
• z
1 U N o
� � m
iGREENWM- -AVE,
L�
... ... ... �6
JI � NOANb
LU
f `n6
I �
1 cJ J
i
o • � c
T
Z
d .
• U / d
0
a ¢ ¢ \�
w
CD
� y W
_ z
0
_ Q W �
U
a.—
-----------------�-1 O LLCL
=
Q ai ianosslw '� • Q
1 '
L LU •� O
�` 34940 3ApapO � .D°�d�O. I 1 .a9a�O oc L �
�.e0000esp� •1 Od,H31SIVlw_' `�'•
o 'fit••.• � .�. 7
5L001@L6£ I ♦ 3610040C � Sl
ccoo re
1 � el00ucve
I----Lo-ucae ♦ _ 1
e Z1001kLCC I
."., ♦ �'' '•.yam,��,. �, i• 1
CD
O
o oLo��fi� I I
' SSOOLICDE', ~ I
w l► O
1
150011Lvc
0
i
•.�� Ala 7 �'� ; I o c. X I
� DSO�►, o C `, o ? o,
U
lu
:, NI S1113a1
O
J 1.� ,
View of Parcel 34711069
**. ,,�4,4a,
N y
mm-
'• �I
N _+3y— ` pl: fI1*'•Gam.� �* _. S_� 'Q.
2.
'� "' _ _ - �,y�y, 7�y�.v►V!', a •!• '.�(-
�� _�••� + ��� -�'Y^- "�- � '� � _ - .�ri'C.4••'fir.��••,
• .B .� of -\VY'` +!•` �
O
O
View of Parcel 34711013
Project Site Photographs
1 L� FIGURE 3a
ONE COMPANY IMany Solutiour- Annexation No.77 City of Lake Elsinore I Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ik
r
View of Parcels 34711033-57-59-70
Aimq
Wit-
: . Joe
-40
0
0
View of Parcels 347110057-77
Project Site Photographs
LTI� FIGURE 3b
11 11JJ ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions Annexation No.77 1 City of Lake Elsinore I Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Elsinore annex the remaining parcels before full approval would be granted for annexation of the Centex
parcels. On September 27, 2005, the Lake Elsinore City Council unanimously voted to authorize the
preparation of a CEQA document analyzing environmental impacts related to the annexation of
the remaining parcels (proposed project). Therefore, the proposed project is a request to annex the
i45 parcels located adjacent to the Centex parcels.
Analysis Under CEQA
i While development plans are not being proposed concurrently with this action, it does lay the
groundwork for future development of currently vacant residential uses. CEQA requires the lead agency
' to consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project, and
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project.
Accordingly, a potential development scenario was formulated based on the maximum density standards
for the Medium-High Density, Low-Medium Density and Very Low Density designations for analysis in
this environmental document as required by CEQA. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan indicates
_ that the maximum density of development is 18 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for Medium-High
Density, 6 du/acre for Low-Medium Density, and 1 du/2 acre for Very Low Density. Therefore, a total
of 1,080 residential dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed GPA and annexation. This
fenvironmental document will evaluate impacts resulting from this intensity of development.
l
l
I
I
9
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Annexation No. 77, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Pre-Zoning No. 2006-
04
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA
92530.
' 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: City of Lake Elsinore: Linda M. Miller, AICP Project
Planner (951) 674-3124.
4. Project Location:The approximate 154-acre site is located to the east of I-15 freeway,west of I-215
( ' freeway,primarily south of SR-74,and north of the I-15/I-215 split.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake
Elsinore,CA 92530.
6. General Plan Designation: The project site is currently designated Very Low Residential with
17 acres designated as Commercial Retail within Riverside County. Upon annexation, 9 acres of the
project site would be designated Very Low Density, 128 acres Low-Medium Density, and 17 acres
Medium-High Density in the City of Lake Elsinore.
7. Zoning: The project site is currently zoned R-A-20000 (Residential Agriculture)with 17 acres zoned
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)within Riverside County. Upon annexation, 128 acres would be
zoned as R-1 (Single Family Residential), 17 acres zoned R-3 (High Density Residential) and 9 acres
Izoned RR(Rural Residential).
8. Description of Project:The previous chapter describes the proposed project.
I
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The proposed project site is bordered to the south by Future
Specific Plan Area F (City),which will have a maximum density of 6 du/ac. The site is bound to the
1 east and west by proposed single family homes in the Ramsgate Specific Plan (City), which allows a
maximum density of 2.7 du/ac. It is bordered to the north by Very Low Density Residential
(County), which allows a maximum density of 1 du/ac, and North Peak Specific Plan (City), which
allows a maximum density of 1.5 du/ac. See Figure 4 for surrounding land uses and Figure 5 for
proposed General Plan Amendment designations.
I
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Riverside County LAFCO
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils
❑ Hazards&HazMat ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
10
. .. . .. . .. . .. . . y o
W
to O � is
is 9 is 2 .no
LL >
y tV m J U lCC C d z
m y U ai c ena ai c E d G
d y y L1 GJ td C '� V
_ C 9 (d y N Q OJ Vl O j C y N O N Id C � d U O p
Qcm
LL m L cc `` +. .� c C7 m p E o 'cn Y y cn .� o_ ti
.U. __� io in d p 4 O o d -' Y v U7 — >,
N J a onC o a�i aU`.i vNi ii o > a 3 c U o m rn a
p GJ J p E C 'N J p L 3 C d _V L N w1 co y co
iV
o _ n `m o °' o v > > o a d a`� o o 5 E a o Y E w
CL U y W J Gr U J m Ll m U O Y J J C7 Z LL m J d L.L Z LL F= W
0 CD
J L
� N w
. o y C �
Es
c9
_ = J
GREENWA 10 AVE - x --� yA+
W U
CO)
.o
� o
J
c
l
C
Lq a>
c
w
Y
O J
V1 COD
o
c � 1
N
m +� fff all
N '
r a
� bJ
� 2
c
w
-f,
lo
0
1.
a
� w1'
d L
� z
I � z
o
. . .. . . . .. y ,n o
C
W
76
_ /= U
_D
C y LC c fn � d fC C tT
to <C m J tV Cr tCd d U C d cm Z
U ayi c id tea ayi E ¢ 'ate c� �y a�
OC 'in — rn '-' O. y co E w c a� �c
CL
V] C N O N fn O tLC ? C ._' 'w y U tO C 'u � C/J .0 d Q
C S 67 y O O1F O L U)
'o C7 aci E L E o .F Y u' .Yo cn :w c' a N
m `d y a c o o c �' o 0 0 Y w rtr c
cz W to 2 U O y tUV O cV td O h 2 U L m y C N T LC d m N S
U J d CC 3 c N to LL ` d C 3 c GJ O T y C tC OJ m = f3 T VJ
o a� o o E ca a
o vi o m > > o o a d a`� o o °' aci '2 E oo `o w E �
E
CL U W —1 U J m a- m U O J J J CD Z l.L m J a- L.L Z LE Q m H �! �
� 7
L7�
QJ
GREENWALD AVE
_ C
Ii n
0
- R z
n - _ co X
o C
co
- - - - cm
I y
l 0
O
cc
lot
n`
0
� I �
o Ti L z
� W J
O
j • vvv irv-eve evv live v
gel
of •
Z •
t7
o
z o
I
m I
N
z
O
' v
W
3 z
�, o
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
A. IN4ay 1,2006
Linda M.Miller,AICP Project Planner Date
l_
13
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including,but not limited to,trees,rock X
outcroppings,and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
r surroundings?
1 d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare,which would adversely affect day or X
nighttime views in the area?
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X
use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which,due to their location or X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality X
standard(including releasing emissions,which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
14
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
r Issues Impact Incorporated Impact 11u mct
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Pro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications,on any
species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or
special status species in local or regional plans, X
policies,or regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, x
policies,regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
i protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including,but not X
limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological
interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or X
migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree X
reservation policy or ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural
Community Conservation Plan,or other X
approved local,regional or state habitat
conservationplan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined X
in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to J 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique X
,geolo,x6c feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
15
f �
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
t Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
{ substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss injury,or death involvin .
I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map,issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
f fi Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including
liquefaction? X
( iv Landslides? X
I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
f c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
` unstable,or that would become unstable as a
result of the project,and potentially result in X
on- or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence liquefaction or collapse?
I d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater X
I disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
VII. H"ARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject:
+ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
I environment through the routine transport,use X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or t I,r
environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a X
result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles or a public airport or X
public use airport,would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
16
I
r- Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
. , Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Ln mct
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response X
plan or emergency evacuationplan?
l h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
l of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to X
urbanized areas or where residences are
f intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY. Would the m cct:
i a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge,such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river,in X
a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river,or
I substantially increase the rate or amount of
I surface runoff in a manner,which would result
in floodin on- or off-site?
I e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard X
Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area
structures,which would impede or redirect X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss,injury or death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche tsunami or mudflow? X
17
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Im act
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy,or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project(including,but not
limited to the general plan,specific plan,local
r coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted
IJ for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community X
f conservationplan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the prolect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to the X
re ion and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site X
delineated on a local general plan,specific plan
or other land useplan?
XI.NOISE. Would the project result in:
l a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the X
local general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of otheragencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or X
roundborne noise levels?
I c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
I noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X
existing without theproject?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without theproject?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
1 plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or X
public use airport,would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project expose people X
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area,either directly (for example,by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for X
example,through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing,necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere?
18
r
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Ini pact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
j XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a Fireprotection? X
b Policeprotection? X
c Schools? X
d Parks? X
e Other public facilities? X
r XIV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities,such that substantial X
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of X
recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
i a) Cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a X
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio or
roads or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a
level of service standard established by the X
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
I including either an increase in traffic levels or a X
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X
' intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm
equipment)?
e Result in inadequate emerlZency access? X
Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs supporting alternative transportation X
e. . bus turnouts bicycle racks)?
19
r
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Im act
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction X
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction of which
r could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
7 serve the project from existing entitlements and X
resources or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider,which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to X
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
I commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid X
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X
and re ations related to solid waste?
XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
l below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X
eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project X
are considerable when viewed in connection
4 with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects,and the effects of
probable future ro'ects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on X
human beings,either directly or indirectly?
20
I
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental
Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Irnjzact
Figures 3a and 3b include photographs of the existing site conditions. The project site has no substantial
relief features and is located within a developing portion of the County. No important visual amenities
occur on the project site, nor does the County of Riverside General Plan designate the site as an
important visual resource. Future development would not create a significant impact because it would
occur in accordance with the City's zoning standards which regulate building design, mass, bulk, height,
[ etc.Therefore,the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? Less than Significant
Impact
I The project site has no substantial relief features, and is located within a developing portion of the
County. No visual amenities occur on the project site, nor does the County of Riverside General Plan
designate the site as an important visual resource. SR-74,which abuts the project site,is designated as an
f eligible but not officially designated State Scenic Highway by the County of Riverside General Plan and
I California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Because SR 74 has not been officially designated a State
Scenic Highway, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to scenic resources
r within a State Scenic Highway.
Il c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
I� Less than aignificant Impact
The project area contains existing residential development of 26 dwelling units on 86 acres. The
additional 68 acres are currently undeveloped. The project site land use has been identified as Very Low
Density Residential and Commercial Retail in the County General Plan and 128 acres will be designated
ILow-Medium Density, with 17 acres Medium-High Density and 9 acres Very Low Density once
incorporated into the City of Lake Elsinore. Future development would alter the visual character or
quality of the site. However, future applicants must adhere to the City of Lake Elsinore's design
guidelines,which would reduce the impact to the visual character of the site to less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed GPA and Annexation will not create a new source of light or glare. However, future
residential development of the project site will result in new sources of light, since lighting would be
included in future projects for safety and security. Since new development would be confined to
residential uses, any new lighting associated with the project is not expected to adversely affect day or
nighttime views. Furthermore, because future project applicants shall be required to adhere to the City of
Lake Elsinore's design guidelines for lighting, impacts to substantial light or glare from outdoor lighting
are less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
21
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
11 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less than
I Significant Impact
Based upon review of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, the project site is not identified as containing Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance, nor is the project site used for agricultural uses. Implementation of the
proposed project will not result in a conversion of farmland, as defined above, to a non-agricultural use,
j' and a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than
f %gnifi'p ' cant Impact
The majority of the project site is currently zoned RA-20,000 Residential Agriculture, which allows for
non-commercial agriculture in the County of Riverside. Seventeen acres are zoned for Scenic Highway
1 Commercial. Once annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore, the zoning designation of 9 acres of the
proposed project site would be zoned Rural Residential, which also allows for non-commercial
agriculture uses.The remaining 145 acres of the proposed project site would be zoned R-1 Single Family
l Residential, and R-3 High Density Residential, which does not specifically allow for agricultural uses.
The project site is not designated as a Williamson Act contract and is not currently being used for
agricultural uses. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not result in a conflict with
agricultural uses or with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified
for this issue area.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant
fThe project site would be designated Very Low, Low-Medium, and Medium-High Density Residential in
the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the potential for additional residential development does occur.
Although the project site is currently zoned for Residential Agriculture, it is not being used for
agricultural uses and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract or designated as Prime farmland.
l Because the project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, nor are surrounding land uses, a less
than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
III.AIR QUALITY
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than
l SigMifcant Impact.
The project is located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD includes the existing land use and growth assumptions
used to forecast projected air pollution emissions in the Basin. The SCAQMD's AQMP provides a
blueprint as to how the SCAQMD expects to bring the Basin into attainment for all National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The AQMP is based on the designated land use for a project site as described in the various
approved General Plans throughout the Basin, including the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and
County of Riverside General Plan. Although the proposed project represents a change in land use
22
4_
I
f designation and zoning, the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads (Appendix C)
concludes that the expected traffic generation with the proposed designation is 18.5% less than the
current designation. See Table 6 and 7. This represents a proportionate decrease in air emissions.
r
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan,and a less than significant impact is identified.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project would be zoned for residential land uses. This type of development does not
( generate point source emissions that would contribute to an existing air quality violation. The
proposed project will be required to adhere to all applicable SCAQMD Rules (403 and 1113) during
construction as outlined below in Mitigation Measures 1-2.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? Less than Significant Impact
The South Coast Air Basin is designated as a severe non-attainment area for ozone (03), carbon
( monoxide (CO), and particulate dust matter (PM10).The proposed project site is located in the Lake
Elsinore monitoring area of the SCAQMD.The Lake Elsinore monitoring area is considered to be in
attainment for the state and federal air quality standards for CO,nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxides
(SOx),lead and sulfur.The air quality monitoring area is not in compliance with the state and federal
one-hour average and eight-hour ozone standards and the 24-hour and annual PM10 and PM2.5
standards. Since the proposed project will generate 18.5% less traffic than the current Riverside
County land use designations, it will not generate a considerable net increase in criteria pollutants.
Therefore,a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project is zoned for residential uses surrounded by other residential land uses.
1 Residential uses do not typically generate substantial pollutant concentrations so there is no
opportunity for any exposure to sensitive receptors. However, the project does have the potential to
cause short term impacts to adjacent residential uses during the construction phase of the project
through the generation of PM10. Mitigation Measures 3-4 have been included that reduce the impact
to sensitive receptors to below a level of significance.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant
Impact
The project proposes an annexation of 154 acres of land all to be zoned residential. Residential uses
! are generally not characterized as a use that creates objectionable odors; therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-1: The project applicant shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
including Rule 403 ensuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the
site. A plan to control fugitive dust through the implementation of best available control
measures (BACMs) shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval prior to the
issuance of grading permits.Applicable BACMs include but are not limited to:
23
f-�
• Cut and fill quantities will be balanced onsite as much as practicable to minimize truck
trips for import or export of dirt.
• Any construction access roads (other than temporary access roads) shall be paved as
soon as practicable and cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed on
unpaved roads shall be 15 mph.
• Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacture's specifications.
6
• Any construction equipment using direct internal combustion engines shall use a
diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05 percent sulfur and a four-degree retard.
f • Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled to minimize
obstruction of through-traffic lanes.
• Idling trucks or heavy equipment shall turn off their engines if the expected duration
of idling exceeds five minutes.
• Grading operations shall be suspended during first stage ozone episodes or when
winds exceed 25 mph. A high wind response plan shall be formulated for enhanced
dust control if winds are forecast to exceed 25 mph in any coming 24-hour period.
• Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to minimize the impact of
construction-related dust particulates. Portions of the site that are undergoing surface
earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the
ground surface, and then watered again at the end of each day. Site watering will be
performed as necessary to adequately mitigate blowing dust.
• Any vegetative cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as practicable to
reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. .Irrigation systems required for
1 these plants shall be installed as soon as practicable to maintain good ground cover
and to minimize wind erosion of the soil.
• Perimeter walls and landscaping shall be constructed in a manner that assists in
protecting the site from blow-sand. All walls and landscaping shall be maintained on a
regular basis to remove accumulated blow-sand.
MM-2: The project applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 Volatile Organic Compounds,
which limits the VOC content of architectural coatings.
MM-3: During finish construction, pre-coated building materials and high pressure-low volume
(HPLV) paint applicators shall be used.
MM-4: Construction routes shall be controlled to reduce interference with non-project traffic patterns,
and to preclude truck queuing or idling near sensitive receptor sites.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
l A general field site review of the undeveloped parcels was prepared by HDR with the results of the
I survey summarized in a letter report (Appendix A). A majority of the parcels contain contiguous
Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) habitat as well as RSS with rock outcrops (Table 2). The remaining
parcels are developed or contain ruderal and disturbed (mowed/disked/cleared)vegetation.
24
Table 2. Land Uses and/or Vegetation Communities
Assessor Parcel Number Land Use and/or Vegetation Community
347-110-008 RSS with Non-Native Grassland Inclusions and Dirt Roadway
347-110-076 Single Family Residences
347-110-057 RSS
347-110-059 RSS
347-110-077 RSS with Dirt Roadway
347-110-070 RSS
347-110-033 RSS with Disturbed Areas;Paved Roadway;Dirt Roadway;Disturbed and
Disked RSS Around Rock Outcrops
347-110-013 Disturbed and Disked RSS Around Rock Outcrops;Dirt Roadway
•347-110-074 Disturbed and Disked
347-110-071 Disturbed and Disked
347-110-075 Single Family Residence
349-400-034 Disturbed and Disked
349-400-004 Single Family Residence surrounded by Ruderal Habitat with Scattered RSS
Plant Species
349-400-022 Disturbed and Disked With Small Area of RSS and Rock Outcrop
349-400-025 Developed
349-400-033 Developed
349-400-030 Developed
349-400-017 Disturbed and Cleared
As shown in Table 2, eight of the undeveloped parcels or 28.67 acres, exhibit intact and contiguous
RSS habitat as well as RSS with rock outcrops. These parcels contain habitat suitable for coastal
I California gnatcatcher (CAGN) and western burrowing owl. Future development of the proposed
i project may result in potentially significant impacts to listed, or unlisted but sensitive,wildlife species
observed on-site or potentially occurring on-site due to the presence of suitable habitat. However,
` Mitigation Measures 5-6 have been incorporated at the end of this section to reduce these potentially
significant impacts to less than significant.
The project site is located within the area covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). In addition, 30 of the proposed project parcels are located
within proposed criteria areas (4079, 4180, and 4178). Survey requirements for these parcels include
habitat assessments for western burrowing owl. There is also the potential for Native Endemic Plant
Species (MSHCP, Figure 6-1Mpage 6-30 MSHCP Errata Figure 6-1, page 6-30 La 21 20041) and
Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP, Table 6-1, pages 6-32 through 6-37) to be located on these
parcels. Future development of the proposed project may result in potentially significant impacts to
MSHCP covered plant and wildlife species. However, Mitigation Measures 5-6 have been
incorporated at the end of this section to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
The terrain within the project area is moderately steep undulating hills with small north-south
trending drainages. Further analysis is required to determine the presence of California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional watercourses on the project parcels. Future development
25
r
{- could result in potentially significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 will reduce
II potentially significant impacts to CDFG jurisdictional watercourses to below a level of significance.
Vegetation communities on the project site consist of RSS, RSS with rock outcrops, and ruderal and
+1 disturbed vegetation. The two vegetation communities, RSS and RSS with rock outcrops are
identified as a sensitive habitat by CDFG. These habitats are suitable for CAGN and western
burrowing owl. Results of the general field site review did not identify any other sensitive natural
communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFG or U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Mitigation Measure 2 has been incorporated, which will reduce
potentially significant impacts to RSS and RSS with rock outcrops to below a level of significance.
fc) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
{ direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant with
i Mitigation Incorporated
i
A review of the Lake Elsinore 7.5-minute quadrangle indicated that the project site does not support
I a blue line stream (indicator of potential waters of the U.S.). However, the terrain within the project
area is moderately steep undulating hills with small north-south trending topographic features..
Further analysis is required to determine the presence of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
jurisdictional waters or wetlands on the project parcels. Future development could result in
potentially significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8 will reduce potentially
significant impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters or wetlands to below a level of significance.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The study area lies within the Lake Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP. A portion of the project site
is located within the Ramsgate Subunit (SU-5), Criteria Areas 4079, 4178, and 4180. Conservation
within Criteria Area 4178 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Core 1 of the MSHCP. The
conservation objectives of Proposed Core 1 include habitat and movement of species including
CAGN, cactus wren, tri-colored blackbird, southwestern willow flycatcher,Munz's onion, and many-
stemmed dudleya. The biological field site review confirms that the project site contains suitable
habitat for CAGN.
t The nearest linkages to the study area are Proposed Linkages 2, 3, 7, and 8, which connect Core E
`I and C, Proposed Core 2, and the Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4 to Proposed Core 1.
Linkages are defined as a connection between core areas with characteristics to provide for genetic
1 flow of species covered by the MSHCP. The Proposed Linkages likely provide for movement of
common mammals including bobcat. CAGN may also use the linkages to disperse to other Core
Areas supporting its habitat.
According to the biological field site review, the project site is considered a marginal wildlife corridor
_ of lower quality because it does not represent open space within an otherwise mostly developed area.
Impacts to "regional" movement would be considered incremental,but are anticipated to be less than
significant. Wildlife movement is constrained by SR-74 to the north and south coupled with a large
'I residential development to the northeast and scattered rural residences surrounding the project site.
The project site may, however, provide wildlife movement on a local scale to common wildlife
species.
Future development of the project site may result in disturbances to local wildlife movement within
and across the site that would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6
pertaining to management of edge conditions such as drainage, toxins, noise, lighting, and
26
r -
I
r- landscaping of parcels adjacent to or in Proposed Core 1 will reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Lc ss than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Inco orp rated
f The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan has local policies and ordinances to protect biological
resources of local concern including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitat areas.
Alterations or removal of habitats including drainage channel improvements due to development
activities during build-out of the General Plan are expected. Future development of the proposed
project would result in significant impacts to RSS,RSS with rock outcrops, and potential drainages in
the project site. These significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with the
addition of aforementioned Mitigation Measures 6, 7, and 8.
The Riverside County General Plan Lake Elsinore Area Plan biological resources polices 19.1-19.14
provide for protection of sensitive biological resources, provide connections between mountain
ranges,washes, and foothills; conserve sensitive soils and plants and raptor foraging habitat,and limit
development adjacent to Wasson Creek. Development of the proposed project would not conflict
with any of these policies because mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to
sensitive biological resources, sensitive soils and plants, and raptor foraging habitat potentially
l impacted by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project is located northwest of Wasson
Creek and would not significantly impact the Creek. The proposed project would also not impede
connections between mountain ranges, washes, and foothills because the proposed project will not
significantly alter the topography or natural resources in the project site.
i f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Should future development occur on the proposed project site,project applicants would be required
to incorporate design guidelines ensuring consistency with the MSHCP. In addition, focused surveys
for CAGN and western burrowing owl would be conducted pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and Endangered Species Act. Future development in proximity to the three MSHCP criteria
areas located within the project site would be required to follow guidelines outlined in the MSHCP to
reduce potential impacts to "edge effects" to below a level of significance. Finally, future applicants
r for development of the parcels located in the MSHCP criteria areas would be required to complete
lthe Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP). The City would need to concur with the LEAP
finding prior to project approval. Therefore, the potential to conflict with the provisions of adopted
habit conservation plans would be reduced to below a level of significance.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-5: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the project applicant shall submit a Biological
Resources Report to the City. If nesting birds listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(META) are identified, no vegetation removal or construction activities may occur within 300
feet of their nests. If vegetation removal can not be conducted outside of the nesting season
1 (February 15- August 31), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
within 30 days of proposed vegetation removal. If nests are identified, the biologist shall flag
any trees, shrubs, or groundcover that shall be avoided until the fledgling have successfully left
the nest.
MM-6: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the project applicant shall submit a Biological
Resources Report identifying all sensitive species found in the project vicinity, e.g. western
burrowing owl, MSHCP plant and wildlife species, narrow endemic plant species, criteria area
27
plant species, and edge effects. If sensitive resources are identified, project applicant shall
adhere to all measures presented in the MSHCP including avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation in effect at the time of development.
MM-7: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the project applicant shall submit a Biological
Resources Report identifying all California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
jurisdictional watercourses. If identified, project applicant shall incorporate CDFG measures
for jurisdictional watercourses,including avoidance or replacement of function and value.
MM-8: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the project applicant shall submit a Biological
Resources Report identifying all United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
jurisdictional watercourses. If identified, project applicant shall incorporate USACE measures
for jurisdictional watercourses,including avoidance or replacement of function and value.
r
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
r a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Harris Archaeological Consultants prepared a Cultural Resources Overview Letter Report based on a
frecords search and literature review for the proposed project. The records search was conducted
f through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside, in
October 2005. Based on the Cultural Resource Overview Letter Report (Appendix B) historical sites
1 are known to exist in the project area including old roads or trails, old agricultural fields and
associated features, transportation and industrial development remains and early houses and other
structures. Density of historic sites in the area averages approximately one site per square mile.
However,the Riverside County General Plan EIR does not identify any known cultural resources on
the project site.
The potential exists for significant historical resources to be affected by future development. A field
inventory survey and site assessment shall be conducted to locate previously unknown sites within
the project area. If these reports determine that a historical resource is present on site, the resource
shall be documented and formally evaluated by the California Register of Historical Resources. With
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 9, the impact to historical resources would be less than
significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to S 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Based on the results of the Cultural Resource literature review and records search, development of
the project area will not affect any known archaeological resources. Dominant prehistoric
archaeological site types in the area include milling features, presented as milling slicks, and mortars
on exposed boulder and bedrock outcroppings. Previous studies suggest that prehistoric sites near
the project area are somewhat rare, and are confined to surficial manifestations, such as bedrock
milling features,lithic and artifact scatter. The setting of the project area suggests that this area has a
low probability of containing cultural resources. Density of prehistoric sites for this area is
approximately five sites per square mile on average.
Although there is a low probability of the project site containing archaeological resources, future
project applicants will be required to conduct project specific cultural resource surveys. If significant
resources are identified then they would be avoided or mitigated through site recovery. Under rare
circumstances, archaeological resources may be uncovered during grading activities that were not
previously identified during the field survey and research.Therefore,Mitigation Measure 10 has been
identified requiring a qualified archaeologist to monitor all grading that includes initial cutting. If any
cultural resources are identified during these activities, the archaeologist shall temporarily divert
28
construction activities until the significance of the resources is ascertained. Implementation of this
mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to below a level of
significance.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
The project area sits on varied Mesozioc rock types including shale,limestone,volcanic, and plutonic
(granite) bedrocks. The County of Riverside General Plan indicates that the project site contains
undetermined paleontological resources and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan states that a
comprehensive study has not been conducted for the entire General Plan Study Area including the
f proposed project area. The Riverside County General Plan EIR indicates that Mesozoic rock types
have produced fossils in the past. With future development of the proposed project site, a potential
( exists for the finding of paleontological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 11 has been
identified requiring a qualified paleontologist to monitor all grading that includes initial cutting. If
` any paleontological resources are identified during these activities, the paleontologist shall
temporarily divert construction activities until the significance of the resources is ascertained.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will ensure that any impact to paleontological resources
will be less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less
than Significant Impact with Mitigation IncoTorated
I Based on the literature review and records search conducted by Harris Archaeological Consultants,it
1 is unlikely that development of the project area will disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. Habitation sites, representing longer term occupation, can be
located in larger drainages near to water sources. These sites can be buried under alluvial deposits.
Burials can be present in drainages and softer soils. However, the dominant prehistoric
archaeological site types in the area represent a temporary single-use site for grinding and processing
grasses or other resources. Furthermore, the setting of the project area suggests that this area has a
minimal probability of containing cultural resources. If human remains are encountered, Mitigation
+ Measure 12 has been added to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
I A note regarding Senate Big 18.•
II
Senate Bill 18, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires
cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes about proposed
local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places
("cultural places"). Starting on March 1, 2005, cities and counties must send their general plan and
specific plan proposals to those California Native American Tribes that are on the Native American
Heritage Commission's (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or
county's jurisdiction. Additionally, after March 1, 2005, cities and counties must also conduct
iconsultations with these tribes prior to adopting or amending their general plans or specific plans.
The proposed project represents a GPA proposed after March 1, 2005. Therefore, the proposed
project is subject to the consultation requirements identified in SB 18. Harris Archaeological
Consultants sent a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Inventory request letter and
Tribal Consultation List request form on October 11, 2005. On behalf of the City of Lake Elsinore,
HDR sent an invitation for consultation to each of the Tribes listed on the Native American Heritage
Commission form. Tribes had 90 days ending February 7, 2006 to request consultation for the
Annexation and GPA. A response was received from the Pala Band of Mission Indians stating their
low level of concern regarding possible areas of cultural sensitivity. (Appendix B) The Pala Band did
not request any further consultation or action be taken.
29
MITIGATION MEASURES
I
MM-9: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map,a project specific cultural resources record search, field
inventory survey, and site assessment shall be conducted to identify previously recorded and
unknown sites within the project area. If a historical resource is found on the proposed project
l site, it shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and
formally evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the resource is
deemed eligible, additional research and documentation shall be conducted to exhaust the
research potential of the site. The DPR 523 forms and report shall be distributed to local
museums,libraries, city offices,historical societies, and any other research institution.
f '
MM-10: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map,the project applicant shall submit a Cultural Resources
Report identifying cultural resources on the project site. If the potential for unknown cultural
{ resources exists, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist.
If unknown cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to halt
` all activities within a 50-foot radius while he/she investigates the discovered resources. The
_ archaeologist shall also have the authority to make an informed, final decision to either resume
construction or require more extensive investigation. At the completion of the activity that
requires an archaeological monitor, the monitor shall submit a monitoring report including a
fdaily log of all monitoring activity and possible recommendations.
{ MM-11: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the project applicant shall submit a Paleontological
Resources report identifying paleontological resources on the project site. If the
Paleontological Resources Report identifies the potential for unknown paleontological
resources to exist, a qualified paleontologist shall monitor all grading that includes initial
cutting. If any paleontological resources are identified during these activities,the paleontologist
shall temporarily divert construction until the significance of-the resources is ascertained. At
I the completion of the activity that requires a paleontological monitor,the monitor shall submit
l a monitoring report including a daily log of all monitoring activity and possible
recommendations.
f
' MM-12: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin
and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner
must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the
Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),which will determine
( and notify a Most Likely Descendant(MLD).With the permission of the landowner or his/her
II authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall
complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may
recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss,injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact
According to the County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan,the project site is not located
within the State Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The site is not directly affected by fault
ruptures, groundshaking, seiches, subsidence, or liquefaction any more than any other area in
30
r-
r— seismically active Southern California. Compliance with applicable structural requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Structural Engineers Association of California, and City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code will ensure that any future project will be designed to withstand adverse
seismic activity to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, a less than significant impact has been
' identified.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Signiiflcant Impact
The project site is located within six kilometers of the North Elsinore Fault and the Glen Ivy North
Fault. Therefore, the project sites will be subject to seismic activity. However, given that the project
site is not located in a seismic study area, it can be concluded that the site will not be affected by
I ground shaking anymore than any other area in seismically active Southern California. All
development within California is required to be in compliance with standard measures contained in
the UBC. Furthermore, development within the City of Lake Elsinore is required to be in compliance
with the City Municipal Code regarding structures and construction. Compliance with these
standards is mandatory and would mitigate any impacts from ground shaking to a level of less than
significant. Because compliance with the standard is mandatory, no additional project specific
mitigation is necessary and the project will have a less than significant impact on seismic ground
t shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
The project will be required to comply with UBC standards. In addition, adherence to standard
geological measures such as remedial grading and foundation design would ensure that impacts from
seismic related ground failure including liquefaction are less than significant.
iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact
As indicated in the County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan,the proposed project site is
located near steep slope areas, which may be subject to landslides or mudslides. However,
compliance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code for grading would reduce the potential
that the project site would be subject to or cause landslides in the surrounding area. Because
compliance with these codes is mandatory, the proposed project will have a less than significant
fimpact to landslides and no mitigation measure is necessary.
1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact
Soil erosion can result during construction, as grading and construction can loosen surface soils
and make soils susceptible to effects of wind and water movement across the surface.When future
development occurs, impacts would not be considered significant since erosion will be controlled onsite
in accordance with City standards (preparation, review, and approval of a grading plan by the
City Engineer). Upon completion of construction, potential for onsite soil erosion would be
reduced since developed areas would be either paved or landscaped.There will not be large areas of
open soils. Thus, existing standards would result in impacts being reduced to below a level of
significance.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
lresult of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located on the Cajalco-Temescal-Las Posas association. This association consists
of well-drained,undulating to steep,moderately deep to shallow soils that have a surface layer of fine
sandy loam and loam. The following soil series are present on the project site:
31
• Cieneba Series: consists of somewhat excessively drained soils on uplands
i
• Fallbrook Series: consists of well-drained soils that lie on uplands and have slopes of two to
50 percent.
f • Friant Series: consists of well-drained soils that developed on slightly weathered mica-schist
located on uplands and have slopes of five to 50 percent.
0 Lodo Series: consists of somewhat excessively drained upland soils on slopes of eight to 50
Percent.
• Vista Series: consists of well-drained soils of the uplands on slopes ranging from two to
35 percent.
• Ysidora Series: consists of moderately well drained soils on old alluvial fans, in valley fills,
and on terraces. Slopes range from two to 25 percent.
Future project applicants shall incorporate the standard guidelines and design features included in
that geotechnical report into design and construction of future projects. Adherence to these
fstandard measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact
A description of the soils on the project site is detailed above,in Section V.c. These soils have a low
to moderate shrink-swell potential. Further analysis is required to determine if the soils are expansive,
l as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. As stated above, a geotechnical/soils
investigation must be conducted prior to future development of the project site. The
( geotechnical/soils investigation will provide more detailed analysis with regard to geologic and soils
II characteristics that could impact project design. Adherence to the recommendations in the
geotechnical/soils report will reduce the risk to life and property. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is identified for this issue area.
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Less than
ISignificant Impact
The soil series described above in Section V.c.have limitations for supporting the use of septic tanks.
The developed parcels within the proposed project site currently rely upon septic tanks for
wastewater disposal system. However, the proposed project is located within the Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District (EVMWD) service area and would be eligible for wastewater treatment if
future development occurs. No additional septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are
proposed with this project.Therefore,a less than significant impact is identified for this issue.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be zoned for residential uses. Routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials is not proposed as part of the project. Therefore,a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
32
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? Less than Significant Impact
The project would be zoned for residential uses on the project. Residential uses generally do not
create significant hazards to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials
finto the environment.Therefore,a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact
iThe project would be zoned for residential uses on the project site. Emitting hazardous emissions or
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste is not permitted in
residentially-zoned areas.Additionally,the closest school to the project site is Temescal Canyon High
School,which is located approximately 1.75 miles away from the project site.Therefore,no impact is
identified for this issue area.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact
t
It is unlikely that the project site contains hazardous materials sites since the site has not been used
for agricultural or industrial purposes. Therefore, there would be no opportunity for contamination
due to agricultural pesticides or industrial wastes. Furthermore, existing federal, state and local
Iregulations are in effect that regulate the safe transport, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.
No development is proposed with this project and a less than significant impact is identified.
Ie) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles or a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it located within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport.Therefore, this issue is not applicable, and no impact is identified
for this issue area.
i
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact
The project site is located approximately 4.8 miles north of the Skylark Airport, a private facility
operated by Lake Elsinore APT Partnership. Future development of the project site is not expected
to result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area. The project site is not located on
the approach or take-off of Skylark Airport.Therefore,no impact is identified for this issue area.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
Implementation of the project will not impair implementation or physically interfere with any
adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.Therefore,no impact is identified
for this issue area.
33
I
r- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
i The project site is characterized as an area of urban/wild land interface. According to the West
Riverside County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Map (2000) prepared by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site falls into an area characterized as a
wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risk and hazard. The County of Riverside
General Plan indicates that the proposed project site is located in a very low wildfire susceptibility
zone. Future development of residential uses on the project site could expose people or structures to
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire. However, if future development
should occur, the project would be reviewed by the County of Riverside Fire Department and fire
prevention measures to ensure people and/or structures will not be unnecessarily exposed to fire
hazards would be placed as conditions of approval on the project and become mandatory. With
f incorporation of this Mitigation Measure 13, the impact would be reduced to below a level of
significance.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-13: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, future development projects shall be conditioned to
incorporate the following measures:
Include fire safe landscaping of at least 100 feet
• Space shrubs,large plants,and trees at least 10 feet apart
• Construct residences 30-100 feet back from property line
• Incorporate fire resistant materials including a fire-resistant roof in construction
• Install only dual-paned or triple-paned windows
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant
i Impact
l The proposed project would be zoned for future residential uses, which can cause urban pollutants
such as oils,gas, and other substances.To ensure water quality standards and discharge requirements
will not be violated, a Notice of Intent from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board, in
accordance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is
required for future development. Compliance with NPDES requires implementation of Best
I Available Technology (BAT) Management Practices and best conventional pollution control
ltechnology (BCT) that are economically achievable to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution,
including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance with
NPDES and BCT regulations ensures that significant water quality impacts will not result with future
I development and violation of standards and requirements will not occur. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? Less than Significant Impact
Impervious surfaces will be created with future development. Since the project site is partially
undeveloped and vacant, absorption rates may be potentially affected. However, regional
34
I
absorption and infiltration rates should not be significantly affected, given the limited size of the
project site and because onsite soils are not particularly suited for groundwater recharge due to
the presence of bedrock. Regional absorption shall continue at relatively similar rates as existing
conditions. Drainage and storm runoff patterns will not be significantly affected by future
. development. Additionally, the proposed project is located within the service area of the Elsinore
4 Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and would be eligible for water service. Any future
development on the project site would not use groundwater supplies. Therefore, there is a less than
significant impact from the proposed project on groundwater supplies or recharge.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site? Less than Significant Impact
There are no streams, rivers, or other water courses on the project site; however, the small north-
l south trending drainages are present within the proposed project area. If a future project is proposed,
l grading will be required to prepare the project site for development. However, substantial alteration
of the existing drainage patterns on the site is not expected. All future project applicants shall be
required to prepare a drainage study for proposed development, which will ensure that there is no
I on- or off-site flooding due to the project design. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less
than significant impact to existing drainage patterns.
fd) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than
Significant Impact.
No marine or freshwater resources are found onsite. There is no opportunity to affect any water
movement.Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Im act
Development of the project site is not proposed at this time. However, the construction of
residential uses would be permitted under the proposed project at a future date. If development does
occur in the future, the applicant shall be required to prepare a drainage report and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The drainage report will address the proposed stormwater
icollection system associated with the proposed project, and also the capacity of the stormwater
I system in the immediate project vicinity. This ensures that drainage features associated with the
project are properly sized, and that capacity of the existing drainage system is not exceeded. The
I project applicant will also be required to prepare a SWPPP, which will include Best Management
` Practices (BMPs) for reducing the level of pollutants in the runoff that leaves the project site. It is
expected that preparation of the drainage plans and the SWPPP, and adherence to the
recommendations in these reports will reduce potentially significant impacts for this issue area to
below a level of significance.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact
Water quality impacts can result with project grading and operations. Significant impacts, however,
are not expected. As explained under VIII.c, future project grading would require a NPDES
permit and Notice of Intent from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board since grading is
required for areas exceeding five acres.Additionally,a SWPPP pursuant to the Clean Water Act shall also
be prepared.Adherence to requirements included in the NPDES permit,notice of intent, and approval
of the plan would ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
35
I
T g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard
Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact
r According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, the project site is located
outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on existing
flood hazards or create new flood hazards.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? No Impact
According to FEMA maps, the project site is located outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, no
limpact is identified for this issue area.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
' including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?No Impact
According to FEMA maps, the project site is located outside the 100-year floodplain. Future
1 development on the project site is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury,or death involving flooding.Therefore,no impact is identified for this issue area.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact
Seiches are periodic oscillations of water in confined basins, typically caused by earthquakes. As
noted in the Lake Elsinore General Plan,a seiche in Lake Elsinore could occur during an earthquake,
causing the lake level to rise by 10 inches to 20 feet. The project site is located approximately four
miles away from the outlet area of Lake Elsinore, and is approximately 272 feet higher in elevation
than the lake.Therefore,because the project site is located over 270 feet above the elevation of Lake
Elsinore, the project site is not expected to be impacted by seiche, and no impact is identified. The
project site is located approximately 26 miles from the Pacific Ocean. No impact from tsunami is
identified for the project site.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact
The project site is being annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore. In addition to the annexation, the
project includes a GPA. The proposed General Plan land use designations are Very Low, Low-
Medium, and Medium-High Density Residential. If developed, the proposed project site would add
on to an established neighborhood.Because the project is a residential land use, circulation networks
will provide connection with adjacent properties. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact
The proposed actions include an annexation from the County of Riverside to the City of Lake Elsinore and
the corresponding GPA to the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan.Future development will be required to
comply with the proposed GPA and zone change. Future development also must comply with appropriate
development and design standards and guidelines contained in the General Plan and Zoning Code for Very
36
r-
Low Density, Low—Medium, and Medium-High Density districts. No conflict with the General Plan or
Zoning Code is expected for the proposed project.Therefore a less than significant impact is identified.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan? Less Than Significant Impact
The project is located in the Western Riverside County Final MSHCP (2005). Final site plans will be
subject to all project level measures. No conflicts have been identified at this level of plan
f development.Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
I X. MINERAL RESOURCES
I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the
region and the residents of the state? No Impact
Neither the Riverside County General Plan nor the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan identifies the
project site as containing mineral resources that would be valuable to the region. Therefore, no
impact is identified.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
Idelineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No o!=act
The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resources recovery site in the
Riverside County General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a loss of mineral
resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
XI. NOISE
i
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than
Significant
Future development of the proposed project site would increase noise levels in the surrounding
areas with construction and increase in traffic generated by new residential homes. Depending on
the final site design (e.g., dwelling unit placement), future occupants of the project site may be
exposed to noise levels that exceed the City standard for exterior and interior noise limits, as
identified in Chapter 17.78 of the Lake Elsinore Zoning Code, and as presented in Table 3.
_ Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through site design
measures such as setbacks or noise walls.
Table 3. Summary of Noise Limits for Residential Uses
Interior Exterior
(dBA) (dBA)
Receiving Land Use 7 AM—10 PM 10 PM—7 AM 7 AM—10 PM 10 PM—7 AM
Single-Family Residential 45 35 50 40
Multiple Dwelling 45 35 50 45
Residential
37
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? No impact
_ Future development of the project site would not subject the surrounding neighbors to excessive
groundborne vibration or noise during construction because no blasting or pile driving would be
expected to occur for residential construction.Therefore,no impact is identified for this issue area.
' c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix C) prepared for the proposed project,
five intersections along SR-74 operate at unacceptable levels of service under existing
conditions. Future development would lead to increased traffic and potentially significant
long-term impacts to noise. However, Mitigation Measure 14 has been included requiring
future project applicants to verify that exterior and interior residential areas meet the
requirements of the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance.Measures may be required to attenuate the noise
including setbacks, sound walls, enclosed balconies, and double pained windows, to adequate levels.
Implementing this mitigation measure will reduce impacts to noise levels in the project vicinity to
below levels of significance.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact
r Short-term increases in ambient noise levels would occur during future project construction.
IHowever, the City of Lake Elsinore's Noise Ordinance (Section 17.78.080.F.1) limits the
hours of construction activity to between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday.
Construction activities are prohibited on all legally proclaimed holidays. In addition,the City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code requires construction equipment to use properly operating mufflers and to
be operated as far away from neighboring uses as possible. (Section 17.78.080.F.3). City of Lake
Elsinore Code Enforcement will be used to ensure that the City's Noise Ordinance
requirements are being met and that construction noise will not result in any significant
disturbances. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
I e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact
There are no public airports or public use airports within two miles of the project site. The closest
airport to the project site is the private Skylark Airport, which is located approximately 4.8 miles
south of the project site. Therefore,there is no impact identified for this issue.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Si cant
Impact
I The project site is located approximately 4.8 miles north of the Skylark Airport, a private airstrip.
i Excessive noise levels relating from Skylark Airport are not expected on the project site, thus future
residents of the projects site would not be subject to excessive noise levels. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-14: Prior to approval of Tentative Map, project applicant shall submit a noise analysis verifying
that exterior and interior residential areas meet the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Noise
Ordinance. If applicable, applicant shall adhere to mitigation measures required to attenuate
38
the noise (e.g., setbacks, sound walls, enclosed balconies, double-paned windows) to adequate
levels.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
I
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact
According to the 2000 Census data, the population of the City of Lake Elsinore was 28,928,with an
average of 3.27 persons per household. The proposed project will annex 154.3 acres of potential
I residential land uses into the City of Lake Elsinore. Under the proposed GPA and Zoning
Designations, the project site could be developed in the future with a maximum of 18 dwelling
r units/acre, for a total of 1,080 dwelling units. Assuming 3.27 people per household, the proposed
project could increase the population by approximately 3,532 people. This represents a 12%increase
1 in the population of Lake Elsinore based on 2000 Census population levels.
There are currently 26 dwelling units existing on the proposed project site. Using 3.27 persons per
dwelling unit, there are an estimated 85 people currently living on these parcels. If the proposed
project area were to be developed under current County of Riverside Residential Agriculture Zoning
designation, a total of 299 dwelling units could be built that house 978 people. Under maximum
build out conditions, the annexation and GPA would lead to an increase of 2,554 persons compared
to the build out potential if the annexation and GPA did not occur.
iLike the rest of Western Riverside County,the City of Lake Elsinore is experiencing large population
growth. The City experienced a large increase in population growth of 206 percent from 5,982 in
1980 to 18,316 in 1990. All of Riverside County grew by 77 percent during that same period. The
City continued to exceed population growth in the County when it grew by 58 percent to 28,928 and
the County grew by 32 percent from 1990 to 2000. Because the City of Lake Elsinore and the
County of Riverside have experienced such high growth rates, the 12%increase resulting from future
development of the proposed project is considered less than significant. Furthermore, according to
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2004 Regional Transportation
Plan/Growth Vision:Socio-Economic Forecast Report, the household projection for 2005 was estimated to
j be 10,681 in the City of Lake Elsinore. In 2010, the household projection is expected to be
` 12,703 representing an increase of 2,022 houses. If developed at a future date, the development has
the potential to provide 1,080 dwelling units to contribute to filling the housing shortage created by
this increase. Therefore,because of the high population growth rate and need for additional housing,
a 12%increase in population coupled with the addition of 1,080 dwelling units would not result in a
i significant impact for this issue area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact
The project site consists of 86 acres of developed land with 26 residential dwelling units. The
remaining 68 acres is currently vacant/undeveloped land. The proposed project does not create the
potential for displacing substantial numbers of housing since the maximum number of existing
` dwellings that could be redeveloped is 26. No plans have been proposed to demolish or remove any
Il existing dwellings. In fact, implementation of the proposed project would allow for 1,080 dwelling
units of additional housing within the City of Lake Elsinore.Therefore, a less than significant impact
is identified for this issue area.
I
39
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact
No development is proposed at this time.The proposed project is a GPA and annexation. Although
j the residents living in the existing 26 single family dwelling units could be displaced if the site was
redeveloped to its full land use designation, this would represent 0.24% of the existing housing stock
in the City of Lake Elsinore. Because future build out of the site could create up to 1,080 additional
I dwelling units, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
fMITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Existing residents in the proposed project site currently receive fire services from the Riverside
County Fire Department (RCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CDFFP). Upon annexation, the project site would continue to be serviced by the RCFD and
r CDFFP. Correspondence from the RCFD on February 16, 2006 (Appendix D) indicated that the
Il proposed project would receive fire protection from Fire Station No. 10, located at 410 W. Graham
Avenue in Lake Elsinore. Fire Station #85 (McVicker Park) and Fire Station # 60 (Canyon Lake)
would also respond to the proposed project area if necessary.Ambulance and paramedic services are
l provided by American Medical Response.
l The GPA and annexation will not result in an increase in the need for fire protection services. The
increase in need will occur if a specific project is proposed for the project site. If the project is built
to maximum density, the RCFD has indicated that this area would require an Urban- Category II
level of service compared to the Rural Category III level of service that it currently requires. Prior to
future development, project applicants shall be required to obtain a will serve letter from the RCFD
to ascertain the project specific needs with regards to fire protection.In order to provide an adequate
level of service to this area if fully developed all at once, a new fire station, staffed with three
firefighters, operating one triple combination fire engine would be needed. As total development of
the project site is not anticipated to occur all at once, each future project applicant would be required
l to contribute to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2003-1 (Law
Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 15 listed at the
end of this section would reduce any impacts to fire protection resulting from future development of
the project site to below levels of significance.
b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
l Existing residents in the proposed project site currently receive police protection by the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department. Police protection services would be provided by the City of Lake
Elsinore Police Department (LEPD) under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
upon annexation. Correspondence from LEPD on October 24, 2005 (Appendix D), described the
services offered by the LEPD and the Lake Elsinore safety patrol that would accommodate the
proposed project. The LEPD provides cooperative programs including community oriented
i policing, crime-free multi-housing, Neighborhood Watch, and other deterrents to crime. The
40
LEPD/Sheriff's Station that would serve the project is located at 333 West Limited Avenue in the
l City of Lake Elsinore. There are currently 89 sworn officers and 21.5 non-sworn personnel at this
station.
The GPA and annexation will not result in an increased need for police protection services. The
increase in need will occur if a specific project is proposed for the project site. If the project is built
to maximum density increasing population by 3,532 people, additional staffing and equipment would
be required. Police staffing requirements are the same for the City of Lake Elsinore as for the County
of Riverside. One sworn officer is required per 1,000 people and one patrol vehicle is required per
three officers. Therefore future development would increase the need for up to four additional
sworn officers and two patrol vehicles. As total development of the project site is not anticipated to
occur all at once, each future project applicant would be required to contribute to the City of Lake
Elsinore Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic
Services) as described in Mitigation Measure 15. Contribution to this fund would offset any
additional police protection services needs to serve the project area and impacts to police protection
would be less than significant.
( c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Students living in the proposed project territory already attend Lake Elsinore Unified School District
r (LEUSD) schools. A service letter from LEUSD dated October 18, 2005 (Appendix D) indicated
that students in the project site area would continue to attend the same elementary, middle and high
t schools after annexation into the City of Lake Elsinore as they do now as residents of the
iunincorporated area of Riverside County. These schools are listed below.
i • Jean Hayman Elementary School (21440 Lemon Street,Wildomar)
0 Terra Cotta Middle School (29291 Lake Street,Lake Elsinore)
f • Temescal Canyon High School (28755 El Toro Road,Lake Elsinore)
1 Using generation rates provided by LEUSD (Appendix D), it is estimated that the 26 developed
dwelling units existing in the proposed project area already generate 11 elementary school students,
five middle school students, and four high school students. If the project site is developed to
maximum capacity allowed under the County of Riverside zoning code, 299 dwelling units would
I generate 125 elementary school students, 54 middle school students, and 47 high school students.
l Under the proposed annexation, the proposed project could be developed with 1,080 dwelling units
adding approximately 450 elementary school students, 196 middle school students, and 172 high
school students.
Tables 4 and 5 detail the existing enrollment at each school, the capacity of each school, and
identifies if the new students will result in inadequate capacity for proposed project maximum build
out if the site were developed under County of Riverside zoning or City of Lake Elsinore zoning
l regulations.
Table 4. Student Generation Impacts Without Proposed
Project Maximum Build Out in the County of Riverside
Proposed Proposed Project Existing
Operating Current Project and Current School
School Facility Capacity Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Capacity
Jean Hayman Elementary 778 722 125 847 -69
Terra Cotta Middle School 1,534 1,528 54 1,582 -48
Temescal Canyon High 2,634 2,211 47 2,258 376
School
Total 4,946 4,461 226 4,687 259
Source: Lake Elsinore Unified School District October 2005.
41
Table 5. Student Generation Impacts With Proposed
Project Maximum Build Out if Annexed into City of Lake Elsinore
Proposed
Proposed Project and Existing
Operating Current Project Current School
School Facility Capacity Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Capacity
Jean Hayman Elementary 778 722 450 1,172 -394
Terra Cotta Middle School 1,534 1,528 196 1,724 -190
Temescal Canyon High 2,634 2,211 172 2,383 251
School
Total 4,946 4,461 818 5,279 -333
CSource: Lake Elsinore Unified School District October 2005.
As detailed in Tables 4 and 5, if developed to maximum capacity under either the City of Lake
Elsinore zoning or the County of Riverside zoning regulations, development of the proposed project
would exceed capacity at the Jean Hayman Elementary School and Terra Cotta Middle School. The
addition of students from residential uses on the project site would be a potentially significant
r impact. However, this impact would be reduced to below a level of significance through payment of
lschool fees in accordance with SB 50 as outlined in Mitigation Measure 16.
d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
I
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan identifies a park acreage per capita standard of 5 acres/
1,000 persons. If the project area were to reach full build out under current zoning regulations in
Riverside County, there would be an increase in need for 4.9 acres of park space. Annexing the
proposed project to the City of Lake Elsinore would represent an incremental increase in the
population of Lake Elsinore, and a corresponding increase in the need for public park space.
1 Assuming a maximum build out of 1,080 units, with 3.27 persons/unit, the potential population
increase would be 3,532 people.This corresponds to a need for 17.7 acres of park space. Pursuant to
the Quimby Act, any future developer of the project site shall provide adequate park space on the
project site or pay in lieu-fees for park development elsewhere in the City. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 17 would reduce impacts to parks to below a level of significance.
I e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
l . Librsuies
The Riverside County Library System (RCLS) serves Riverside County and operates the libraries
within the City of Lake Elsinore. The project site is currently served by two facilities: (1) Lake
Elsinore Library located at 600 West Graham Avenue in Lake Elsinore; and (2) Lakeside Library
located at 32593 Riverside Drive in Lake Elsinore. The Lake Elsinore Library has a capacity of
7,500 square feet and a collection of 57,509 volumes. The Lakeside Library was recently opened in
August 2005 and is 5,000 square feet with a collection of 10,000 volumes. According to
correspondence from RCLS on February 13 (Appendix D), existing library capacity is adequate to
meet the current population and can accommodate growth resulting from the proposed project with
( the payment of library fees. Accordingly, future project applicants shall be required to pay library
fees. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 18 would reduce impacts to libraries to below a level of
significance.
i
42
MITIGATION MEASURES
I
i
MM-15: Future project applicants shall be required to contribute to the City of Lake Elsinore
r Community Facilities District (CID) No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic
+ Services)
I MM-16: Future project applicants shall pay development fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School
District for the purpose of developing new school facilities for grades K-12 within the City.
MM-17: Future project applicants shall provide adequate park space on the project site or pay in lieu-
fees for park development elsewhere in the City.
I
MM-18: Future project applicants shall pay development fees to the City of Lake Elsinore for the
purpose of establishing,improving,and maintaining libraries within the City.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact
The closest City-maintained recreational facility is Lake Point Park, a 12.5 acre park providing
restrooms, concession, parking, baseball, softball, football, soccer, volleyball, sports light, shade
t structure,play equipment,drinking fountain,benches,picnic areas,and barbecues.The additional use
of this facility will not result in a substantial deterioration of the facility. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified.
i b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
i recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less
than Ngufficant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
1 Since a specific project design is not proposed at this time, and it would be speculative to determine
if recreational facilities would be included on a future project. However, as noted in XII.d,
development of residential uses on the project site would result in an incremental increase in the
need for parks and recreation facilities. However, these impacts would be offset by the payment of
park fees as required in Mitigation Measure 18.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less
Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)was prepared by Urban Crossroads in February 2006 and is included
as Appendix C of this document. Traffic trip generation rates were taken from the Institute for
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and are shown in Tables 6 and 7. If the
proposed project area were to be developed to maximum capacity under the proposed zoning for the
City of Lake Elsinore,it would generate 9,200 average daily trips (ADT). If the annexation and GPA
did not occur, maximum build out of the site would generate 11,284 ADT under existing County of
43
r �
I
- Riverside zoning. Therefore, full build out under the annexation scenario would lead to 2,084 less
j ADT,representing an 18.5%decrease in traffic generation.
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element requires that all intersections operate at
I l a level of service (LOS) "D" or better. The TIA indicates that under existing conditions, all of the
study intersections operate at acceptable LOS of "D" or better with the exception of five
intersections. (Figure 6, Existing Conditions AD'I) Because no development of the site is proposed
as part of the annexation and GPA, the TIA did not analyze significant impacts of a project in the
near term. If future development occurs on the project site, the future project applicant shall be
required to conduct a project specific traffic impact analysis to determine whether increased trips on
the City of Lake Elsinore's grid system would lead to a deterioration of LOS at impacted
intersections in the near term. If significant impacts to the grid system do occur, the mitigation of
project traffic would be addressed under the City's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
r - program.The City of Lake Elsinore requires developers to contribute the per-square-foot TUMF for
funding regional transportation improvements. The City will make the final determination of fair
share improvements with the primary basis being City Traffic Impact Fees (TIFs) and the TUMF.
Also, the traffic analysis may conclude that certain infrastructure improvements should be included
in project design, such as dedication of right of way, construction of traffic signals, etc.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 19-20 will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
Table 6. Traffic Generation With Proposed Project
Maximum Build Out if Annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore
AM PM
Land Use Units In Out In Out Daily
Single Family Detached Residential Dwelling Units 0.19 0.56 0.64 0.37 9.57
Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Units 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.17 5.86
Total Proposed Project Potential 1,080 168 547 602 338 9,200
ADT
Table 7. Traffic Generation Without Proposed Project
Maximum Build Out in County of Riverside
AM PM
Land Use Quantity Units In Out In Out Daily
Single Family Detached 299 Dwelling Units 57 167 191 111 2,861
Residential
Scenic Highway Commercial' 216.802 Total Square Feet 114 74 376 407 8,422
Total Without Proposed 171 241 567 518 11,284
Project ADT
1 Includes 25%Pass-By Reduction
2 16.59 acres of commercial retail have been converted into 216.80 total square feet by assuming a floor area ration of 0.3.
L�
I
l
44
F
F
I �
1 1 titi
Q
O
J
3
2`j 5 Z W Ln
LU
OZ
LA
Q 0
1 0 ---
Zl! RIVERSIDE SF.
1 ti J'' __ - -
SITE i
J1�
S'
f
SHARON ST.
no
9
7 ti•9 �p
�S
5.0
7 � 9L
pP' r0 76
•9
'--DEXTER AV.
33.3
_ -12.7
a
\10.0
`3
LEGEND:
10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5)
0
4
N
o �
N
_
y
U
1
O
y
Existing Conditions: Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
FIGURE 6
Annexation No.77 1 City of Lake Elsinore Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
L_
ONE COMPANY Many Solutions
r�
S b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
{ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
r The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element requires that all intersections operate at
{ a level of service (LOS) "D" or better. Because SR-74 is designated as a Congestion Management
Program roadway, ten intersections along SR-74 were analyzed to determine future year 2025
significant impacts.With the no project scenario, full build out of the project site in Riverside County
would result in 11,284 trips and all of the study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS
"F". Similarly, if maximum build out occurs under the proposed project scenario with annexation
into the City of Lake Elsinore, 9,200 trips would result in all of the intersections operating at
i unacceptable LOS "F". Table 8 demonstrates the traffic impacts under County and City Full
Buildout scenarios.
Table 8. Future 2025 LOS Without and With Proposed Project
Future 2025 LOS Without Future 2025 LOS
f Project(County Zoning) With Project(City Zoning)
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intenection Hour Hour Hour Hour Significant?
I I-15 SB Ramps/Central Ave./SR-74 F F F F Yes
I-15 NB Ramps/Central Ave/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Dexter Ave/SR-74 F F F F Yes
f Cambern Ave/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Conrad Ave/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Rosetta Canyon/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Trellis Lane/SR-74 F F F F Yes
i Riverside Street/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Wasson Canyon Road/SR-74 F F F F Yes
Greenwald Ave/SR-74 F F F F Yes
If future development occurs on the project site, the project applicants shall contribute their fair
fshare of traffic improvement costs. After June 30, 2004, the City of Lake Elsinore requires
developers to contribute the per-square-foot TUMF for funding regional transportation
improvements. The City will make the final determination of fair share improvements with the
primary basis being City Traffic Impact Fees (nFs) and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF). Also, the traffic analysis may conclude that certain infrastructure improvements should be
included in project design, such as donation of right of way, construction of traffic signals, etc.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 19-20 will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact
The proposed project will not affect any air traffic patterns, and as such,will have no impact to this
issue area.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact
Future developments would be required to comply with design criteria contained in the Caltrans
Design Manual or City requirements and standards. Adherence to these requirements and standards
would reduce impacts to hazards resulting from design features to less than significant.
1
46
I
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact
Although no plans for development are being proposed, future applicants would be required to
comply with design criteria for adequate emergency access contained in the Caltrans Design Manual
or City requirements and standards. Adherence to these requirements and standards would reduce
impacts to inadequate emergency access to less than significant.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant Impact
If the project site is developed, the project applicants would be required to comply with the City of
Lake Elsinore's Chapter 17.66 Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the parking requirements by land
fuse. Adherence to these parking requirements would ensure that future applicants provide adequate
parking and a less than significant impact is identified.
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? No Im ct
Implementation of the GPA and annexation will not result in a conflict with adopted policies,plans,
or programs supporting alternative transportation; nor will future development of the project site.
Therefore,there is no impact to alternative transportation.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-19: Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, a project specific traffic impact analysis shall be
( conducted to identify significant impacts to the City of Lake Elsinore's grid system and
corresponding mitigation measures. If significant impacts are identified, the project applicant
shall adhere to recommendations included in that report to reduce impacts such as donation of
right-of-way,traffic signals, striping,etc.
MM-20: Future project applicants shall contribute to the City's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF)program.The City shall make the final determination of fair share improvements with
the primary basis being City Traffic Impact Fees ( IFs) and the TUMF. Payment of these fees
shall be required as a condition of project approval.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? Less Than Significant Impact
` The proposed project does not include plans for development. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District (EVMWD) provided a letter on October 25, 2005 (Appendix D) indicating that project site
would be eligible for domestic sewer service from EVMWD. Furthermore, future development
would be required to submit a Notice of Intent from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board,in
accordance with the City's NPDES permit. The NPDES permit includes a list of BMPs to be
1 undertaken by the Applicant to guard against accidental contamination of ground waters and surface
+l waters. Compliance with these requirements will ensure that the proposed project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and a
less than significant impact is identified.
1 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact
The project site currently relies upon wells for water needs and septic tanks for its wastewater needs.
Based upon a service commitment letter provided to the project applicant on October 25, 2005,
EVMWD has indicated that the project site is eligible for water and sewer service based upon the
47
r -
condition that any new future facilities are constructed per the EVMWD approved plans. Therefore,
a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact
Limited infrastructure exists in the proposed project area for storm water drainage. The annexation
and GPA would not result in significant impacts to storm water drainage facilities. Further, the City
of Lake Elsinore maintains public storm drain structures, drainage pipes, concrete channels, and dirt
drainage ditches for the purpose of storm water management. In addition, future project applicants
would be required to coordinate with the City for adequate sizing of on-site stormwater facilities, and
to ensure that future facilities will adequately meet the expected stormwater flows. Therefore, a less
f than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
1 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact
IExisting water facilities serving the project site are wells. Future development would be served by
EVMWD. EVMWD's water supply is a blend of local groundwater, surface water from Railroad
Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake), and imported water. The Colorado River Aqueduct and State
iWater Project provide most of southern California's water supply. EVMWD imports treated
disinfected water from Lake Skinner and Lake Mathews, located in Temecula and Riverside
respectively. Both treatment facilities are operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD). On average,imported water accounts for 48 percent of EVMWD's supply. Based
upon a service commitment letter provided to the project applicant on October 25, 2005, EVMWD
has indicated that the project site is eligible for water service based upon the condition that the water
facilities are constructed per the EVMWD approved plans. Therefore, a less than significant impact
is identified for the proposed project for this issue area.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
' to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than SiWiificant Impact
I Based upon a service commitment letter provided on October 25, 2005, EVMWD has indicated that
the project site is eligible for sewer service based upon the condition that the sewer facilities are
constructed per the EVMWD approved plans. Future project applicants shall also be required to
obtain a service commitment letter from EVMWD prior to construction. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for the proposed project for this issue area.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact
Solid waste generated within the project area is hauled to the El Sobrante Landfill,which is located at
1 10910 Dawson Canyon Road in Corona. This is the closest facility to the project site, and is
permitted as a Class III landfill,which only accepts non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal.
In August 2001, a 405 acre expansion was approved for the landfill.
Table 9 shows that the addition of up to 1,080 residential units would generate approximately 443
tons/day or 161,695 tons/year of solid waste. This does not take into consideration diversion of
waste through recycling efforts.Final disposal is expected to be at the El Sobrante Landfill.
According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the Landfill has a
permitted capacity of 184,930,000 cubic yards. The facility would be able to accommodate the
amount of daily solid waste generated by future development of the proposed project and the impact
would be considered less than significant.
48
i
r Table 9. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
8I Pearly Solid Waste
Dwelling Generation Factor* Generated
Land Use Units/Acres (tons/du/year) (tons/year)
f Residential 1,080 du 0.41 443
*Source:Riverside County,RCIP Draft General Plan EIR,Section 4.15 Public Services. August 2002
1 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than
Significant
If developed in the future, solid waste produced by the project site would be disposed of at the El
Sobrante Landfill. Waste collection for the City is provided by CR&R Incorporated, a private waste
hauler in Perris. With the passage of CIWMB Model Ordinance (per [AB] 939), solid waste management
practices were redefined by(1) requiring each California City and County to divert 50 percent of the solid
waste that is disposed, and (2) local governments to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan that identifies how to improve waste resource management
by integrating solid waste management principals including source reduction, reuse, recycling, and
composting before landfill disposal or regulated incineration. This ordinance requires recycling
conditions on new developments and adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
development projects.
The City's SRRE requires all developments to reduce their respective stream of solid waste generation in
1 the near future. Regardless of the environmental process, the proposed project is required to comply
with regulations and requirements contained in the SRRE. Compliance ensures that significant impacts
would not result. The proposed project would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local statutes or
regulations related to solid waste.Therefore,a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
MITIGATION MEASURES
1 None required.
1
i
I
l
49
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
1 reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Imp ct.
1 Implementation of the GPA and annexation would not degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
I restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. As detailed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the proposed
project would not result in any significant unmitigated impacts to biological resources. Additionally, as
detailed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the proposed project will not result in any unmitigated
significant impacts to historical or archaeological resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact.
If the project site is developed in the future, some cumulative impacts may occur.However, the project is
11 responsible for the proportionate share of mitigation (e.g., payment of school fees and participate in
community facilities districts.) Therefore,a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
' human beings,either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact
I� Based upon the analysis conducted in Sections I through XVI, implementation of the proposed project
1 would not result in any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue
i area.
II
I
50
I
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This
section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
• Rolfe Preisendanz, Community Development Director
• Linda M.Miller,AICP Project Planner
B. OTHER AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS
r • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
{ • Lake Elsinore Sheriff's Station
1 • Lake Elsinore Unified School District
• Riverside County Fire Department
• Riverside County LAFCO
C.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
• HDR Engineering (CEQA Documentation)
I Betty Dehoney,Program Manager
Wendy Worthey,Environmental Project Manager
Melyssa Sheeran,Environmental Analyst
Jennifer Haines,Environmental Scientist
Dave Dedoff,GIS Analyst
Terri Parsons,Document Production
• Harris Archaeological Consultants (Cultural Resources)
Nina M. Harris,Owner/Principal
1 • HDR Engineering (Biological Resources)
Julie Alpert,Senior Wildlife Biologist
I • Urban Crossroads (Traffic Impact Analysis)
Carlton Waters,P.E. Senior Traffic Analyst
I Min Zhou,P.E.Traffic Analyst
i Kyra Tao,Traffic Analyst
i
51
F
F VII. REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2000. West Riverside County Natural Hazard
Disclosure (Fire) Map. Map No. NHD-33W. January 6. http://www.fire.ca.gov/ab6/nhd33w.pdf.
Page Viewed September 23,2005.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Facility/Site Summary for El Sobrante Landfill
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/. Page viewed September 5,2005.
I California Resources Agency. 2005. California EnvironmentalQuality Act Guidelines,Appendix G.
City of Lake Elsinore. 1995. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Lake Elsinore, California. Adopted November
27, 1990. Revised March 1995.
City of Lake Elsinore. Zoning Code. Chapter 17.00.
County of Riverside Fire Department. 2006. Letter from Jorge Rodriguez, Fire Captain Specialist to Meghan
Scanlon (HDR Engineering). February 16.
County of Riverside Library System. 2006 E-mail correspondence from Mark Smith, Deputy Administrator,
r to Melyssa Sheeran (HDR Engineering). February 13.
ICounty of Riverside. Transportation and Land Management Agency. Geographic Information Systems.
Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator.
http://www.rctlma.org/gis/rciprepgen.html. Page viewed September 2,2005.
fElsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 2005c. E-mail correspondence from Cher Quinones, Development
&Records Coordinator,to Melyssa Sheeran (HDR Engineering). October 25.
I Harris Archaeological Associates. 2005. Cultural Resources Overview Letter Report for General Plan Amendment,
Riverside County Islands Annexation Project, City of Lake Elsinore, California. October 15.
HDR.2005.Field Site Review of Island Parcels-Lake Elsinore. October 11.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trzp Generation. Seventh Edition.2003.
Lake Elsinore Sheriff's Station. 2005.Letter from Beth DeCou, Crime Prevention Officer to Melyssa Sheeran
I (HDR Engineering). October 24.
Lake Elsinore Unified School District. 2005. Letter from Mike Sattley to Melyssa Sheeran (HDR
Engineering). October 18.
Urban Crossroads. 2006. Parcels of Land Adjacent to Merritt/Luster(IT32503) Traffic Impact Analysis City of Lake
Elsinore, California. February 7.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2004 regional Transportation Plan/Growth Vision: Socio-
Economic Forecast Report
I
1
52
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — City of Lake Elsinore
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources
Code.
_ Public Review Period: May 1,2006 thru June 1, 2006
Project Name: Annexation No. 77,General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03,Pre-Zoning No. 2006-04
Project Applicant: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street. Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Project Location: The 154 acre area to be annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore is located to the east
of I-15 freeway, west of I-215 freeway, primarily south of SR-74, and north of the I-15/ I-215 split.
Specifically, the annexation site is bounded by Trellis Lane to the west, Sharon Street to the South,
Wasson Canyon Road to the east and primarily SR- 74 to the north. The topography of the project site
contains moderately steep undulating hills, and is highly disturbed. The majority of the vacant parcels
contain intact Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat with rock outcrops and the remaining parcels include
ruderal,disturbed vegetation.
Project Description: The proposed project is a request to annex the 154 acres project site into the City
of Lake Elsinore.This area is comprised of 26 parcels already developed with single family houses and 19
vacant parcels. Development plans are not being proposed concurrently with this action. If individual
1 development does occur in the future,it is anticipated that such development would be subject to CEQA
review at the time of development.
Within the County of Riverside, these parcels are primarily designated Very Low Density Residential
(1 dwelling unit per 0.5 acre) with 17 acres designated Commercial Retail. Upon acceptance of the General
Plan Amendment (GPA), 128 acres will be designated Low-Medium Density, 17 acres designated Medium-
High Density, and 9 acres designated Very Low Density within the City of Lake Elsinore. The City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan defines Very Low Density as one dwelling unit per two acres,Low-Medium Density
as six dwelling units per acre and Medium-High Density as 18 dwelling units per acre
Project Background: Centex Homes is currently in the process of annexing three parcels of property
(Assessor Parcel Numbers: 349400005, 349430011, 349430012) into the City of Lake Elsinore. The Lake
Elsinore Planning Commission and City Council approved the annexation of the Centex parcels in
I December of 2004. During this process, LAFCO expressed concerns regarding the 45 parcels of land
located adjacent to the Centex parcels remaining in the County of Riverside. LAFCO recommended that
the City of Lake Elsinore annex the remaining parcels before full approval would be granted for
annexation of the Centex parcels. On September 27, 2005, the Lake Elsinore City Council unanimously
voted to authorize the preparation of a CEQA document analyzing environmental impacts related to the
annexation of the remaining parcels (proposed project). Therefore, the proposed project is a request to
annex the 45 parcels located adjacent to the Centex parcels.
53
FINDINGS
This is to advise that the City of Lake Elsinore, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial
Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environmental and is proposing
this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following findings:
I ❑ The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but:
(1) Proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to
a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
(' (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
(3) Mitigation measures are required to ensure all potentially significant impacts are reduced to
levels of insignificance.
i A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will
not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The
I project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Planning
Division,130 South Main Street,Lake Elsinore(951)674-3124.
I
I
54
F
j' NOTICE
I The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review
rperiod.
1
Mav 1 2006
Date of Determination Linda M.Miller AICP,Director
r
r.
1
f
l
1
55
ONE COMPANY
IURMemo
Many Solutions'"
To: WENDY WORTHEY
From:JULIE ALPERT Project: ISLAND PARCELS—LAKE ELSINORE
cc: BETTY DEHONEY
Date: 11 OCTOBER 2005 Job No: Project#: 32246
RE: Field Site Review of Island Parcels—Lake Elsinore
A field site review of the Island Parcels to be annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore was conducted on 08
October 2005 by Julie Alpert,HDR, Inc. Senior Wildlife Biologist. The purpose of the field site review
was to visually inspect each subject parcel and categorize its land use and/or vegetation community. The
eighteen Island Parcels are located north and south of Highway 74, east of Interstate 15, and within the
Lake Elsinore area. Table 1 identifies each parcel and its corresponding land use. Photos 1 through 5
depict representative parcels to be annexed. A majority of the parcels contain intact Riversidean Sage
Scrub(RSS)habitat with rock outcrops. The remaining parcels include ruderal, disturbed
(mowed/disked/cleared), and developed with single family homes.
Table 1. Island Parcels—Lake Elsinore Annexation Land Uses And/Or Vegetation Communities
Assessor Parcel Number Land Use and/or Vegetation Community
1) 347-110-008 RSS with Non-Native Grassland Inclusions and Dirt Roadway
2) 347-110-076 Single Family Residences
3) 347-110-057 RSS
4) 347-110-059 RSS
5) 347-110-077 RSS with Dirt Roadway
6) 347-110-070 RSS
7) 347-110-033 RSS with Disturbed Areas; Paved Roadway; Dirt Roadway;
Disturbed and Disked RSS Around Rock Outcrops
8) 347-110-013 Disturbed and Disked RSS Around Rock Outcrops; Dirt Roadway
9) 347-110-074 Disturbed and Disked
10) 347-110-071 Disturbed and Disked
11) 347-110-075 Single Family Residence
12) 349-400-034 Disturbed and Disked
13) 349-400-004 Single Family Residence surrounded by Ruderal Habitat with
Scattered RSS Plant Species
14) 349-400-022 Disturbed and Disked With Small Area of RSS and Rock Outcrop
15) 349-400-025 Developed
16) 349-400-033 Developed
17) 349-400-030 Developed
18) 349-400-017 Disturbed and Cleared
Parcels numbered 1, 3 through 8, and 13 which exhibit intact and contiguous RSS habitat as well as
parcels with RSS around rock outcrops,would need to be surveyed for several listed and/or sensitive
plant and animal species. These surveys would need to include focused coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila califomica californica) and western burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia) surveys at a
minimum.
If you have any questions regarding these findings,please do not hesitate to contact me 858-712-8359.
HDR Engineering,Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue,Suite 200 Phone(858)712-8400 Page 1 of 4
San Diego,California 92123 Fax(858)712.8333
www.hdrinc.com
LL r�
s .
� ftf
Photo 1.
Island Parcels —Lake Elsinore
APN's: 347110076-08-57-77-33-74-71-75 and 349400034
�A
Q'
i e: a
14
Photo 2.
Island Parcels —Lake Elsinore
APN's: 347110057-77-33-59-70
HDR Engineering,Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue,Suite 200 Phone(858)712-8400 Page 2 of 4
San Diego,California 92123 Fax(858)712.8333
www.hdrinc.com
MAIN
Photo 3.
Island Parcels —Lake Elsinore
APN: 347110069
RM
Photo 4.
Island Parcels —Lake Elsinore
APN: 347110013
HDR Engineering,Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue,Suite 200 Phone(858)712-8400 Page 3 of 4
San Diego,California 92123 Fax(858)712.8333
www.hdrinc.com
4K r f �;a,
�� - � �J5 �1 tea, � •± Ip
Photo 5.
Island Parcels — Lake Elsinore
APN: 349400017
HDR Engineering,Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue,Suite 200 Phone(858)712-8400 Page 4 of 4
San Diego,California 92123 Fax(858)712-8333
www.hdrinc.com
12283 CARMEL VISTA RD.#217 HARRIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
C O N S U L T A N T S
CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW LETTER REPORT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ISLANDS ANNEXATION PROJECT
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
February 16, 2006
Melyssa Sheeran
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8690 Balboa Avenue
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
Dear Ms. Sheeran,
This letter report provides a cultural resources overview and Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Consultation List request per State Bill
18 for the Riverside County Islands Annexation Project (Project) for the City of Lake Elsinore.
Attachments include Tribal Consultation List Fax to NAHC and reply from NAHC and example
letter to tribal groups. One letter was received from tribal groups noting no concerns regarding
the Project
Project Description
The Riverside County Islands Annexation Project proposes through a General Plan Amendment
for annexation of approximately 170.23 acres in the County of Riverside to the City of Lake
Elsinore, California. The Project area is located in Township 5S, Range 4W, Sections 28 and 29
in Riverside County. The 154.03 acres is divided into 45 parcels, 68 acres of which are vacant
and 85.8 acres developed
Results of Overview
Environment
The Project area is located approximately two miles northeast of Lake Elsinore, one of the few
naturally occurring bodies of water in southern California. The Project area is on the northeastern
flank of the Warm Springs Valley that extends northeast of Lake Elsinore within rolling hills
extending east to Perris Valley. Elevations within the Project area range between approximately
1500 and 1600 AMSL within the Project area.
The lake at Lake Elsinore fills a depression within the Temecula Valley fed by the watershed of
the San Jacinto Mountains to the east and Santa Ana Mountains to the west. These mountains,
part of the Peninsular Range,make up a portion of the Southern California batholith.
The area is geologically placed within varied Mesozioc rock types including shale, limestone,
volcanic and plutonic (granitic) bedrocks. The terrain within the Project area is moderately steep
undulating hills with small north-south trending drainages. The soil is typically fine silt and clay
1
over bedrock which is minimally exposed at the surface and in disturbed areas. Water sources
include Lake Elsinore to the south east, and ephemeral drainages and creeks in the hills. The
Coastal Grassland Plant Community is predominant within the area and includes grasses and
buckwheat with interspersed sage and prickly pear cactus. Faunal species include coyote, mule
deer,jackrabbit,rattlesnake and red tail hawk.
Cultural Setting
Prehistory
Three prehistoric cultural periods are generally recognized within California: the Paleo-Indian
Tradition, Early Period and Late Period. The Early Period generally falls between 9,000 and
1,300 years ago, while the Late Period extends from 1,300 years ago to the initial Spanish
colonial contact (AD 1769). The historic period covers the period from Spanish contact to the
present.
Early Period The Early Period is widely perceived as related to the gradual desiccation of vast
pluvial lake systems that once dominated inland basins and valleys across the western United
States at the end of the last glacial period.
Cultural affiliations in Riverside County appear to be associated with Lake Mojave and Pinto
cultures in the desert region to the northeast. The Lake Mojave culture is characterized by
Mojave Lake percussion flaked points, the Pinto culture characterized by projectile points with
bifurcated stems, and Gypsum culture by leaf shaped points. The termination of the Early Period
involved both developmental processes among peoples and influxes of new populations with
different cultural backgrounds.
Late Period The transition from the Early Period to Late Period is marked by another shift in
subsistence economies to locations where resources were more abundant. The economic
characteristic of the Late Period is one of more intensive and efficient exploitation of local
resources. .
Occupation from 1,300 years ago (Late Period) to historic contact is well documented in
surrounding counties, but somewhat less so in Riverside County. Artifacts of the Late Period
include small projectile points, ceramics, and changes in cultural patterns include permanent or
semi-permanent seasonal village sites around targeted resources, such as acorn milling sites,
obsidian trade routes and cremation of the dead.
Cultural affiliations in Riverside County again appear to be linked to the Mojave Desert cultures.
In the desert the period from 1,500 to 800 BP is designated as the Saratoga Springs period in
desert areas, characterized with buff and brown ceramic wares and Cottonwood and Desert side-
notched projectile points. Similar artifacts are found in Riverside County.
This period is followed locally by the San Luis Rey I Complex (600 - 250 BP) and San Luis Rey
II Complex (250 - 150 BP) periods, typified by mortar and pestle milling equipment. These
phases are reflected in the Riverside sites at Lake Perris and within the East Side Reservoir
project area.
Sites studied in the Lake Perris area have revealed stratigraphic sequences beginning about 2,200
years ago. These lakeside sites tend to reflect an increase in a broad based procurement strategy
suggesting an increase in population,possibly due to an influx of desert people to the area.
2
History
The history of Riverside County is generally characterized by three distinct periods: the Spanish
Period, from 1769 to 1821; the Mexican Period from 1821 to 1848; and the American Period
1848 to the present.
The Spanish colonization of the area produced lasting effects on the local landscape and its
inhabitants. The San Diego de Alcala Mission was founded in 1769. Riverside County was
portioned out by claims between San Luis Rey Mission established 1771, and San Gabriel
Mission established in 1798. The accompanying economic strategies, life styles, and culture
dramatically changed the use of the landscape. The introduction of horses, cattle, agricultural
techniques and goods, and Spanish law and religious practice resulted in the disruption of Native
American lifeways.
The Mexican Period (1821-1846)is marked by taxation and private land grants distributed by the
new governing body. The padres fought to keep the valuable mission lands from both taxation
and privatization. They were not successful however, and it was during this time that major
portions of land were granted to residents of California. The privatized lands were used for
extensive cattle grazing which characterized the culture and economy of the Mexican Era.
The American Period(1848 to present)began with the defeat of the US Army of the west by Pico
at San Pasqual. In 1847 Pico was in turn, defeated by Fremont. The Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo brought the former Mexican territories in the west into the United States.
The construction of the California Southern Railroad in the early 1880s, extending up the coast to
Oceanside, through the Temecula Canyon and Cajon Pass to Barstow, encouraged San Diego,
San Bernardino and Riverside counties to develop as tourist destinations.
During the later history of Riverside County,Judge John Wesley North joined with associates and
co-investors to develop and found the City of Riverside in 1893. The climatic conditions were
well suited to citrus production, and by the late 1800s, Riverside had become the wealthiest city
per capita in the country.
Locally the area encompassing Lake Elsinore was land granted to Julian Manariquez in 1844 and
passed through a succession of hands including Abel Stearns in 1851 and Augustin Machado in
1858 who had a sheep and cattle ranch in the area. C. A. Sumner bought the majority of the land
in 1873 and Franklin Heald acquired the property in 1883 establishing the town of Elsinore
around that time. Gold, coal and clay mining activities took place in the Elsinore region and
mineral waters attracted bathers and other recreational uses.
Ethnography
The Project area is located in the ethnographic cultural territories of the Luiseno and Cahuilla
groups. Both the Luiseno and Cahuilla languages are part of the Cupan group of the Takic
subfamily, a member of the Uto-Aztecan family. The language of these groups is classified as
part of the Yuman language family. The Cahuilla territory includes the San Gorgornio Pass and
Palm Springs area, the mountains of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa ranges to the eastern
Coachella Valley. Cahuilla groupings organized by anthropologists include the Desert,Mountain
and Western Pass Cahuilla subgroups.
3
The traditional territory of the Luiseno stretched from Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the south,
inland along Agua Hedionda Creek to include Mount Palomar and the northern tip of the valley
of San Jose. The territory then extended northward just east of Elsinore Valley, turning toward
the coast at Santiago Peak, and following Aliso Creek, Orange County, to the coast.
While many Luiseno lived at Spanish missions after European contact in the late 1700s, the
Cahuilla remained relatively independent from European influences. Influenza and smallpox
epidemics and other disease introduced by European decimated the populations of these groups,
especially for those native peoples forced to live at the missions.
Records Review
Several cultural studies have been conducted near to the Project area. These include a survey
conducted by Schroth and Cottrell (1981) as part of a survey for 1400+ acre Ramsgate
Residential Community. Schroth and Cottrell report that several cultural resource studies were
previously conducted on or around the Ramsgate project area. These studies include Chace
(1963), Holcomb (1979), Salpas (1981), Giansanti and Lipp (1978), Bowles and Salpas (1980),
Brewer (1978), and Lando (1978). More recent work in the general area includes that of
Herrmann (2002) and Harris (2004). These reports are on file at the Eastern Information Center
located at the Anthropology Department,University of California, Riverside.
Dominant prehistoric archaeological site types in the area include milling features, presented as
milling slicks and mortars on exposed boulder and bedrock outcroppings. These sites seldom
have a developed midden suggesting they represent a temporary single-use site for grinding and
processing grasses or other resources. Rarely ground stone will be associated with the milling
feature. Milling feature sites are sometimes associated with lithic scatters suggesting a secondary
activity was conducted at the location. These are usually minimal scatters with only a few
chipping flakes and perhaps a tool or two. Isolated small lithic scatters are sometimes found in
the general area. Habitation sites, representing longer term occupation, can be located in larger
drainages near to water sources. These sites can be buried under alluvial deposits. Burials can be
present in drainages and softer soils.
Previous studies suggest that prehistoric sites near the Project area are somewhat rare, and are
confined to surficial manifestations, such as bedrock milling features, lithic and artifact scatter.
The setting of the Project area suggests that this area has a minimal probability of containing
cultural resources if cultural resources are not observed on the ground surface. Density of
prehistoric sites for this area is approximately 5 sites per square mile on average
Historic sites are known in the area. Site types include old roads or trails, old agricultural fields
and associated features, transportation and industrial development remains and early houses and
other structures. An example includes a lime quarry with out-building foundations and kilns
identified approximately '/2 mile to the south of the Project area. Density of historic sites in the
area averages approximately one site per square mile.
Native American Correspondence
A NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory request letter and Tribal Consultation List request form was
sent by fax to NAHC on October 11, 2005 to comply with California State Bill 18. Eight tribes
were identified by the NAHC as having territories within the Project boundaries. Project
notification letters were sent on November 7, 2005 by HRD Engineering to these individuals and
groups. One response was received on January 26, 2006 from Shasta Gaughen representing the
4
Pala Band of Mission Indians noting no concerns regarding the Project. No other comments were
received as of February 16,2006.
Recommendations
Prior to any construction activities on properties within the annexed lands,it is recommended that
a project specific cultural resources record search at Eastern Information Center be conducted to
identify previously recorded sites. In addition, a field inventory survey and site assessment
should be conducted to locate previously unknown sites within the Project area. All work should
be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. Should buried cultural resources be encountered
during construction, it is state policy that work in that area must halt until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find.
If human remains are unearthed during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98.
Sincerely,
t44mr-
Nina M. Harris,M.A.,RPA
Harris Archaeological Consultants
12283 Carmel Vista Rd.#217
San Diego, CA 92130
Attachments:
Sacred Lands request letter and Tribal Consultation List request: Fax to NAHC
Reply from NAHC
Copy of example letter to Tribal Members
Reply from Pala Band of Mission Indians
5
12283 CARMEL VISTA RD.#217 HARRIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
C O N S U L T A N T S
October 11, 2005
Mr. Rob Wood
Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Avenue, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Wood,
This letter serves as a request for a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory to determine if
any known cultural properties are present within the vicinity of the Islands Annexation
Project (Project) located in Riverside County. The Project location is depicted on the
attached USGS 7.5 minute Lake Elsinore quadrangle, T 5S, R4W Sections 28 and 29.
1 would appreciate it if you would also inform me of any knowledgeable Native
American individuals or organizations per SB 18 who should be contacted regarding this
Project.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (858) 509-1282 if you have questions or require
additional information. Please call before faxing results! I will need to turn on the fax
machine. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Nina M. Harris
Owner/Principal
Harris Archaeological Consultants
12283 Carmel Vista Rd. #217
San Diego, CA 92130
1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TRIBAL CONSULTATION LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 653-4082
(916) 657-5390-Fax
Project Title:
Local Governmental/Lead Agency: city of Lake Elsinore
Contact person: Rolfe Preisendanz,
Phone: 951-674-3124 ext. 223
Street Address: 130 South Main Street
Fax: (951) 471-1418
City: Lake Elsinore Zip: 92530
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County: City/Community
General Plan General Plan Element Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment X Specific Plan Amendment
Pre-planning Outreach Activity
Project Description:
Property Annexation from County Riverside
NAHC Use Only
Date Received
Date Completed
Native American Tribal Consultation lists are only applicable for consulting with California Native
American tribes per Government Code Section 65352.3.
2
USGS Lake Elsinore Quadrangle Island Annex Project
��lyy``t.l li= / 1 r, ,�/ //^ -,,�(�� •J• y• \' Off:'.
It
Xp-
it
f Q
� %1• 7A , �' u u
_• 'I i u��-�'11 \� �1 u• iAll:t 'i" p
11 c Q
. t1 /� �' 1 q /G007\o Il• Ij�rr I IV II
•}`) P„ ` t h It . J II loll
In
it
� 9 f a /a
• rl 11 1 4 i'f�C h' ,.- O `� It.
it
• OI I rr •t 1.1J
OSp
-Ap
M '\
Harris Archaeological Consultants October 11,2005
3
STATE 0FCAt1jMRWA A ld 5 h
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
115 CAMOL MALL,ROOM 3"
SACRAMENrO,CA 9M14
(910 f53.4m
F=(910 66/o"
October 25,2005
Nina Harris
Harris Archaeological Consultants
12283 Carmel Vista Rd.,#217
San Diego,CA 92130
Re: City of Lake Elsinore;proposed annexation
Dear Ms.Harris:
Government Code§65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes
identified by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)for the purpose of protecting,and/or
mitigating impacts to cultural places.Attached is the list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places
located within the requested General Plan boundaries with whom you must consult under the new law.It is
recommended that local government officials initiate and conduct consultation on their own in order to facilitate
the development of on-going relationships between local government staff and tribal staff.
Based on the information provided in your request,our search of the Sacred Lands File failed to identify the
existence of recorded Native American sacred sites within the general plan area.The NAHC recommends that
local governments also conduct record searches through California Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS)to determine if archaeological sites are located within the area(s)affected by the proposed action.
Local governments should be aware,however,that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not
exhaustive,and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A
tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a cultural place.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from Tribes,please notify me. With
your assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current information.
If you have any questions,please contact me at(916)653-6251.
Sincerely,
Carol Gaubatz
Program Analyst
California Tribal Consultation List
City of Lake Elsinore
October 25, 2005
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
ATTN: Rob Roy, Environmental Director Russell Romo, Chairman
22000 Highway 76 Luiseno 12064 Old Pomerado Road Luiseno
Pauma Valley , CA 92061 Poway , CA 92064
la olla-sherry@aol.com and (858)748-1586
(760)742-3771/72
Pala Band of Mission Indians Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Robert Smith, Chairperson Robert J. Salgado, Sr., Chairperson
P.O. Box 50 Luiseno P.O. Box 487 Luiseno
Pala , CA 92059 Cupeno San Jacinto CA 92581
(760)742-3784 luiseno@soboba-nsn.gov
(951)654-2765
Pauma &Yuima Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Christobal C. Devers, Chairperson Dean Mike, Chairperson
P.O. Box 369 Luiseno 46-200 Harrison Place Luiseno
Pauma Valley , CA 92061 Coachella , CA 92236 Chemehuevi
mberli—peters@yahoo.com tribal-epa@worldnet.att.net
( 60)742-1289 (760)775-5566
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 2183 Luiseno
Temecula CA 92593
(951)308-9295
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
John Currier, Chairperson
P.O. Box 68 Luiseno
Valley Center , CA 92082
council@?rincontribe.org
(760)749-1051
This list is current only as of the date of this document
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and
Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Section 65352.3.
November 7.2005
«Contact_First_Name))(dast Name))
«Contact Title))
«Tribe»
«Address_I»
«City»,oState» <¢ip_coden
Subject: Consultation for the Riverside County Island Parcels Annexation
Dear«Salutation»((Last Name)):
The proposed project includes an Annexation and General Plan Amendment(GPA)
for island parcels currently located in the County of Riverside.The attached contains a
complete listing of APN numbers and site map.The subject site consists of 45 parcels
totaling 154 acres located to the east of 1-15,west of 1-215,and primarily south of
Higirt ay 74.The project applicant does not own the subject site,is not proposing
development of the site,and is only proposing the Annexation and GPA per the
direction of the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO).There will not be a
cultural report,as no development of the subject site is being planned as part of the
administrative change. Should development of the subject site occur in the future,all
environmental documentation including supporting technical information(e.g.,
cultural study),would be available for public review as required by CEQA.
As part of our research,HDR is contacting Native American groups and individuals to
help identify any prehistoric sites,sacred sites or landscapes located in the vicinity,or
which might be affected in this area by future development.As a matter of procedure,
HDR's sub-consultant,Harris Archaeological Consultants,has already consulted the
Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento and was provided a list of
potentially interested Tribes.
This letter also serves to inform you of your invitation to participate in consultation
per Senate Bill 18.Under Section 65362.3 of the Government Code you have 90 days
to request participation.
If you have any information that would be relevant to our analysis of the Proposed
Projects potential effect on cultural resources,please provide a written or verbal
response by February 7,2006.Thank you for taking the time to review our request.
Sincerely.
HDR Engineering,Inc.
Melyssa Sheeran
Environmental Analyst
HDREngineering.hc 669D Balboa Avenue 55*412-34M
Suite 200 5=a7 12-5333 Sfax;
Pala Band Of
Mission Indians
Cupa Cultural Center
35008 Pala Temecula Road
PMB 445
Pala,CA 92059
Tel.(760)742-1590 Fax.(760)742-4543
E-mail: cupa@palatribe.com
January 23,2006
Melyssa Sheeran,Environmental Analyst
HDR Engineering,Inc.
8690 Balboa Ave.,Ste.200
San Diego,CA 92123
Re:Consultation for the Riverside County Island Parcels Annexation
Dear Ms.Sheeran:
This letter is in response to your request for Native American consultation on the above
referenced project.We respond to these requests on behalf of Robert Smith,Chairman of
the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
Because this project takes place outside the traditional areas of residence of the people of
Pala,we have a low level of concern regarding possible areas of cultural sensitivity.
However,this should not be construed as indicating that no cultural resources or
traditional cultural properties are present in this location.Areas of significance may be
identified by other concerned bands,or revealed in the course of project construction.
The Pala Band of Mission Indians stands behind any assertions made by other bands that
there are significant resources within the project area,should such assertions be made.
We appreciate being made aware of this project and having the opportunity to comment.
Si rely
Shasta Shasta C.Gaughen,MA
Assistant Director,Cupa Cultural Center