Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL Environmental Impact Report - Roripaugh Ranch (Sommers Bend)hr • Final Environmental Impact Report PPERIPFP FOR /Ta PPEPAPED BY T . K 'th Compeninsl SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 Agency Circulation: September 26, 2002 Planning Commission: City Council: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN SCH # 97121030 Prepared for: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Saied Naaseh (909) 694-6400 Prepared by: The Keith Companies MMC THE KEITH COMPANIES, INC. 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Contact: Kent Norton (909)653-0234 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR I ' TITLE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE III. Response to Comments on 2nd Revised DEIR (2,058 units) ........... I. Introduction...........................................................................................1 A. CEQA Requirements................................................................... 1 of Commenting Agencies/Individuals........................................ B. FEIR Contents ....................................................................A........I A. ' 21 1. California Indian Legal Services ...................................... II. Corrections/Clarifications/Additional Materials ................................ 2 State Agencies........................................................................... A. Modificationsto DEIR Document .............................................. 2 ' B. Summary — Equivalency Analysis ............................................ 19 III. Response to Comments on 2nd Revised DEIR (2,058 units) ........... 20 List of Commenting Agencies/Individuals........................................ 20 A. Federal Agencies....................................................................... 21 1. California Indian Legal Services ...................................... 21 B. State Agencies........................................................................... 23 1. OPR — State Clearinghouse .............................................. 23 2. Department of Food and Agriculture ................................ 23 C. Regional Agencies......................................................... ........... 29 1. Southern California Association of Governments ............ 29 2. Southern California Gas Company ................................... 43 D. County Agencies....................................................................... 45 1. Riverside County Transportation Commission ................. 45 E. Local Agencies.......................................................................... 47 1. Temecula Valley Unified School District ......................... 47 2. City of Murrieta................................................................ 49 3. City of Murrieta................................................................ 50 F. Private Organizations or Individuals ...................................... 54 1. Mike Knowlton ................................. ....:................... ........ 54 2. Deborah Rosenthal, Applicant Attorney ........................... 57 3. Mandy Picozzi.................................................................. 70 4. Samantha Shields/Marissa Knowlton ............................... 72 S. Ronald Knowles............................................................... 72 6. Jill Stokes......................................................................... 74 7. Ladd Stokes...................................................................... 74 8. Renee Baellargeat............................................................. 76 FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) TITLE � PAGE IV. Response to Comments on Revised DEIR (1,721 units) .......................... 77 List of Commenting Agencies/Individuals........................................ 77 A. Federal Agencies....................................................................... 79 1. California Indian Legal Services ...................................... 79 2. California Indian Legal Services ....................................... 80 B. State Agencies....................................................................... .. 85 1. OPR — State Clearinghouse .............................................. 85 2. Department of Conservation ............................................. 86 3. Department of Transportation - Aeronautics .................... 88 4. Department of Toxic Substances Control ......................... 88 5. Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................ 94 6. Department of Fish and Game ........................................ 100 C. Regional Agencies................................................................... 104 1. Southern California Association of Governments*......... 104 2. South Coast Air Quality Management District ............... 104 3. Southern California Gas Company* ............................... 106 4. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California....... 107 D. County Agencies..................................................................... 111 1. Airport Land Use Commission ....................................... 111 E. Local Agencies........................................................................ 114 1. City of Murrieta..........................................................:... 114 2. Rancho California Water District ................................... 115 3. Temecula Valley Unified School District ....................... 117 F. Private Organizations or Individuals .................................... 119 1. Temecula Valley Coalition for Responsible Growth....... 119 2. Ronald Knowles............................................................. 120 3. Ronald Knowles............................................................. 122 4. Hans Van Ligten (attorney, Pacific Bay Homes)............ 123 5. Mike/Sue Knowlton........................................................ 124 APPENDIX A Comment Letters — 2nd Revised DEIR Blue Sheet APPENDIX B Comment Letters — Revised DEIR Green Sheet APPENDIX C Additional Materials Yellow Sheet APPENDIX D Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan . Pink Sheet * duplicate of comment letter on 2°" Revised DEIR (not included) n:\3I 367\docT1 R\2ndRevisedFE1 R9b. doc FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR I. INTRODUCTION On June 1, 1999, the City of Temecula (City) issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project (SCH# 97121030). On June 8, 2001, the City issued a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project, and comments were received from various agencies and individuals. Subsequent to circulation of ' the Revised DEIR, the applicant revised the project based on input from the City and local residents. On April 1, 2002, the City issued a 2nd Revised DEIR on the Roripaugh project. The ' City, as Lead Agency, has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) to address comments on the 2nd Revised DEIR and the Revised DEIR, and to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),1970, as amended. A. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Section 15089 of the State CEQA Guidelines describes how a Final EIR should be prepared, while Section. 15088 outlines how to respond to comments made on a Draft EIR. All agencies and individuals making written comments on the Draft EIR received a draft of the Response to Comments to review Lead Agency responses. Section 15132 lists the contents of an Final EIR, which requires the following: a) the DEIR or a revision of the draft; b) comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; c) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; d) the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e) any other information added by the Lead Agency. B. FEIR CONTENTS This FEIR includes comments made on the 2nd Revised DEIR during the public review period, which was April 3, 2002 to May 17, 2002, as well as responses to comments made on the Revised DEIR during the previous public review period, which was June 12, 2001 to July 26, 2001. This FEIR also includes minor changes and corrections to the 2nd Revised Draft EIR. After review of all the corrections, clarifications, and additional materials, it was determined there were no significant changes in environmental conditions or project impacts that would require recirculation of the 2nd Revised DEIR. This FEIR contains responses to all public comments, and 'any clarifications, corrections, or additional materials identified by the Lead Agency or the public. For the ease of the reader, this FEIR will respond to each comment made by individual commentors. Each comment will be stated, followed by a response. Copies of letters or other materials submitted during the public review period on the 2nd Revised DEIR are included in Appendix A of this document. Copies of letters submitted during the public review period on the (previous) Revised DEIR are included in Appendix B of this document. In addition, the text of the 2nd Revised DEIR is an integral part of this document so that any changes indentified in this document will be considered to be modified as indicated. FINAL Enviromentai Impact Report ] September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR II. CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS/ADDITIONAL MATERIALS 1 The following corrections, clarifications, and additional materials are to be considered as part of ' the identified sections of the 2"d Revised DEIR. Copies of applicable additional materials discussed in this section are provided in the Appendix C at the end of this document. ' A. MODIFICATIONS TO DEIR DOCUMENT ' 2.0 Project Description Since circulation of the 2nd Revised DEIR, the applicant has reduced the project from 2,058 ' units to 2,015 units, as a result of more detailed lotting studies. This revised project is being reflected in the Specific Plan, and will be incorporated into this Final EIR. The currently proposed 2,015 -unit land plan is shown in the attached Figure 2-1 from the Specific Plan, while ' the land plan for the 2,058 project is shown in the attached Figure 2-3 from the 2nd Revised DEIR. The first attached Table 2-2 is from the current Specific Plan and shows the breakdown of land uses by Planning Area for the current 2,015 -unit project. In contrast, the second ' attached Table 2-2 from the 2nd Revised DEIR document shows the breakdown for the 2,058 - unit project, as analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR. The changes were relatively minor, mainly shifting the acreages and numbers of units between 14 of Planning Areas, most in the Valley ' portion of the project (Planning Areas 12 through 3313). This section also includes a figure showing the arrangement of the buffer area between the Plateau area and the Nicolas Valley to the south. In addition, Figure 24A, Offsite Improvements — Street and Drainage, has been modified slightly and is included in this section. These minor changes will incrementally reduce potential impacts of the project (approximately 2 percent), and they should be considered incorporated as necessary into the EIR. However, they will not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding significant impacts or recommended mitigation measures. FINAL Euviromental Impact Report 2 September 26, 2002 Specific Plan Table 2-2 Proposed Land Uses by Planning Areas (PA) PA Land Use (Density) Acres Density Min. Lot Size (sf) Units 1A Residential - Low Medium 19.0 5.2 5,000 98 iB Mini-Park(private) 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 Residential - Low Medium 18.4 5.4 5,000 99 3 Residential - Low Medium 18.6 5.3 5,000 99 4A,B Residential - Low Medium 41.8 5.1 5,000 213 5 Recreation Center (private) 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 6 Neighborhood Park Landscape Slope 5.1 1.7 N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A 7A Open Space/Landscape Slope 19.5 N/A N/A N/A 7B,C Open Space/Flood Control 3.8 N/A NIA N/A 8 Open Space/Habitat 12.5 N/A N/A N/A 9A,13 Open Space/Habitat 10.6 N/A N/A N/A 10 Residential - Low 8.1 1.4 20,000 11 11 Neighborhood Commercial 15.4 N/A NIA N/A 12 Residential - Medium 2 (Clustered) 16.4 8.7 3,000 142 13 Open Space/Habitat 179.6 N/A N/A N/A 14 Residential - Medium 2 (Clustered) Open Space/Flood Contml 13.5 3.6 11.2 3,000 151 15 Residential - Medium 2 (Clustered) 14.1 11.1 3,000 156 16 Residential - Low Medium 28.4 5.1 5,000 145 17 Residential - Low Medium 40.2 4.3 6,000 172 18 Residential - Low Medium 28.4 4.0 6,000 113 19 Residential - Low 31.2 1.1 20,000 34 20 Residential - Low 30.3 1.1 20,000, 33 21 Residential - Low 23.9 1.0 20,000 24 22 Residential - Medium 2 (Clustered) 20.3 8.1 3,000 164 23 Residential - Medium 10.9 6.2 3,000 67 24 - Residential - Medium 10.6 5.2 3,000 55 25 Open Space/Flood Control 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 26 Open Space/Flood Control 22.1 N/A N/A N/A 27 Sports Park Open Space/Flood Control 19.7 1.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28, 29 Middle School Elementary School 20.0 12.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 Recreation Center (private) 4.0 NIA N/A N/A 31 Residential - Medium 2 (Clustered) 24.6 9.1 3,000 224 32 Public Institutional (Fire Station) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A 33A 33B Residential - Low Residential - Low 11.8 2.3 1.1 20,000 15 PublidPrivate Roads 45.2 N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 804.7 2.5 2,015 clustered units 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-2 Proposed Land Uses By Planning Areas (PA) PA Land Use (Density) Acres Density Minimum Lot Size (sf) Units IA Residential -Low Medium 19.0 5.2 5,000 98 IB Mini-Park(private) 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 Residential -Low Medium 18.4 5.4 5,000 99 3 Residential -Low Medium 18.9 5.2 5,000 99 4A, B Residential -Low Medium 41.7 5.1 5,000 213 5 Recreation Center (private) 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 6 Neighborhood Park Open Space landscaped Slope 5.1 1.7 N/A N/A N/A 7 Open Space/landscaped Slope(A) 19.5 N/A N/A N/A 7 Open Space/Rood Control (B, C) 3.8 N/A N/A N/A 8 Open Space/Habitat 12.5 N/A N/A N/A 9 Open Space//Habitat (A, B) 10.6 N/A N/A N/A 10 Residential -Low 8.1 LI 20,000 9 11 Neighborhood Commercial 15.4 N/A N/A N/A 12 Residential -Medium 2 (clustered) 16.2 9.3 3,000 150 13 Open Space/Habitat 179.6 N/A N/A N/A 14 Residential -Medium 2 (clustered) 16.7 10.4 3,000 174 15 Residential -Medium 2 (clustered) 14.5 12.0 3,000 174 16 Residential -Low Medium 29.1 5.2 5,000 150 17 Residential -Low Medium 37.5 3.8 6,000 144 18 Residential -Low Medium 24.4 4.3 6,000 106 19 Residential -Low 35.9 1.3 20,000 47 20 Residential -Low 30.8 1.1 20,000 35 21 Residential -Low 24.0 1.2 20,000 29 22 Residential -Medium I 13.9 6.0 4,000 84 23 Residential -Medium 2 (clustered) 10.5 10.7 3,000 113 24 Residential -Medium 1 17.0 6.0 4,000 - 113 25 Open SpaceMood Control 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 26 Open Space/Rood Control 24.0 N/A N/A N/A 27 Sports Park Open Space/landscaped Slope 19.8 1.2 N/A N/A N/A 28,29 Middle/Elementary Schools 32.0 N/A N/A N/A 30 Recreation Center (private) 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 31 Residential -Medium 2 23.3 9.3 3,000' 217 32 Public Institution (fire station) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A 33 Residential -Low (A,B) 14.1 1.06 20,000 15 Public/Private Roads 45.2 N/A N/A N/A TOTAL` 804.7 2.56 2,058 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR - APRIL 1, 2002 2-6 LEGEND LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 1A ,a MP -P. We 3 8.8 M� RR�FTA 194.6 $ 031 LM M7 j C 99 DLf5 5.7 122 f70T C 12S AC // C 88.9 2 1i NC 15.4 3.6 96 DVS LM ��` '. 4A IM SPORTS PARK S �S / 19.7 16A AC 9 DU'3"�. 990 '," LM .3 7 RC 9.2 19.5 AC IDD DU'S 4B S1, S2 32.0 = PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (Fire Station) PI LM OD HABITAT OS1 202.7 2.3 AC OS2 39.1 IJAC OS3 17 DU'S LEGEND LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 107.6 1.1 117 O LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 194.6 4.8 939 p MED. DENSITY RES. (Standard) M7 21.5 5.7 122 O MED. DENSITY RES. (Clustered Courtyard) M2 88.9 9.4 837 ® NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 15.4 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 5.1 IM SPORTS PARK SP 19.7 ® PRIVATE MINI PARK MP .3 ® PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER RC 9.2 Ml EDUCATIONAL (Schools) S1, S2 32.0 = PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (Fire Station) PI 2.0 OD HABITAT OS1 202.7 W FLOOD CONTROL OS2 39.1 ® LANDSCAPE SLOPES (Manufactured Slopes) OS3 21.2 PUBLIC STREETS 35.4 PRIVATE STREETS 9.8 GRAND TOTAL 804.7 2.5 2,015 LEGEND ■■ City / County Boundary Pedestrian Bridge The Ke,th Compeniae l"MA 0 RM 40a !po ISM Rm-11);itgl)-1i R"111ch NAP 33B •2.3 AC \ '33A I B VAC 11 ars 8.7 AC 9B 11 Du•S os7 BA AC 11 Nc 15.4 AC (10 0 AC) 12 M2 ISAAC m (15.0 AC) 142 DVS FIGURE 2-1 13 Dal 179.6 AC / 17 LM 1640.2 ACLM m ars 15 20.4 AC 14 I46ars M2 M2 13.5 AC 14.1 AC (3.6 AC 082) 158 ars 151 DV818 _ R RC LM p 26..44 AC 173 DVS I 31 M2 24 8 U • 1 L 224 ovs L 3, AC D+Ous I 26 22. 24 M1 106 M2 23109 AC 550VsAc 25 20.3 AC 67 DU'S 0S2 0 164 DVS 81 AC L P ROAD 20 L L e21 23.9 AC 30. 8 - 24 D1r3__ `32 PI 2.0 AC (L5 AC) Notes: • A 15' wide multi -use trail is located in Planning Areas 19, 20 and 21 adjacent to the property boundary. • Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, 33A and 33B will have 1 acre minimum lots adjacent to the property boundary and 1/2 acre minimum lots adjacent to the 1 acre lots. ' ASHBYUSA LLC FIGURE 1-1 O 7 — OPEN SPAD;-'\1 ; ' PROPERTY q4 ! 5 :7 $FADE I \V 15 I vAra 9 Ac M . s.000 i „ M -AC I o 14 tt AC 19 9 24 AC I33 'I 2 � 3 tO AC 6 v � 57iW5 OPEN SPACE ' 12S D1rS ! 7Ac i M -SAO '4. 9 \ 20 AD ' _ t00 AC M - 5.000 7 ^J 120 SCHOOL MIH D M �{ 120 OlJS M 5000 1 ' 2M AC 1l AC it ` 700 DUS \ I 20 AC / CO9 Dlf5 I I i 104 OUS Ii s1°RIMG ' FOM 16 OPEN SPACE \ ovEH SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD 2HpO f 1i AC / / / zs Ac M9 S." \1 1 21 AC COMMERCIAL I 57 DUS / / / 47 10 AC OPEN2AC O / 13PJO�GELINE / M - 5000 / 19 AC / LAND USE SUMMARY 'BO`s —' 21 I / LAND USE Code Lot Sae Ams Units / / ° ts9OM I RICA DENSITY RESIDENTIAL H Mut&Farnay 20 360 = LM -7 39 AC MEDIUM DENSITY RESH)EINTIAL M 5,000 161 838 156 O17S 22 LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 7,200 125 500 -W ' LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 10,000 52 156 / 23 L 62" � PROPOSED OFFSITE 62 DVS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L-2 15,000 31 78 PARK 10 AC 25 LM -22 � II LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L-1 8 L-2 20,000 94 126 SCHOOL 27 AC °B DVS COMMERCIAL NC 10 20 AC 109 DUS � EDUCATIONAL S 30 ' PARK PR 23 27 OPEN SPACE 18 AC 28 OPEN SPACE OS 18t 30 u" 2W 29 `4c ' STREETS 61 `M29 AC 32 DDVSoPEtISPACE 116 DVS 32 7AG o TOTAL788 2058 cuLE 31 L 92 AC C11AP05 I L ,000 64 DUB 31 AC ' IL 70 DUS — — — — Signalrzed Intersection — — •• City of Temecula - County of Riverside Boundary ®The Keith C.mpenlesl�� 0 _ Rol -4) au 9 4 Ranch ' ASHBYUSA, LLC FIGURE 4-15 I I _ _ _ �t• �_ _I •i .� —':—i 1-.. I +' '_�I I _" •r ••moi �� I � - .. 'f5•• v .als vn ' M 10 t) �� 11 z 1I! 8 ) 1 15 /27 28 31 p 2B J 18 l KEY MAP Z! )4 n n a Kd r, 21 ZD TKC?on* Y1 Ranch „�r.o ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 4-15A Enhanced Landscaping To Buffer Variable Width (20' to 70')_ /\ View From Nicolas Road Residence Fuel Modification Zone ' Informal LandscapeUnit _ Property Line Native Species (Home) \ View Fence, Figure 2.16 Project Boundary 4' High Split (HOA Maintained) _ \ `Rail Fencing 6• Proposed Residential Development / Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A, 49 Existing L/ ' Vegetation _ 10,y_ �2 4' Min. 6' High Chain _ Nature Walk ` 2:1 Slope� ' Link Fencing At Project2' 2' 25' Min. Boundary 2' 2- 10' / ' Varies 10' Min. / Rear Yard - Existing 2:1 Slope Setback Residential 3' AC Paving Over Development Varies 0' To 120'--;,- 6" Compacted Native Soil Varies 20' To 150' 130' To 180' HOA Maintained 175' Visual Buffer Zone i Section NOTTOSCA E. A 175 Foot Visual Buffer Zone Has Been Established From The South Property Line To The Southernmost Units. Any Units With This Buffer Zone That Are Visible From Homes Along The North Side Of Nicolas Road Will Either Have Enhanced Landscaping Or Increased Rear Yard Building Setbacks To Assure That Units In The Plateau Area Will Have Limited Visibility From The Nicolas Valley Area. eNOT TO SCALE Enhanced Landscaping To Buffer Variable Width (20' to 70') ViewFrom Nicolas Road Residence _ Fuel Modification Zone Project Boundary G Property Line ` View Fence, Figure 2.16 ' Informal (HOA Maintained) 6' High Chain Landscape Native Species Unit Link Fencing SlopeBerm (Home) At Project ' Boundary HOA Maintained Existing 10' 2' Vegetation 4'to 6' Max. 6' to 9' Typ.. Nature Trail Proposed Residential Oevelo ment 3" AC Paving Over 6" Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A 48 Existing 4' High Split Compacted Native Soil Grade Rail Fencing 90' To 110' 25' Min. HOA Maintained Rear Yard Setback 175' Visual Buffer Zone /- Section f` 01 The Keith Comp"ni""I.MA 6=mw6=w== I N MTM TOM S C A■L� Roripa.ugh Ranch NOT TO SCALE C'l (0 N CC Dee LWA [1 I 1 ASHBYUSA. LLC REVISED FIGURE 24A PHASE ONE ttttttttttttttttt� 1 NICOLAS ROAD 40' WIDTH FROM 450' EAST OF CALLE GIRASOU NICOLAS RD TO THE 90' STREET SECTION OF WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY 2A CALLE CHAPOS 36 HALF WIDTH ON CENTER SECTION FROM BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD TO WALCOTT LANE * aaaaaa one 28 IF AN ALL-WEATHER CROSSING OVER SANTA GERTUDIS AT NICOLAS ROAD IS NOT BUILT, CONSTRUCT SECONDARY ACCESS 36' ON CENTER IMPROVEMENTS FROM WALCOTT LANE TO NICOLAS ROAD, AS REQUIRED O3 CONSTRUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND POURROY ROAD sari 4 DOWNSTREAM BANK PROTECTION OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK IF NECESSARY � oar• 5 GRADING FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 0*000 6 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD HALF WIDTH FROM 550' SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD TO SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY PHASE TWO 00008 7 IMPROVE NICOLAS ROAD FROM 450' EAST CALLE GIRASOL TO LIEFER ROAD O6 CONSTRUCT TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH LOOP ROAD I CALLE CHAPOS 10100000010 9 40' ALL WEATHER CROSSING OF CALLE GIRASOL AND IMPROVE NICOLAS ROAD OVER SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WITH RELATED BERM AND BANK IMPROVEMENTS TO LIEFER ROAD 10 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD HALF WIDTH FROM 550' SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD TO SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY 11 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD MODIFIED FULL WIDTH STREET SECTION FROM SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, PLUS RELATED STORM DRAIN AND WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS, EXCLUSIVE OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 12 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSITE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AS WARRANTED (SEE SECTION 3.5.6 OF 2nd REVISED DRAFT EIR) * Depending on secondary access route NOTE: Improvements conceptual only - refer to Sections 3.4.6 and 3.5.6 of 2nd revised draft EIR for details. Text changes from DER shown in red. The K.ah Comoemear /c I IZ I 0 I 01 I a Cil W ie RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.4 Water Resources Subsequent to circulation of the DEIR, more detailed hydrological analyses and design studies were conducted by David Evans &Associates (DEA) in the Panhandle portion of the project, and by The Keith Companies (TKC) in the Valley portion of the project. A small drainage area that contributes approximately 404 cfs from the Johnson Ranch property was inadvertantly omitted from the calculations for Santa Gertrudis Creek in the original drainage study. With that additional area, the current offsite runoff volume for Santa Gertrudis Creek is estimated to be 3,479 cfs (DEIR figure = 3,075 cfs). In addition, the offsite drainage area southeast of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos is slightly larger than originally estimated, which increases the estimate of existing offsite flow from 358 cfs, as indicated in the DEIR, to approximately 393 cfs. A revised Figure 3.4-2; Existing Hydrology, and Figure 3.4-3, Conceptual Drainage Master Plan, are included in this document. The DEIR stated the proposed development would not increase offsite flows over existing volumes. This will still be the case except that the existing flows have been updated., which does not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. The Jurisdictional Delineation prepared for the project by Glen Lukos Associates (GLA) was ' inadvertantly omitted from the appendices of the Draft EIR. However, the Water Resources and Biological Resources Sections of the DEIR (Sections 3.4 and 3.5) contained appropriate summaries of the data from the GLA report. The GLA report has been included in Appendix C ' ("Additional Materials") at the end of this document. The discussion on DEIR Section 3.7 in this document also discusses updated information regarding water -related permits. This information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. 1 I J FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 10 ' September 26, 2002 ER LEGEND n,m37� Existing Flows Existing Water Course Source: TKC 1998, 2001; ADKAN 2001 DEA 2002, TKC 2002 # = DER # = Current art / T Z gd m p jet Z p I < — — — — 0 . Joy —, •_ � Existing Hydrology PI~: B(! W21.5214 PM By TB GEROWG N:U l Mf"Wwp15O"ZEIRFIG3F2-Mel.tp X m U) m 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ASHDY', A 1A MP-0tl aw LM 190AC 2 sfi Du's LM 3 5 4A I 184 AC LM RC LM Q,00- 20e 99 DU'S 16.9 AC 48AC 196 AC 99 DU'S 100 DU'S -00—"C— ds 7C 052 _ 7A195AC Detention BasinDetention Basin 10 Ac/Ft co°j 10 AdFt a; O� u s Cr LEGEND L°S' 25 AC 22AC 11 U'S Proposed 24" Storm Drain Pipe Proposed 30" Storm Drain Pipe Q,00=3,075 cfs Q.. =3 1>9 rs ����• Proposed 42" Storm Drain Pipe • E • Proposed 72" Storm Drain Pipe ETIProposed Storm Drain Inlet/Outlet Structure 9B Proposed Hydro Arch Bridges 9 CU's or other design approved by City Engineer I Improved Natural Drainage Local Storm Drain flows are excluded from this exhibit Sources: Plateau drainage by Adkan Engineering, (2001) Valley portion by TKC (1988, 2001, 2002 and DEA (2002) # = DEIR # = Current ® rn" Keen tomo"�""I ■ ■ �V _ _ __. I _ 9A 951 18 LM 3.8 AC 8 1 AC �� 9B 150 DU's 9 CU's OS1 I O 88AC ROb 6 M2 5"ACAl 11 S2 (1OS3)[:15.G 19 20 0 AC AC L (10.0 AC) NAP 4 33A L 14.1 AC 15 DU'S W M2 162 AC (15.0 AC) 150 DU'S 27 SP 198 AC (12 AC OS2) Q100=4460 cts Q7a.3 16 18 LM 9 III 150 DU's AC 13 9A fin Dvs `err I 28 MEN 32 PI 20AC (1 5 AC) 14 M2 167AC (143AC) 174 DU'S \ 13 osi 179 6 AC / Channel Flow By l Detention Basin 1 19 Ac/Ft FIGURE 3.4-3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / 1M 37.5 AC ,4/ DU's 30 RC \` 40 AC 16 18 LM 29.1 AC 15 150 DU's M2 145AC 28 174 DU'5 FIGURE 3.4-3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / 1M 37.5 AC ,4/ DU's 30 RC \` 40 AC 18 29 St LM 244 AC 120AC 105 DVS 28 M2 S2 23 3 AC 19 20 0 AC 217 DU'S L 35.9 AC 47 DUS Z`hwul7e 24.01 C— — • . . 24 M2 23 msAc M1 0 A 113 0U'S 102 DU'S Obx • . . . , , . ax Ac 20 Flow By I L30 L Detention Basi • 21 N ou s 35 Du's 8.4 Ac/Ft &C/ Q'2b X31 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.5 Transportation and Circulation The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) commented that it is participating in the development of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP) which is identifying several regional transportation routes through the County, including the Winchester/Temecula Corridor. The RCTC expressed concern that the Roripaugh project should mitigate impacts to the regional transportation system as well as local impacts. The Roripaugh project will be making a number of major regional improvements, such as Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, as well as other improvements at a number of regional intersections. if the City concludes that these project benefits (i.e., improvements) outweigh the traffic impacts of the project, then a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be prepared in this regard. The City of Murrieta expressed a number of concerns regarding the data, analyses, and conclusions of the project traffic study. In addition,_the City requested the previous DEIR acknowledge project impacts to the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta Road. The 2nd Revised DEIR did acknowledge this impact and Mitigation Measure 3, Item 7 specifically requires the project to provide a fair share contribution to help improve this intersection. In addition, the City requested a fair share contribution to improvements on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, however, the City of Temecula determined that only the fair share contributions to the proposed intersection improvements were appropriate at this time. In addition, it should be noted that the following three of the intersections will exceed City LOS standards in 2007 regardless of whether the project is built or not. (emphasis added): 1) I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road (PM Peak); 2) Ynez Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak); and 3) Ynez Raod at Rancho California Road (AM/PM Peaks). However, the project will still cause two intersections (I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road and Margarita Road/Winchester Road) to exceed City LOS standards in 2007. ' This information is considered included in Section 3.5 of the 2"d Revised DEIR based on comments received on the DEIR. However, it does not change its significance conclusions (i.e., 2 intersections temporarily exceed City LOS standards for 2007). A measure has been added to ' the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report for the project to provide appropriate fair share contributions toward necessary improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road within the City of Murrieta. 1 ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 13 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.7 Biological Resources (Permit Update) The developer has already submitted applications for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which includes a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, plus a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with the California Department of Fish and Game. However, the SAA and the 404 permit cannot be issued prior to approval of the EIR. In addition, this section includes the most current information regarding the amount of jurisdictional land impacted by the project. The site contains approximately 13.2 acres of CDF&G jurisdiction under Fish & Game Code Section 1603, of which approximately 4.7 acres is riparian habitat. Impacts to CDF&G jurisdiction will total 3.0 acres, of which 0.83 acre is vegetated riparian habitat. Therefore, Table 3.7-5 somewhat overstates both the acreage of riparian habitat subject to CDF&G jurisdiction, and the total amount of project impacts. The site also contains approximately 10.0 acres of Corps jurisdiction, of which only 0.8 acre is jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed project will impact only a portion of the Corps jurisdiction, with total impacts of 2.69 acres, including impacts to 0.61 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. Development of the site is also anticipated to result in the placement of 34,180 cubic yards of fill material in jurisdictional land (see Appendix Q. However, all of this information merely clarifies and does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report has been modified based on comments on the DEIR to reflect the following two corrections. The first correction is that Mitigation Measure 6 on DEIR page 3-139 will be revised to include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the resource agency with primary responsibility for approval of the Fuel Modification Zone from a biological perspective. The second correction is that Mitigation Measure 8 on DEIR page 3-140 will be revised to reflect that CDF&G was involved in the AD 161 MSSHCP process, and that Section 2080.1 of the California Endangered Species Act applies to this project. That section of the Act states that issuance of an incidental take permit under the Federal Endangered Species Act eliminates the need to obtain additional authorization or approval from CDF&G. For the purposes of Section 2080. 1, incidental take permits include Section 10(a) Permits and Section 7 Biological Opinions. This information is included as appropriate in both Section 3.4 (Water Resources) and 3.7 (Biological Resources) of the DEIR. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 14 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.9 Hazards The previous project was reviewed by the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on ' August 2, 2001. They concluded an elementary school site proposed in the panhandle or "Plateau" area was a "discouraged use" and recommended it be moved out of the panhandle. The project land use plan was subsequently changed to reflect this request and the elementary ' school was moved to east of Butterfield Stage Road. On June 20, 2002, the ALUC met and approved Tract 29661 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific ' Plan, covering Planning Areas 1 through 8 in the Plateau portion of. the project, with the following Conditions of Approval: ' 1. Provide Avigation Easements to the French Valley Airport for those portions of the project within the Influence Area prior to final approval by the City Council. I2. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into any building construction to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45 -decibel levels. 3. Install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). ' 4. The Plan and EIR are amended to recognize the approved CLUP and the aiport is to include the appropriate text and graphic illustrations. 5. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Surface" shall be permitted. ' 6. The following uses shall be precluded: a) stadiums; b) amphitheaters; c) lighted ballfields; and d) churches. 7. The following uses shall be prohibited: a) any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged ' in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator; b) any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport; c) An use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area; or ' d) any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. ' These measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Appendix D. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 15 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.12 Public Services — Recreation In January, 2002, the City adopted a "Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan." This plan shows a multi -use trail along Nicolas Road from Winchester Road east to the MWD pipeline easement, and another multi -use trail along the MWD easement that crosses the Roripaugh property. The Specific Plan for the project is consistent with these designated trails, although the trail along the MWD easement is not proposed as part of this project. 3.12 Public Services - Schools The TVUSD commented that data in the 2"d Revised DEIR section on schools required updating, and provided the correct information, mainly regarding its school facilities and mitigation fees. This information is considered incorporated into pages 3-176 and 3-177 of the 2nd Revised DEIR. However, it does not make any substantial changes to the significance conclusions or recommended mitigation measures of the DEIR regarding schools. Student Generation The TVUSD provided the following updated student generation ratios for the project: Proiected Proiect-Related Student Generation Grade Factor Units Students DEIR* K-5 .3945 2,058 units 812 803 6-8 .1731 2,058 units 356 387 9-12 .1885 2,058 units 388 375 Total .7561 2,058 units 1,556 1,565 * students estimated in Section 3.11 of the 2nd Revised DEIR It should be noted that the 2"d Revised DEIR estimated slightly more total students than those based on the most current TVUSD figures, although the internal grade level distribution was slightly different. These minor corrections do not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. TVUSD Facilities TVUSD currently has 12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools, ' including 1 continuation high school. The TVUSD Master Plan requires the construction of 16 additional schools, including the Roripaugh Ranch middle and elementary schools, to meet the ' enrollment demands of approved and proposed developments within the District boundaries, which are estimated to build -out by 2015. Total allocation of additional schools is 10 more elementary, 4 more middle, and 2 more high schools, as shown in the following table: FINAL Enviromental Impact Report _ 16 ' September 26, 2002 Total 19 6 10 35 Mitigation Fees Under current State Law (SB -50; 1998), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement, TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re -calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions. City Resolution 96-119 is no longer in affect. This information clarifies the specific requirements of the impact fees, but does not change statements in the DEIR that the developer will pay the appropriate impact fees when required. 3.13 Utilities - Water Subsequent to circulation of the 2nd Revised DEIR, the EMWD and RCWD provided appropriate documentation to the applicant and City regarding long-term water service, as required by the recently enacted SB 221 and SB 610. Excerpts from the EMWD and RCWD packets are included in Appendix C of this document. In addition, the City will require the developer to install reclaimed water piping at the 2 public park sites, 2 private recreational facilities, and all common landscaped areas so that reclaimed water may be used for irrigation in these areas when it is eventually made available. 3.13 Utilities—Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company provided more locally applicable gas consumption figures for the project. Based on these figures, the project would use considerably less gas than ' estimated in the DEIR (5.1 vs. 13.5 million cubic feet). Therefore, this information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 17 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR TVUSD Schools ' # of Schools Add by At ' Current Aug. 2005 Future Build -Out Elementary 12 3 7 22 Middle High (comprehensive) 4 2 2 1 2 1 8 4 High (continuation) 1 0 0 1 Total 19 6 10 35 Mitigation Fees Under current State Law (SB -50; 1998), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement, TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re -calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions. City Resolution 96-119 is no longer in affect. This information clarifies the specific requirements of the impact fees, but does not change statements in the DEIR that the developer will pay the appropriate impact fees when required. 3.13 Utilities - Water Subsequent to circulation of the 2nd Revised DEIR, the EMWD and RCWD provided appropriate documentation to the applicant and City regarding long-term water service, as required by the recently enacted SB 221 and SB 610. Excerpts from the EMWD and RCWD packets are included in Appendix C of this document. In addition, the City will require the developer to install reclaimed water piping at the 2 public park sites, 2 private recreational facilities, and all common landscaped areas so that reclaimed water may be used for irrigation in these areas when it is eventually made available. 3.13 Utilities—Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company provided more locally applicable gas consumption figures for the project. Based on these figures, the project would use considerably less gas than ' estimated in the DEIR (5.1 vs. 13.5 million cubic feet). Therefore, this information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 17 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 3.14 Scientific Resources The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians requested minor changes to Mitigation Measure 2 regarding the use of Native American archaeological monitors. In addition, their comment letter on the previous DEIR recommended the following additions and modifications to the archaeological mitigation measures: 1) At least, but not limited to, two (2) tribal archaeological monitors to be present during excavation and groundbreaking work, to be compensated by the developer. 2) If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the developer be required to allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. 3) If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. 4) All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resume. 5) That tribal archaeological monitors be present during any Phase II and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. These five items will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report, as shown in Appendix D. If human remains are found, the Coroner and/or local Native American representatives will be notified, as required by state and federal law. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 18 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR B. EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS The 2nd Revised DEIR concluded that the project had the following significant impacts: 1) Loss of prime agricultural soils and locally important farmland; 2) 2 intersections exceed LOS D during peak hours during 2007; 3) Short-term air quality from construction emissions; 4) Long-term air quality from occupancy emissions; 5) Loss of aesthetic views; and 6) Night -lighting at the community park. Conclusion: The minor changes to the project description and additional information provided by commenting agencies and the public do not change any of the identified impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the conclusions of the 2nd Revised DEIR regarding significant impacts and recommended mitigation are still valid. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 19 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS —2nd REVISED DEIR (2,058 units) The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, received the following sixteen (16) letters commenting on the 2nd Revised Draft EIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: A. Federal Agencies (1) 1. California Indian Legal Services B. State Agencies (1) 1. Office of Planning and Research — State Clearinghouse C. Regional Agencies (2) 1. Southern California Association of Governments 2. Southern California Gas Company D. County Agencies (1) 1. Riverside County Transportation Agency (RCTC) E. Local Agencies (3) 1. Temecula Valley Unified School District 2. CityofMurrieta 3. City of Murrieta F. Private Groups or Individuals (8) 1. Mike Knowlton 2. Deborah Rosenthal 3. Mandy Picozzi 4. Samantha Shields/Marissa Knowlton 5. Ronald Knowles 6. Jill Stokes 7. Ladd Stokes 8. Renee Baellargeat Eight (8) of these letters were from various federal, state, regional, county, and local agencies, while eight (8) were from private individuals, mainly residents living adjacent to or nearthe project site. Individual comments from each agency or individual will be presented, along with a specific response to that comment. Each letter is presented in the order presented above (A-1, A-2, B-1, etc.). Copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix A at the end of this document. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 20 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR A. LETTERS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES (1) ' A4 Letter from Laura Miranda, Attorney with the California Indian Legal Services ' representing the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, dated May 16, 2002. Comment 1: The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe and ' sovereign government, is formally requesting pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092 (b) (3), to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of this project, including notification of all comment deadlines, public hearings, and scoping sessions. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: California Indian Legal Services submits the following comments on the 2nd Revised Draft EIR for the Roripaugh Ranch project on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Band"). The Pechanga Band requests that the comments contained herein in conjunction with the comments in our letters dated July 15, 1999, July 20, 2001, and August 23, 2001 constitute the Pechanga Band's comments on the 2nd Revised DEIR. ' Response 2: Comment noted. Comments from the Califorinia Indian Legal Services on the previous DEIR for this project are also addressed in Section IV of this document. Comment 3: PROJECT GENERALLY. The Pechanga Band is not opposed to the Roripaugh Ranch project. As we have stated in previous correspondence to the City, the Pechanga Band is primarily concerned with the project's impact on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Band and our firm have reviewed the 2nd Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Project. Response 3: Comment noted. ' Comment 4: In the interest of honoring the government -to -government relationship between the City and the Pechanga Band, we request the following amendments to the Scientific Resources Mitigation Measures (Section 3.14, pg. 3-230) as follows: (2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Pre - Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to have aeeess to the stie duFin monitor all ground -breaking and grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department and the Pechanga Band. The NA representatives Fnust give theApplicatit at least 24 hours netiee of wanting aeeess to Me site so the Applioant ean assufe thee sa , of the NA A representative, Additional clarification and expansion of this FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 21 September 26, 2002 RORIPAOGH RANCH•SPECIFIC PLAN EIR measure shall be in accordance with the items listed in the California Indian Legal Servics letters dated Jmy 10, July 20, 2001 (items i, ii, ii, iv, and 2). ' Response 4: These requested changes will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report (see Appendix D). ' Comment 5: The Pechanga Band has a cultural resources department staffed with experts in Luiseno cultural resource identification and treatment, as well as professionally trained and certified archaeological monitors. The Tribe carries professional .liability insurance for its monitors and has contracted with numerous ' municipalities, and county governments to provide professional Native American monitoring services for development projects within their traditional territory. The Tribe, therefore, requests that their tribal monitors be retained by the ' developer, in addition to an archaeological monitor, to observe all ground- breaking and on-site grading activities for the project. ' Response 5: Comment noted. See the previous Comment/Response I in this letter. Comment 6: INCORPORATION OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES INTO THE ' PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN. The Pechanga Band requests that the mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan so the deadlines (prior to ' issuance of grading permit) for fulfillment of mitigation measures are clearly presented. ' Response 6: Comment noted. See the previous Comment/Response I in this letter. Comment 7: The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on our agency's responses to our comments on the 2nd Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Pechanga Band looks forward to working together ' with the City of Temecula and other interested agencies in protecting invaluable Native American cultural and archaeological resources found in the project area. Allowing active tribal participation will prevent misunderstadings and help your ' project move forward smoothly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 746-8941, ext. 110. Response 7: Comment noted. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 22 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 ' B. LETTERS FROM STATE AGENCIES (1) B-1 Letter from Terry Roberts, Director of the Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, May 20, 2002. Comment 1: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state ' agencies for review. The review period closed onMay 17, 2002, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft ' environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions ' regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Response 1: Comment noted. ' B-2 Letter from Steve Shaffer, Director of Agricultural and Environmental Policy, Department of Food and Agriculture, dated May 20, 2002. Comment 1: The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has reviewed the ' DEIR for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in the City of Temecula. The CDFA mission is to promote and protect California agriculture, including the natural resources upon which it depends. From this perspective, we offer the following comments on the DEIR's treatment of the project impacts on agricultural land resources. Response 1 Comment noted. Comment 2: The proposed project would result in the development of 805 acres with 2,058 residential units and ancillary land uses. Approximately 500 acres of agricultural land, including 210 acres of Prime Farmland soil, will be converted by the project. The DEIR identifies the conversion as a significant environmental impact. ' However, the DEIR proceeds to engage in speculation and unsubstantiated statements to argue that avoidance or mitigation of the impact is not only unfeasible, but unreasonable. For example, on page 3-19 of the DEIR, an undocumented conclusion is drawn: "Other jurisdictions, like Temecula, establish General Plan policies that somehow ' slow or control the conversion or loss of farmland. Because the land use issues FINAL Enviromentat Impact Report 23 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR surrounding agriculture are so complex, most jurisdictions are not successful in preserving agricultural land once suburban uses have been constructed adjacent to farming uses." (Emphasis added) The author of the DEIR simultaneously acknowledges the practices of other ' communities to control the loss of farmland, and the futility of trying to do so. In. any event, this is not the kind of analysis suitable for a CEQA document. The ' document should describe the efforts of other communities around the State to conserve agricultural land and mitigate its conversion. Also, before writing off any efforts to avoid or mitigate for the loss of agricultural land because it is too ' "complex," we recommend a documentation and quantitative analysis of the factors that make the conservation of agricultural land at this site unfeasible. The EIR document is intended by CEQA to be an objective information document ' upon which decision -makers can base rational decisions, not a compilation of personal opinions. t Response 2: The City acknowledges that the loss of agricultural land is an issue of Statewide concern. At the local level, the balancing act between competing interests makes the preservation of non -irrigated (i.e., dryland) farming even more difficult. The ' DEIR for an individual project is not the forum to discuss the full range of agricultural preservation techniques. It should be noted the information in the DEIR was developed based on discussions between the property owner, City ' staff, and a private EIR consultant, and were intended to present specific data on local conditions that relate to whether or not this property could feasibly or ' reasonably be retained in agriculture. Data from the state website was reviewed and the EIR consultant used the Land ' Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process to determine if, in fact, impacts to agricultural resources on the site should be considered significant. Based on the LESA analysis data in Appendix C, the project has a total composite LESA ' score of 52.5 points which means the impact of the project on agriculture could be significant, however, the individual LE portion of the score was less than 20 (i.e., 18.5) which, according to the LESA guidelines, means the impact of the ' project on agricultural resources is not considered significant. Additional information regarding farmland conservation is provided in Appendix C of this document. This additional analysis does not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding significant impacts, and the appropriateness of mitigation versus an alternative to the project is discussed in Comment/Response 7. As indicated in the DEIR, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will have to be prepared for ' this impact. Comment 3: The DEIR goes on to argue that the land is no longer feasible for agricultural uses. On page 3-19, the document states that since an assessment district was established over the property, the taxes have increased to a higher "suburban -type development rate, rather than ... the lower agricultural rate." Based on this FINAL.Enviromental Impact Report ' September 26, 2002 24 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' observation, the DEIR sets forth the opinion that"[tlhis significantly raised the owner's property taxes which has caused fanning to become no longer financially ' feasible on this site." Without further explanation, the DEIR then notes that "[a) portion of the Roripaugh site was once in the Murrieta No. 9 Agricultural ' Preserve. According to County records, a Notice of Non -Renewal was filed for this property in 1987, so the agricultural preserve status, no longer applied to the property as of 1997." Prior to the initiation of Williamson Act contract termination in 1987, the burden of speculation -driven taxes would not have been a problem. The obvious answer ' to this financial dilemma is to enroll the land under a Farmland Security Zone contract, which would offer enhanced tax protection, even more than that of the Williamson Act, for at least 20 years. This argument is followed by another unsupported conclusion that "[Harming is no longer economically viable and considerable semi-annual assessments required by AD -161 support development of the property." (DEIR, page 3-20). Again, such opinions do not suffice for a CEQA impact analysis. The DEIR is ' intended to document environmental impacts. Conjecture about the economics of farming is secondary to the impacts on the natural resource, in this case, the ' land. Response 3: The disucssion referenced on page 3-19 of the 2nd Revised DEIR is intended to communicate to the reviewer the issues being faced by the property owner. The unfortunate choices made by Leo Roripaugh in the 1980's and the difficulty of sustaining dryland farming provide the backdrop for this project. The DEIR ' clearly acknowledges the loss of 210 acres of farmland, and identifies it as an unmitigatable significant impact. ' The commentor should note that CEQA does allow the discussion of enconomic factors if they have a direct relationship to impacts on a natural resource, such as farming and farmland conservation, which is the case with this EIR. Comment 4: Further down page 3-20, and on page 3-21, other opinions are presented: "Finally, Policy 7.3 directs the City to 'discourage urban development in agricultural areas' but it does not prohibit such uses. The decision about when to ' allow conversion should be at the request of the dryland farmers, at a point when it becomes no longer economically feasible to continue farming, No other land use is required to be maintained even if it is not financially viable..... "When ... a ' farmer says, 'I can no longer afford to farm,' can the City say, 'we think you should keep your land in agriculture.' This kind of situation represents a taking of private land and thus is subject to compensation." FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 25 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' These statements represent philosophical arguments on behalf of the development of the site. The DEIR is not a place to present arguments for or against a ' particular development. Instead, we recommend that the agricultural section of the DEIR is rewritten to contain objective information about the quality of the ' land for agricultural uses; e.g., not only the specific soils and their attributes, but also the site's and region's agricultural production history and present potential. Response 4: This paragraph will be removed from the Final EIR. Comment 5: This section of the DEIR concludes by stating that "[fjor these reasons, the loss of locally important farmland and prime agricultural soils is considered a significant impact, but one that cannot be effectively mitigated at the local level ... Any project that proposes development on the previously farmed areas of the site would have significant impacts on agriculture. Therefore, there are no effective mitigation measures at the local level." The logic of the writer's argument against mitigation makes no sense. It is because the development will have impacts on ' agricultural land that mitigation measures must be considered in the DEIR. In any event, we disagree that the impacts of the project cannot be mitigated ' locally. It is precisely at the local level that agricultural land conservation must occur if California is to maintain this vital industry. California planning laws ' authorize, and indeed require cities and counties to develop policy on land use and resource and open space conservation. There are numerous cities and counties in California that employ policies for the conservation and mitigation of ' agricultural land and land conversion, respectively. We request, that the rewritten section include meaningful consideration of potential mitigation measures that avoid, compensate, and/or lessen the impacts of the proposed project on ' agricultural land. For example, the City could establish an impact mitigation bank similar to that of the City of Davis, whereby agricultural land conversion impact mitigation fees are paid by the developer and subsequently used by the ' City to compensate for the loss of farmland. In Davis, this is accomplished by the purchase of agricultural land conservation easements on other agricultural land in the region that is of equal quantity and quality as the land converted. Response 5: The phrase ... "but one that cannot be effectively mitigated at the local level." will be removed in the Final EIR. While we recognize the validity of the concerns of the Department of Food and Agriculture, the expectation that Temecula and Davis are in similar situations is unfounded. A review of the history of this action indicates that a number of farmland properties that were the subject of debate on this issue were allowed to convert to non-agricultural use, and the approved program was then in place for subsequent properties and ' proposed developments. However, it would be appropriate if this proposed development was the catalyst for debate and possible subsequent approval of a policy or program on farmland preservation that was more comprehensive and ' proactive than the current City policy on (premature) farmland conversion. It FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 26 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR should be remembered that a decision on whether conversion of farmland is premature or not should be up to the property owner and local land use authority (i.e., City) rather than a state agency. Comment 6: The DEIR acknowledges that there will be significant cumulative impacts on agricultural land. However, the conclusion is not accompanied by any meaningful analysis. The DEIR should document the extent and character of agricultural land conversion in western Riverside County since 1986 when the California Department of Conservation issued its first biennial Farmland Conversion Reports and maps. These reports provide nearly 20 years of information on land use change in Riverside County. The cumulative impact analysis should also document current projects under consideration as well as projects that have been approved, but not built, in the greater Temecula area. Response 6: Data from the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and California Farmland Conversion Reports was used in the following analysis. According to state figures, Riverside County "lost" 5,646 acres of important farmland from 1996 to 1998, and 16,917 acres from 1998 to 2000. Data from this most recent reporting period indicates that 3.3 percent of the total amount of important farmland in the County was lost in just the past 2 years. Most of this loss has been from urbanization, such as is occurring throughout western Riverside County. This data clearly suggests that cumulative impacts to regional agricultural resources will be significant, as indicated in the EIR. This additional information does not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding significant impacts, and the determination of feasible mitigation is discussed in Comment/Response 7. See Appendix C of this document for additional information on farmland conservation referred to by the commentor. Comment 7: Finally, the DEIR considers several alternatives, one being Alternative 1 - Agriculture - Clustered Development. From the brief description and analysis offered, this alternative appears to be the superior environmental alternative. As described, "[t]his alternative would reduce impacts to agriculture, traffic, air quality, views, and slcyglow to less than significant levels." (DEIR, page 7-8) Yet, the alternative is discounted without substantive analysis. "However, the number of units in this alternative would not support a CFD to fund major roadways and other onsite and offsite improvements, and it would not achieve the objectives of the project to the same degree as the proposed project." The writing off of this alternative without any meaningful analysis, but only on the conclusion that the proponent's objectives won't be met, is unacceptable in a CEQA analysis. ' We recommend that Alternative I be given serious environmental analysis in order to present lead agency decision -makers sufficient information upon which tFINAL Enviromental Impact Report 27 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR to conduct project design and selection at the later state of project approval. Such analysis is the crux of CEQA. Response 7: This alternative was offered because it was clear that implementation of any effective mitigation measure or measures that would delay or preclude conversion of all or a portion of the site from agriculture to development would best be analyzed in the context of an alternative, since it would fundamentally affect the overall use of the site. The Farmland Security Zone program described in Comment/Response 3 would be one such strategy for accomplishing this alternative. This is a more appropriate method of evaluating farmland protection relative to this site, due to its size and the location of prime agricultural soils. The DEIR states that 210 acres of the site contains prime agricultural soils, however, the actual amount of land that is proposed for conversion to suburban uses is 140 acres — the remaining 70 acres will be preserved within the AD 161 Sub -regional Habitat Conservation Plan area approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2001. Together, these two land uses will preclude continued farming on the 210 acres of prime soils. This is an instance where the goals of one (federal) agency_ conflict with the goals of another (state) agency in terms of resource protection (i.e., biological habitat versus farmland preservation). Preservation of the remaining areas onsite with prime soils would realisticially preclude any development of the site, which (again) is why this issue is best analyzed as an alternative, rather than as a mitigation measure. Additional information on conservation of agriculture and agricultural land is included in Appendix C at the end of this document. Comment 8: In conclusion, with respect to agricultural land impact and mitigation analysis, the DEIR is inadequate. We recommend that the agricultural section of the DEIR. be revised to provide objective and documented information on the environmental impacts of this project and their mitigation. ' Response 8: The DEIR did address the loss of agricultural land and determined the loss to be significant in absense of feasible mitigation. This is all that is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR provides additional ' information to respond to these comments to further clarify and expand on the information provided in the DEIR. J I Comment 9: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. If you have questions on our comments, or require information or assistance in responding to them, please call me at (916) 657-4956. Response 9: Comment noted. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report ' September 26, 2002 28 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR C. LETTERS FROM REGIONAL AGENCIES (l) C-1 Letter from Jeffrey Smith, AICP, Senior Planner -Intergovernmental Review, Southern California Association of Governments, dated May 6, 2002. Comment 1: Thank you for submitting the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. COMMENTS ON THE 2ND REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ' IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SCAG NO. 120020167) ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is the second revision of a previous project, and considers the development of a specific plan for the development of 2,058 residential units, 110,000 square feet of commercial uses. The development is also proposed to include elementary and middle schools, parks, open spaces and a fire station. The proposed Project is located within two governmental jurisdictions. Approximately 170.7 acres is within the City of Temecula, and the remaining 634 acres are presently within unincorporated Riverside County. INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: cote, ancillary, and bridge, The Growth Management (adopted June 1994), Regional Transportation Plan (adopted April 2001), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 29 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' this letter. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) constitutes the region's Transportation Plan. The RTP policies are incorporated into the RCPG. ' Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and ' Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the region. and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, ' however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. ' Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. Each of the ' applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the Project with those policies. 1 Response l: Comment noted. ' Comment 2: SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS # 1 The 2nd Revised Draft EIR provides a discussion of the relationship of the proposed Project to applicable ' regional plans as required by Section 15125[d] of Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. ' Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS #2 The 2nd Revised Draft EIR provides a section and discusses Western Riverside Council of Government's ' Subregional Comprehensive Plan. The discussion is in response to a July 12, 1999 WRCOG comment letter which encouraged consistency with WRCOG's policies and goals. Response 3: Comment noted. Comment 4: SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS #3 During the time this Draft 2nd Revised EIR for the proposed Project was being prepared, SCAG adopted the 2001 RTP (April 2001). References made to the 1998 RTP should be updated and/or changed to reflect the 2001 RTP in the Final EIR for the proposed Project. ' Response 4: Comment noted. These references will be noted in the Final EIR. Comment 5: The Final 2nd Revised EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, utilizing commentary from the following ' detailed SCAG staff comments. The response should also discuss any FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 30 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. We suggest that you identify the specific policies, by policy number, with a ' discussion of consistency or support with each policy. ' Response 5: Comment noted. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ' GUIDE POLICIES Comment 6: The Growth Manaeement Chapter (GMCI of the Regional Comprehensive ' Plan and Guide contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Core Growth Management Policy 3.01, the population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAGs Regional ' Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. ' Response 6: The City uses SCAG and WRCOG housing and population forecasts in its planning processes, including preparation of its current Housing Element. The project has been incorporated into the City's more recent growth projections, as ' recently as June 2000, under SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) program. The City's current Growth Management policies also ' reference the SCAG and WRCOG growth figures, and express concern that uncontrolled growth will overtax existing and planned City resources and systems. The current Roripaugh project is being proposed at a gross density of ' 2.5 units per acre, while the General Plan and zoning would allow up to 3 units per acre. The current project is therefore 30 percent less dense than could be built under the current General Plan. The City's General Plan and Growth ' Management policies are based on the Specific Plan designation on the project site at 3 units per acre. The proposed project analyzed in either the Revised DEIR or the 2nd Revised DEIR is less dense than allowed under the General Plan, it does not exceed area growth projections, and is therefore consistent with, the indicated SCAG and WRCOG growth projections. Comment 7: The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing ' the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation - friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic and commercial limitations. ' Among the policies of the RTP are the following: ' Core Regional Transportation Plan Policy 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR makes no reference of transportation t- FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 31 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' investments based on SCAG's Regional Performance Indicators and associated objectives pertaining to: ' Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved ' access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient and economical movements of people and goods. • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes - 25 minutes (Auto) • PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed - 45 minutes (Transit) • PM Peak Non -Freeway Travel Speed ' Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Fwy) • Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Non-Fwy) ' Analysis: The project in the 2rd Revised DEIR proposes participation in an area or sub -regional transit program, which may include a shuttle or other public transit -type program. It also proposes a multi -modal transit stop in the ' neighborhood commercial area (Planning Area 11) — these provide residents with added mobility. Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. • Work Opportunities within 45 Minutes door to door travel time (Mode Neutral) • Average transit access time Analysis: The project in the 2nd Revised DEIR proposes participation in an area or sub -regional transit program, which may include a shuttle or other public transit -type program for access to schools, shopping, and other facilties in the project. It also proposes park and ride spaces and a multi -modal transit stop in the neighborhood commercial area (Planning Area 11). The shuttle system and transit stop are accessible to the commercial areas and clustered medium - density housing of the project —this provides accessibility. These are, identified in Mitigation Measures 7, 9, and 10 in Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation in the 2nd Revised DEIR. Environment - Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment (All Trips) • CO, ROG, Nox, PM10, PM2.5 -Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and the Transportation Conformity requirements FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 32 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Analysis: The project preserves 201 acres of biological habitat, promotes public transit, and proposes a number of mitigation measures to help reduce both ' short-term and long-term air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the project promotes the environment. ' Reliability - Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips) • Transit - 63% ' • Highway - 76% Analysis: Shuttle funds provided by the developer will be used by RTA to initiate ' the service. RTA will be responsible to continue the service when the developer funds are expended -this promotes reliability. ' Safety - Transportation Systems should provide minimal risk, accident, death and injury- (All Trips) . • Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0 ' • Injury Accidents - 0 ' Analysis: The transit system and roadways shall be designed to City or other applicable standards, and the project will create a series of gated neighborhoods — these actions will promote safety. Equity/Environmental Justice — The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age, and income groups (All Trips) • By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits — Equitable Distribution of Benefits among all Income. Quintiles Analysis. The project proposes a wide range of housing opportunities which will contribute to a diverse resident base — this promotes equity and environmental justice. Cost -Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips) Air Quality, Mobility, Accessibility and Safety • Return on Total Investment — Optimize return on Transportation Investments The 2nd Revised Draft FIR does not address Transportation Investments based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. The Final 2nd Revised EIR should address the manner in which the Project is supportive of or detracts from the achievement of the core RTP objectives. Based on the information provided, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. It would be helpful if the 2"d Revised Final EIR would provide a discussion on this policy. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 33 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Analysis: The project will establish a Community Factilities District to fund proposed improvements with no cost burden to the City and existing residents — ' this promotes cost-effectiveness. Response 7: The following summarizes the previous analysis provided for each individual policy. The project in the 2nd Revised DEIR proposes participation in an area or sub -regional transit program, which may include a shuttle or other public transit - type program. It also proposes a multi -modal transit stop in the neighborhood commercial area (Planning Area 11) — these provide residents with added mobility. The shuttle system and transit stop are accessible to the commercial ' areas and clustered medium -density housing of the project — this provides accessibility. These are identified in Mitigation Measures 7, 9, and 10 in Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation in the 2nd Revised DEIR. The project ' preserves 201 acres of biological habitat, promotes public transit, and proposes a number of mitigation measures for both short-term and long-term air pollutant emissions — together, these promote the environment. The developer will ' establish and provide funds to the RTA to support the proposed shuttle and park and ride facilities — this promotes reliability. The transit and related systems shall be designed to City or other applicable standards — this promotes safety. The project preserves open space, biological resources, while creating a series of gated neighborhoods — this promotes safety. The project proposes a wide range of housing opportunities which will contribute to a diverse resident base — this promotes equity and environmental justice.' The private sector is financing or organizing financing for these proposed improvements — this promotes cost- effectiveness. In these ways, the Project is consistent with this core RTP policy. Comment 8: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policy 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) identifies various traffic and circulation impacts and recommends improvement measures to mitigate these impacts. There are a number of mitigation measures including onsite and offsite roadway and circulation improvements, intersection, signals and other related improvements to minimize potential impacts on the local ' transportation system. The proposed improvements will be phased with development of the proposed Project. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Response 8: Comment noted. Comment 9: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policy 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR in Sections 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) and 3.6 (Air Quality) includes a number of mitigation measures that addresses the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of Transportation Control Measures. Section 3.6 ' recommends several mitigation measures to reduce project related traffic impacts, FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 34 1 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR ' such as the establishment of a traffic management plan for individual contractors. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Response 9: Comment noted. ' Comment 10: Core Regional Transportation Policy 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity. SCAG ' staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4.02. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) recommends a number of roadway improvements that will help to maintain, operate and enhance the existing transportation system. The Project is supportive or this core RTP policy. Response" 10: Comment noted. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING Comment 11: The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development ' costs, and that enable firms to be competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward ' achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers. ' Response 11: Comment noted. Comment 12: Growth Management Policy 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.12 (Utilities), suggests that water, sewer and utility services are available to serve the proposed Project. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 12: Comment noted. Comment 13: Growth Management Policy 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. SCAG ' staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.05. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. ' Response 13: Comment noted. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 35 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 14: Growth Management Policy 3.10 Support local jurisdiction's actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR addresses subjects that may have environmental impacts. It is written in a manner, where all possible impacts are mitigated. This will help minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Temecula. A discussion on discretionary agencies and actions required to implement the proposed Project are on page 2-23 of the 2nd Revised Draft EIR. These actions will also help to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Temecula. In addition, the 2nd Revised Draft EIR on page 2-21 includes project objectives, which will also help to minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Temecula. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 14: Comment noted. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE Comment 15: The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. Response 15: Comment noted. Comment 16: Growth Management Policy 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4.04. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) includes a number of mitigation measures, which encourage the use of transit and provide opportunities for residents to walk and bike. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 16: Comment noted. Comment 17: Growth Management Policy 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 36 September 26, 2002 I RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Draft EIR, in Section 2.0 (Project Description), provides a discussion on the density of the proposed Project along existing transportation corridors based on a regional network. Regional access to the site is available from the 1-15 and 1-215 Freeways to the west. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. ' Response 17: Comment noted. Comment 18 Growth Management Policy 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.14. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 18: Comment noted. Comment 19: Growth Management Policy 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns, which contain a range of urban densities. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, on page 2-8, includes a discussion of the characteristics of the proposed Project. The proposed Project includes the proposed development of up to 2,058 residential units on approximately 414 residential acres for a net average 4.97 units -per -acre. Residential densities will range from Very Low to High (Table 2-1, Proposed Land Uses). There will also be a mix of lot sizes and housing types to respond to a broad segment of the housing market. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 19: Comment noted. .One correction is that the highest density proposed on the project site is Medium (max. 12 units/acre) not High (max. 19 units/acre) as indicated in the comment. Comment 20: Growth Management Policy 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. SCAG staff comments. The Summary Section of the 2nd Revised Draft EIR includes Table ES -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, which lists environmental impacts of the proposed project and summarizes the types of measures to mitigate the impacts outlined in the 2nd Revised Draft EIR. The Project is proposed in a manner that will minimize the environmental impacts. The City of Temecula should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 20: Comment noted. Comment 21: Growth Management Policy 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.7 (Biological Resources) discusses the FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 37 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Projects' impact on vegetation communities, sensitive species, wildlife, and sensitive plants. Seven mitigation measures have been recommended to address the identified impacts. In addition, elements of the City of Temecula General Plan, which address environmental resources and conservation issues, support this policy. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 21: Comment noted. Comment 22: Growth Management Policy 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.3 (Earth Resources) identifies potential impacts related to geology and faults, topography/grading, liquefaction, soils and erosion, other hazards and offsite improvements. Mitigation measures are recommended to address identified impacts through the implementation of building codes and specific requirements and/or project design. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 22: Comment noted. Comment 23: Growth Management Policy 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policies 3.18, 3.20 and 3.22. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.10 (Noise) identifies potential short and long-term impacts related to construction, traffic, and residential noises. Mitigation measures included in this section have been recommended to address the identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 23: Comment noted. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROWDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL EQUITY Comment 24: The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended to guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers. Response 24: Comment noted. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report ISeptember 26, 2002 38 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 25: Growth Management Policy 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and . provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.17. The proposed Project has a potential to develop up to 2,058 residential units. The proposed Project will provide a mix of lot sizes and housing types to respond to a broad segment of the market. Project objectives listed on page 2-21 support this policy. However, there is no indication of affordable housing as part of the proposed development. It would be helpful if the 2nd Revised Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the 2nd Revised Draft EIR, the Project is partially supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. Response 25: Comment noted. The project provides a variety of housing and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Housing Element. Comment 26: Growth Management Policy 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.05. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, in Sections 3.11 (Public Facilities) suggests that the proposed Project could have impacts on police and fire services, schools, library services and recreational facilities. Mitigation measures in the form of dedicated land for facilities, fees, plan preparation and design review and development standards will help to mitigate the identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. , Response 26: Comment noted. AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS Comment 27: The Air Quality Chapter (AOCI core actions that are generally applicable to the Project are as follows: Air Quality Chapter Core Action 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle -miles traveled emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4.04. The proposed Project considers the implementation of demand management based programs. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Response 27: Comment noted. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 39 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 28: Air Quality Chapter Core Action 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, sub -regional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, in Section 111-F (Air Quality), discusses regional, local and Project air quality relationships and regulatory requirements. Mitigation measures are recommended to address emission impacts related to construction, transportation and operations. In addition, goals of the Air Quality Element of the City of Temecula General Plan support this policy. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Response 28: Comment noted. WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS Comment 29: The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. Response 29: Comment noted. Comment 30: Water Quality Core Chapter Policy 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. SCAG staff comments. The 2nd Revised Draft EIR, on page 5-1, suggests that reclaimed water is not available or affordable in the Project area at this time. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the Revised Draft EIR, we are unable to determine if the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Response 30: Reclaimed water is not available at this time, however, the City will require the developer to install a reclaimed water delivery system to the 2 public park sites, the 2 private recreational facilities, and all common landscaped areas. Then, when reclaimed water becomes available, the project will be able to utilize it. Therefore, the project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. OPEN SPACE CHAPTER ANCILLARY GOALS Comment 31: Outdoor Recreation Ancillary Goal 9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. SCAG staff comments. The proposed FINAL Enviromental Impact Report ' September 26, 2002 40 ' Response 33: Comment noted. Comment 34: Public Health and Safety Goal 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous ' developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policies 3.22 and 9.04. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. Response 34: Comment noted. Comment 35: Resource Protection Goal 9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and -endangered species, including wetlands. ' SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.20. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG goal. Response 35: Comment noted. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Comment 36: Conclusions and Recommendation #I As noted in the staff comments, the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with or supports some of the core and ancillary policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 41 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Project includes the incorporation of approximately 296 -acres of open space for recreational uses and facilities, including parks, wildlife habitat and active ' playing fields. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. Response 31: Comment noted. While much of the 296 acres is biological habitat and not ' accessible to the public, the project will include twopublic parks and two private recreational facilities. ' Comment 32: Outdoor Recreation Ancillary Goal 9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff ' comments for goal 9.01. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal.. Response 32: Comment noted. Comment 33: Outdoor Recreation Ancillary Goal 9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards. SCAG ' staff comments. The 2"d Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.11 (Public Services), discusses the subject of a fuel modification zone space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards. The Project is ' supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. ' Response 33: Comment noted. Comment 34: Public Health and Safety Goal 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous ' developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policies 3.22 and 9.04. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. Response 34: Comment noted. Comment 35: Resource Protection Goal 9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and -endangered species, including wetlands. ' SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.20. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG goal. Response 35: Comment noted. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Comment 36: Conclusions and Recommendation #I As noted in the staff comments, the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with or supports some of the core and ancillary policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 41 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 36: Comment noted. Comment 37: Based on the information in the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with core policies 3.01, 4.01 and 11.07. Based on the information in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of ancillary policy 9.04. In addition, based on information provided in the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed Project is partially supportive of ancillary policy 3.24. Response 37: The analysis for ancillary policy 9.04 (previous Comment/Response 33) actually concludes the project is consistent with the policy. The analysis provided in this section demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with core policies 3.01 (Growth Management — consistency with regional projections), 4.01 (Regional Transportation — RTP Regional Performance Indicators), and 9.04 (Man -Made Hazards). Reclaimed water is not yet available to this area, however, the project will comply by providing a reclaimed water delivery system to the 2 public park sites, the 2 private recreational facilities, and all common landscaped areas when reclaimed water is available — in this way, the project does comply with core policy 11.07. Finally, the project will provide a variety of housing that will help it be consistent with ancillary policy 3.24 (meeting RHNA housing goals). Comment 38: Conclusions and Recommendations #2 As noted in the General Staff Comments, the Final Environmental Impact Report should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. Response 38: The project analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR is consistent with all applicable SCAG policies and goals, to the greatest degree feasible, as outlined in the previous Comments/Responses 2 through 37 in this letter. The project at least partially meets Water Quality 11.07, which requires the use of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is not yet available to this area, so the project is not able to comply with this core policy, as discussed in the previous Comment/Response 30 in this letter. However, the project will install a reclaimed water delivery system to eventually serve various uses on the site when reclaimed water becomes available. In this way, the project is (or eventually will be) consistent with this policy. Comment 39: Conclusions and Recommendations #3 All feasible measures needed to mitigate negative regional impacts associated with the project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report September 26, 2002 42 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 39: The DEIR indicates the mitigation measures will be monitored in accordance with CEQA requirements. C-2 Letter from Steve Dunivin, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company, dated May 1, 2002. Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above -referenced project. Please ' note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with. the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. ' Response 1: Comment noted. ' Comment 2: You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal ' regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Response 2: Comment noted. ' Comment 3: Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearlv Single Family = 799 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units = 482 therms/year/dwelling unit ' Multi -Family 5 or more units = 483 therms/year/dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by ' Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily ' insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and , a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 43 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 3: Section 3.12 of the 2nd Revised DEIR estimated natural gas useage of the project to be 13.7 million cubic feet per month. These estimates were based on the proposed 2,058 units and general consumption values used by the South Coast ' Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in its CEQA Handbook, which allows the estimate of air pollutants emitted by the project in the Air Quality section to match the natural gas useage figures in the Utilities Section. Using the ' revised residential figures provided by the Gas Company, it is estimated the project would consume 13.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per month. The figures provided by the Gas Company indicate the proposed project would use an equivalent amount of natural gas each month at buildout compared to the consumption figures from the SCAQMD. This information does not change the conclusions of the 2nd Revised DEIR regarding impact significance or mitigation measures. 2,015 single family units X 799 therms/year/unit = 1,609,985 therms/year ' 1,609,985 therms X 100 cubic feet/therm = 161 M cubic feet/year Residential Total = 13.4 M cubic feet/month 2nd Revised DEIR Residential Total = 13.7 M cubic feet/month ' * 1 therm is roughly equal to 100 cubic feet of natural gas (M = million) ' Comment 4: We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1 -800 -GAS -2000. ' Response 4: Comment noted. I ' FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 44 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR D. LETTERS FROM COUNTY AGENCIES (1) D-1 Letter from Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, dated April 4, 2002. Comment 1: We received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Development in the City of Temecula on April 3, 2002 and are providing you with the following comments: (1) RCTC is participating in the development of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP). As part of the RCIP and CETAP, RCTC requests that "the Roripaugh Ranch Development in the City of Temecula" not only be conditioned to study and mitigate for local impacts, but also regional impacts to the transportation system. It is assumed in the DEIR Section 6.2.5 that the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) includes programming to handle all the cumulative growth. Some additional information about potential mitigation should be provided. Response 1: Comment noted. The Roripaugh project, including the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD), will construct two vital links in the regional road network (i.e., Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road). In addition, the project will construct and/or contribute to a number of improvements to regional intersections. These improvements are outlined in Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 in Section 3.5 of the DEIR. The width of Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road was also widened .from 110 feet to 124 feet to increase the capacity of this link from 4 to 6 lanes to be consistent with the MPAH requirements. The City is also hopeful that the County's MPAH and necessary funding program will be able to accomodate projected development within the region. A Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is expected to be adopted by the County of Riverside. Adopted TUMF shall be paid when it is adopted in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Any potential credits shall be negotiated between the developer and the agency responsible for administering the TUMF in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Comment 2: (2) The Winchester/Temecula Corridor, an alternative proposed in the RCIP/CETAP study, could be affected by "The Roripaugh" development. Also, existing State Route 79 (SR -79), about one mile west, and interchanges at I-15 and 1-215 including Murrieta Hot Springs Road, could be significantly affected. It is very difficult to ascertain from the traffic analysis in Section 3.5 and the Appendix exactly what impact the 30,748 trips per day generated by the project will have on either SR -79 or the interchanges at I-15 and 1-215. The figures in the Appendix indicate numbers of trips and ADT but they are difficult to read and some numbers are obscured by the roadway lines and text or tables need to provide more clarification. There is an indication on page 3-74 that the existing Level of Service (LOS) at some intersections could be adversely affected by the FINAL Enviromental Impact Report 45 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR year 2007 and it is determined that the impact would be significant. But, the overall mitigation proposed on page 3-97 does not lower the impact significantly and a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" will be necessary. This is an unsatisfactory solution considering the major traffic problems that already exist in the area. Response 2: According to the traffic study for the Temecula Mall, a number of streets in the project area, most noteably those around the mall, were designed and are operated on the principle of "controlled congestion." The project will mitigate impacts to local and regional streets and intersections to the greatest degree practical, given the conditions of controlled congestion and the fact that the affected intersections would exceed the City's Level of Service (LOS) standards even without the proposed project by 2007, largely because of unplanned development in the unincorporated areas. By buildout, the improvements planned by the City and those that will be provided by the Roripaugh project will be sufficient to achieve the City's LOS standards with the exception of 5 intersections. As stated in the 2nd Revised DEIR, approval of the project will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration because of this identified short-term (i.e., 2007 condition) traffic impact. However, the project will be providing a number of important regional roadway links and intersection improvements, and will be making fair share contributions to many local and regional intersections, including ramps for the I- 15 and 1-215 which will exceed City LOS standards. Comment 3: (3) Please ensure that you are coordinating directly with Caltrans concerning I- 15 and I-215 for this project. Response 3:. Comment noted. Comment 4: (4) RCTC would like to maintain a coordinated effort for all projects that affect transportation in western Riverside County. Please contact RCTC if you have any questions concerning this process. Should you require additional information, please contact Bechtel Measure "A" ' Project Coordinator, Gustavo Quintero, at (909) 787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your DEIR. . ' Response 4: Comment noted: ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 46 ' September 26, 1012 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR E. LETTERS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES (3) E-1 Letter from Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), dated April 23, 2002. Comment 1: The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has reviewed the 2nd Revised Draft EIR for Roripaugh Ranch, and provides the following comments. In general, the school information referenced in this latest draft is outdated, because they are relying on much older letters, and we have built several schools and experienced State Law changes in the last few years. I have attached a copy of my July 12, 2001 letter to you, which provided much of the current information, but which was apparently not used in their latest draft. Response 1: Comment noted. The Final EIR will incorporate this updated information. The consultant apologizes for any oversight or use of outdated school information in the 2nd Revised DEIR. Comment 2: In addition to the information in our July 12, 2001 letter, we request the following corrections (Section 3.11.3 corrections needed): a) TVUSD currently has 12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools (including 1 continuation high school); b) our Master plan requires the construction of 16 additional schools (including the Roripaugh Ranch middle and elementary schools) to meet the enrollment demands of approved and proposed developments within our District boundaries, which are estimated to build -out by 2015. Total allocation of additional schools is 10 more elementary, 4 more middle, and 2 more high schools; and c) (See attached table). TVUSD Schools Total 19 6 10 35 ' Response 2: This information will be incorporated into the Final EIR. It should be noted that this new information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding impact significance or mitigation measures. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 47 tSeptember 26, 2002 # of Schools Add by At Current Aug.2005 Future Build -Out Elementary 12 3 7 22 Middle 4 2 2 8 High (comprehensive) 2 1 1 4 High (continuation) 1 0 0 1 Total 19 6 10 35 ' Response 2: This information will be incorporated into the Final EIR. It should be noted that this new information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding impact significance or mitigation measures. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 47 tSeptember 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 3: Replace all Mitigation references with the following: Under current State Law (SB -50; 1998), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement, TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re -calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions. City Resolution 96-119 is no loneer in affect. Response 3: Mitigation Measure 6 in Section 3.11 on Public Services states that "the developer shall pay applicable deeveloper fees according to SB 50 and state law." While this wording appears to cover the concerns of the TVUSD regarding fee payment, the Public Services section of the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report will incorporate this information. Comment 4: Table 3.11-3 corrections needed, as follows. Proiected Proiect-Related Student Generation Grade Factor Units Students k-5 .3945 2,058 units 812 6-8 .1731 2,058 units 356 9-12 .1885 2,058 units 388 Total .7561 2,058 units 1,556 Response 4: Table 3.11-3 on page 3-176 of the 2nd Revised DEIR estimates the Roripaugh project will generate a total of 1,565 students in grades k-112, including 803 k-5 students, 387 students in grades 6-8, and 375 students in grades 9-12. The DEIR actually estimated the project would generate slightly more total students than the current figures provided by the TVUSD, although the. internal distribution is slightly different. These changes will be reflected in the FEIR, but they do not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or mitigation measures. Comment 5: Appendices, Page 5 correction needed. The project will provide a 12 -acre elementary, and 20 -acre middle school site. Response 5: Comment noted. The 2nd Revised DEIR and the Specific Plan both make reference in text and graphics to a 12 -acre elementary school site and a 20 -acre middle school site. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 48 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR E-2 Letter from James Miller, Environmental and Transportation Planning Manager, City of Murrieta, dated April 29, 2002. ' Comment 1: The City of Murrieta's Traffic Engineer, Hank Mohle, reviewed the traffic study for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and his comments are attached under ' separate cover. Based on Mr. Mohle's review, it is the City of Murrieta's position that the Transportation and Circulation impacts analyzed in the EIR for the ' project have been underestimated. Most significantly are the impacts to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the intersection at Margarita Road. The traffic study assumes that by the year 2007 Murrieta Hot Springs Road will have three through lanes and a right only turn lane at Margarita Road. It is highly unlikely that any of these improvements will ' be constructed prior to the project completion date. Response 1: The developer and the project traffic consultant are willing to provide appropriate ' fair share contributions to necessary improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. Two mitigation measures have been added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D to address these concerns. Comment 2: The mitigation measures proposed for this project will not mitigate traffic to below a level significance as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), primarily because they were based on improvements that will not be constructed prior to your projects completion date in 2007. In addition, the traffic analysis identifies four key regional intersections that will be at LOS F at build out. Consequently, it is not feasible to achieve the Level of Service D or better as required by the cities of Temecula and Murrieta's General Plans: Response 2: The project traffic study and the 2nd Revised DEIR acknowledge the project's temporary (i.e., 2007 conditions) traffic impacts. However, the project traffic impacts can meet the City's LOS standards at buildout with implementation of planned improvements by the City and the Roripaugh project and/or its CFD. The DEIR also indicates that a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be prepared, since the various planned improvements and fair share contributions of the project outweigh its temporary traffic impacts. It should also be noted that the affected intersections (i.e., those that will exceed City LOS standards) would exceed City LOS standards even without the proposed project. Comment 3: The City of Murrieta is requesting, therefore, that the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan mitigate its fair share of traffic improvements as detailed in Mr. Mohle's analysis for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. This includes, but is not limited to, constructing an additional through travel lane each way on Murrieta Hot Springs Road from State Route 79 to Interstate 215. We are also requesting the City of Temecula adopt a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" acknowledging the LOS F at the referenced intersections are unavoidable and that FINAL Environmental Impact Report 49 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR the benefits of this proiect will outweigh any adverse environmental impacts it creates (CEQA 15093). ' Response 3: The Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D includes 2 new measures to address these concems of the City of Murrieta. In addition, a Statement of ' Overriding Consideration will be adopted in accordance with state law. ' E-3 Memorandum from Hank Mohle, City Traffic Engineer, to James Miller, Environmental and Transportation Planning Manager, City of Murrieta, dated ' April 25, 2002. Comment 1: Page 3-1 The City of Murrieta was not contacted regarding the intersections that ' shall be analyzed. The most critical intersection that will be impacted by this project in Murrieta will be Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive. This intersection was not included in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Response 1: The 2nd Revised DEIR did acknowledge the City's expressed concern about this intersection (DEIR page 3-65, and did add a fair share contribution to this intersection to Mitigation Measure 3, Item 7 under Phase 1, Page 3-91. Comment 2: Page 3-10 "Existing Average Daily Traffic" (ADT) The traffic volume on ' Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the 1-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive in April 2001 was 31,500 vehicles per day (vpd). This volume is ' considerable below the 26,900 shown on Page 3-10. Response 2: Page 3-10 of the DEIR does not refer to traffic volumes, but the commentor may ' be referring to page 3-10 of the traffic report, and as shown on pages 3-60 to 3-62 of the 2nd Revised DEIR. The traffic volume for Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the I-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive was estimated ' from the PM peak hour traffic volumes included in the Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR using Year 2000 traffic counts. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the volumes would be less than actual counts conducted in 2001 (personal communication, Urban Crossroads, May 2002). It should also be noted that the project traffic study was revised several times over ' a period of 2 years, and no new traffic counts were conducted to update existing conditions. However, this does not invalidate the overall methodology of impact assessment used; nor the conclusions of the traffic study or DEIR. Different ' ambient traffic volume would change the existing LOS, and thus could change the projected LOS values for the project. Lower ambient traffic would actually improve projected LOS, while higher ambient traffic would produce lower LOS ' values. It should also be noted that different ambient traffic volumes could change the fair share contribution expected from this project. The introduction to FINAL Environmental Impact Report 50 ' September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Mitigation Measure 2 in Section 3.5 explains that traffic studies may be needed to identify more accurate project impacts and fair share contributions. ' Comment 3: Pages 3-15 & 3-16 "Existing AM & PM Intersection Volumes" The Alta Murrieta Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection was not counted and ' is therefore not shown on pages 3-15 & 3-16. Response 3: Comment noted. The 2nd Revised DEIR did include a discussion of potential impacts to this intersection, and recommended a fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 3, Item 7 ' under Phase 1, on Page 3-91. It should also be noted that the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan dated November 1993 indicated that the following four major roadway corridors were projected to have LOS that would fall below ' City standards (even without the proposed project): a) Winchester Road/State Route 79 (north) from I-15 to Ynez Road, from Margarita Road to Nicolas Road, and from Date Street to Auld Road; b) State Route 79 (south) from 1-15 to Pala ' Road; and c) Margarita Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Winchester Road (John Kain, personal communication, Urban Crossroads, May 2002). ' Comment 4: Page 4-1 "Trip Generation" This page indicates that the project will generate 30,748 trip ends per day. ' Response 4: Comment noted. ' Comment 5: Page 4-25 shows that the "General Plan Build -out Project ADT on Murrieta Hot Springs Road near I-215 will be 3,700 vehicles per day (vpd). ' Page 4-34 "General Plan Build -out Without Project (ADT) shows a volume.of 67,600 vpd on Murrieta Hot Springs Road near 1-215 northbound exit ramp. The Murrieta General Plan Build -out Volume for the same location shows a volume of 81,000 ADT. This is 20% higher than the volume shown on Page 4-34. Page 4-36 "General Plan Build -out with Project (ADT) Adding the project ' traffic raises the Murrieta Hot Springs Road near Alta Murrieta to 71,300 ADT compared to Murrieta General Plan estimate of 81,000 ADT. ' Response 5: The commentor has indicated that the project will produce 12 percent less traffic at this intersection at buildout than the traffic estimated under the General Plan (71,300 versus 81,000). However, the Final EIR will acknowlege these potential impacts and 2 measures will be added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D to address these concerns. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 51 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Comment 6: Page 5-25 Under General Plan Build -out without the Project the following locations will be at the "F" level of service (LOS): 1 1) I-15 SIB Ramps (NS) at Winchester Road (EW) 2) I-15 N/B Ramps (NS) at Winchester Road ' 3) Ynez Road (NS) at Winchester Road (EW) 4) Margarita Road (NS) at Winchester Road (EW) Year 2007 with Proiect ' Using the Year 2007 with Project PM peak hour traffic volumes and the traffic lane arrangements shown in the Traffic Impact Report (pages 5-21 & 5-18) for the intersections on 1-15 at Winchester Road & Winchester Road at Ynez Road a ' semi -traffic simulation was conducted to estimate the average vehicular delays. The results of the simulation are included in Appendix A. ' The simulation results confirm the results in the Traffic Impact Report (page 5- 18) that these intersections are at the "F" level. ' The Traffic Impact Report does not show how these unacceptable LOS's are to be corrected. It is therefore concluded that the projected traffic from the proposed project cannot be served in accordance with the established LOS policy. ' Response 6: See previous Comment/Response 3 in this letter. Comment 7: Intersection of Margarita Road & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Pg. 3-4 "Existing ' Number of through Lanes and Intersection Controls" There is no "right tum only" lane for westbound traffic. Pg. 5-18 "Intersection Analysis for Year 2007 with Project Conditions" The level of service (LOS) of "D" calculation incorrectly assumes there is a "right turn ' only" lane for westbound traffic. The LOS should be recalculated with the correct lane arrangement. ,. Response 7: Based on a 20 -foot westbound through -right lane, a de -facto right turn lane was assumed at this location (personal communication, Urban Crossroads, May 2002). See also Comment/Response 2 in this letter for additional information on ' LOS standards. Comment 8: Pg. 5-28 "Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout with Project Condition" ' The LOS determination is based on the assumption that there will be 3 thru lanes in each direction. There is no identified funding to widen Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 6 lanes. tFINAL Environmental Impact Report 52 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR 1 Response 8: This issue (i.e., the potential widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) is addressed in the previous Comments/Responses 3 and 5 in the letter from James Miller (Letter E-2). ' Comment 9: Pg. 6-7 Project Traffic Contribution Table 6-1 shows that during the PM peak hour the project generated traffic will be 12.4% of the "new traffic". Based on the General Plan Build -out with Project for the PM peak hour the Project traffic represents 8.8% of the total 489 divided by 5536 = 8.8%. It is therefore concluded that the project should pay 8.8% of the cost of widening Munieta Hot Springs Road from Rte 79 (Winchester Road) to I-215 freeway. Response 9: A measure will be added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report to require an appropriate fair share contribution to necessary improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road in this regard. Mitigation Measure 2 in Section 3.5 of the DEIR allows for future traffic studies to identify "current" project impacts and fair share contributions. These measures address the City's concern in this regard. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 53 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 F. LETTERS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR AGENCIES (2) F-1 Letter from Mike Knowlton, 39130 Pala Vista Drive Temecula, dated May 17, 2002. Comment 1: The purpose of this letter is to formally submit to the City of Temecula those issues that concern me regarding the most recent DEIIt that has been routed for comment for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. I've reviewed the DEIR and have subsequently met with several residents of the Nicholas Valley Area as well as Mr. Naaseh to discuss the changes and impacts. I'd like to thank Saied for his support and time in helping to communicate the DEIR changes to us. I am pleased to see some of the Issues addressed: a) removal of high-density dwelling units from the Plan; b) plans for a 4 -lane, all-weather bridge for Nicolas Road crossing of the Santa Genrudis Creek; c) lighted parks; and d) build -out restrictions/conditions for circulation improvements relative to key phases of the development proposal. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: I am concerned to see some of the impacts inadequately addressed, for example: The proposed number of dwelling units is greater than the 1,721 that I understood the Planning Commission would accept at the August 11, 2001 meeting. It was noted at that time that the developer was racheting up the numbers at each meeting with new plans. The Commission agreed at this time to limit the density to 1,721, even thought the developer insisted that he had the right to go back to an original value of >2,000 based on the only approved DEIR at that time. The density requested should be < = 1,721. Response 2: The City's General Plan allows up to 3 units per acre on this site, which would equal 2,415 units. The project is currently proposed at 2.56 units per acre. Comment 3: Nicolas Road is only planned for 3 lanes from the edge of the Plan to the proposed 4 -lane bridge vs. the 4 lanes as requested based on safety and circulation expected impacts. Response 3: The project traffic study identified a long -tern need for 3 lanes to be constructed on Nicolas Road to accomodate project traffic. When adjacent properties along Nicolas Road eventually build out, they will be required to construct the ' additional lane and related improvements. The project traffic consultant prepared the traffic study in consultation with the City traffic engineer to determine future ' traffic volumes and needed improvements on Nicolas Road. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 54 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Comment 4: Safe equestrian and/or bike circulation dedication along Nicolas Road, Calle Girasol, and Calle Chappos is not adequately addressed. Response 4: An interim cross-section for Nicolas Road will be built in Phase 1 of the project as shown at the bottom of Figure 3.5-6B on page 3-76 of the DEIR. This section shows a 6 -foot asphalt path on the north side of the road that will accomodate bicyclists and pedestrians, and there is more than enough room on either side of the roadway (23 feet on the north, 35 feet on the south) to accomodate equestrians. The ultimate onsite cross-section for Nicolas Road to be built in Phase 2 is shown at the top of Figure 3.5-6C on page 3-77 of the DEIR. This section has been modified from that shown in the EIR, and now has 6 -foot wide, curb -adjacent sidewalks on both sides of Nicolas Road, and a 6 -foot wide soft surface path on both sides of the road. The design of this trail will be provided in ' future street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Services Departments (C. McCarthy, personal communication, April, 2002). Calle Chapos and Calle Girasol are offsite roads and pedestrian, ' equestrian, or bicycle circulation improvements are not proposed as part of this project, but will be addressed with the ful improvements of these roads. ' Comment 5: Safe equestrian access from the Nicolas Valley to the areas east of the plan is not even addressed as an impact to be mitigated. Response 5: The Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan (Figure 3.5-9 on page 3-96 of the DEIR) shows a 15 -foot wide multi -use trail, which will include equestrians, along the south boundary of the project site east, of Butterfield Stage Road, and along the east boundary of the site from the southeast corner to a connection with an existing unimproved trail that continues to the northeast onto the Johnson Ranch property. The project also proposes to construct a multi -use asphalt path along the north side of Nicolas Road for pedestrian, bicyclists, and equestrians. These trails will be constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Services Departments (C. McCarthy, personal communication, April, 2002). Comment 6: I do not agree that the alternative land use options involving larger parcels will not work due to financial viability and will endeavor to understand the bases which supports this argument. Response 6: The Project Objectives Section provides a basic framework of intended accomplishments for the project. This section includes improvements to Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road. The current estimates indicate that approximately 2,000 dwelling units will be needed to finance the construction of these roads. These are General Plan level roads that are needed to carry the City-wide traffic. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 55 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR ' Comment 7: Is there adequate lighting for all parks young kids safety as well as recreation? Response 7: The community park (Planning Area 27) will have lighted ballfields, and the neighborhood park (Planning Area 6) will have night lighting but no lighted sports fields. All of the parks and private recreational facilities will have security lighting and the required amount of parking. The park facilities will be designed to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services Department. These facilities will have adequate lighting, parking, and safe access for these activities (C. McCarthy, personal communication, April, 2002). Comment 8: Is there adequate parking and safe access for all schools and parks? ' Response 8: Park design, including parking and safe access, is addressed in Comment/Response 7. The school facilities will be designed under the direction of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), and will have adequate parking and safe access (D. Gallaher, TVUSD, personal communication, March, ' 2002). Comment 9: 1 will now submit that this project should not proceed and that the DEIR be placed on hold for this project until the Revised Temecula General Plan is approved. I will submit recommendations for General Plan changes to re- designate the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan for Very Low Residential Land Use (2.5 - 1.0 acre min lot sizes). The basis for this redesignation will be that the 1993 General Plan was adopted based on expected changes, however there have been significant changes in the anticipated land uses since that time. The Nicolas Valley Special Study Area and the Johnson Ranch projects did not adopt increased densities and as such have land use densities that now compel the city to reassess the anticipated land use for the Roripaugh Ranch Plan for ' comparability. The density growth expected in these areas did not materialize and as such the Roripaugh anticipated land plan should be changed to fit the ' current rural surroundings. Response 9: The 2nd Revised DEIR provided extensive analyses regarding compatibility of the project regarding surrounding land uses. With the various buffers proposed ' (e.g., landscaping, building setbacks, larger lots along the south and east boundaries) and along Nicolas Road west of Butterfield Stage Road, the DEIR ' concluded the project would not have significant environmental impacts on land use. However, the final determination of the approrpriateness of this project on the proposed site is a policy decision to be made by the appointed and elected ' officials of the City. It should be noted that the Nicolas Valley Special Study conducted several years ago for this area did not recommend any General Plan changes. ' Comment 10: 1 look forward to participating in workshops, meetings and discussions that the city chooses to organize as there are issues related to growth management that I FINAL Environmental Impact Report 56 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR have not communicated here that bear further clarification should the project be approved. 1 As a concerned and imparted resident of the City of Temecula, and more specifically the Nicolas Valley, I thank you for the opportunity to communicate ' my concerns regarding this projects impact and look forward to the next phase of this process. ' Response 10: Comment noted. Residents are encouraged to come to the public hearings planned for this project and voice their concerns. Any interested person should ' contact the City Planning Department for a schedule of hearings. F-2 Letter from Deborah Rosenthal, Attorney for Ashby USA, LLC dated May 17, 2002. ' Comment 1: The applicant, Ashby USA, LLC ("Ashby') has reviewed the Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ("SP"), and related approvals (the "Project'), prepared by the City of Temecula ("City"), as lead agency. The DEIR contains a comprehensive analysis of all potential impacts of the proposed 2058 -unit development project. The ' comments contained in this letter are intended to supplement, and highlight, the information contained in the DEIR. Response 1: Comment noted Comment 2: The DEIR concludes that the Project will mitigate all environmental impacts to 1 below a level of significance, with the exception of specific impacts relating to agriculture, traffic, air quality and aesthetics. This conclusion is based on the ' extensive listing of mitigation measures, costing upwards of $50 million, many of which exceed any "fair share" assessment. Ashby would like to underscore that the financial feasibility of these mitigation measures is entirely dependent on the ' Project density of 2,058 units, together with the timing and other assurances provided through a Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement ("DA"). Without the DA, and commitments to allow development of the proposed density, the mitigation measures are not feasible Response 2: The Project Description included a Development Agreement (DA). A DA is a ' mutually agreed upon document between the City and the developer. A DA may or may not be part of the project approvals. Regardless, the developer is responsible to comply with all mitigation measures for the project. ' Comment 3: None of the following comments require new studies or substantial revisions to the EIR. However, Ashby believes that responses to these comments will clarify ' actual Project impacts in the Final EIR and provide a sound basis for approval of the proposed Project. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 57 September 26, 2001 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 3: Comment noted. Comment 4: 1.5 Project Alternatives In addition to the alternatives discussed in Section 7.0. Ashby would like to point out that the Original and Revised Projects described in Section 1.4 also served as alternatives to the Proposed Project. The Project History states that the Proposed Project was actually developed as an alternative to the earlier Project designs as a result of negotiations with City and resource agencies. Both of the earlier Projects appear to meet the requirement for consideration of a "range of reasonable alternatives ... which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid, or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." set forth in CEQA Guideline Section 15126.6(a). See DEIR Executive Summary §3.0. The City's analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposed Project is even more extensive than acknowledged in the DEIR. Response 4: Comment noted. Comment 5: The City's analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposed Project is even more extensive than acknowledged in the DEIR. Response 5: The City has determined that the analysis is appropriate for the project. Comment 6: 2.2 Project Characteristics It would be helpful for the Project Characteristics in Section 2.2 to include a discussion of the public benefits, especially infrastructure, which would not be available through a standard Specific Plan, but which will be provided through the DA. As noted above, the Project will not support the infrastructure described as characteristics of the Project without the DA. Response 6: The issue of any additional public benefits may be addressed in the Development Agreement (DA) between the applicant and the City. The DEIR identifies the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of insignificance. The DA is a mutually agreed upon document between the City and developer that may or may not be part of the project approvals. Comment 7: 2.5 Project Objectives In reviewing the entire DEIR, it is apparent that the Proposed Project will also meet two critical public policies which should be listed as Project Objectives in Section 2.5. First, the Project will meet the objective of "funding important public infrastructure in addition to and at an earlier time than would otherwise be available to the City." Second, the Project will meet the important state and local objective of "providing a variety of housing types designed to serve different segments of the population." Response 7: Comment noted. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 58 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 8: 3.1.6 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure (6) appears to restrict unnecessarily the City's future discretion. It requires approval of a Specific Plan Amendment for residential development of Planning Areas 28 or 29 if the School District determines that they are not needed as school sites. The DEIR does not identify any adverse impacts from development of Planning Areas 28 or 29 as residential. In fact, it specifically addresses the possibility, including an evaluation of potential impacts, Therefore, the Mitigation Measure is not related to any identified adverse impacts, while the impacts of residential use are actually considered in the DEIR. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to limit the future discretion of the City by imposing a potentially unnecessary condition on a future legislative decision. The City should retain its discretion to determine whether an SP amendment is necessary at the time of application, especially in the absence of a finding that the possible conversion from school to residential uses will have unmitigated adverse impacts. Response 8: City staff discussed the future discretion that would be appropriate for this change given the long history of this project. It was decided that the City wanted the most discretionary review of this potential change to fully evaluate changing one or both sites from schools to residential. In addition, the TVUSD requested that the sites either be designted for schools or the least intense land use designation for appraisal purposes. Therefore, the sites do not have underlying residential zoning, and which is why they would require a Specific Plan Amendment to change to residential uses. Comment 9: 3.2 Agriculture Section 3.2.1. of the DEIR states that prime agricultural soils underlie approximately 210 acres of the site, concentrated along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash in the unincorporated (eastern) portion of the site. However, the DEIR also acknowledges that the Proposed Project retains most of the land along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash as open space. See DEIR at 3-20. In responses to comments, the City should clarify that the Project will not result in loss of 210 acres of prime agricultural soils or locally important farmland. Ashby suggests that the actual "loss" of prime agricultural soils will be below the level of a significant impact. The City's General Plan also supports a conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact on agricultural resources. According to Section 3.2.3 of the DEIR, the property is designated as "Specific Plan" with suburban residential uses. The property was assessed at suburban development rates, rather than the lower agricultural rate, when AD 161 was formed. The Williamson Act contract for the property was cancelled in 1987, indicating that urban development was expected to occur within ten years. While the property was protected from premature conversion to urbanized uses in accordance with Goal 7 of the General Plan, all of these documents show that development is no longer premature. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 59 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Where development is consistent with the City's General Plan, and the amount of affected prime agricultural soil is relatively small, it is reasonable it conclude that the Project will not have a substantial adverse impact on agricultural resources. As a result, the DEIR should have concluded that no mitigation is required. Response 9: The original statements in the DEIR are correct relative to the "loss" of prime soils. However, City staff still believes the determination of significance due to loss of agricultural soils is appropriate because no empirical data has been presented to demonstrate that agriculture is no longer financially viable on this site. Comment 10: 3.4 Water Resources During the DEIR process, Glenn Lukos Associates conducted a Jurisdictional Delineation of the Property under the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish & Game Code. With minor exceptions, the Jurisdictional Delineation is consistent with the information set forth in the DEIR. However, for the sake of completeness, the Jurisdictional Delineation, consisting of a Report and Map, should be included as exhibits to Appendices D and G of the DEIR. The Map should also be included as an exhibit to Sections 3.4. Inclusion of the Map and Report as "existing conditions" in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.3 will increase the usefulness of the EIR in supporting compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code and the NPDES process, as set forth in Section 2.8 (Intended Use of this EIR). Response 10: The Jurisdictional Delineation by Glenn Lukos Associates is included in Appendix C ("Additional Materials") at the end of this document. Comment 11: 3.4.3 Water Resources Level of Impact before Mitigation The DEIR should allow sufficient flexibility in meeting runoff and flood control requirements to permit compliance with State and Federal environmental requirements. While it is appropriate to include performance standards at the SP level of approval in Section 3.4.3(a), some adjustment in the basin design may be required by the State or Federal agencies with approval authority. In some cases, these approvals may not be issued until after certification of the FEIR. The City's environmental documentation should accommodate minor changes in design, without amendment, provided that the performance standards are maintained. Response 11: Based on the information in the 2nd Revised DEIR, the City can consider minor changes or adjustments to the proposed conceptual facilities as "substantial conformance" and the construction and maintenance of these facilities will be controlled through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Program. Comment 12: Section 3.4.3 should also describe impacts to State and Federal waters from the Proposed Project which will require State and Federal permitting, in addition to local approvals. For instance, this section should include the approximate cubic FINAL Environmental Impact Report 60 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' yards of fill into waters of the United States, i.e. jurisdictional waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which will be required to construct the 1 Project. This information will assist the Regional Quality Control Board in utilizing the FEIR, as contemplated in Section 2.8. Impacts should be calculated for both on-site and off-site improvements. Ashby is available to assist the City ' in making these calculations, on the basis of the Jurisdictional Delineation. Response 12: The Jurisdictional Delineation prepared for the project indicates that there will be approximately 34,180 cubic yards of fill into waters of the United States. A copy of the Delineation report is included in Appendix C at the end of this document. ' Comment 13: At page 3-51, Section 3.4.3(d) incorrectly states that a Section 7 Consultation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required for this Project. According to Karen Clary -Rose, with the Service, the Section 10(a) Permit issued for AD -161 Multi -Species Sub - Regional Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSSHCP") also covered the Section 404 ' Permit for the Project (with a very small exception). Therefore, a Section 7 consultation is not required for the Project. ' Response 13: The reference to a Section 7 Consultation was in reference to the CWA Section 404 permit that is currently ongoing with the Corps. However, it is possible that work involved in improving the Nicolas Road bridge or extension of Butterfield ' Stage Road south of the project may also require consultation with the Service, which is why the reference was included in this section. Comment 14: 3.4.6 Water Resources Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures (7) and (8) require provision of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and submittal of ' appropriate documentation to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The CLOMR and FIRM Update relate primarily to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. However, the DEIR indicates that development is not planned for ' the areas subject to the CLOMR and FIRM Update. The responses to comments should clarify why the CLOMR and FIRM Update are listed as mitigation measures. Response 14: The DEIR indicates that Long Valley Channel, within the project site, will be extensively reconstructed (i.e., expanded to over 200 feet in width) to provide flood control. This action will require a CLOMR and FIRM update prior to construction of habitable structures along it during Phase 2. Much of the upper portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek is to be preserved intact under AD 161 SHCP. The portion of the creek immediately downstream of Butterfield Stage Road (i.e., Planning Areas 33A and 33B) will also have habitable structures along it in Phase 1 which will require a LOMR. However, a CLOMR may be needed in Phase 1 to reconstruct the portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek immediately upstream and under Butterfield Stage Road, at least prior to when an actual LOMR is needed (i.e., Phase 2). FINAL Environmental Impact Report 61 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 15: 3.5.1 Transportation and Circulation Environmental Seum Section 3.5.1(h) notes that the City of Murrieta submitted a comment letter on July 17, 2001, expressing concern that project traffic impacts on the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta had not been included in the project traffic study. At 3-80, the DEIR should clearly reflect that additional traffic studies were performed in response to the City of Murrieta letter, resulting in additional mitigation requirements. The City did not raise any other objections to the traffic studies in comments on the prior EIRs. Response 15: An additional traffic study was not performed for this specific intersection because data from the project traffic study, as well as the supplementary data provided by the City of Murrieta traffic engineer, was adequate to analyzle potential impacts at this intersection and estimate an approximate fair share contribution to identified improvements. Comment 16: 3.5.3 Transportation and Circulation Lone -Term Traffic Impacts Table 3.5-6 shows that the Project will cause the . Level of Service ("LOS") at two intersections to drop to Level F in Year 2007. However, Table 3.5-7 shows that these deficiencies will be corrected by buildout, at which time the Project will not cause any exceedence of local traffic thresholds. At 3-74, Section 3.5.3 should clarify that Project impacts to these two intersections will be short-term, and will be mitigated by buildout. In fact, the DEIR should also stress that the traffic improvements installed by the Project will improve the LOS at a number of intersections, for which advance funding would not otherwise be available. Response 16: This information was provided in the 2nd Revised DEIR, although it was not highlighted as indicated by the commentor. The FEIR clarifies that the LOS "F" impacts are related to the 2007 timeframe and will be mitigated at buildout by improvements planned by the City and those to be implemented by the project. Comment 17: It would be helpful for Section 3.5.3 to reference the findings with respect to Goal 1 in Section 4.1.2. At 4-3, the DEIR finds that "the design criteria and standards for vehicular circulation facilities will maintain acceptable levels of service at most intersections throughout the project site. However, two intersections are expected to exceed this standard regardless of whether the project is built or not." (emphasis added). Response 17: While this information does not change the conclusions about the DER regarding significant impacts or mitigation, it will be noted in the discussion of the Final EIR regarding Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. Comment 18: Section 3.5.3 should also discuss the City's application of "planned congestion" policies to approve retail commercial development without adequate traffic mitigation. Under the "planned congestion" approach, certain highly desirable projects are allowed to impose significant traffic impacts on surrounding intersections, without costly mitigation which might otherwise have made the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 62 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR development infeasible. Later developments which agree to pay their fair share of traffic improvements are nonetheless faced with LOS E or F at intersections surrounding the favored projects, without any reasonable expectation that LOS levels can be improved. ' Response 18: The applicability of this statement is indeterminable to this particular project. Neither the General Plan nor the Growth Management Program Action Plan ' contains this reference. Comment 19: 3.5.5 Transportation and Circulation Project Design Features In Section 3.5.5, the DEIR should acknowledge that the proposed roadway, intersection and traffic signal improvements far exceed the Project's "fair share" under either statutory or constitutional standards. To assist in explaining the purpose of the DA, and the benefits which it offers to the City, the Project Design Features should distinguish between infrastructure improvements which are required as the Project's "fair share" contribution, and construction or funding requirements which exceed ' these nexus calculations and will be provided through the DA. Construction of these additional infrastructure improvements will only be available through a DA which ensures a 2058 -unit Project. Response 19: See the previous Comment/Response 2 in this letter. Comment 20: Figure 3.5-8 offers an excellent example of this distinction. Entitled "Proposed Circulation Improvements," this Figure is a reprint of Exhibit 6-A to the Roripaugh Ranch Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, dated November 26, 2001, ' and attached as Appendix E to the DEIR. As reported in Figure 3.5-8, the Traffic Study recommended that "for Phase 2 traffic conditions, Butterfield Stage Road ' should be extended from Rancho California Road to the project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access." ' Similarly, the Traffic Study recommended that the Project should "construct Butterfield Stage Road from the southerly boundary of traffic analysis zone 4 to the southerly project boundary at its ultimate half section width as an arterial highway (110 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development." In other words, as shown on Figure 3.5-8, the Traffic Study concluded that Project impacts justified a requirement for construction of Butterfield Stage Road at no ' more than half -width or 34 feet, depending on location. Table 3.5-8 shows the Project Fair Share Contributions for Butterfield Stage Road as no more than 39.7 percent at Nicolas Road, dropping to 19.0 percent at La Serena Way. The responses to comments should explain the basis for the proposed Mitigation Measures which require the Project to construct Butterfield Stage Road to its full ' width at the locations where the Traffic Study finds no more than a half -width obligation. The FEIR should also list all proposed infrastructure mitigation ' measures which exceed the Project's fair share contribution or which require FINAL Environmental Impact Report 63 ' September 26, 11111 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR construction at an earlier time than recommended by the Traffic Study. As explained elsewhere in this comment letter, Ashby may agree to construct additional infrastructure under the DA, but the voluntary provision of improvements above nexus requirements is not properly included as a mitigation measure. In fact, it is misleading for the DEIR to suggest that all of these transportation improvements will be provided solely through conditions imposed on the Specific Plan, when they are actually obtained as public benefits through the DA. Response 20: The project Description and the Project Objectives Sections specifically include construction of full width Butterfield Stage Road. Since the construction of Butterfield Stage Road is an integral part of this project, the nexus criteria does not apply. Comment 21: 3.5.6 Transportation and Circulation Mitigation Measures In Section 3.5.6(2), the DEIR proposes to require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps, and to impose additional mitigation measures for any area intersections operating below LOS D or otherwise in an unsafe condition. This "mitigation measure" is problematic for at least three reasons: (1) according to Section 2.8, the EIR is intended for use in approving future tentative tract maps; (2) the Roripaugh Ranch DA limits allowable mitigation for the Project to defined public benefits and establishes project phasing; (3) the proposed mitigation measure purports to require Ashby to mitigate LOS E -F traffic conditions at any area intersections, regardless of whether they are attributable to the Project, in whole or in part; (4) traffic studies already show area intersections operating below LOS D, even without project impacts, for which the Project is not responsible. Response 21: While the measure may be problematic for a particular developer or developers, the City has experienced more than one project whose long term traffic impacts, especially in very large projects with many phases, far exceeded the anticipated impacts in its initial traffic study. This has become a standard traffic mitigation measure for new projects to assure the City that its streets and intersections will not be unduly burdened by unanticipated traffic impacts from discretionary development projects. Comment 22: CEQA Guideline 15162 describes the circumstances under which subsequent environmental review may be required. Any additional or supplemental traffic studies proposed in Mitigation Measure (2) should meet the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines, rather than automatically re -opening the Project traffic analysis every time a tentative tract map is proposed. The proposed Mitigation Measure must also be revised to reflect the benefits and limitations of the DA, which prevents imposition of additional construction or other traffic mitigation requirements. In its current form, Mitigation Measure (2) is inconsistent with the State CEQA Guidelines and the DA, and should be deleted. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 64 September 26, 2002 IRORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 22: Section 15162 does not apply to specific mitigation measures identified in an environmental review document. It applies to projects being evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act. Comment 23: As with the preceding Section, Section 3.5.6 should also be revised to distinguish between improvements required to meet the Project's "fair share" contributions, and those attributable to the public benefits of the DA. In the alternative, the FEIR should recognize that all of the listed improvements .are available only through the DA, with a notation that failure to .approve the DA would reduce Mitigation Measures to the Project's fair share financial contribution, with no advance funding or construction for most of the traffic improvements. Response 23: The previous Comments/Responses 2, 19, and 20 address this issue in detail. Comment 24: 3.7 Biological Resources At 3-126, the DEIR states that additional surveys will be conducted to assure that there are no impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher ("CGN"). Ashby is currently conducting protocol surveys for CGN, which will be completed prior to certification of the FEIR. Ashby will submit the results of its CGN surveys to the City as they are completed. The City should also note that the majority of CGN pairs on the property were located in the northeast comer of the site that is designated as natural open space, not the small portion of Butterfield Stage Road right-of-way located south of the Project. See DEIR 3-134. Response 24: The developer is being required to prepare confirmatory surveys where CGN has been identified in the past. Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate time prior to grading to assure no take of CGN occurs. Comment 25: Section 3.7.1(h) reports that in July 2001, the California Department of Fish & Game ("CDF&G") recommended a streambed alteration agreement for the Project in response to the prior DEIR. Please note that Ashby has submitted an application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to CDF&G. The FEIR should also note that CDF&G was a participant in the MSSHCP approved in 2000, and concurred in the mitigation required under the Section 10(a) Permit. Response 25: This information has been added to the Water Resources and Biological Resource sections of the FEIR (Sections 3.4 and 3.7, respectively). Comment 26: 3.7.3 Biological Resources Level of Impact before Mitigation The discussion of Riparian Communities in Section 3.7.3(a) should be revised to reflect the more accurate information contained in the Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates. According to the Lukos delineation, the site contains approximately 13.2 acres of CDF&G jurisdiction under Fish & Game Code Section 1603, of which approximately 4.7 acres is riparian habitat. Impacts to CDF&G jurisdiction will total 3.0 acres, of which 0.83 acre is vegetated riparian FINAL Environmental Impact Report 65 September 26, 2002 IRORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR habitat. Table 3.7-5 overstates both the acreage of riparian habitat subject to CDF&G jurisdiction, and the total amount of Project impacts. Information about Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over federal "waters" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act should also be included in Section 7.3.3(a). The federal jurisdiction is a sub -set of the CDF&G jurisdiction, but is subject to different regulatory requirements. According to the Lukos delineation, the site contains approximately 10.0 acres of Corps jurisdiction, of which only 0.8 acre is jurisdictional wetlands. The Project will impact only a portion of the Corps jurisdiction, with total impacts of 2.69 acres, including impacts to 0.61 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. Response 26: This corrected information is included in the "Permit Update" discussion in the Biological Resources Section (3.7) of the FEIR. This information does not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts, but does clarify the amount of mitigation land required for loss of jurisdictional land. It should be noted, however, that the issues of delineated wetlands and waters of the United States are different definitions with different regulatory requirements. ' Comment 27: 3.7.5 Biological Resources Project Design Features The exact composition and location of the Fuel Modification Zone will also require approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with the MSSHCP. Ashby expects this ' issue to be resolved to the satisfaction of the resource agencies prior to issuance of grading permits. ' Response 27: Comment noted. Comment 28: 3.7.6 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure (1) at 3- 137 should be revised to reflect the impact acreages shown on the Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Glenn Lukos. The EIR should also specify the ratio or ' mitigation measures required for impacts to State jurisdictional waters and riparian areas. According to Ashby's biological consultants, an onsite mitigation ratio of 1:1 for replacement is relatively standard for environmental documents. Response 28: Comment noted. The amount of land impacted is specified in the previous Comment/Response 26 and has been incorporated into the "Permit Update" discussion of Biological Resources (Section 3.7) in the Final EIR. Comment 29: Mitigation Measure (6) at 3-139 should be revised to include the U.S. Fish and ' Wildlife Service as the resource agency with primary responsibility for approval of the Fuel Modification Zone from a biological perspective. ' Response 29: This correction will be made in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D at the end of this document. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 66 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 30: Mitigation Measure (8) at 3-140 should be deleted or, at minimum, revised to reflect the CDF&G was involved in the AD 161 MSSHCP process, as shown by the signature block for CDF&G in the final version of the MSSHCP. Further, the Mitigation Measure should reflect Section 2080.1 of the California Endangered Species Act, which provides that issuance of an incidental take permit under the Federal -Endangered Species Act obviates the need to obtain additional authorization or approval from CDF&G. For the purposes of Section 2080.1, incidental take permits include Section 10(a) Permits and Section 7 Biological Opinions. Response 30: This mitigation measure is intended to address any unforseen impacts associated with the project. No changes are necessary. Comment 31: 3.10.3 Project Noise Impacts and Potential Mitigation The DEIR should also clarify that it finds significant cumulative noise impacts only due to the increase in maximum noise level increases of more than 3 dB from no -project to buildout. Section 3.10.3(b) provides that, as a general planning guide, noise level differences of less than 1 dB are not perceptible, and 3 dB is the commonly accepted threshold for people to perceive that noise levels have measurably changed. The maximum project -related noise impact is 1.7 CNEL along Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Pourroy and Butterfield Stage Road. The DEIR acknowledges that all individual Project noise impacts are below the generally accepted significance threshold. At the same time, the DEIR finds cumulatively significant noise impacts because off-site noise, will increase more than 3dB along most area roadways with or without the project. However, it should be underscored that, even with the Project noise, most roadway segments are comfortably within acceptable noise parameters. The responses to comments should also consider whether a maximum noise level increase of 21.2 dB is significant over a 12 -year period, where it will consist of incremental increases, each probably less than 3dB. Response 31: The 3 dB level is a typical significance threshold for CEQA noise impacts, although 5 dB is often used in more urban and suburban areas. However, a 3 dB increase would also be reasonable to use in a rural setting such as the project area due to its low level of development and attendant noise at present. City staff does consider a long-term increase in noise levels of 21.2 dB to be a significant cumulative impact, even if individual projects contribute less than 3 dB to that increase. Therefore, the Roripaugh project does contribute to cumulatively considerable noise impacts. However, the project has mitigated its own project - level impacts to less than significant levels, which is required of the project under CEQA. Comment 32: 3.11.1 Fire Protection Section 3.11.1(a) concludes that the Project is not within the City's five-minute response time for new development. However, the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 67 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR DEIR does not include a map showing the five-minute response time areas for each of the existing fire stations, nor does it include data showing the population within each fire station service area. This information is necessary to support the DEIR conclusions that only Planning Area 1, 2 and part of 3 are within the existing five-minute service area and that a new permanent fire station is required to serve the Project. The service area of the new fire station should also be shown, so that the City can calculate the appropriate fair share contribution of the Project to fire protection facilities. Response 32: The City does not use a radius map for emergency response times. Similarly, the City does not base the location of future fire stations on the number of people that they serve. Instead we use actual drive time (response time) to measure the desired level of service. The City has a policy of not allowing new major urban development outside the 5=minute response time. Using this actual drive time standard, only approximately 107 units in the Plateau portion are within the 5 - minute response time. However, to facilitate the initial phases of the project, the Fire chief has permitted the construction of 250 units prior to the operation of the new fire station. For the purposes of this paragraph, operational means that the fire station is constructed and staff is able to perform their fire safety duties including but not limited to the availability of housing quarters, equipment, and fire engines. Since the substantial portion of this project is outside the 5 -minute response time, this project triggers the need for a fire station to be provided by the developer. The new station will primarily serve the Roripaugh project and only provide back-up to existing rural development to the southwest and west. Therefore a fair share calculation is not appropriate, as the primary need for this station is generated exclusively by the Roripaugh project. Comment 33: Mitigation Measure (2) in Section 3.11.1(f) requires provision of a fire station site to the Temecula Fire Department and further requires that the station be operational, including all permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the 250th building permit. The Mitigation Measure should be revised to clarify that the Project is only obligated to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the permanent fire station, including the cost of the site, as full mitigation for impacts. Although the Project may agree to pay the full cost of appropriate equipment for a fire station through the DA, the cost exceeds any reasonable mitigation required by Project impacts. Response 33: This issue is addressed in the previous Comment/Response 32. Comment 34: 3.13.8 Aesthetics Summary of Impact After Mitigation The DEIR concludes that the Project will result in significant aesthetic impacts after mitigation, primarily to views and as a result of "skyglow" from nightlighting. According to Sections 3.13.3(b) and (c), the "skyglow" is cause caused by lighting the athletic fields at the community park and middle school for night events. However, the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 68 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR DEIR did not consider a elimination of nightlighting as a potential mitigation measure. A prohibition on nightlighting for athletic events at the community park and middle school is a potential mitigation measure which should be considered in the FEIR. If the FEIR determines that elimination of nightlighting is a feasible mitigation measure, Ashby would be willing to incorporate it in revised Project plans. Response 34: City staff did not consider elimination of the park lighting as a feasible mitigation measure, since a major objective of the project, of which the'sports facilities on this site are an integral part, is to provide lighted'fields for youth and adult sports team practices and games. However, elimination of the sports field lighting was considered in Alternative 2 — Reduced Intensity, and Alternative 3 — Rural Density. Comment 35: 4.1.3 General Plan Housing Element Consistency At 4-4, the DEIR finds that the Project will meet General Plan Housing Element Goal 1 by providing a variety of single-family detached housing on lots ranging from an affordable 3,000 square feet to one acre. The Project will also meet Goal 2 by providing affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula. Specifically, "the higher density units will be more affordable to both buyers and renters." As suggested above, the provision of more affordable housing, in accordance with Goals 1 and 2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, should be added as a Project Objective in Section 2.5. Response 35: This issue is already addressed by Project Objective # 11. Comment 36: 4.2 City Growth Management Program Action Plan In Section 4.4.2, the DEIR should reflect that many of the listed project amenities are offered solely as public benefits under the Development Agreement, and would not otherwise be available through standard conditions of approval. Response 36: This is not an appropriate location for a "marketing" statement regarding absolute project benefits. Such a distinction is more appropriate in the Development Agreement, as outlined in the discussion on the Project Description (Section 2.0) in the Final EIR. Comment 37: 7.2 Evaluation of Alternatives All of the proposed alternatives to the Project eliminate all medium density residential uses, leaving only low and low medium density uses. Elimination of all areas with higher density effectively reduces opportunities for more affordable housing within the Project. The DEIR should acknowledge that all of the proposed alternatives are inconsistent with the Housing Element goals which require the provision of a variety of housing, including opportunities for more affordable housing. To the extent that compliance with the General Plan is a Project Objective, the proposed Project is the only alternative which satisfies the Housing Element of the General Plan. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 69 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 37: The alternatives eliminated the multi -family housing because most of the impacts of the project are related to the absolute number of units (and thus residents) in the project. This disagreement focuses on the rural nature of the surrounding area and the general belief that higher density, multi -family housing is not appropriate in rural areas. In addition, the Housing Element does not require multi -family housing on this site, only on appropriate sites within the City. It is a policy decision as to whether or not this site constitutes an appropriate site for higher density housing. Comment 38: Ashby looks forward to reviewing the City's responses to the above comments. We do not expect that preparation of the responses to comments will require significant additional time on the part of the City. Please let us know if we can provide the City with any information to expedite preparation of the responses to comments and Final EIR. Response 38: Comment noted. F-3 Letter from Mandy Picozzi, local resident, dated May 16, 2002. Comment 1: This letter is to serve as comment in regards to the Roripaugh Ranch development. My first of many concern's on this proposed project is the fact that it will dramatically effect the rural lifestyle that we moved to Temecula for and specifically to Nicolas Valley. We chose our location due to the fact that it was surrounded by other large parcels of land and that these land owners were, of like mind, they enjoy country living and dirt roads, horses, livestock and peace and quiet The proposed project will so greatly alter all of these things that we chose this area for, that we will have to face the high probability of moving from our home and very possibly from the Temecula valley all together. The face of Temecula is changing so rapidly that sometimes I wonder if as a city that we are moving too fast. We are quickly losing uniqueness and becoming just another name on the map, our City is losing its flavor and character. Response 1: The 2nd Revised DEIR evaluated the potential impacts of the project on consistency with the General Plan and surrounding land uses, aesthetics, roads, etc. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan which allows up to 3 units per acre on this site. The local decision -makers will use this and other information about the project to make an informed decision regarding approval or denial of the project. It is ultimately up to these decision -makers to determine if the project is appropriate on the proposed site and in this area of the City. Comment 2: If in fact this project go's through as proposed I will no longer be able to ride my horses safely from my home to any trails what so ever! I have yet to see a trail system that is even remotely close to being acceptable, not just for the Nicolas Valley, but the people of Meadowview and the folks that live off of Calle Girasol FINAL Environmental Impact Report 70 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR and Walcott that have already been unbelievable abused with a poor excuse for a two lane road (La Serina Way). I will not tolerate such abuse. Response 2: An interim cross-section for Nicolas Road will be built in Phase 1 of the project as shown at the bottom of Figure 3.5-613 on page 3-76 of the DEIR. This section shows a 6 -foot asphalt path on the north side of the road that will accomodate bicyclists and pedestrians, and there is more than enough room on either side of the roadway (23 feet on the north, 35 feet on the south) to accomodate equestrians. The ultimate onsite cross-section for Nicolas Road to be built in Phase 2 is shown at the top of Figure 3.5-6C on page 3-77 of the DEIR. This section has been modified from that shown in the EIR, and now has 6 -foot wide, curb -adjacent sidewalks on both sides of Nicolas Road, and a 6 -foot wide soft surface path on both sides of the road. The design of this trail will be provided in future street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Services Departments (C. McCarthy, personal communication, April, 2002). Calle Chapos and Calle Girasol are offsite roads and pedestrian, equestrian, or bicycle circulation improvements are not proposed as part of this project, but will be addressed with the ful improvements of these roads. . Comment 3: My understanding is that the new city plan has not yet been completed, might I suggest that we put our energy in the direction of limited growth in this area of Temecula, why not estate homes? We are lacking in this department as far as I'm concerned. When I think of Temecula, my first thought has become " wall to wall houses", I used to think of Temecula as a town with some history, winery's, horses, cows, open spaces and a western flavor. Why do we have to become another ugly overpopulated city, We have the chance to make Temecula something special at this time, why not go for it? It would be so nice to see Temecula done with some class, without heavy growth there would be less need for millions of dollars for roads, bridges, schools, etc. Response 3: The City's General Plan was adopted in 1993 and remains the valid master plan for the City. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan. While some changes to the plan are expected, no major revisions are anticipated. Comment 4: This area of Temecula cry's out to be rural. It is completely surrounded by larger rural parcels and would fit our community much better if it were to stay in keeping with the area. Please take your time in considering this proposed project, I strongly believe that we can do better for our city and community. Response 4: The decision whether the Temcula area would be urban or rural was made by the County of Riverside prior to incorporation. Since incorporation, the City has concentrated on trying to provide a quality city with a full range of services and opportunities. The General Plan designates the site at a density of 3 units/acre which would allow up to 2400 units. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 71 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR F-4 Letter from Samantha Shields and Marissa Knowlton, local residents (no date) Comment 1: We are writing to you to ask about the equestrian trails that are going to be put in during the Roripaugh Project. Currently there is a trail that is located too far from our homes for use. To get to the trail we must cross a major roadway (Butterfield Stage), which is dangerous. We are planning on staying in our homes for many years and would not want to move. We are asking for a more convenient and close equestrian trail for us to use. We are now living and would like to be living along Nicolas Road, with our horses. We are asking you for your generosity and support on producing a trail that would be well located and safe for us to ride on. We are talking, not only for us, but also for the many other horse owners that need safe equestrian trails that also live on Nicolas Road. Response 1: Some information on trails to be constructed along Nicolas Road and nearby streets is provided in Comment/Response 2 in the letter from Mandy Picozzi (letter F-3). In addition, the project will construct a multi -use trail along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, which can be accessed off of Butterfield Stage Road. At this point in time, several resource agencies will not allow equestrians to travel within the channels of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, mainly due to concerns about biological resources and water quality. Therefore, any equestrians wishing to cross Butterfield Stage Road will have to do so at grade. While this may not be optimum from the rider's perspective, it is a compromise that will meet the needs of the resource agencies while providing a relatively safe route for equestrian access in the project area. F-5 Letter from Roland Knowles, local resident, dated May 15, 2002. ' Comment 1: 1. Water flow: I am very concerned about the "downstream" impact of this plan on adjacent property owners. My residence is tax parcel No, 957-130-005. The northwest portion of my property is next to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Past diversions of the natural water flow line already caused over 20 feet of my property to now "be in the creek". During February and March 1998, the water flow in the creek exceeded 150' in width and 3' in depth next to my property, Any attempts to reclaim tax parcel No. 957-130-002 (a 2.87 -acre parcel) would increase the natural water flow of the creek. This would divert more water to the southern portion of the Santa Gertrudis creek bed, which would erode even more of my property. Tax parcel No. 957-130-002 should be part of the open space areas. I also question the water flow report for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. Existing photos of Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek show a much greater amount of water flow in Santa Gertrudis than in Long Creek. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 72 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Both sides of Santa Gertrudis Creek should be reinforced with concrete to the existing paved portion of Nicolas Road, If only one side is reinforced, my property and others will be flooded, The north side of Santa Gertrudis Creek should have at least a 100 foot open space area for flood control, environmental and habitat conservation. I am also concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. The.proposed storm drain for Long Valley Creek could flood the downstream propeity and "wash out" Cantrell Road. Long Valley Creek should be reinforced with "rip rap" and concrete to where Long Creek intersects Santa Gertrudis Creek. Response 1: Mitigation Measure 1 of Section 3.4 of the 2nd Revised DEIR (Water Resources) requires the preparation of a Drainage Management Plan to achieve the main goal of the master drainage plan for the Roripaugh project, i.e., to control onsite and downstream flooding, including the commentor's property. The commentor is encouraged to study the various mitigation measures related to flood control to better understand the proposed improvements and their potential benefits to adjacent properties. The hydrology studies prepared by The Keith Companies and David Evans & Associates demonstrate that the proposed flood control facilities will not result in increased offsite runoff, and the proposed improvements will provide long-term bank protection along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Channel west of Butterfield Stage Road. During Phase 2, the project will construct a permanent bridge crossing of Nicolas Road over the confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, which will eliminate historical flooding at this location as well. Comment 2: 2. Night Lighting: Planning areas 11, 27 and 28 should have the lighting impact mitigated with the use of shielding and low pressure sodium vapor lamps. Response 2: Lighting in these Planning Areas will be designed to comply with the Mt. Palomar "dark skies" requirements, but lighting has already been identified as a significant impact of the project. Lighting fixtures in these areas will be shielded or may use low presssure sodium, such as parking lot or security lights. However, Planning Area 27 is the community park, which will have sports field lighting. Planning Area 28 is the middle school site which may also have one or more lighted sports fields. Planning Area 11 is the neighborhood commercial center. Comment 3: 3. Noise:. The noise levels from Planning areas 27 and 28 should be mitigated by a wall to the west of the park. Response 3: Mitigation Measure 2 in the DEIR section on Aesthetics (3.13) requires adequate buffering between the middle school site and the planned residential uses to the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 73 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR east. The current plan calls for joint use of the community park and middle school sports fields, so there will not be a block wall separating these Planning Areas. To help mitigate potential noise impacts to the community park from vehicular traffic along Butterfield Stage Road, some combination of berm and/or wall will be required along the western boundary of the community park, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 4 in the DEIR section on Noise (3.10) F-6 Letter from Jill Stokes, local resident (no date). Comment 1: I would like to make a few comments on the Roripaugh Ranch Project. My first concern is the safety of my children whether it be walking down Nicolas Road to their friends houses, or riding their horses down the same street for their riding lessons. I feel you need to make Nicolas Road a priority. It needs to be done right the first time! Second, we moved to Nicolas Valley 15 years ago to raise our kinds in a rural environment around horses. If this project goes in, we will not be able to trail ride any more. The developer has proposed a trail on the south side of the project, but no one from Nicolas Valley will have access to that trail. I think we can all get together and come up with a solution. Response 1: In Phase 1, the project will construct a temporary multi -use asphalt path on the north side of Nicolas Road that will also accomodate equestrians. In Phase 2, sidewalks and a permanent multi -use trail will be constructed along the north side of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol as part of the buildout of the project. These improvements will provide improved equestrian access along Nicolas Road over both short- and long-term. Much of this has also been addressed in the previous Comment/Response I in this letter and Comment/Response 2 in the previous letter from Mandy Picozzi (Letter F-3). F-7 Letter from Ladd Stokes, local resident, dated May 15, 2002. Comment 1. I would like to voice some of my concerns with the Roripaugh Ranch project. My main concern is with the traffic on Nicolas Road. I believe that Butterfield Stage Road will be used to get to Winchester, the mall, and the freeway. The only people that will continue up Butterfield Stage Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be people going north on the I-215 Freeway. Everyone else will either cut off at Calle Chapos or more likely Nicolas Road. Response 1: The project traffic report examined traffic on Nicolas Road, as well as the other arterial roads serving the project area such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, etc. The report was revised to address project changes reflected in the 2"d Revised DEIR and increased the projected amount of traffic along Nicolas Road from approximately 13,000 to 14,000 ADT at buildout. This change was made to respond to community and staff concerns that the previous FINAL Environmental Impact Report 74 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR study may have underestimated the potential for traffic on this roadway. However, this increase was not substantial enough to create any additional project ' impacts or require additional mitigation along Nicolas Road. The project traffic consultant and City traffic engineer believe the project traffic study represents anticipated traffic conditions in the project area, based on their experience with dozens of similar types of studies in Temecula. Comment 2: 1 feel that grading planning cut for Nicolas Road, it should be done right and be four lanes from Winchester to this project. Not four lanes within the project, bottlenecked down to two lanes, and then connected back up to four lanes further ' on. Let's do this right the first time, not spend more money later on fixing a problem. ' Response 2: As outlined in the project traffic study and Section 3.5 of the DEIR, Nicolas Road onsite will be improved to two lanes only during Phase 1 of the project. As part of Phase 2 construction, Nicolas Road will be fully improved onsite to its planned ' cross section (4 lanes, 110 -foot right-of-way) as a Modified Secondary Highway, as requested by the commentor from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. Offsite, the roadway will be improved to the 40 -foot interim ' cross section with 2 travel lanes and a left tum lane from the western project boundary to the Calle Girasol Bridge outside the project boundary. The phasing of these improvements is based on the anticipated traffic generated in each phase, although traffic from other areas may temporarily increase traffic on Nicolas Road until the ultimate improvements are made. However, the project traffic report indicates this potential short-term impact will not exceed City LOS ' standards, nor is it anticipated to result in significant traffic hazards along Nicolas Road. The determination as to the number of lanes is based on accepted ' methodologies for traffic studies and developed by traffic engineers. The projected traffic on Nicolas Road simply does not warrant the construction of 4 lanes at this time. Comment 3: I would also like some way to access the trails safely so our kids will be able to have the quality of life we moved out here for. Response 3: An interim cross-section for Nicolas Road will be built in Phase 1 of the project as shown at the bottom of Figure 3.5-6B on page 3-76 of the DEIR. This section ' shows a 6 -foot asphalt path on the north side of the road that will accomodate bicyclists and pedestrians, and there is more than enough room on either side of the roadway (23 feet on the north, 35 feet on the south) to accomodate ' equestrians. The ultimate onsite cross-section for Nicolas Road to be built in Phase 2 is shown at the top of Figure 3.5-6C on page 3-77 of the DEIR. This section has been modified from that shown in the EIR, and now has 6 -foot wide, curb -adjacent sidewalks on both sides of Nicolas Road, and a 6 -foot wide soft surface path on both sides of the road. The design of this trail will be provided in future street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Public Works and FINAL Environmental Impact Report 75 September 26, 1111 I RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Community Services Departments (C. McCarthy, personal communication, April, 2002). Calle Chapos and Calle Girasol are offsite roads and pedestrian, equestrian, or bicycle circulation improvements are not proposed as part of this project, but will be addressed with the ful improvements of these roads. Comment 4: Thank you for your consideration and please excuse the handwritingas our printer is currently down. Response 4: Comment noted. F-8 Letter from Renee Baellargeat, local property owner, dated May 29, 2002. Comment 1: I am following up on the letter I sent you about 45 days ago regarding the concern I have regarding Roripaugh's ranch development. My first concern was the way Nicolas will be paved where the entance to my property is. I don't want to be flooded and have my road and entrance to my property 31220 Nicolas Road blocked off or cut off or whatever such like happening. Response l: The proposed construction does include work along, and improvements to, Nicolas Road. However, access will be maintained to adjacent properties during construction. The project will improve overall drainage conditions and reduce the potential for flooding along Nicolas Road. Properties with an existing legal access will continue to have access to their property when all the improvements proposed by this project are completed. Comment 2: Second, the noise factor what will result from the ever-increasing traffic from the development to the mall. If the developer's took care of giving me a nice entrance to my property, it would probably help me cope with the noise. Thank you for your help in this matter. ' Response 2: At this time, the developer is not proposing to make special improvements to any adjacent property entrances along Nicolas Road. As outlined in the DEIR, noise impacts during construction and along Nicolas Road are not expected to exceed significance criteria, and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to help reduce both short- and long-term noise impacts. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 76 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS — REVISED DEIR (1,721 Units) ' The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, received the following 21 letters commenting on the Revised Draft EIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: ' Sixteen (16) of these letters were from various federal, state, regional, county, and local agencies, while five (5) were from private individuals, mainly residents living adjacent to or near ' the project site. Individual comments from each agency or individual will be presented, along with a specific response to that comment. Each letter is presented in the order presented above (A-1, A-2, B-1, etc.). Copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix A at the end of ' this document. A copy of the previous land plan showing 1,721 units is included in this section as Figure 1-2. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 77 September 26, 2002 A. Federal Agencies (2) 1. California Indian Legal Services (2 letters) B. State Agencies (6) ' 2. Office of Planning and Research — State Clearinghouse 3. Department of Conservation 4. Department of Transportation — Division of Aeronautics ' S. Department of Toxic Substances Control 6. Regional Water Quality Control Board — San Diego Region 7. Department of Fish and Game ' C. Regional Agencies (4) 1. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (not included because it duplicates letter received on 2nd Revised DEIR) 2. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 3. Southern California Gas Company (not included because it duplicates letter received on 2nd Revised DEIR) 4. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California D. County Agencies (1) ' E. 2. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Local Agencies (3) 4. City of Murrieta 5. Rancho California Water District (RCWD) 6. Temecula Valley Unified School District F. Private Groups or Individuals (5) ' 7. Temecula Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth 8. Ronald Knowles 9. Ronald Knowles 10. Hans Van Ligten (attorney for Rancho Bella Vista) 11. Mike/Sue Knowlton ' Sixteen (16) of these letters were from various federal, state, regional, county, and local agencies, while five (5) were from private individuals, mainly residents living adjacent to or near ' the project site. Individual comments from each agency or individual will be presented, along with a specific response to that comment. Each letter is presented in the order presented above (A-1, A-2, B-1, etc.). Copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix A at the end of ' this document. A copy of the previous land plan showing 1,721 units is included in this section as Figure 1-2. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 77 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 11 L 1 F I F Figure 1-2 Previous 1,721 Plan FINAL Environmental Impact Report 78 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR A. LETTERS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES (2) A-1 Letter from Chris Sullivan, Law Clerk with the California Indian Legal Services, dated July 18, 2001. Comment 1: In the DEIR itself, within Appendix I (Scientific Resources), there is an Archaeological Site Record following Drover's CRA which is listed as page I of 3. My question is, where are the other two pages of this record? Do they exist or are they irrelevant? If you have the remainder of this record, may I get a copy? Response 1: Site record information is always withheld from publication in EIRs to prevent unauthorized individuals from leaming the location and content of archaeological ' sites. Only trained personnel are allowed this information, which is available through the Eastern Archaeological Information Center (EAIC) at the University of California at Riverside. You or an appropriate representative of the Pechanga ' Band should contact the EAIC for this information, as the City and/or the EIR consultant cannot release it to the public. ' Comment 2: In reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment that was conducted in March 1989 by C. Drover, what kind of research method was performed? Do you know whether a walkover survey or actual subsurface testing was performed? I am not ' sure what the phrase "intuitive in nature" is supposed to mean. Response 2: Dr. Drover conducted a standard Phase 1 assessment according to the established protocols in place at the time of survey. These protocols included archival research through the Eastern Archaeological Information Center (EAIC) at the University of California at Riverside, as well as a walkover of the site, focusing ' on those areas that have the greater potential for yielding artifacts. "Intuitive by nature" refers to the identification of areas that have more potential to yield artifacts compared to other locations, such as rock outcroppings along river channels or near oak trees, compared to regularly disced agricultural fields. Many parts of the site has been in agricultural use for at least several decades, which has repeatedly disturbed the top 1-3 feet of those areas. The undisturbed portions of the site most likely to contain archaeological resources are undisturbed portions of the panhandle and the slopes along the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek. The Upper Santa Gertrudis Creek area (Planning Area 10) has been incorporated into permanent open space as part of Assessment District 161 Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. While the accepted protocols have changed somewhat since then, they are still acceptable in terms of a CEQA significance determination in that the Revised DEIR recommends monitoring during all grading operations. If the DEIR did not recommend monitoring over the entire site, there might be some concern that an FINAL Environmental Impact Report 79 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR "older" study might not have the best chance of revealing the potential for archaeological resources. "responses Comment 3: Do you know if to comments" were ever written, printed, and/or distributed for the previous comment letter dated July 16, 1999 from CILS on behalf of Pechanga? If so, may I get a copy of the response? Response 3: A response was drafted and a formal Response to Comments was prepared. However, a Final EIR was never certified by the City. A copy of the responses to the previous CILS comments was forwarded to the CILS on July 20, 2001. ' A-2 Letter from Laura Miranda, Lawyer for the Pechanga Band, California Indian Legal Services, dated July 20, 2001. Comment 1: The Pechanga Band, a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, is formally reguesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code ' 21092(b)(3), to be notified and involved in the CEQA environmental review process for the duration of this Project. California Indian Legal Services submits the following comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch project on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter, 'Pechanga Band"). Response 1: Cement noted. Comment 2: PROJECT GENERALLY - The Pechanga Band is not opposed to the Roripaugh Ranch project. As we have stated in previous correspondence to the City, the Pechanga Band is primarily concerned with the project's impact on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Indian Reservation is the closest reservation of the Luiseno Indians to the proposed project site, and the Pechanga Band considers any Luiseno cultural items and any Native American human remains which may be found in the vicinity of this project to belong to their ancestors. As such, the. Pechanga band is specifically concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luiseno village sites, archaeological items which would be displaced by ground -disturbing work on the project, and, above all, the proper and lawful, treatment of Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: The Pechanga Band and our firm has reviewed the Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Project as well as the March 1989 Cultural Resources Assessment by Christopher E. Drover (hereinafter, "1989 Report"). The Pechanga Band requests that the comments contained herein in conjunction with FINAL Environmental Impact Report 80 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' the comments submitted in our July 16, 1999 letter constitute the Pechanga Band's comments on the Revised DEIR. Response 3: Comment noted. ' Comment 4: PROJECT IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES - The Temecula Valley is extremely rich in Luiseno cultural and archaeological resources. As noted in the Revised DEIR, only one archaeological site, Roripaugh 1, was recorded within the project boundaries by Drover in 1989 (DEIR, 3.14 Scientific Resources, p. 3- 214). However, there are an array of sites located in areas surrounding the ' project, including, but not limited to, at least fifteen (15) archaeological sites that exist on the adjacent Johnson property. Response 4: The indicated site was found on a hillside adjacent to the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek, in an area that is now preserved as part of the Assessment District 161 Sub -regional Habitat Consevation Plan. Much of the rest of the site has been in agricultural use for many decades, and has been subject to repeated disturbance by discing and planting. It is unlikely that significant cultural resources will be found in these disturbed areas. However, to acknowledge the potential for ' finding previously undiscovered resources, all grading activities will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, as outlined in Mitigation Measure I in the section on Scientific Resources (Section 3.14) of both the previous Revised DEIR ' the 2nd Revised DEIR. In addition, allowance will be made for Native American representatives to monitor or observe grading, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 2 in the same section. Comment 5: Although Roripaugh has been characterized as an area of lithic scatter, the potential exists for discovering subsurface deposits (1989 Report, p. 8; DEIR 3.14 Scientific Resources, p. 3-214). Furthermore, Drover observed that "Roripaugh I may be part of a larger, possibly contemporaneous, complex of ' interrelated sites in the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage including both residential and seed processing locales." (1989 Report, p. 8). The Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee agrees with this assessment and stresses the ' potential for the project area in question to contain more extensive cultural resources. The Pechanga Band believes that a current study would reveal significant archaeological resources and Luiseno sites not previously identified by the twelve year old walk -over survey conducted by Drover in 1989. Response 5: The 2nd Revised DEIR does acknowledge the potential for discovering artifacts during grading, which is why a monitor is recommended during all grading activities. Dr. Drove conducted a Phase 1 survey using methods approved at that time. Since many portions of the site have been historically disturbed by ' agriculture, a new survey would likely yield little useful new information, since the areas most likely to yield cultural resources, the undisturbed banks and slopes along the Santa Gertrudis Creek, have already been preserved as permanent open FINAL Environmental Impact Report 81 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' space as part of the Assessment District 161 Sub -regional Habitat Consevation Plan. For additional discussion, see the previous Response 4 in this letter. Comment 6: REVISED DEIR DETERMINATIONS - In the 1989 Report conducted by Drover, the research methods and strategy utilized are described as "generally intutitive in nature", without any mention of the precise fieldwork performed except to describe the surface of the land. We are forced to assume that the ' cultural resources assessment this agency is basing its Revised DEIR findings upon did not entail any subsurface or extensive archaeological testing, but merely a surface "walkover" of the project site. Lack of thorough and extensive ' archaeological survey of this property suggests that any determinations of impact to cultural resources cannot be made with accuracy. ' Response 6: As discussed in Responses 4 and 5, the 2nd Revised DEIR did determine there was a potential for signficant impacts to archaeological resources, so a new survey would probably not change that determination, given the general potential for cultural resources in the area. A new survey is therefore not recommended or needed. ' Comment 7: Mitigation measure 3.14.6 states that ... no significant ... archaeological ... resources were observed or are expected on the site.. (Revised DEIR, p. 3-215). The Pechanga band fervently disagrees with this assessment because: • Drover's walk -over survey indicates that subsurface and additional resources are a distinct possibility; • Further extensive surveys on this property were never completed in preparation for assessments regarding the project's impact, even though this was a recommendation by Drover in 1989; and • The Pechanga Band was never consulted in regard to the potential impacts of this project on Luiseno sites. Rather, this agency has chosen to rely, solely, upon a twelve year old walk -over survey to determine the impacts this development project will have on sacred Luiseno cultural resources. As such, the Pechanga Band will not accept the City's evaluation as complete or accurate and fears that "(I)t is quite likely that eventual development will result in a direct impact" to Luiseno sites. (1989 Report, p. 8). Therefore, the Pechanga Band requests that the mitigation measures be modified to include a Pre -Excavation Agreement to ensure that the development of the site will not result in direct or indirect, significant impact on known and potentially unknown archaeological areas. Response 7: The portion of the sentence that says ... "or are expected on the site" is not accurate and does not reflect the conclusions of Section 3.14 of either the Revised DEIR or the 2nd Revised DEIR. It may be more accurate to substitute ... "but could reasonably be expected in the undisturbed portions of the site" at the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 82 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR indicated point in the text, but it would not change the conclusions of the DEIR regarding significant impacts or recommended mitigation measures. As previously stated, the Mitigation Measures in Section 3.14 are considered adequate to protect cultural resources that may be present on the site and revealed during grading activities. Comment 8: REQUESTED INVOLVEMENT AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES - Given that Native American cultural resources will likely be impacted by the project, the Pechanga Band wishes to be included in all mitigation, planning, on a government to govenment basis with the City of Temecula. As a federally - recognized Indian tribe with an active tribal Cultural Resources Committee, and as a Luiseno tribe with a direct interest and role in the project under the California Public Resources Code, the Pechanga Band requests to actively participate in the formulation and execution of the mitigation and monitoring plan which will accompany this project. Accordingly, the Pechanga Band requests the following: 1. That the following mitigation measures be included in the Final EIR: a. That the developer be required to enter into a Pre -Excavation Agreement, as a condition of approval prior to issuance of any land use or development permit, including any grading permit. The Agreement should be required to contain the following elements: ' i) At least, but not limited to, two (2) tribal archaeological monitors to be present during excavation and groundbreaking work, to be compensated by the developer. ' ii) If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage ' Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the developer be required to allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further ' disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. iii) If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 83 ' September 26, 2002 RORIPAUCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 8 iv) All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resume. 2) That tribal archaeological monitors be present during any Phase 1I and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Pechanga Band looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula and other interested agencies in protecting invaluable Native American cultural and archaeological resources found in the project area. Allowing active tribal participation will prevent misunderstandings and help your project move forward smoothly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 746-8941. The Mitigatin Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D will reflect these requested changes. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report 84 September 26, 2001 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR B. LETTERS FROM STATE AGENCIES (6) B-1 Letter from Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, dated July 27, 2001. Comment 1: The State clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 26, 2001, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 (c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments ' regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed ' comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. ' This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at ' (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. ' Response 1 1 Comment noted. 1 FINAL Environmental Impact Report 85 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR B-2 Letter from Kenneth Trott, Environmental Coordinator, with the Department of ' Conservation, Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations, dated July 10, 2001. ' Comment 1: The DEIR (Page 3-15) notes that the property was withdrawn from the Murrieta Hot Springs No. 9 Agricultural Preserve in 1995. We recommend that the final FIR provide clarification as to whether the land was under Williamson Act contract at the time of its removal from the Preserve, and, if the land was under contract, how many years remained on the term of the contract at the time of its ' removal. This information is important because removal of contracted lands from an agricultural preserve does not terminate the contract. Removal of contracted land from a preserve does, however, automatically initiate the contract, nonrenewal process. For a ten-year contract, nonrenewal will take from nine to ten years to complete. It is only upon completion of contract nonrenewal that the contract is terminated. Indeed, prior to the completion of contract nonrenewal, ' incompatible nonagricultural land uses (e.g., residential development) cannot occur on affected lands (Government Code Section 51236). For this reason, the final EIR should also clarify timing of development relative to expiration of the ' contract. Response 1: Michael Harrad, with the Riverside County Planning Department, is responsible ' for monitoring agricultural preserves within the County. According to Mr. Harrad, a Notice of Non -Renewal was filed for the entire Roripaugh Ranch in 1987, according to the requirements of the Williamson Act. Mr. Harrad indicated ' that this means the property would have no longer had preserve status after 1997. In addition, there is no indication in the preliminary title reports or the ' developer's files that indicate any agricultural preserve status is in effect on the property. However, Mr. Harrad said the County GIS mapping system still shows Murrieta Agricultural Preserve No. 9 (MAP #9) is still active and was never ' officially cancelled. He suggested the developer file for a dis-establishment of the preserve, which will take approximately 60 days. This has been added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D. rComment 2: The DEIR (Page 3-18) notes that project implementation will permanently remove 500 acres of agricultural land, including 210 acres of prime agricultural ' land. The DEIR compares forced agricultural use of nonprofitable lands as a taking of private land and subject to compensation. It is not clear how this opinion is germane to CEQA, which is an information document. The fact ' remains that 500 acres of essentially nonrenewable agricultural soil resources will be lost if this project is approved. This should be considered a potentially significant environmental impact that is described in the EIR. If the agricultural ' use of this land is no longer feasible, the reasons for this should be factually documented. ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report k 86 September 26, 2002 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR I [1 r] I 1 1 Response 2: The section of the Revised DEIR referred to by the commenter, as well as the similar section of the 2nd Revised DEIR, were written to discuss the pros and cons of agricultural preservation, and was not intended to promote one position. To clarify, this site contains 210 acres of land underlain by soils classified as prime by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition, the property is designated as locally significant in the City's General Plan. However, it is not designated, by the state as prime or important farmland. In this case, the financial decision to stop farming does produce. indirect pressure on the land to be developed for rural or suburban uses. Nevertheless, the 2nd Revised DEIR does conclude that the loss of this agricultural land by the development of the proposed project will result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. A Statement of Overriding Consideration is therefore required for approval of the project. Comment 3: If the conversion of agricultural land is found to be a significant impact, the final EIR should consider feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land loss, consistent with Temecula General Plan Goal of protecting prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses (DEIR, Page 3-18). For example, agricultural land conservation easements are used by a number of cities and counties in California to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Conservation easements can be implemented by at least two alternative approaches: the outright purchase of easements tied to the project, or via the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the purchase, holding and maintenance of agricultural land conservation easements. These organizations include local and regional land trusts and conservancies. At the state level, the Division's California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) is authorized to accept funds f6r the subsequent directed purchase (via grants to local organizations) of agricultural land conservation easements. Whatever the approach, if the use of conservation easements is considered, the conversion of agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional significance, and the search for replacement lands conducted regionally, and not limited strictly to lands within the Temecula area. Response 3: This land has been in agricultural production (dry fanning) for several decades, and has been protected from conversion by the private economics of land use in that agriculture provided a positive return on investment compared to the cost for conversion of the land. The main factors leading the property owner toward conversion at this time are: 1) increasing property values for residential vs. agricultural uses; 2) increasingly high cost of water (i.e., no agricultural subsidies as in the Central Valley); 3) encroaching development from the northwest; 4) needed construction of several major planned roadways in the area (i.e., Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road); and 5) continuing debt related to the now defunct Assessment District 161 through the County. For these reasons, FINAL Environmental Impact Report 87 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR conversion of this land is timely and not premature, which is the intent and stated goal of the City General Plan policy. B-3 Letter from Sandy Hesnard, Environmental Planner, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, dated July 10, 2001. Comment 1: The California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of Aeronautics, reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The project includes a proposed elementary school within two miles of the French Valley Airport. In accordance with the enclosed Education Code Section 17215, the Department prior to acquisition of the school site must conduct a school site evaluation. If they have not already done so, the school district should be advised to submit written notification to the California Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at 916/654-5314. Response 1: In the (previous) Revised DEIR, Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities with the Temecula Valley Unified School District, indicated they were aware of this requirement and is already in the process of conducting a school site evaluation in cooperation with the Department of Education. In addition, the current land plan of the project was changed from the previous plan to relocate the school site out of the panhandle (now called the "Plateau" area) and is now located east of Butterfield Stage Road. This current project went before the Airport Land Use Commission on June 20 of 2002, and ALUC approved the project with a number of conditions which have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Appendix D. B-4 Letter from Haissam Salloum, P.E., Unit Chief with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), dated July 6, 2001 ' Comment 1: The final EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area. ' Response 1: Much of the site has been in long-term agricultural use, including the Plateau portion. When he was alive, Leo Roripaugh, the former owner and farmer of the ' site, indicated he did not historically use or allow the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or herbicides on his farmland. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by for the entire Roripaugh property by Gradient ' Engineering in June of 1999 in anticipation of developing the site. This ESA indicated that there were no significant levels of agricultural chemicals in the Panhandle or elsewhere on the site. However, several small areas contaminated by petroleum products, mainly from farm equipment maintenance, were found in FINAL Environmental Impact Report $$ September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR the central portion of the site (current Planning Areas 10 through 13 which included the former airstrip area). This information was included in the 2nd Revised DEIR in Section 3.9. In addition, the Temecula Valley Unified School District will conduct its own Phase 1 ESA as required by new state school site requirements (D. Gallaher, TVUSD, July 2001). Comment 2: The final EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the final EIR needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. Response 2: The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the site by Gradient Engineering in 1999 determined that the site contained several isolated areas contaminated by petroleum products, mainly in Planning Areas 10 through 13 (Areas identified as AOC1 and AOC2 in the ESA). This document was included in the appendices of the 2nd Revised DEIR. In addition, Section 3.9 of the 2nd Revised DEIR discussed Hazards including potential contamination related to proposed land uses, such as residential cleaners and household chemicals, as well as the results of the Phase 1 ESA report. City staff understands that the contaminated areas onsite have or are being remediated according to applicable regulations at present. There are no indications from available data that any of these sites or conditions on the project site constitute a significant threat to human health or the environment. However, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D will require the remediation of any contaminated sites before the issuance of a grading permit. Comment 3: The final EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. Response 3: See Comment/Response 2 for more information. The contaminated areas identified in the Gradient Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) have since been or are now being remediated in cooperation with the appropriate agencies. Comment 4: The NOC indicates that the project site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5, and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, the proposed development may fall under the 'Border Zone of a Contaminated Property". Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is on a 'Border Zone Property". Response 4: As far as the City is aware, the site is not on any list of hazardous material sites as stated by the commentator. As previously stated, there are no indications from available data that there are any sites or conditions on the project site that constitute a significant threat to human health or the environment, and all FINAL Environmental Impact Report 89 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR remediation activities will be carried out in cooperation with appropriate agencies. Comment 5: The NOC states that the project is located within an airport land use plan within two miles of a public airport that would result in a potentially significant impact and safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Proper investigations should be conducted to confirm that the airport has not contributed any chemical contamination to the proposed development areas. Response 5: The airport is almost 2 miles from the closest portion of the project site so it is highly unlikely it could have caused any contamination on the site. In addition, the 1999 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) the only contamination of the site by hazardous materials was from farm vehicle maintenance and related leaks and spills, and these areas are not within 2 miles of the airport. Comment 6: Household hazardous waste management has not been addressed in the NOC for ' the final EIR. It is evident that the proposed project will increase household hazardous wastes. ' Response 6: Section 3.9 of the DEIR does address potential impacts of household hazardous wastes, and standard conditions of approval require new development to comply with established City programs that deal with these types of wastes. At this time, ' this is considered adequate mitigation for a standard suburban mixed use project as proposed. Comment 7: The NOC indicates that the project will include two schools. During the proposed school property acquisition and/or construction utilizing state funding, it should be in compliance with the Assembly Bill 387 (Wildman) and Senate Bill 162 (Escutia) which requires a comprehensive environmental review process and that DTSC's approval is required. DTSC's role in the assessment, investigation, and cleanup of proposed school sites is to ensure that the selected properties are free of contamination, and if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a level that is protective of the students and faculty who will occupy the new school. A study of the site is to be conducted to provide basic information for determining if there has been a release, or if there is a threatened release of a hazardous material including agricultural chemicals or if there may be a naturally occurring hazardous material present at the site, that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. Though the proposed daycare and preschool construction may not be using state fund, the purpose of the bill is to protect the children who will be attending this school. Therefore, proper environmental studies should be conducted. to ensure that a threat to the school/day care children's health and the environment does not exist at the site. Response 7: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), has indicated they are aware of these requirements, and is FINAL Environmental Impact Report 90 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR already in the process of conducting the appropriate school site evaluations in cooperation with the Department of Education. He also indicated the TVUSD ' has already started the appropriate hazmat processes through the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). ' Comment 8: The NOC indicates that due to prior agriculture use of the project site, onsite soils could contain pesticide residue. Therefore, the site may have contributed to the ' soil and groundwater contamination. Proper investigation and remedial actions should be conducted at the site prior to the new development. ' Response 8: A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the entire site in 1999 by Gradient Engineering in support of the proposed development of the site. A copy of this report was included in the appendices of the 2nd Revised ' DEIR. The ESA indicated that there were no significant levels of agricultural chemicals in the soils or groundwater underlying the site, and there are no indications that previous dry farming used significant amounts of chemicals. Comment 9: An environmental assessment should be conducted at the site to evaluate whether the site is contaminated with hazardous substances from the potential past and ' current uses including storage, transport, generation, and disposal of toxic and hazardous waste/materials. Potential hazard to the public or the environment through routine transportation, use, disposal or release of hazardous materials ' should be discussed in the final EIR. Response 9: A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the entire site in 1999 in support of proposed development. This ESA indicated that there were no significant levels of agricultural chemicals on the site. However, the ESA did ' find several small locations in Planning Areas 10 through 13 that were contaminated by waste oil and minor spills of vehicle maintenance fuels and fluids. This information was summarized in Appendix J of the 2nd Revised ' DEIR. These areas will be remediated (i.e., cleaned) in cooperation with the appropriate agencies and according to applicable regulations, as outlined in Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 through 3.9-5 in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in 1 Appendix D of this document. In addition, Section 3.9 of the DEIR did evaluate potential impacts related to the transport, disposal, or release of hazardous materials associated with the project, including the results of the Phase I ESA ' report. Comment 10: The NOC shows that a hazard impact is expected, therefore, the potential exists t for the inadvertent release of hazardous materials from the future uses, transport, and storage of hazardous material. It should be addressed in detail in the final EIR. ' Response 10: Section 3.9 of the DEIR did evaluate potential impacts related to the transport, ' disposal, or release of hazardous materials associated with the project. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 91 ' September 26, 2001 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Comment 11: The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain ' areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose them rather than placing them in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) are applicable to these soils. ' Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. ' Response 11: Remediation activities will be coordinated with the appropriate County and State ' agencies. Excavation of contaminated areas will be monitored by trained inspectors, and any contaminated soils will be disposed of properly, as required by standard conditions of approval and existing state regulations. However, the ' Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report will address these activities to assure proper cleanup of contaminated areas not yet remediated. Comment 12: The NOC shows that significant hazard to the public is expected with future uses of the site, therefore, potential uses and storage of hazardous materials at the site should be addressed in the final EIR. Remember to obtain a hazardous materials storage permit from an appropriate regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to regulate hazardous substances handling, storage, treatment and/or disposal. Contact the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to evaluate the permit ' requirements. Include that information in the final EIR Response 12: Section 3.9 of the DEIR evaluated potential impacts related to the transport, disposal, or release of hazardous materials associated with the project, and determined they were not significant. If necessary, the project developer will obtain a hazardous materials storage permit from an appropriate regulatory ' agency. This will be added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D. ' In addition, the developer and/or City shall contact the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to evaluate its permitting requirements prior to issuance of any ' building permits. This will also be added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D. ' Comment 13: Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction should be remediated in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment should be ' conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at the site. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the general extent of the contamination. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat to public ' health and/or the environment posed by the site. It is necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If it is not an immediate threat, final remedy FINAL Environmental Impact Report 92 September 26, 2002 I 1 1 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any assessments. Response 13: According to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project, the site contains only minor areas of contamination. Construction or occupancy of the project is not expected to cause the release of any hazardous materials or wastes. These potential impacts were evaluated in Section 3.9 of the DEIR on Hazards. Some areas of minor contamination were found in Planning Areas 10 through 13, but there is no indication of any significant contamination on the project site. All remedial actions will be conducted in cooperation with responsible agencies. If any other contamination is found during grading, it will be remediated by trained personnel under the supervision of appropriate agency staff. This will be added to the Mitigation. Monitoring Plan Report in Appendix D. Comment 14: The NOC does not indicate whether any schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. If there exists any schools, then human health and the environment of students and faculty members should be protected during the construction or cleanup activities. A study of the site is to be conducted to provide basic information for determining if there has been a release, or if there is a threatened release of a hazardous material including agricultural chemicals or if there may be a naturally occurring hazardous material present at the site, that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. Response 14: There are no schools within a quarter mile of the site, but there are two proposed school sites on the subject property. A complete Phase I ESA was conducted, and there are no indications that existing schools or area residents face any significant threat from potential contamination on the project site. Comment 15: A groundwater investigation may also be necessary based on the nature of onsite contaminants and the depth to the groundwater. Response 15: There are no indications of soil or groundwater contamination, and the depth to groundwater exceeds 25 feet except immediately adjacent to the creeks during periods of storm flow. Such a study was not required or requested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is the resource agency charged with protecting local water quality (see the following Letter B-5 for more information in this regard). Comment 16: If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the final EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 93 September 26, 2002 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 16: Implementation of the project will adhere to established regulations regarding hazardous materials should any be discovered during excavation or construction of the project as well as remediation of identified areas of contamination. The developer shall halt all grading activities if evidence of such contamination is found. It would be highly speculative and beyond the scope of this EIR to try to identify remediation that might be required until it was known what materials, if any, required remediation. If any contamination is found, the developer shall retain qualified hazmat personnel to determine the most appropriate investigational techniques to adequately characterize the potential contamination. Although this would normally be accomodated by compliance with existing regulations, it will be added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report in Apendix D. Comment 17: DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484- 5479. Response 17: Comment noted. The developer will contact this group prior to grading. B-5 Letter from John Robertus, Executive Director, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, dated July 10, 2001. Comment 1: The primary concerns and mandates of the RWQCB are the protection of water quality standards; these include numeric and narrative water quality criteria; beneficial uses; and the State's anti -degradation policy. Water quality criteria for inland surface waters are identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). The anti -degradation policy states that any water quality degradation will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State; will not unreasonably affect existing and potential beneficial uses of such waters; and will not result in water quality less than described in the Basin Plan. Response 1: The proposed project is not expected to degrade local or regional water quality, and the proposed flood control improvements on Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash are expected to help maintain or improve water quality within and immediately downstream of the project site. All of the undisturbed portion of the Santa Gertrudis Creek within the project boundary will be preserved as permanent open space as part of the AD 161 Sub -regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Approximately 10.2 acres of the disturbed portion of the creek will be restored as onsite mitigation as part of the project's Clean Water Act Section 404 permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (PN #199915459-RRS). In addition, the Long Valley Wash channel will be widened and improved. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 94 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Both channels will have flow-by/detention basins that will allow continued ' downstream transport of sediments, as directed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Riverside County Flood Control District. Downstream properties will also be protected from potential erosion that could result from these ' improvements. The City and the County Flood Control District will review and approve these facilities. Upon approval, a copy of the joint Drainage Management Plan for both channels will also be sent to the Regional Water ' Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for its files (see Mitigation Measure 1 in Section 3.4.6 of the 2nd Revised DEIR). A copy of the project's Water Quality ' Management Plan will also be forwarded to the RWQCB for review prior to issuance of a grading permit. ' The project has already submitted a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification application with the RWQCB pending approval of the project's EIR. These various improvements will prevent deterioration of downstream water quality, ' and will also help control urban runoff and augment percolation of surface waters into the local groundwater basin by expanding Long Valley Wash and creating new detention basins on it and Santa Gertrudis Creek. Comment 2: Implementation of the proposed project will require section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. To obtain certification, the project must be conducted in such a way as to protect water quality and beneficial uses associated with Long Valley and Santa Gertrudis Creeks and their tributaries. Beneficial uses include Contact and Non -contact water recreation (RECI and REC2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), and Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD). Based upon review of the submitted DEIR, staff would recommend denial of 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed project for the reasons discussed below. Response 2: The project has already submitted a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification application with the RWQCB as part of a CWA Section 404 Permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pending approval of the project's EIR. The "lower" portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek (i.e., below Butterfield Stage Road) is totally intermittent and does not contain any surface water environment. However, the "upper" portion of the channel does contain at least one identifiable impoundment just east of Butterfield Stage Road, at the confluence of a small drainage identified in the Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA 2000). This area does support freshwater habitat, but does not contain water other than during or immediately after major storm events (i.e., it is also intermittent). Long Valley Wash, by comparison, is extensively disturbed and does not contain any significant riparian or freshwater habitat either on or adjacent to the project site (both upstream or downstream). According to the Environmental Assessment prepared for the AD 161 Sub -regional Habitat Conservation Plan, the significant habitat areas of FINAL Environmental Impact Report 95 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Santa Gertrudis Creek are being preserved under this plan, while the Long Valley Wash was not considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game as containing significant biological habitat. Comment 3: The DEIR provides little information on the proposed impacts to water quality that will result from urban development. The document states that the project will contribute to pollution and degradation of the streams onsite, but fails to identify expected pollutants, Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to reduce pollutants below a level of concern, and mitigation measures. The project does propose the creation of four detention basins, but states that these are for flood control purposes. No information on the type of basins was provided to demonstrate how these basins are intended to treat urban pollutants. Furthermore, the basins are proposed to be created in the existing streams. This will significantly alter stream functions; changing a riverine system to that of a pond. This type of conversion will result in impacts to water quality and beneficial uses (e.g., change in plant communities, flow regime) and would not be authorized through the 401 process. Detention basins need to be located outside of the stream, in an upland area where they can trap urban runoff before it enters the existing creeks. Response 3: Section 3.4, Water Resources, sub -section 3.4.3 (b), of the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised EIR, both discuss water quality impacts of the project (i.e., urban runoff) and gives examples of the types of pollutants expected (e.g., oil, tire rubber, fertilizers, etc.). As outlined in Section 3.4.4., Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes, the project will comply with the NPDES program through the implementation of BMPs. The project will also have to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) report to control construction runoff. The 2nd Revised DEIR also states the project will comply with RWQCB requirements in terms of Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification, as outlined in the previous Response 3. Darlene Shelley, with Glenn Lukos Associates, has indicated that Robert Smith with the Army Corps does not consider this project to be harmful to water quality or beneficial uses in this portion of the creek (D. Shelley, July 2001). Finally, the project will submit a Water Quality Management Plan to the RWQCB for review prior to grading, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 9 on page 3-54 of the 2nd Revised DEIR. Comment 4: The project also proposes the channelization of Long Valley Creek, but provides no other information than to show it as a soft bottom channel. A May 12, 1999, comment letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District implies that the sides will be rip -rap. At a minimum, Long Valley Creek needs to have soft sides and bottom, be sized to allow conveyance of the 100 -year storm event when fully vegetated, and does not require periodic maintenance (e.g., mowing, clearing of a low flow channel). Channelization of creeks often result in (1) introduction of additional pollutant loads that are detrimental to water quality, (2) lack of capacity to accommodate natural vegetation growth, FINAL Environmental Impact Report 96 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR increased runoff due to development, and stormwater flows, (3) conversion of riparian habitat to freshwater marsh, (4) loss of buffering capacity, (5) potential for increased storm damage due to constriction of the flood plain, (6) loss of riparian habitat and associated loss of wildlife, (7) constriction of wildlife corridors, and (8) changes in hydrology, natural meanders, and sand deposition. Furthermore, diversity of in -stream habitat that supports WARM, COLD, and WILD beneficial uses will be lost because of the channelization. The RWQCB requires that every effort be made to keep Long Valley Creek as a functioning, self-sustaining ecosystem in its existing location where it still retains a natural floodplain and the necessary hydrologic soils. The channelized creek does not appear to have a floodplain or a natural meander pattern than will be supportive of the aforementioned beneficial uses. Also, a functioning stream has a wetland/upland transition zone that is not apparent along the creek banks. Response 4: The existing Long Valley channel onsite is severely disturbed and currently does not support any significant riparian growth within the project boundaries. This is because the channel is adjacent to areas that were historically used for agriculture. The existing channel is very narrow and shallow, with a very limited sandy wash. As a result, the channel does not support significant wildlife or wildlife movement, as indicated in the project biological report and as discussed in both the Revised DEIR and 2nd Revised DEIR (Section 3.8, Biological Resources). This is supported by the commentor's letter which states the "channelized creek does not appear to have a floodplain or a natural meander pattern than will be supportive of the aforementioned beneficial uses. Also, a functioning stream has a wetland/upland transition zone that is not apparent along the creek banks." Therefore, there does not appear to be any water -related habitat resources along this channel that require preservation. The Long Valley Wash channel is to be widened and rip -rap installed for flood control purposes, which is a long-standing requirement of the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. To provide flood control, the sides of the channel must be designed to protect the adjacent uses (i.e., middle school, community park, and homes). However, the bottom of the channel will be widened to over 200 feet, all of which will have a soft bottom. This design will allow for limited expansion of woody riparian habitat in the channel (D. Shelley, August 2001). The downstream end of this channel, adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road, will have a flow-by/detention basin that will be regularly maintained to provide flood control and help maintain water quality. It should be noted that Santa Gertrudis Creek to the north, which is in a much more undisturbed condition, will be maintained and enhanced for biological habitat as part of the AD 161 Sub - Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 97 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR A draft of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for this project were included in the appendices of the 2nd Revised DEIR. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan will be sent to the RWQCB-San Diego Region for review prior to the issuance of grading permits (see Mitigation Measure 9). Comment 5: Impacts to beneficial uses will also occur from the proposed channelization of the "center" portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek, the part that is immediately upstream of and passes under Butterfield Stage Road. The proposed improvements include a flow-by/detention basin just before the inlet to a large con -arch bridge structure under the roadway. This structure is large enough to allow connectivity between the upstream and downstream portions of the creek, and thereby help maintain the WARM and WILD beneficial uses. As stated in the document, Santa Gertrudis Creek is a significant wildlife corridor, but the proposed improvements will not significantly impair this function. Response 5: The lower portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek is not being eliminated, although the portion under and on either side of Butterfield Stage Road requires improvement to prevent continued downstream flooding and erosion. It is evident the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took wildlife movement as well as wildlife habitat into consideration in approving the AD 161 Sub -regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP), which includes the project site as proposed. In their Environmental Assessment for the AD 161 SHCP, the Service indicated that wildlife movement could continue if flood control structures were of sufficient size and limited length. The proposed flood control structures at Butterfield Stage Road include 800 feet of open channel and 300 feet of covered "con -arch" channel, with a minimum ceiling height of 14 feet. These facilities appear to be of sufficient size and length for wildlife tolerant of human activity, such as coyote, racoon, etc., to continue moving along Santa Gertrudis Creek. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is providing a Section 7 Consultation to the Corps on this project, including the design of flood control structures. In addition, wildlife can also move along the upper portion of the creek, then cross up the small drainages along the northern slopes of the channel, to move between the creek and the Skunk Hollow vernal pool area to the northwest. As previously stated, the Service took these factors into account when approving the AD 161 SHCP. Comment 6: The proposed box culverts at road crossings for both Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creeks will also negatively impact beneficial uses. The road crossings should be sized to allow for 100 -year flood event while minimizing the amount of hardscape (e.g., riprap) downstream of the crossing. In other words, the crossings should be as large as possible to accommodate beneficial uses and should not be sized based on water volume. Bridge crossings should be used instead of culverts to minimize impacts to the streams. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 98 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 6: The City and the applicant are currently negotiating the size and design of these structures. Instead of the previously proposed box structures in the Revised DEIR, a series of concrete arches approximately 14 feet high and 30 feet wide will be used on Long Valley Wash to provide flood control while allowing for continued wildlife movement. As explained in the previous Response 5, the Santa Gertrudis Creek facilities may limit but will not eliminate wildlife movement along the creek, although it will tend to favor small mammals tolerant. of human activity. Comment 7: The DEIR fails to identify mitigation measures other than deferring it to the permitting process and proposing some planting in the detention basins. The proposed "fringe" of riparian vegetation to be planted around the basins will not be acceptable as partial mitigation for the loss of 10.8 acres of waters of the U.S. Furthermore, the fact that permits are required does not relieve the DEIR from the responsibility of identifying mitigation. The document needs to identify onsite opportunities for mitigation, the type of mitigation (e.g., plant community, creation, restoration), and the rationale for expected success. Mitigation not only needs to consider acres and plant community, but also lost functions. Response 7: According to the Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 applications for this project, approximately 0.6 acres of wetland and 3.4 acres of riparian habitat will be created or rehabilitated as part of this project (D. Shelley, GLA, July 2001). Both the AD 161 SHCP and the 404 permit for this site provide for mitigation of habitat loss as well as function. These resources are being replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For additional information, the reader should refer to Comment/Response 2 in the letter from the California Department of Fish and Game later in this document (Letter B-6). A copy of the Jurisdictional Delineation for the site is also included in Appendix C of this document. Comment 8: Alternatives selected for the alternative analysis are inadequate. It appears that the alternatives only address changes in density and not changes in impact footprints. At a minimum, alternatives that avoid channelization, minimize road crossings, and preserve all of Santa Gertrudis Creek need to be prepared and evaluated. Response 8: The alternatives are not inadequate from a CEQA perspective, as they attempt to reduce or eliminate significant impacts of the project. The AD 161 SHCP is already in place, and the project will be submitting a certification package to support a CWA Section 404 permit, which includes a federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed land plan does minimize channelization and road crossings of Santa Gertrudis Creek, the primary biological resource in this area and provides additional creation of wetlands and enhancement of existing habitats as mitigation for water of the U.S. and state impacts. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 99 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 9: Significant impacts to water quality and beneficial uses will result from the proposed project. The DEIR fails to identify urban pollutants and BMPs, ' provides no rationale for the proposed channelization of Long Valley Creek, fails to fully identify impacts and mitigation measures, and fails to identify and analyze alternatives that will avoid and reduce impacts to waters of the U.S. ' Based on the project description in the DEIR and the expected impacts, staff will recommend denial of 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed project. Response 9: These issues are addressed separately in the previous Responses 2 through 8. The project has been designed to be sensitive to important biological resources in the ' area, as evidenced by its compliance with the AD 161 SHCP, through ongoing negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Comment 10: If you have any questions concerning the issues raised above, please contact Ms. Stacey Baczkowski of my staff at 858-637-5594. Response 10: Comment noted B-6 Letter from Jeff Drongesen, ES IV Supervisor, with the California Department of Fish and Game dated July 26, 2001 Comment 1: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed development project consisting of 1,286 single-family dwelling units, 435 multi -family units, 190,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, two schools, 23.6 acres of parks, and 255 acres of flood control and open space on 819.7 acres in western Riverside County. The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Game Code section 711.7 and 1802 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15386) and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (State CEQA Guidelines section 15381). On July 16, 1999 the Department submitted a letter in response to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Subsequently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved the final Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for the County's Assessment District 161 (AD 161). The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan a signatory to that Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) has made modifications in its proposed development in conformance with United States Fish and Wildlife recommendations. In particular, the applicants reduced the number of units from 2,058 to 1,721, helped fund an underpass at Butterfield Stage Road, eliminated impacts from the proposed development on the Skunk Hollow vernal pool, and provided mitigation FINAL Environmental Impact Report 100 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR for impacts to gnatcatchers and gnatcatcher habitat. The AD 161 SHCP includes provisions for setting aside 1,400 acres of sage scrub and related habitat, including 201 acres on the Roripaugh site and management for the conserved habitat. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: The project applicants have provided mitigation for impacts to sensitive biological resources, however have not provided impacts to streams and associated habitat jurisdictional to the Department. Under Section 1600 et seq of the Fish and Game Code, the Department requires the project applicant to notify the Department of any activity that will divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or the bed, channel, or bank (which includes associated riparian resources) of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed prior to the applicant's commencement of the activity. Streams include, but are not limited to, intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue -line streams, and watercourses with subsurface flow. The Department's issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the local jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative Declaration or FIR for the project. However, if the CEQA document does not fully identify potential impacts to lakes, streams, and associated resources (including, but not limited to, riparian and alluvial fan sage scrub habitat) and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments, additional CEQA documentation will be required prior to execution (signing) of the Streambed Alteration Agreement. In order to avoid delays or repetition of the CEQA process, potential impacts to a lake or stream, as well as avoidance and mitigation measures need to be discussed within the CEQA document. The Department recommends the following measures to avoid subsequent CEQA documentation and project delays: Incorporate all information regarding impacts to lakes, streams and associated habitat within the DEIR. Information that needs to be included within this document includes: (a) a delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project; (b) details on the biological resources (flora and fauna) associated with the lakes and/or streams; (c) identification of the presence or absence of sensitive plants, animals, or natural communities; (d) a discussion of environmental alternatives; (e) a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and (f) a discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance. The applicant and lead agency should keep in mind that the State also has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 101 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 2: Section 3.7 of the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR contain all the information requested by the commentator. A complete jurisdictional delineation of the site was conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) in 1999, and a copy of that report is included in Appendix C of this document. Existing vegetation is described in this section, including a tabular summary of vegetion by type and acreage, including both onsite drainages (Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash). Listed or otherwise sensitive plant and animal species are decribed on pages 3-108 to 3-110. Impacts to vegetation are delineated in Table 3.7-4 which summarizes the type of vegetation lost by acres, as shown below: Veeetation Type ExistinH Removed Preserved Sage Scrub 165.3 87.1 78.2 Transitional 58.6 43.5 15.1 Grassland 24.9 23.2 1.7 Riparian (total) 24.6 9.9 14.7 Alluvial Fan Scrub 16.9 8.2 8.7 Mulefat Scrub 0.2 0.2 0.0 Riparian Scrub 5.1 1.3 3.8 Riparian Woodland 0.1 0.0 0.1 Sandy Wash 3.3 1.1 2.2 Pond 0.05 0.05 0.0 Other* 537.5 505.5 32.0 TOTAL 819.7 679.7 140.0 * includes ruderal (weedy), agriculture (452 acres), and graded/developed Alternatives were discussed in Section 7.0 of the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR. No specific alternative dealing with biological resources was developed or analyzed since Section 3.7 of the DEIR concluded there were no significant impacts to biological resources with the project as proposed and with the proposed mitigation measures. In fact, the mitigation measures in that section specifically require a Streambed Alteration Agreement with Fish and Game subject to the impacts identified in the DEIR. GLA is presently preparing a federal CWA 404 permit though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be submitting a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) through the California Department of Fish and Game. Darlene Shelley with GLA has indicated she is currently working with Robert Smith with the Corps on this application. According to Ms. Shelley, the project will remove 3.4 acres of riparian land under the jurisdiction of Fish and Game. This is FINAL Environmental Impact Report 102 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' proposed to be mitigated by replacement of 10.2 acres of new riparian habitat. The City understands the State has a policy of "no net loss" of wetlands, and this project provides 2:1 mitigation for removal of 0.6 acres of land classified as wetlands (1.2 acres new provided). Ms. Shelley also indicated she will be coordinating the 1603 application with Juan Hernandez with Fish and Game as ' .soon as possible. A copy of the GLA Jurisdictional Delineation is included in Appendix C at the end of this document. Comment 3: (2) Include in the DEIR a discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. The Department recommends that the project applicant and/or lead agency consult with the Department to discuss potential project impacts and avoidance and mitigation measures. Early consultation with the Department is ' recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Pre -project meetings are held every Monday at the Department's Chino Hills office. To schedule a pre - project meeting or to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification package, please call (562) 590-5880. Response 3: Darlene Shelley with Glenn Lukos Associates indicated she will be working with Juan Hernandez at Fish and Game on the 1603 SAA for this project. Section 3.4 of the Revised DEER and the 2nd Revised DEIR (Water Resources) contain all the information requested by the commentator. They addressed potential impacts related to increased runoff, erosion, and urban pollution. The mitigation measures in those sections also require preparation of several design studies to assure that no downstream properties are affected by runoff or erosion. A Water Quality Management Plan will also be prepared and submitted to the RWQCB- San Diego Region for review prior to grading. These requirements were based in part on detailed hydrological studies prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. and David Evans and Associates in support of this project. Comment 4: The formulation and approval of the AD 161 Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan is a successful example of a cooperative effort between the County, landowners, consultants and resource agencies to devise solutions to a complex and difficult land use problem. The Department would like to express appreciation to the project applicants for participating in the Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Robin Maloney-Rames, ES III, at (714) 817-0585. Response 4: Comment noted. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 103 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 C. LETTERS FROM REGIONAL AGENCIES (4) ' C-1 Letter from Jeffrey Smith, AICP, Senior Planner, Intergovernmental Review, with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) dated July 11, 2001. ** This letter duplicates the one submitted on the 2nd Revised DEIR so it has been omitted ** ' C-2 Letter from Steve Smith, Ph.D., Program Supervisor, CEQA Section, with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated July 12, 2001. Comment 1: Air Quality Data: Table 3.6-2 on page 3-88 of the DEIR shows air quality data ' for the Perris Monitoring Station from 1992 through 1997. The AQMD recommends that air quality data for the three most recent years be presented in order to show the most recent trends in air quality for the project area. Please ' note that the air quality data for 1998, 1999 and 2000 for the air monitoring station are available and are attached. Response 1: The updated historical air quality data provided by the AQMD is hereby incorporated into the 2nd Revised DEIR. However, it does not change the ' conclusions of the DEIR regarding impact significance or mitigation measures. This data is provided in Appendix B of this document along with the comment letter from the AQMD. ' Comment 2: The MAAQI Model: According to the discussion on page 3-94 of the DEIR, the SCAQMD MAAQI Model was used in estimating the project's operational ' emissions shown in Table 3.64. Please note that although the MAAQI model was developed by the AQMD, the AQMD no longer supports the use of this model in estimating project emissions. This is because mobile source emission factors used in the model are from an older version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFAC model. The current version is EMFAC2000. Furthermore, the trip generation rates used in the model are from an older version ' (fifth) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The current version is the Sixth. For the final EIR, it is recommended that the lead agency use the calculation methodologies in Chapter 9 and the Appendix to Chapter 9 in the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) to calculate project emissions. Alternatively, the lead agency may use the CARB approved computer model URBEMIS7G in calculating both construction as well as operational emissions. The URBEMIS7G model can be obtained from the ARB web page: www.arb.ca.gov/urbemis7/urbemis7.html. Other methodologies can be used as long as documentation is provided regarding the source and applicability to the project. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 104 September 11, 1112 I 1 I [] [1 I C RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 2: Giroux and Associates, the project air quality consultant, reviewed these comments and provided an updated computer emission run which was incorporated into the 2nd Revised DEIR. This updated methodology provides more current emission estimates and shows that project emissions will be essentially equivalent to those esimated in Section 3.6 of the Revised DEIR. Therefore, the updated data from newer methodology does not change the overall conclusions of the previous Revised DEIR and the current 2nd Revised DEIR in that short-term construction as well as long-term occupancy emissions will both exceed AQMD and CEQA thresholds. Both are still considered significant, even with proposed mitigation. Comment 3: Reducing PM 10 Emissions: It is observed on page 3-91 of the DEIR that even with the implementation of a dust control program achieving an 80 percent control efficiency, PM10 construction emissions will still exceed the significance threshold of 150 pounds per day. It is recommended that to further reduce the daily PM10 emissions, the lead agency should include a mitigation measure requiring that no more than five acres of land be graded daily. Response 3: Due to the topography of the site, it must be mass graded to allow for effective transfer of cut and fill throughout the site as needed. Otherwise, project grading would require considerable export or import from offsite, which would significantly increase construction emissions from vehicular exhaust. This recommended mitigation measure is therefore infeasible for this project. It should be noted that this section of the DEIR concludes that dust emissions from grading (not construction) far exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds. For additional information, see Response 5 in this letter. Comment 4: Dust Control Plan: Relative to comment #3, in the last paragraph on page 3-91 of the DEIR, the lead agency identifies a number of dust control measures that can achieve a dust control efficiency of up to 80 percent, yet none of these measures are included as part of the mitigation measures in Section 3.6.6. It is recommended that the dust control measures be included as part of mitigation measure #1, the dust control plan. Response 4: The 2nd Revised DEIR states that the Dust Control Plan outlined in Mitigation Measure 1 in Section 3.6.6 (page 3-114) contains, but is not limited to, the specified items (a) though (d). The 2nd Revised DEIR states the DCP will be consistent with SCAQMD guidelines, and can include the other items indicated (i.e., chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces, adding chemical binders or surfactants to the water, etc.). At the request of the AQMD, these will be added to the mitigation monitoring program. Comment 5: Construction Emissions: Please delete the following sentence in the second paragraph on page 3-91 of the DEIR, 'Because of their temporary nature, air quality impacts from construction have often been considered as individually less FINAL Environmental Impact Report 105 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR than significant." The SCAQMD strongly disagrees with this statement. Nonattainment designations are based on daily exceedances of the ambient air quality standards, so it is irrelevant if the emissions are short- or long-term if they contribute to or cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard. ' Response 5: Comment noted. This statement was subsequently removed from the 2nd Revised DEIR text. Comment 6: Other Mitigation Measures: Since NOx operational emissions will exceed the significance threshold even after the implementation of the proposed measures, it 1 is recommended that the lead agency consider the following mitigation measures for inclusion in the project's mitigation program: Use alternative clean fuel (e.g., compressed natural gas -powered ) construction equipment. Alternatively, if ' diesel equipment is being used, require use of particulate filters and low sulfur diesel, as defined in Rule 431.2, i.e., less than 15 ppm sulfur content. ' Response 6: Mitigation Measure 2 in the Air Quality Section (3.6) of the 2nd Revised DEIR already includes these alternative fuel requirements. ' Comment 7: Editorial Corrections: (a) On page 3-89 of the DEIR, reference is made to Appendix I of the State CEQA Guidelines in the discussion on CEQA significance thresholds. This reference does not seem to be correct since Appendix I in the State CEQA Guidelines has to do with Notice of Preparation for environmental documents. Please give the correct reference in the final EIR. (b) On page 3-90 of the DEIR, reference is made to Appendix E in connection ' with the air quality study done by Giroux and Associates. Please note that the air quality study report is in Appendix F and not Appendix E. (c) The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was released in 1993 as correctly noted on page 3- 89 and not in 1994 as stated on page 3-90 of the DEIR. (d) Finally, at the bottom of page 3-98, there is an incorrect reference to SCAQMD Rule 403.2. The correct ' reference is Rule 403. Please correct these in the final EIR. Response 7: Comments noted. The various checklist questions in State CEQA Guidelines ' Appendix I were used as a basis for the significance thresholds for this document. Without more stingent local guidelines, these "questions" are typically used in EIRs as significance criteria, as they are in this 2nd Revised DEIR. The other ' corrections have been included in the 2nd Revised DEIR text. C-3 Letter from John DeWitt, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company, dated July 2, 2001. ** This letter duplicates one submitted on the 2nd Revised DEIR so it has been omitted ** FINAL Environmental Impact Report 106 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR C-4 Letter from Laura Simonek, Principal Environmental Specialist, with the ' Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, dated July 25, 2001 Comment 1: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has ' reviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The original DEIR, circulated in 1999, proposed thedevelopment of 788 acres of land in the City of Temecula. The current ' project site occupies 819.7 acres and proposes 1,721 residential units with a gross density of 2.1 units/acre and a net density of 4.06 units/acre. The project ' includes 1,286 detached single family units, 435 multi -family units, 21.3 acres (190,000 square feet) of commercial, office, and institutional uses, a 12 -acre elementary school site, a 20 -acre middle schools site, a 3 -acre neighborhood park, ' a 20.6 acre community park with lighted athletic fields, 255 acres of flood control and open space uses, and a fire station. The following is our response as an affected public agency. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: Background - The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) was formed in 1928 under an enabling Act of the California Legislature. Metropolitan provides supplemental water to the southern California. coastal plain to augment local water supplies developed by surface catchment, groundwater production and wastewater reclamation. Metropolitan receives water from the State Water Project (SWP) and from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct. This supplemental water is delivered to 27 Metropolitan member agencies through a regional network of canals, pipelines, reservoirs, treatment plants, and appurtenant facilities. The member agencies serve approximately 17 million people living within a 5,200 -square -mile area. Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: Specific Comments - Figure I-1(Related Area Projects), Figure 2-2 (Project Vicinity Map), and Figure 2-3 (Proposed Land Use Plan): These figures need to be revised to indicated that Metropolitan's right-of-way for the Second San Diego Aqueduct (San Diego Pipeline Nos. 2, 4, and 5) is not part of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Response 3: Comment noted. Consider this data incorporated into the 2nd Revised DEIR. Comment 4: Introduction, Page 1-6: Section 1.7 Additional Environmental Documentation should read - Further North of the proposed project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has certified an EIR and is currently in construction of a bypass pipeline to convert the existing San Diego Pipeline No. 3 from a raw water... FINAL Environmental Impact Report 107 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response 4: 'Comment noted.. Consider this data incorporated into the 2nd Revised DEIR. Comment 5: Project Description, Page 2-22: Section 2.9 Intended Use of the EIR - We need to reiterate that this Section should show an item that states; "Consideration and approval by Metropolitan where Metropolitan's existing fee property or easements are crossed or encroached upon (e.g., drainage facilities, water lines, utilities, traffic, etc.)." Response 5: Comment noted. These concerns have been addressed by Mitigation Measure 3 in the 2nd Revised DEIR (page 3-53). Comment 6: Various mapping within document: MWD's right-of-way is indicated as a "70' MWD Fee ESMT" and a "50' MWD ESMT", presumably where "ESMT" means easement. The 70' width should be referred to as "fee property", rather than easement; easement implies that there is an underlying- owner and we have an easement over that land. Response 6: Comment noted. These changes were made in the 2nd Revised DEIR document and figures. Comment 7: Water Resources, Section 3.4: It appears that Figure 3.4-3 shows a slight reduction in 100 -year hydrology due to the construction of new drainage facilities onsite, particularly those between Nicolas Road and Calle Chapos. However, the plan does not address the potential increase in downstream velocity created by constricting the outlet flows through a 10 -foot by 10 -foot box culvert (south of Nicolas Road) and (3) 10 -feet by 6 -feet reinforced concrete box culverts north of Calle Chapos. This increased downstream velocity would have impacts to Metropolitan's facilities (i.e., increased erosion over San Diego Pipelines Nos. 3, 4, and 5) and therefore needs to be addressed. Response 7: The design of the proposed flood control facilities on both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash was changed substantially from the Revised DEIR to the 2nd Revised DEIR. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.4 of the 2nd Revised DEIR on Water Resources clearly states that design studies and facilities for flood control for the project must not increase flooding or erosion on downstream properties. The new 2nd Revised DEIR fully addresses these concerns. Comment 8: Transportation and Circulation, Section 3.5: In the last paragraph, first sentence, "A regional trail is also planned along the MWD easement and adjacent to the Panhandle and Village Core areas." In additions, Figure 3.5-9 (Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan) and Figure 3.11-3 (Conceptual Open Space & Recreational Master Plan) show the proposed regional trail clearly within Metropolitan's existing right-of-way. Metropolitan's property is not part of the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 108 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and hence reference to a regional trial on Metropolitan's property must be deleted. Response 8: This statement in both the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR reflects the City's new "Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, adopted in January of 2002, which shows a regional trail is eventually planned along this right-of-way. However, such a trail is not proposed at this time as part of this project. The commentator is correct that neither the City nor the project applicant own this property, and the discussion of trails in the 2nd Revised DEIR reflects this condition. Comment 9: Biological Resources, Section 3.7: Roripaugh Ranch will need to obtain all regulatory approvals, permits, and appropriate mitigation associated with any potential take of sensitive biological resources by the proposed project within Metropolitan's right-of-way, while coordinating with Metropolitan's Substructures Department regarding engineering/construction activities through Metropolitan's right-of-way. As applicable to Metropolitan's right-of-way, Roripaugh Ranch and Metropolitan may need to coordinate jointly with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Access on Metropolitan property for any environmental studies will also need to be coordinated with Metropolitan. Response 9: The issue of permits, regulatory approvals, etc. are addressed in Section 3.7 of the DEIR on Biological Resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 3.4, Water Resources, in the 2nd Revised DEIR was added to address these specific concerns regarding MWD property. Comment 10: Figure 3.11-4 (Area Wide Open Space Concept Plan): This figure erroneously conveys a broad range of open space for Johnson Ranch and Lake Skinner for use by wildlife. It does not show Metropolitan's properties, facilities, and operational areas, which are excluded from open space requirements. (See Attached Map). Response 10: This map was developed based on discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the County of Riverside's multi -species habitat conservation plan that is part of their new Integrated Plan (i.e., updated General Plan). The map was not intended to show ownership or specific facilities but rather the concept of preserving a broad corridor for biological habitat and wildlife movement that would eventually connect Skunk Hollow with Diamond Valley Lake (Eastside Reservoir). Comment 11: Metropolitan responded to the original EIR in July of 1999. As indicated in our pervious correspondence, Metropolitan requests that the City analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the growth management plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Metropolitan uses SCAG's population, housing, and employment projections to determine future FINAL Environmental Impact Report 109 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR water demand. Development above these forecast provisions may increase demand on Metropolitan's resources and facilities beyond that anticipated. Response 11: These issues are analyzed in Section 4.0 of the 2nd Revised DEIR entitled "General Plan and WRCOG Consistency." In addition, these specific concerns are addressed in the responses to the Revised DEIR comment letter submitted by the Southern California Association of Governments (Letter C-1) in this document. Comment 12: Additionally, Metropolitan encourages projects within its service area to include water conservation measures. While Metropolitan continues to build new supplies and develop means for more efficient use of current resources, projected population and economic growth will increase demands on the current system. Water conservation, reclaimed water use, and groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using water efficient fixtures, drought -tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the proposed project. Response 12: These issues are addressed in some detail in Section 3.4 on Water Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities in the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR. Water conservation devices will be installed as required. Reclaimed water is not currently available to this area, however, City staff is requiring the developer to install a reclaimed water pipe system for the 2 public park sites, the 2 private recreational facilities, and all common landscaped areas to take advantage of reclaimed water when it is eventually made available to this area. Comment 13: Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. If you have questions regarding this letter, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 217-6242. Response 13: Comment noted. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 110 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR D. LETTERS FROM COUNTY AGENCIES (1) D-1 Letter from Keith Downs with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) dated July l2, 2001. 1 Comment 1: D.E.LR. Table ES -1, The term 'Master Plan' is utilized here and throughout the document when the document is actually the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Referencing the Airport C.L.U.P. as 1 F.V.A :CLUP will suffice. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: Page 1-13 through 1-16. The current Subdivision and Development Codes for Temecula are not consistent with the C.L.U.P. and therefore, should not overrule ' the S.P. which needs to be consistent. The City Codes need to reflect the C.L.U.P's requirements for avigation easements, height and lighting limits. Response 2: Section 3.9 of both the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR does discuss the need for avigation easements, height, and lighting limits. These limits have been incorporated into Mitigation Measures I through 5 in Section 3.1 (Land Use). Comment 3: SP Section 2.7. The middle school is a 'discouraged use' from the perspective of the C.L.U.P. and the text marked to indicate. It is preferable to move the site eastward from the site. ' Response 3: The previous project analyzed in the Revised DEIR proposed an elementary school in the panhandle area (now called the "Plateau" area). On August 2, 2001, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) met and supported staff's ' recommendation (i.e., determined the school was a discouraged use). The plan that was analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR was changed and the elementary school was moved out of the Plateau area to a site east of Butterfield Stage Road, outside of the airport influence area. The revised plan analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR was heard by ALUC on June 20, 2002. At that hearing, ALUC approved the portion. of the Roripaugh project within the influence area of the French Valley Airport (i.e., the "Plateau" area) subject to Conditions of Approval which have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Appendix D of this document. Comment 4: SP Page 2-43. Any ballfield lighting in P.A. 5 is problematic from the height and glare, and would be more appropriately restricted to P.A. 24. ' Response 4: The neighborhood park and the two private recreational facilities will not have any buildings taller than the planned homes (35 feet maximum), or any ballfield FINAL Environmental Impact Report 111 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR lighting, and the height of facilities will be kept at or below that allowed under the C.L.U.P. Comment 5: SP Page 3-13 Planning Area 5. The lighting facilities for the park and/or school can be a hazard for navigation. Response 5: As stated in Response 6, The neighborhood park will not have any large buildings or lighted ballfields, but will have security lighting. Any park facilities constructed in the panhandle area will meet C.L.U.P. height and lighting limitations, as outlined in the mitigation monitoring plan. As discussed in Comment/Response 3, the elementary school was moved out of this area, and the revised land plan was heard and approved by ALUC on June 20, 2002. The ALUC Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan of this Final EIR, as shown in Appendix D of this document. Comment 6: SP 3.1. Areas 1,2,3,4,7,8,9. Add Plan Standards regarding: 1) Avigation Easements; 2) Height limit in accordance with Part 77; 3) Lighting standards to 1 contain lighting to below horizontal plane; 4) Electrical influence with navigation devices; and 5) The preclusion of schools for these areas. Response 6: The new Specific Plan has been modified to address these concerns. ' Comment 7: SP 4.13 P.A. 5. Again, these uses should be precluded: 1) stadiums; 2) amphitheaters; 3) lighted ballfields; and 4) churches. ' Response 7: The latest Specific Plan has been modified to address this concern. Comment 8: 6-14. In 6.3-4.B. Uses 1.3. and 4 would likely be inconsistent with the. C.L.U.P. and should be deleted from the following P.A.s 1,2,3,4,7,8 and a portion of 9. The text on Page 7.4 of C,L,U.P. Notes A.B. 14 (Attached) must be included. Response 8: These comments apply to the Specific Plan, and the latest version of the Specific Plan was modified to address this concern. Comment 9: The following uses shall be prohibited: (1) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. (2) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 112 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR (3) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. ' (4) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be deterimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. Response 9: The latest Specific Plan was modified to address these concerns, and these items have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Appendix D of ' this document. Comment 10: 6-15. 6.3.4.D. Lot coverage standards in the T.P.Z. are 50% of the gross and 65% ' of the net. Add this to areas 1,2,3,4,7,8 and 9. Response 10: DEIR were modified to address this concern. Comment 11: E.I.R. The added discussion of noise and safety hazards regarding the airport have addressed the issues, but the recommendation needs to include a technical standard for the windows such as a minimum STC rating Response 11: Mitigation Measure 6 on page 3-165 of the 2nd Revised DEIR recommends an STC rating of 25 or higher on all windows in the Plateau area. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 113 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR E. LETTERS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES (3) E-1 Letter from James Miller, Development Services Director, with the City of Murrieta, dated July 17, 2001. Comment 1: The following comments are submitted for consideration in opposition to approval of the above -referenced project. The City of Murrieta's review of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and draft EIR finds it lacking in two crucial areas. First, it is understood that the City of Temecula's proposed plan for the subject 820 acres located at the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road easterly of SR - 79 calls for 1721 dwelling units plus commercial retail, office and school uses. Further that the resultant total project trip generation is 28,165 trip ends daily. While the report recognizes the importance of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road linkage from the 1-215 interchange to the project from transportation perspective, it does not include the Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive intersection. From a traffic capacity viewpoint this is the most critical intersection in Murrieta in relation to traffic generated by the project. The impact to this intersection, as well as how the mitigation measures will be funded, should be included in the analysis. Response 1: Upon preliminary review of the project, the City Traffic Engineer selected the intersections identified in the project traffic report for detailed study. While it did examine the impacts at the I-215 at Murrieta Hot Springs Drive, the study did not specifically address the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive. This intersection was not identified by the City of Murrieta as a concern during the scoping process for this EIR Comment 2: The projected growth rate for Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the subject EIR is significantly low compared to the measured four (4) years 1998 - 2001. Our traffic volume data as documented in our comments on the Harveston Specific Plan EIR shows that the annual (compounded yearly) growth rate is 13.2%. It is concluded that the "Study's" ambient rate may be significantly low, at least for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and should be readdressed. Please contact me at 909/461-6078 should you have any questions or comments relative to this matter. Response 2: The growth rate selected for this study was based on City staffs experience in recent years and actual traffic counts on City streets. The project traffic consultant examined Caltrans traffic count data along Winchester Road (SR -79) east of the I-15 for a ten year period, from 1989 to 1999 (S. Saito, Urban Crossroads, July 2001). City staff and the consultant believe the 7 percent figure represents long-term growth, including the opening of the Temecula Mall. The 13 percent quoted by the commentator is not considered representative of the FINAL Environmental Impact Report 114 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR project area, and it is also not appropriate to use different growth rates for individual road segments. There is therefore no rationale to support such a high annual growth rate. The applicant's traffic consultant did examine this intersection to determine if project traffic might have some demonstrable impact. In a previous study, Urban Crossroads (UC) found a Level of Service "D" in the AM Peak hour in 1999, so it is reasonable to expect the situation could have worsened since that time. The project traffic study found a general project contribution of 11-13 percent at area intersections, but the project's contribution to MHSR/Alta Murrieta is more likely on the order of 2-3 percent. UC estimated the project could generate approximately 3,400 ADT at this intersection, with 272 trips during the AM peak and 233 trips during the PM peak. This represents approximately 6 percent of the road capacity, however, traffic from the Roripaugh project would only be travelling along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and would probably not contribute any signficant traffic to Alta Murrieta itself. The Murrieta General Plan indicates that MHSR is planned as an urban arterial with 6 lanes, although it only has 4 travel lanes at present. While there may not be a strict requirement to provide mitigation, it appears reasonable that a fair share contribution to this intersection should be calculated and the project contribute this amount to the City of Murrieta to help mitigate potential impacts to this intersection. Therefore, this item was added as Mitigation Measure 2, Item 7 in Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation in the 2nd Revised DEIR. E-2 Letter from E. P. "Bob" Lemmons, P.E., with the Rancho California Water District, dated July 10, 2001. Comment 1: The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject project and offers the following comments: 1. As described on Page 1-6 within Section 1.7 "Additional Environmental Documentation," the EM -20 Turnout and Transmission Main project is an RCWD facility, not an Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) facility. The EIR for this project was certified by RCWD and this facility will not provide water service to those portions of Roripauch Ranch that are outside of the service boundaries of RCWD. Response 1: Comment noted. Comment 2: As described on Page 1-8 within Section 1.7.2 'Rancho California Water District ' EM -20 Turnout Project EIR" and on Page 2-12 within Section 2.2.6 "Offsite Improvements," improvements to Nicolas Road were not included in the RCWD ' environmental analysis because roadway improvements to Nicolas Road were not FINAL Environmental Impact Report 115 September 26, 2112 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR constructed by RCWD. In addition, RCWD was not required to construct any improvements to Nicolas Road. RCWD's pipeline construction within Nicolas Road merely replaced "in-kind" roadway facilities. Response 2: Comment noted. Impacts related to improvements along Nicolas Road were addressed where necesssary in appropriate sections of the previous DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR. Construction traffic will be routed exclusively along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, so impacts along Nicolas Road from construction activities will be minimal. This concern has been addressed by the introduction of Mitigation Measure 13 in the 2nd Revised DEIR (page 3-97). Nicolas Road is an existing dirt road so it does not contain significant biological habitat. As stated, pipeline construction was considered replacement so it is not evaluated as new offsite construction in the DEIR. Nicolas Road is proposed to be improved to 2 paved travel lanes (38 feet wide) and a multi-purpose trail along the north side within a 110 -foot right-of-way. In addition, the intersection of Calle Girasol and Nicolas Road will be improved and realigned, including flood control improvements to prevent future flooding. Residents along Nicolas Road will experience temporary noise, dust, air pollution, and delays while construction activities are present along the roadway. However, these are considered minor and temporary, and the proposed construction will ultimately improve traffic safety and flooding in this area. Comment 3: As shown on Figure 1-1 and as described on Page 1-9 within Section 1.7.5 - "Nicolas Reservoir," the Nicolas Reservoir Project is an RCWD facility. This reservoir facility will provide water service to only those properties within RCWD's service boundaries within the 1485 Pressure Zone. Water service from this facility could be provided to Roripaugh Ranch upon completion of an inter- agency water service agreement between RCWD and EMWD and upon construction of RCWD's proposed pipelines within Munieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road (as described in the Nicolas Reservoir MND). Response 3: Comment noted. Comment 4: Please revise Section 3.12.1 "Water" to indicate that portions of Planning Areas 27, 28, and 29 are within the service boundaries of RCWD and that water service to these areas would be provided from RCWD's 1485 Pressure Zone. Response 4: So noted. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 116 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR E-3 Letter from Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services, with the Temecula Valley Unified School District dated July 12, 2001. Comment 1: The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has reviewed the Revised Draft EIR for Roripaugh Ranch, and provides the following comments, to supplement our previous response letter (6/11/99 - Appendix B), and correct some erroneous information in Section 3.1 1 and Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR ' regarding schools. Response 1: Comment noted. The TVUSD also provided more current data after review of the 2nd Revised DEIR (see Letter E-1 in Section III of this document). Comment 2: The elementary and middle school sites located within the plan are included in our District's Facilities Master Plan. TVUSD is certain of the need for both of these schools, and is actively developing the design of each school. TVUSD is currently pursuing an acquisition agreement for both sites, based on the sites being excluded from all special tax districts and delivered to TVUSD at predetermined times based upon number of building permits issued within Roripaugh Ranch, very similar to the requirements for the delivery of the park sites within Roripaugh Ranch. We request that the EIR and Specific Plan show both sites as dedicated for school sites only, excluded from all special tax districts. Response 2: Comment noted. The Specific Plan designates these sites as schools, and that information is reintereted in the DEIR. Therefore, there is no need to modify the 2nd Revised DEIR, since special tax district designation is a fiscal requirement and CEQA does not address fiscal issues unless they are tied to some other direct or indirect environmental impact. Comment 3: The Roripaugh Ranch area lies within the current attendance boundaries of Chaparral High, James L. Day Middle, and Nicolas Valley Elementary. These boundaries are subject to change on an annual basis. These sites are currently ' operating with enrollments at or exceeding their permanent capacity with students. from residences in closer proximity to these schools than Roripaugh Ranch. Response 3: Comment noted. Both the Revised DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR did note the TVUSD schools were operating over capacity at present. Comment 4: Page 3-151 requires a complete revision. Paragraph I should state that TVUSD currently has 12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools (including 1 continuation high school). Table 3.11-2 is not accurate and should be removed. Our Master plan requires the construction of 16 additional schools (including the Roripaugh Ranch middle and elementary schools) to meet the enrollment ' demands of approved and proposed developments within our District boundaries, FINAL Environmental Impact Report 117 September 26, 2002 1 I RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR which are estimated to build -out by 2015. Under current State Law (SB -50; 1998), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.17 and $6.35 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are recalculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions. Response 4: Comment noted. This information should be considered incorporated into the DEIR on pages 3-151 and 3-155 regarding school facilities. The TVUSD also submitted a comment letter on the 2nd Revised DEIR which provides even more current data on school facilities. ' Comment 5: Mitigation Measures, Page 8-15. In addition to providing the elementary and middle schools, compliance with SB -50 will be required as described above. If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 506-7914. Response 5: Comment noted. This information has been incorporated into the 2nd Revised DEIR. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 118 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR F. LETTERS FROM PRIVATE GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS (5) F-1 Letter from Dr. Robinson with the Temecula Valley Citizens For Responsible Government, dated June 22, 2001. Comment 1: After my conversation with City Councilman Ron Roberts, I was told that the developers for the Roripaugh Project had stated at a city council meeting that I had seen this project and approved it. Neither is the truth. Mr. Ashby either has me confused with another David Robinson or has made statements that are slightly disingenuous. My first meeting with City Council Member Ron Roberts was on Monday, June 11, 2001. This is the first time I have seen a plan for the Roripaugh Ranch. I would therefore request an additional 45 days upon receipt of this letter to review the EIR and the revised draft EIR and the plan. Some areas of major concern for this project are not only being possibly misrepresented as an advocate for the plan and having seen it, but also extensively on the Calle Contento and Northeast section of the project for high density housing with insufficient buffering adjacent to 2 1/2and 5 acre rural housing. Therefore, before a thorough study and a responsible response to this massive project of 788 acres and proposed 2,058 units can be reviewed, I am asking for a 45 -day delay and to stop any "fast -tracking." Response l: The previous project consisted of 1,721 units on 807.3 acres (Planning Area 28 was removed from the I" DEIR project). The City Council subsequently decided to extend the public review period of the DEIR from 30 to 45 days to give the public more time to review and comment on the previous DEIR. After receiving comments on the previous or revised DEIR, the City and applicant decided to make extensive revisions to the project and subsequently circulate a new (2"d Revised) DEIR. See Section III of this document for agency and individual comments on the 2"d Revised DEIR. Comment 2: In lieu of the recent energy crisis in California, rolling blackouts are not only a threat but a reality. Without mandatory solar heating requirements for new housing, we feel it is somewhat irresponsible to build more houses when lighting the existing housing in California has become nearly impossible. Response 2: The project, as analyzed in both the Previous DEIR and the 2nd Revised DEIR, will conform to current state and local requirements regarding energy use and conservation. However, neither the City nor the state has solar energy regulations under which the project can comply. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 119 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Comment 3: There are other serious adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated below a significant level. Namely, LOS D Service in traffic gridlock which is already affecting all Temecula citizens, and the disappearance of clean air that once enveloped the Temecula area. Response 3: Traffic and air quality were two of the significant impacts identified for the project that result mainly from project -related vehicular trips of project residents. This conclusion was the same for the 1,721 -unit project analyzed in the Revised DEIR and the current 2,058 -unit project analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR. A ' Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is required for project approval. The discretion to approve or deny a SOC is solely up to the City Council. ' F-2 Letter from Ronald Knowles, 39675 Cantrell Road in Temecula, dated July 2, 2001. Comment 1: Water Flow - I am very concerned about the "downstream" impact of this plan on adjacent property owners. My residence is tax parcel No. 957-130-005. The northwest portion of my property is next to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Past ' diversions of the natural water flow have already caused over 20 feet of my property to now "be in the creek". During February and March 1998, the water flow in the creek exceeded 150' in width and 3' in depth next to my property. Any attempts to reclaim tax parcel No. 957-130-002 (a 2.87 acre parcel) would decrease the natural water flow of the creek. This would divert more water to the southern portion of the Santa Gertrudis creek bed, which would erode even more of my property. Tax parcel No. 957-130-002 should be part of the open space areas. Response 1: The proposed Drainage Master Plan of the Specific Plan is sensitive to potential impacts on downstream properties. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.4 of the 2nd Revised DEIR (Water Resources) outlines a very specific process whereby downstream properties will be protected from flooding and erosion, both in the short-term by construction of appropriate facilities, and over the long-term by the establishment of a maintenance agreement to assure to continued function of these facilities. The 2nd Revised DEIR requires the project to have a Drainage Management Plan that will result in no increase from existing flows downstream of the project site. Comment 2: 1 also question the water flow report for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. Existing photos of Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek show a much greater amount of water flow in Santa Gertrudis than in Long Creek. Response 2: Detailed hydrology reports were prepared for both channels based on standard methodologies established by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water FINAL Environmental Impact Report 120 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Consevation District (RCFCWCD). The commentator is encouraged to discuss these concerns with the City Public Works Department, and to request participation or at least notification of the progress of the Drainage Management Plan and other drainage -related mitigation for this project. The 2"d Revised DEIR has addressed these concerns. Comment 3: Both sides of Santa Gertrudis Creek should be reinforced with concrete to the existing, paved portion of Nicolas Road. If only one side is reinforced, my property and others will be flooded. The north side of Santa Gertrudis Creek should have at least a 100 -foot open space area for flood control, environmental and habitat conservation. Response 3: The "upper" stretch of Santa Gertrudis Creek (i.e., upstream of Butterfield Stage Road) will remain essentially undisturbed as it is now part of the Assessment District 161 Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This plan allows for continued wildlife movement within the Santa Gertrudis Creek watershed. The only intrusion into this area will be a flow-by/detention basin and the entry of a con -arch structure to convey storm flows west under Butterfield Stage Road. The "exit" point of this facility will be adjacent to the commentator's property, which will be protected as a requirement of the proposed Drainage Management Plan (DMP) proposed in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.4 of the 2nd Revised DEIR on Water Resources. Comment 4: I am also concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. The proposed storm drain for Long Creek could flood the downstream property and "wash out" Cantrell Road. Long Creek should be reinforced with "rip rap" and concrete to where Long Creek intersects Santa Gertrudis Creek. Response 4: As indicated in the previous Response 3, both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash will have a series of flood control structures carefully designed and maintained to prevent downstream flooding and erosion. Failure to achieve the ' goals of the DMP could result in the suspension of building permits for the project until the performance standards of these mitigation measures are met. 1 FINAL Environmental Impact Report 121 September 26, 2101 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' F-3 (2nd) Letter from Ronald Knowles, 39675 Cantrell Road in Temecula, dated July 2, 2001. Comment 1: 1 am concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could ' flood most of the downstream properties. Cantrell Road could be "washed out' during heavy rains preventing any access to my residence. ' Response 1: As indicated in Responses 3 and 4 of the previous letter (F-2), both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash will have a series of flood control ' structures carefully designed and maintained to prevent downstream flooding and erosion. These improvements will assure that Cantrell Road will have long-term protection from future flooding. Failure of the DMP to achieve this performance ' standard could result in the suspension of building permits for the project until the performance standards of these mitigation measures are met. ' The scope of the proposed Drainage Management Plan identified in Mitigation Measure 1 in 2nd Revised DEIR Section 3.4 on Water Resources will be expanded to include downstream properties of the Nicolas Valley. For example, ' runoff crossing the two properties immediately downhill or downstream of the detention basin will have Q100 flows equal or less than existing flows. However, at least one of the property owners indicated they have considerable erosion from ' this drainage during heavy storms. The DMP will address these properties as well to assure that all downstream properties, not just those downstream on Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, are not impacted by the project. ' Therefore, mitigation measure 5 was added to the Water Resources Section (3.4) of the 2nd Revised DEIR to address this concern. ' Comment 2: To protect my ingress and egress, I want the developer to grant me a fifteen foot easement on the southern portion of tax parcel 957-130-004. This would allow ' my property to have access to Butterfield Stage Road. Response 2: Legal access will be maintained to the properties potentially affected by the proposed flood control improvements. However, Butterfield Stage Road is ' proposed as an Arterial Highway with limited access, therefore access from individual properties is not desireable. The commentator is encouraged to contact the City Public Works Department to participate or at least be notified as to the progress of the proposed flood control and road improvements. Comment 3: Proposed land use for section No. 27: 11.9 acres planned for a 135 unit complex. My property and others are zoned very low residential. .This plan places 135 units in a space that would previously only have had two to three houses. An increase from units to 135 does not require an adjustment in life style, it destroys the life style. It would seem that in a project of almost 820 acres, this 135 unit 1 FINAL Environmental Impact Report 122 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR complex could be located in an area that would not destroy the existing rural characteristics of the Nicholas Valley. Response 3: Subsequent to circulation of the (previous) Revised DEIR, the developer and the. City negotiated a number of changes to the land plan that will significantly reduce this potential impact. Planning Area 28, previously proposed for professional offices, has been removed from the current land use plan at the request of the owners and will remain zoned for rural residential use (5 acres). In addition, Planning Areas 33A and 33B, on either side of Nicolas Road closest to the existing homes along Nicolas Road, will have low density residential uses (i.e., 15 one -acre and half -acre lots) under the current land plan analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR. Comment 4: We are not asking for more open space, but we are requesting the ranch plan take into consideration the life style of the existing property owners. Response 4: Comment noted. Planning Areas 33A and 33B are planned for 15 one -acre and half -acre lots to be more compatible with adjacent uses in the Nicolas Valley. F-4 Letter from Hans Van Ligten, attorney, Rutan and Tucker, legal counsel for Pacific Bay Properties, dated July 17, 2001. Comment 1: This letter is being sent on behalf of Pacific Bay Properties, owner of Rancho Bella Vista, situated north of the Roripaugh Ranch project. While Pacific Bay supports the project, I have been asked to write because my review of the EIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan disclosed that an important mitigation measure relating to traffic has been omitted. Specifically, in the Technical Appendices (Volume 2 of the Draft EIR) related to traffic, Section 7.0 "Recommendations" of the traffic report indicate that the proposed project will have access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. However, Section 7.0 continues on and states clearly: "The Roripaugh Ranch development is participating in the current extension of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing terminus at Calistoga Drive." (Traffic Report, p. 7-1). Similarly, Section 7.0 clearly states that it is incumbent upon the project to participate in the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed to construct Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road within the project site at their ulitmate cross- section widths, in addition to providing off-site improvement to provide safe access." (Ibid, emphasis added). Although the Technical Appendices are clear that the Roripaugh Ranch was contemplated to be conditioned upon participation in the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road with the adjacent property owner (i.e., Pacific Bay Properties, FINAL Environmental Impact Report 123 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' the owner of Racho Bella Vista), such that Murrieta Hot Springs Road serves the Project, there is no condition recommended as a mitigation measure in the body of the draft EIR to implement this recommendation of the traffic report. Therefore, as currently constituted, all mitigation measures are recommended by the traffic report are not being imposed upon the project. Clearly, a failure to impose feasible mitigation measures renders the approval of the project, even with a statement of overriding considerations, inappropriate. ' Response 1: Murrieta Hot Springs Road is now constructed from Winchester Road to Pourroy Road, and the proposed project will construct the final link from Pourroy Road east to Butterfield Stage Road.. Comment 2: ...in order to address the shortcomings of the current draft EIR, we recommend ' the inclusion of the following condition of approval: "The developer will be required to participate fully in financing its fair share of the costs of extension ofMurrieta Hot Springs Road with the adjoining property owner. Developer will fund its portion of the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road prior to development of Phase I (460 dwelling units)." We believe the inclusion of the foregoing language will adequately mitigte the impacts of traffic contemplated by the project. However, absent the imposition of this conditon, we believe that the draft EIR is inadequate in that it does not impose all feasible mitigation measures as suggested by the traffic study of the EIR and would open the project to legal challenge. Response 2: See the previous Comment/Response I in this letter. F-5 Letter from Mike and Sue Knowlton, 39130 Pala Vista Road, dated July 20, 2001. Comment l: Notification — We have attended meetings from 1995 to the present concerning the Roripaugh Ranch Plan, and we believe that the impact of the most recent development plans have been inadequately addressed. Response 1: The 2nd Revised DEIR has adequately addressed potential impacts of the proposed project, with the corrections and additions included in this Final EIR. Even with implementation of all the proposed mitigation measures, the project will still require a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant impacts to aesthetic views and nightlighting, among others. Comment 2: Soil Erosion and Redirection of Water Flow — We are concerned about the proposed water detention facilties for Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. Cantrell Road could be "washed out' during heavy rains, FINAL Environmental Impact Report 124 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR preventing any access to my residence and others. Both sides of Santa Gertudis and Long Valley Creeks MUST be reinforced with rip -rap and concrete to their intersection at Calle Girasol. Response 2: The proposed Drainage Master Plan is designed to be sensitive to potential impacts on downstream properties. Mitigation Measures I and 2 in Section 3.4 of the 2nd Revised DEIR (Water Resources) outline a very specific program (a Drainage Management Plan or DMP) whereby downstream properties will be protected from flooding and erosion, including Cantrell Road, both in the short- term by construction of appropriate facilities, and over the long-term by the establishment of a maintenance agreement to assure continued function of these facilities. Failure to achieve the goals of the DMP could result in the suspension of building permits for the project until the performance standards of these mitigation measures are met. Comment 3: The traffic and pedestrian circulation crossings at each instance for all corridors within the project and for the Nicolas Road crossing at Santa Gertrudis outside the project must be constructed to safely endure flows that can expected to be seen along these water courses based on historical data. The development must be done right the first time so as not to become a safety issue nor financial burden to the community after the development is completed. Response 3: Detailed hydrology reports were prepared for both channels based on standard methodologies established by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Consevation District (RCFCWCD). The commentator is encouraged to discuss these concerns with the City Public Works Department, and to request participation or at least notification of the progress of the Drainage Management Plan and other drainage -related mitigation for this project. The goal of the Specific Plan is to provide for detailed studies to be able to dictate design of these facilities so they are "done right' the first time. Comment 4: Additionally, control and mitgation impact of drainage from the panhandle area that flows across Licfer Road is not adequately addressed. Residents need to be assured that measures will be taken out side of the boundaries of this project to mitigate the impacts expected to occur as a result of this project. Response 4: In the 2nd Revised DEIR, the scope of the Drainage Management Plan identified in Mitigation Measure I in Section 3.4 on Water Resources was expanded to include downstream properties of the panhandle (i.e., Nicolas Valley). For example, Q100 runoff across the two properties immediately downhill or downstream of the detention basin proposed in Planning Area 3 will be equal or less than existing flows, as shown in the master drainage plan. However, at least one of the property owners indicated they have considerable erosion from this drainage during heavy storms. The DMP now addresses these properties as well FINAL Environmental Impact Report 125 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR to assure that all downstream properties, not just those downstream on Santa . Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, are not impacted by the project. Comment 5: Proposed Land Uses — Density distribution within the project as currently planned is in need of reshaping to better flow with the properties outside the boundaries. Of special note is the disproportionate density in the Nicolas Valley region (West) as compared to the Calle Contento region (South and East). Additionally, the high density housing and commercial property are located in an . area which creates a distinctly negative view line for the rural residents. Response 5: Since the (previous) Revised DEIR was circulated, the developer and the City have met with local residents, including many from the Nicolas Valley. While the density of the panhandle (now called the "Plateau") was not changed, the open space area of Planning Area 7 will receive additional landscaping to help buffer Nicolas Valley residents from these new homes. Planning Area 28, previously proposed for office uses, has also been eliminated from the plan and will now remain rural residential. In addition, a new transitional density land use plan has been developed along the east and south boundaries that will allow lower density townhomes, rather than apartments, in Planning Area 12. Finally, Planning Areas 33A and 33B along Nicolas Road will have 15 acre- and half -acre lots to be more compatible with rural uses further west along Nicolas Road. Comment 6: I offer the following compromise. Each of these options needs to consider the movement of the open space to help meet these goals, but would appear to be a reasonable alternative to the current plan. 1) Have the lot sizes and buffer strip be equal for the West Panhandle, Western perimeter, Southern perimeter, and Eastern perimeter. Start with 10,000 sf lot sizes and gradually incarease the lot sizes as you move into the project so as to maintain the number of lots close to the 1,700 needed to fund (CFD) district. 2) Leave areas 27, 28, & 29 zoned as R -R (rural residential) and leave them out of the development entirely. 3) Take the land use plan for areas 27, 28, 29, and 11 a and 12 and move these to be immediately adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road as close to their intersections as possible, and to the north and east as much as possible. These land uses are best served by these major arterials and have no business in the valley area. 4) The gate at Calle Contento should be removed from the plan. A review of the Specific Plan from 1993 shows this as a thoroughfare and special interests of this sort should not hamstring the city and its residents. This road would allow traffic to flow to Anza and Rancho California Roads and ease FINAL Environmental Impact Report 126 September 26, 2002 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR circulation down other major roads into and out of the project. The circulation on this road should be minimal and as such should not have an adverse impact on design in much the same way that Mr. Thornhill noted that the Nicolas Road needs to be open, despite wishes to the contrary by local residents. Response 6: Since the (previous) Revised DEIR was circulated, a number of changes have been made to the land plan. Specifically: Item 1 — The developer is proposing to leave the Plateau area lot sizes as shown on the plan (i.e., 5,000 square feet) but to add additional landscaping in Planning Area 7 (designated as open space), and/or additional building setbacks to further screen the new uses from homes along the north side of Nicolas Road. The new plan now provides buffering along the perimeter of the site where rural residential uses are adjacent. South of the Plateau area, a visual buffer of landscaping and building setbacks is proposed. A graphic illustration of this buffer area is included in Section 2.0, Corrections and Additonal Materials, of this document. This buffer is designed to simulate one -acre lots to the south of the Plateau area. Similarly, one -acre and half -acre lots are proposed along the south and east boundaries of the site. The office uses in Planning Area 28 have been removed from the plan — this area will now remain rural residential. The plan has been changed to include a transitional lot layout in the southern and eastern portions of the project along the lines suggested by the commentor (i.e., larger lots along the perimeters with smaller lots "inside" of the larger lots). The east and south sides of the project will have a transitional buffer area, with 1 -acre lots along the boundary and smaller lot sizes as you move "in" (west and north) from the respective boundary. Item 2 — Planning Area 28 has been taken out of the Specific Plan. Item 3 — there are no longer any non- residential uses next to the Nicolas Valley. The only non-residential use is neighborhood commercial at the southwest comer of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Item 4 — The project traffic report indicates the Calle Contento connection is not needed for project traffic. Comment 7: We are not asking for more open space, but we are requesting the ranch plan take into consideration the life style of the existing property owners. The city should not be bullied into accepting a flawed development plan. Response 7: The new land plan analyzed in the 2nd Revised DEIR is intended to be more sensitive to adjacent uses in the Nicolas Valley area. Existing residents both east and south of the site now have a transition of lots from 1 -acre to half acre to smaller lots as you move away from the property lines. The lots along the southern boundary of the Plateau area (formerly called the panhandle area) have increased landscaped buffering or building setbacks so that these homes are not visible to homes on the north side of Nicolas Road. For more information, see Comment/Response 6 in this letter. FINAL Environmental Impact Report 127 September 26, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Comment 8: We also believe that plan should treat all impacted areas and residents equally to the degree that a reasonable individual would agree when it comes to land use pruposes. Nicolas Valley residents are not lesser constituents than the Calle Contento reisdents... as my mother would say, "what's good for the Goose is Good for the Gander!" ' Response 8: Comment noted. See the previous Comments/Responses 6 and 7 in this letter. 1 1 [1 I 1 1 tFINAL Environmental Impact Report 128 September 26, 2002 1 I RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR I 1 I 1 1 1 APPENDIX A ' COMMENT LETTERS ON 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR I I I 11 I 11 FINAL Environmental Impact Report __ Response to Comments on 2nd Revised DEIR (2,058 units) List of Commenting Agencies/Individuals A. Federal Agencies 1. California Indian Legal Services B. State Agencies 1. OPR — State Clearinghouse 2. Department of Food and Agriculture C. Regional Agencies 1. Southern California Association of Governments 2. Southern California Gas Company D. County Agencies 1. Riverside County Transportation Commission E. Local Agencies 1. Temecula Valley Unified School District 2. City of Murrieta 3. City of Murrieta F. Private Organizations or Individuals 1. Mike Knowlton 2. Deborah Rosenthal, Applicant Attorney 3. Mandy Picozzi 4. Samantha Shields/Marissa Knowlton 5. Ronald Knowles 6. Jill Stokes 7. Ladd Stokes 8. Reine Baillargent `05/17/2002 09:21 7607461815 CILS ESC PAGE 02 ' CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 609 South Escondido Boulevard ' Escondido, CA 92025 Phone (760) 746-9941 ♦ Fax (760) 746.1815 viww.calindiamorg Directing Attorney Staff Attorneys ' kaarn Y. Miranda Lim J. Cmfow Deirdre hfade lha .Senior Staff Attorney DmLre M. Doµg(m•Babd Lawna.. R Sddhna - XathrM A. 09as D�on L Read Brenda Tomarm Joaeae �Iltr Newton May 16, 2002 ' Mr. Dave Rogan Mr. Sated Naaseh Submitted via facsimile tot ' City of Temecula (909) 694-6477- 43200 94-647743200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ' Re: Comments on Roripaugh Ranch SP 2"d Revised Draft SIR Dear Mr. Hogan and Mr. Naaseh: The Pechanga Band of LuieeAQ Indiana a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government is formally requesting yurnuant to Public Resources Code 9 21092(b)(3) to be notified ' and involved in the entire CEOA environmental review process for the duration of this project j -eluding notification of all ' comment deadlines. public hearings, and ecOAing sessitzns. California Indian Legal Services submits the following ' comments on the 2nd Revised Draft EIR for the Roripaugh Ranch project on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luisefo Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Band"). 2 ' The Pechanga Band requests that the comments contained herein in conjunction with the comments in our letters dated July ' 16, 1999, July 20, 2001, and August 23, 2001 constitute the Pechanga Sand's comments on the 2"d Revised DEIR. PROJECT OENERAj�.Y ' The Pechanga Band is not opposed to the Roripaugh Ranch project. As we have stated in previous correspondence to the ' City, the Pechanga Band is primarily concerned with the project's impact on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Band and our firm have reviewed the 2nd Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, A-1 LIS 30vd t•YidOS:e i0-Li-AVH t•LLV9 469 605 t•vin3W31 d0 AIIO :A8 1N35 ' ..05/17/2002 09:21 7607461615 CILS ESC PAGE 04 Letter to Mr. Dave Hogan Re: Comments on Roripaugh Ranch SP 2n6 Revised Draft EIR May 16, 2002 Page 3 The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your agency's responses to our comments 2T° Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Pechanga Band looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula and other interestedagencies in protecting invaluable Native American cultural and archaeological resources found in the project area. Allowing active tribal participation will prevent misunderstandings and help your project move forward smoothly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 746-8941, ext. 110. ' L/L 30Vd Sincerely, CALIFORNIATNDIAN SERVICES 1 Laura Y. iran Attorney for Pechanga Band `•Ad05:Z ZO L{ AVYV `LL49 469 606 7 `M03W31 d0 ALIO :A6 IUS Gray Davis ' GOVERNOR I 1 I STATE OP CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research MAY 2 3 2002 May 20.2002 Saied Naaseh/ Dave Hogan .City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan -Revised Draft M SCAM: 1997121030. Dear Sated Naaseh/Dave Hogan:. Tal Finney INTMUM DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed On May 17, 2002. and no state agencies submitted comments by that date, This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the Slate Clearinghouse at (91 67 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Q �� /"aCr`ru�v T�rts Director, State CleariDghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.D. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95612-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 9I6-323-3073 www.opnea.gov F9 11 1 LI State of California Memorandum 1 II� MAY 2 G [nrZ � Il fail J' 6y ro: Ms. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner Date: May 20, 2002 State Clearinghouse Governor's Office of Planning and Research Place; Sacramento 1 Mr. Dave Hogan City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive LJ 7 u I Phone: (916) 657-4956 Temecula, CA 92590 From: Department of Food and Agriculture - Steve Shaffer, Director��Z� Ag & Environmental Policy Subject Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. (DEIR)4orthe Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan— SCH #1997121030 The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has reviewed the DEIR for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in the City of Temecula. The CDFA mission is to promote and protect California agriculture, including the natural resources upon which it depends. From this perspective, we offer the following comments on the DEIR's treatment of the project impacts on agricultural land resources. The proposed project would result in the development of 805 acres with 2,058 residential units and ancillary land uses. Approximately 500 acres of agricultural land, including 210 acres of Prime Farmland soil, will be converted by the project. The DEIR identifies the conversion as a significant environmental impact. However, the DEIR proceeds to engage in speculation and unsubstantiated statements to argue that avoidance or mitigation of the impact is not only unfeasible, but unreasonable. For example, on page'3-19 of the DEIR, an undocumented conclusion is drawn: ' Ofheujurisdictions,=like Temecula, establish General Pfarrpolicies that somehow slow or control the conversion or loss of farmland. Because the land use issues surrounding agriculture are so complex, most jurisdictions are not successful in ' preserving agricultural land once suburban uses have been constructed adjacent to farming uses." (Emphasis added) ' The author of the DEIR simultaneously acknowledges the practices of other communities to control the loss of farmland, and the futility of trying to do so: In any event, this is not the kind of analysis suitable for a CEQA document. The document should describe the efforts of other communities around the State to conserve agricultural land and mitigate its conversion. Also, before writing off any efforts to avoid or mitigate for the loss of agricultural land because it is too "complex," we 1 OR 2 IENI 8Y: CI FY OF TEMECULA; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 17 11 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Olfiarc Yrta:drnr: $nrcnirr frm Mi}�Is. Counry Le &:nardlm Flrr, YIR Frt[Idenl: ilmmmAer Hil Be. v.un, N. T Ang<l e+ M Vlrc Yrt,ldmr: M+yvr Tun Bev RnY. inR'an.Jl+r[ Hsr Rerldml: Mayor Bvn B+n,. a'm�la. amRtrw rover nmg gweer. m,�w Cmmy At- Cnu„ry: Ygnnf Bnlhwute Burks A,:g.lu Cm:nIY' �•' Yumlrv,iV ler Andeln vl<r lhrry BilJwln. hn O+Mlel - hna Cnelrm George An"-- A - H+1 Bervwn. 'Angelo Rvben Arm tt yr a— Grne wrtlel:, Pu,raunr • m nnw. tit snu lu Rmb Iam�u.lm Mge4+• file Gunrn. M8'In - RaY GnY Ieng Brach -lama - sorHa. uLtUuwMn. A-lLbp, le. Mglo 1A,r-N.ie HulAen, m M PSa0'R—d�mAl, lvgwRonv, Lu,, w& . grnh Ct.0 eeBrtbd- Nnt m, Ynu Mwiu - Nick N[heor, Inr v' Nu AEIW. W AnReks . gv, Wry.loa • Be+vr¢ Pmq pm N.er+. Mar! Ridlr[ Thmlu.Im 1, Ol. ' Ed...[f 19t Mgtle Rtrtn RuaMh+l,Clal-.1��lm,A llh bra- Sylea, w+lnnr - P+vl Ta1M.r, AlM1.IAI Tylt[ Ir.. Rt+dtoa • brei K'a[Iv, ba Mgeln r,u rn. — ph Vku. lot In • Dt.— LFnnu P Lm.,1.r. Anprh onvge aomp: Clv,lo srnuh, Ounge C.."Rnn 11+1- Inr Alrmlrn • P+Ip1r Nue[.....ron M1 -M Bmr.+., boor yrk •leu Eanc Twin uberh Cawm Cow Mev .G sDeTo tdt, w Nlglnl • -I Jurd Dion, We Fvm -.Uta rI Nma - R,d, MaCra[Im, ...,hh.- ao RrsY, wee -TM Ndgeway, Newpxl w.eE Ure mC C.W. 2oh Bunec Riwflde Caunry• Iv AmK Rlv U • 1, Rnu CaJ u, Am Mnbrrn, Trmetula fan Pudrnao. CM1uMK'hlle, Mmmnn VapeY o n - Bt, -,di— CnvmY Ion M4e6, gn r+rtl,no CounaV - BIII Al—rxlt, M -1r, uvP'wild&h .m Fmun+-4e Mn Gula Rma - Beb n—.,Vivvmllle r Non.m-Rrr4 m+vv I. - Nduh villel. a.An� tut+ ComrN: lady MI1e4. Wt.,. c—, A- Manx. SuA: Vdley - WA. De Rata. S. rwa-TwIYwnR, Ppt 11— t,--wt— Cm., luv2,n �Mdo CounrT Tnoryoruuw t,--wi— lerve. Firmer a Ca ., Tt.-Aal nvn 1—Im,irm. III.`)M r. ilml +4ry ' nvml1niw.y,INRnn 1 1 1 .I'11 - May 6, 2002 909 694 6477; MAY -21-02 8:07AM; PAGE 2 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Comments on the 2D" Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan- SCAG No. 1 20020167 Dear Mr. Naaseh: Thank you for submitting the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. Sincerely, J F M. S I H, AIC nior Plan e ntergovernmental Review C-1 1 Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 2th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236-1800 1 (213) 236x825 ' www.scag,ca.gov Olfiarc Yrta:drnr: $nrcnirr frm Mi}�Is. Counry Le &:nardlm Flrr, YIR Frt[Idenl: ilmmmAer Hil Be. v.un, N. T Ang<l e+ M Vlrc Yrt,ldmr: M+yvr Tun Bev RnY. inR'an.Jl+r[ Hsr Rerldml: Mayor Bvn B+n,. a'm�la. amRtrw rover nmg gweer. m,�w Cmmy At- Cnu„ry: Ygnnf Bnlhwute Burks A,:g.lu Cm:nIY' �•' Yumlrv,iV ler Andeln vl<r lhrry BilJwln. hn O+Mlel - hna Cnelrm George An"-- A - H+1 Bervwn. 'Angelo Rvben Arm tt yr a— Grne wrtlel:, Pu,raunr • m nnw. tit snu lu Rmb Iam�u.lm Mge4+• file Gunrn. M8'In - RaY GnY Ieng Brach -lama - sorHa. uLtUuwMn. A-lLbp, le. Mglo 1A,r-N.ie HulAen, m M PSa0'R—d�mAl, lvgwRonv, Lu,, w& . grnh Ct.0 eeBrtbd- Nnt m, Ynu Mwiu - Nick N[heor, Inr v' Nu AEIW. W AnReks . gv, Wry.loa • Be+vr¢ Pmq pm N.er+. Mar! Ridlr[ Thmlu.Im 1, Ol. ' Ed...[f 19t Mgtle Rtrtn RuaMh+l,Clal-.1��lm,A llh bra- Sylea, w+lnnr - P+vl Ta1M.r, AlM1.IAI Tylt[ Ir.. Rt+dtoa • brei K'a[Iv, ba Mgeln r,u rn. — ph Vku. lot In • Dt.— LFnnu P Lm.,1.r. Anprh onvge aomp: Clv,lo srnuh, Ounge C.."Rnn 11+1- Inr Alrmlrn • P+Ip1r Nue[.....ron M1 -M Bmr.+., boor yrk •leu Eanc Twin uberh Cawm Cow Mev .G sDeTo tdt, w Nlglnl • -I Jurd Dion, We Fvm -.Uta rI Nma - R,d, MaCra[Im, ...,hh.- ao RrsY, wee -TM Ndgeway, Newpxl w.eE Ure mC C.W. 2oh Bunec Riwflde Caunry• Iv AmK Rlv U • 1, Rnu CaJ u, Am Mnbrrn, Trmetula fan Pudrnao. CM1uMK'hlle, Mmmnn VapeY o n - Bt, -,di— CnvmY Ion M4e6, gn r+rtl,no CounaV - BIII Al—rxlt, M -1r, uvP'wild&h .m Fmun+-4e Mn Gula Rma - Beb n—.,Vivvmllle r Non.m-Rrr4 m+vv I. - Nduh villel. a.An� tut+ ComrN: lady MI1e4. Wt.,. c—, A- Manx. SuA: Vdley - WA. De Rata. S. rwa-TwIYwnR, Ppt 11— t,--wt— Cm., luv2,n �Mdo CounrT Tnoryoruuw t,--wi— lerve. Firmer a Ca ., Tt.-Aal nvn 1—Im,irm. III.`)M r. ilml +4ry ' nvml1niw.y,INRnn 1 1 1 .I'11 - May 6, 2002 909 694 6477; MAY -21-02 8:07AM; PAGE 2 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Comments on the 2D" Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan- SCAG No. 1 20020167 Dear Mr. Naaseh: Thank you for submitting the 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. Sincerely, J F M. S I H, AIC nior Plan e ntergovernmental Review C-1 1 I ' Southern California Gas Company 1981 W. Lugonia Avenue The Redlands, CA 92374-9720 Gas - Mailing Address: Company PO Box 3003 V! nY n n, Redlands, CA 92373-0306 1 A Sempra Energy -company � uMay 1, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92590 Attention: Dave Hogan Re: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, 2nd Revision ' Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. / Butterfield City of Temecula ' Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above -referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant ' impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present ' conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. ' Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: ' a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit ' These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. 11 —2- 1 2 NJ b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily 3 insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and , a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial L� customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy f of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1 -800 -GAS -2000. Sincere y, L Steve Du vin Technical Supervisor 1 MY- _r zversidecounty ]transportation Commission i April 4, 2002 1 1 Mr. David Hogan Senior Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501 phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787-7920 • unotaranorg Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Development 1 in the City of Temecula Dear Mr. Hogan: We received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Development in the City of Temecula on April 3, 2002 and are providing you with the following comments: . 1) RCTC is participating in the development of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP). As part of the RCIP and CETAP, RCTC requests that "the Roripaugh Ranch Development in the City of Temecula" not only be conditioned to study and mitigate for local impacts, but also regional impacts to the transportation system. It is assumed in the DEIR Section 6.2.5 that the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways includes programming to. handle all the cumulative growth. Some additional information about potential mitigation should be provided. 2) The Winch ester/Temecu[a Corridor, an alternative proposed in the RCIP/CETAP study, could be affected by the Roripaugh development. Also, existing State Route 79 (SR -79), about one -mile west, and interchanges at 1-15 and 1-215 including Murrieta Hot Springs Road could be significantly affected. It is very difficult to ascertain from the traffic analysis in Section 3-5 and the Appendix exactly what impact the 30,748 trips per day generated by the project will have on either SR -79 or the interchanges at 1-15 and 1-215. The figures in the Appendix indicate numbers of trips and ADT but they are difficult to read and some numbers are obscured by the roadway lines and text or tables need to provide more clarification. There is an indication on page 3-74 that the existing Level of Service (LOS) at some intersections could be adversely affected by the year 2007 and it is determined that the impact would. be significant. But, the overall mitigation proposed on page 3-97 does not lower the impact significantly and a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" will be necessary. This is an ' F:\FILES\Environmental Reviews Non-Project\040402DEIRRoripaugh.doc P-1 2 ' April 4, 2002 Page -2- unsatisfactory solution considering the major traffic problems that already exist in ' the area. 3) Please ensure that you are coordinating directly with Caltrans concerning 1-15 and 1-215 for this project. 4) RCTC would like to maintain a coordinated effort for all projects that affect ' transportation in western Riverside County. Please contact RCTC if you have any questions concerning this process. Should you require additional information, please contact Bechtel Measure 'A" Project Coordinator, Gustavo Quintero, at (909) 787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your DEIR. Sincerely, '��Z� ' Hideo Sugita, at Executive Director RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission tCc: Linda Grimes, Caltrans 08 Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel LJ I' FAFILES\Environmental Reviews Non-Project\040402DEIRRoripaugh.doc 2- 1 F d TEECULA VALLEY—IGS 2e zcc� Unified School District U+ SUPERINTENDENT ---' ' David B. Allman April 23, 2002 Dave Hogan/Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Comments on 2"d Revised Draft EIR — Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mr. Hogan and Mr. Naaseh BOARD OF EDUCATION Barbara Tooker Stewart Morris Robert Brown Maryann Edwards Kenneth Ray Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has reviewed the 2"d Revised Draft EIR for Roripaugh Ranch, and provides the following comments. In general, the school information referenced in this latest draft is outdated, because they are relying on much older letters, and we have built several school and experienced State Law changes in the last few years. I have attached a copy of my July 12, 2001 letter to you, which provided much of the current information, but which was apparently not used in their latest draft. In addition to the information in our July 12, 2001 letter, we request the following corrections: Section 3.11.3 corrections needed. • TVUSD currently has 12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools (including 1 continuation high school). • Our Master plan requires the construction of 16 additional schools (including the Roripaugh Ranch middle and elementary schools) to meet the enrollment demands of approved and proposed developments within our District boundaries, which are estimated to build -out by 2015. Total allocation of additional schools is 10 more elementary, 4 more middle, and 2 more high schools. • See attached table. • Replace all Mitigation references with the following: Under current State Law (SB -50; 1996), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re -calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions. City Resolution 96-119 is no longer in affect. Table 3.11-3 corrections needed, as follows. Projected Project -Related Student Generation Grade I.Factor Unfits Students k-5 .3945 2,058 Single Famil 812 6-8 .1731 2,058 Single Family 356 9-12 .1885 2,058 Single Family 388 Total .7561 2,058 Single Family 1556 1 1 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 F— _� April 23, 2002 Hogan/Naaseh Appendices, Page 5 correction needed. • The project will provide a 12 -acre elementary, and 20 -acre middle school site If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 506-7914. Si re , ,N � ave Gallaher Director of Facilities Services Cc: Shirley Richter 15 ' CITY OF MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 Internet Address: Telephone: 909 -304 -CITY (2489) Fax: 909-698-4509 http.//N w .murrieta.org E- z 11 z k, City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Saied Nasseh Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (PA 94-0074) ' Dear Mr. Nasseh, ' The City ofMin irieta's Traffic Engineer, Hank Mohle, reviewed the traffic study for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and his comments are attdcbedunder separate'cover. ' Based on Mr. Mohle's review, it is the City of Murrieta's,position that the Transportation and Circulation impacts analyzed in the EIR for the have been underestimated. project ' Most significantly are the impacts to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the intersection at Margarita Road. The traffic study assumes that by the year 2007 Murrieta Hot Springs Road will have three through lanes and a right only turn lane afMargarita Road. It is highly unlikely that any of these improvements will be constructed prior to the project ' completion date. The mitigation measures proposed for this project will not mitigate traffic to below a ' level significance as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), primarily because they were based on improvements that will not be constructed prior to your projects completion date in 2007. In addition, the traffic analysis identifies four key regional intersections that will be at LOS F at build out. Consequently, it is not feasible to achieve the -Level of Service D or better as required by the cities of Temecula and Murrieta's General Plans. The City of Murrietd is requesting, therefore; that the Roripaugh Ranch.Specific Plan mitigate its fair share of traffic impiovemerits as detailed in Mr. Mohle's analysis' for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Marganta Road. This includes, but is not limited to, constructing an additional through travel lane each way on Murrieta Hot Springs Road E- z 11 z k, City of Temecula April 29, 2002 Page 2 from State Route 79 to Interstate 215. We are also requesting the City of Temecula adopt a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" acknowledging the LOS F at the referenced intersections are unavoidable and that the benefits of this project will outweigh any adverse environmental impacts it creates (CEQA 15093). d Transportation Planning Manager Attachment cc: Lori Moss Stephen Mandoki ' CITY OF MURRIETA MEMORANDUM 1 DATE: April 25, 2002 TO: Jim Miller, Environmental & Transportation Planning Manager FROM: Hank Mohle, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Comments on 2"d Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Traffic Impact Analysis) for Roripaugh Ranch 1 In accordance with your request, the following comments concern the subject. ' Page 3-1 The City of Murrieta was not contacted regarding the intersections that shall be analyzed. 1 The most critical intersection that will be impacted by this project in Murrieta will be Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Dr. This intersection was not included in the Traffic Impact Analysis. ' Page 3-10 "Existing Average Daily Traffic" (ADT) The traffic volume on Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between the I-215 northbound exit ramp 1 and Alta Murrieta Dr. in April 2001 was 31,500 vpd. This volume is considerable below the 26,900 shown on page 3 — 10. 1 Pages 3-15 & 3-16 `Existing AM & PM Intersection Volumes" The Alta Murrieta Rd & Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection was not counted and is therefore not shown on pages 3-15 & 3-16. Page 4-1 "Trip Generation" This page indicates that the project will generate 30,748 trip - ends per day. Page 4-25 shows that the "General Plan Build -out Project ADT on Murrieta Hot Springs ' Rd. near I-215 will be 3,700 vpd. Page 4-34 "General Plan Build -out Without Project (ADT) shows a volume of 67,6000 vpd on Murrieta Hot Springs Road near I-215 northbound exit ramp. The Murrieta General Plan Build -out Volume for the same location shows a volume of 81,0.00 ADT. This is 20% higher than the volume show on page 4-34. 1 Page 4-36 "General Plan Build -out with Project (ADT) Adding the project traffic raises the Murrieta Hot Springs Road near Alta Murrieta to ' 71,3000 ADT compared to Murrieta General Plan estimate of 81,000 ADT. 1 3 If 5 1 c-3 ' 05/17/02 11:25 'U049 JOB 9071 SONGS WORK CTRL U002 ' Mike and Sue Knowlton 39130 Pala Vista Drive Tc7necula, CA 92591 ' (T) 909-694-6848 (W) 949-368-5260 EMAIL: mikeknowlton gm. ,,p.ijd= 05/16/02 PCAµw[r VEJIT-, Attn: ' City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 1 To: Debbie Ubnoske, City of Temecula, Director of Planning ' Dave Hogan, City of Temecula, Senior Planner Saied Nauseh, City of Temecula, Project Planner ' RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: No. PA94-0075 Draft Environmental Impact Report Response The purpose of this letter Is to formally submit to the City of Temecula those issues that concern me regarding the most recent DEIR that has been routed for comment for the Roripaugh ' Ranch specific Plan, I've reviewed the DEIR and have subsequently met with several residents of the Nicolas ' Valley Area as well as Mr. Naaseh to discuss the changes and Impacts. I'd like to thank Saied for his support and time in helping to communicate the DEIR changes to us. I am pleased to see some of the Issues addressed: a Removal of high-density dwelling units from the Plan. a Plans for a 4 lane all weather bridge for Nicolas Road crossing of the Santa GeNudis ' creel. a Lighted parks. a Build-out resiriclions/conditions for circulation Improvements relative to key phases of the development proposal. I am concerned to see some of the impacts inadequately addressed, for example: Z 1 oft F-1 ' E 30vd !Hd6r:i ZO-LI-AVI `LLV9 Vag 006 •`vimEI Y31 d0 AlIO :A9 1N35 1 SENT BY: CITY OF TEMECULA; 909 694 6477; 1 COX CASTLE NICHOLSONr* 1 1 1 May 17, 2002 h1 BY HAND DELIVERY 1 City of Temecula Planning Department ' 1 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Mr. Dave Hogan MAY -21-02 8:23AM; PAGE 20 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 600 Irvine. California 92612-2435 P949.476.2111 F 949.476.0256 Deborah M. Rosenthal 949.260.4646 drosendtal @.coxmstle.wm File No. 40373 1 Re: Comments on 2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Rorinauvh Ranch Specific Plan 1 Dear Mr. Hogan: The applicant, Ashby USA, LLC ("Ashby") has reviewed the Second Revised Draft 1 Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ("SP"), and related approvals (the "Project'), prepared by the City of Temecula ("City"), as lead agency. The DEIR contains a comprehensive analysis of all potential impacts of the proposed 2058 -unit 1 development project. The comments contained in this letter are intended to clarify, and highlight, the information contained in the DEIR. The DEIR concludes that the Project will mitigate all environmental impacts to below a 1 level of significance, with the exception of specific impacts relating to agriculture, traffic, air quality and aesthetics. This conclusion is based on the extensive listing of mitigation measures, 1 costing upwards of $50 million, many of which exceed any "fair share" assessment. Ashby would like to underscore that the financial feasibility of these mitigation measures is entirely dependent on the Project density of 2,058 units, together with the timing and other assurances 1 provided through a Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement ("DA"). Without the DA, and commitments to allow development of the proposed density, the mitigation measures are not feasible. 1 None of the following comments, require new studies or substantial revisions to the EIR. However, Ashby believes that responses to these comments will clarify actual Project impacts in 1 the Final FIR and provide a sound basis for approval of the proposed Project: I 1 1 =7-U !. 1 . h1 [S `� 15 MAY 1.7 2D02 it 2 3 F2 6tN1 8Y: CITY OF TEMECULA; 909 694 6477; MAY -21-02 8:22AM; PAGE 19 May 15, 2002 TO: Saied Naaseh, Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 FROM: Ronald M. Knowles 39675 Cantrell Rd. Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 693-5555 RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2nd Revised Draft EIR (SCH# 97121030) 1. Water flow: MAY t 7 arpp r I am very concerned about the "downstream" impact of this plan on adjacent property owners. My residence is tax parcel No. 957-130-005. The northwest portion of my property is next to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Past diversions of the natural water flow have already caused over 20 feet of my property to now "be in the creek". ' During February and March 1998, the water flow in the creek exceeded 150' in width and 3' in depth next to my property. Any attempts to reclaim tax parcel No. 957-130-002 (a 2.87 acre parcel) would decrease the natural water flow of the creek. This would divert ' more water to the southern portion of the Santa Gertrudis creek bed, which would erode even more of my property. Tax parcel No. 957-130-002 should be part of the open space areas. I [l I also question the water flow report for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. Existing photos of Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek show a much greater amount of water flow in Santa Gertrudis than in Long Creek. Both sides of Santa Gertrudis Creek should be reinforced with concrete to the existing paved portion of Nicolas Road. If only one side is reinforced, my property and others will be flooded. The north side of Santa Gertrudis Creek should have at least a 100 toot open space area for flood control, environmental and habitat conservation. I am also concerned_ about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could"'flood most of the downstream properties. The proposed storm drain for Long Valley Creek could flood the downstream property and `wash out" Cantrell Road. Long Valley Creek should be reinforced with "rip rap" and concrete to where Long Creek intersects Santa Gertrudis Creek. 2. Night Lighting: Planning areas 11, 27 and 28 should have the fighting impact mitigated with the use of shielding and low pressure sodium vapor lamps. ' 3. Noise: 1 The noise levels from Planning areas 27 and 28 should be mitigated by a wall to the west of the park.. .I z � F,5 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR I 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX B COMMENT LETTERS ON REVISED DRAFT EIR ' (Previous EIR) [] 1 I I 11 1 ' FINAL Environmental Impact Report RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Response to Comments on Revised DEIR (1,721 units) List of Commenting Apricies/Individuals A. Federal Agencies 1. California Indian Legal Services 2. California Indian Legal Services B. State Agencies 1. CPR — State Clearinghouse 2. Department of Conservation 3. Department of Transportation - Aeronautics 4. Department of Toxic Substances Control 5. Regional Water Quality Control Board 6. Department of Fish and Game. C. Regional Agencies 1. Southern California Association of Governments 2. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 3. Southern California Gas Company 4. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California D. County Agencies 1. Airport Land Use Commission E. Local Agencies 1. City of Murrieta 2. Rancho California Water District 3. Temecula Valley Unified School District F. Private Organizations or Individuals 1. Temecula Valley Coalition for Responsible Growth 2. Ronald Knowles 3. Ronald Knowles 4. Hans Van Ligten (attorney, Pacific Bay Homes) 5. Mike/Sue Knowlton I I 1 1 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 609 S. Escondido Boulevard Escondido, California 92025 Telephone (760) 746-8941 Fax(760)746-1815 To: Saied Naaseh-Sahry From: Chris Sullivan Subject: COMMENTS Date: July 18, 2001 h am writing you per the direction of Laura Miranda, directing attorney for California Indian Legal Services (CILS). I have tried to contact you several times, but have been unable to reach you personally. I have also left you two voicemail messages. 'We are submitting comments on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the Roripaugh Ranch DEIR. I am looking for several doc ents that I am hoping you can help me to locate in order to sufficiently comment on the project at issy�the DEIR itself, within Appendix I (Scientific Resources), there 'ris an Archaeological Site Record following Drover's CRA which is listed as page 1 of 3. My question is, where are the other two pages of this record? Do they exist or are they irrelevant? If you have the remainder of this (record, may I get a copy?rAlso, in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment that was conducted in March ' 1989 by C. Drover, what kind of research method was performed? Do you know whether a walkover survey or Z ed actual subsurface testing was performed? I am not sure what the phrase "intuitive in nature" is supposto mean. ' Lastly, do you know if "responses to comments' were ever written, printed, and/or distributed for the 3 rom CII S on behalf of If so, may I get a copy of the previous comment letter dated July 16, 1999 f response? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 746-8941. Also, you can fax all pertinent documents to (760) 746-1815. Sincerely, CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 1 � Si Chris Sullivan ' Law Clerk 1 �►-' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JU>-2b—Wl 12:25 FROM:CITY OF TEMECULA 11):9096946477 PACE 7/13 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 609 South Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025 Phone (760) 746-8941 ♦ Fax (760) 746-1815 www.calindian.org Directing Attorney Stall Attorneys Laura Mira.dn Deirdre Al. Daly Kathryn A. Ogas Senior Staff Attorney Devon Lee heed Lawrence R Sridham - Brenda Tomaras Lise J. Vansen Joanne Wiffis Newton July 20, 2001 Mr. Dave Hogan City of Temecula, Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mr. Naaseh-Shahry: The Pechanga Band, a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government is California Indian Legal Services submits the following comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the the proposed Roripaugh Ranch project on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Band"). PROJECT GENERALLY The Pechanga Band is not opposed to the Roripaugh Ranch project. As we have stated in previous correspondence to the City, the Pechanga Band is primarily concerned with the project's impact on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Indian Reservation is the closest reservation of (he Luiseno Indians to the proposed project site, and the Pechanga Band considers any Luisetlu cultural items alyd any Native American human remains which may be found in the vicinity of this project to belong to their ancestors. As such, the Pechanga band is specifically concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such. as Luisefto village sites, archaeological items which would be displaced by ground -disturbing work on the project, and, above all, the proper and lawful treatment of Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. ' The Pechanga Band and our firm has reviewed the Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Project as well as the March 1989 Cultural Resources Assessment by Christopher E. Drover (hereinafter, "1989 Report"). The Pechanga Band requests that the comments contained herein in conjunction with the comments submitted in our July 16, 1999 letter constitute the ' Pechanga Band's comments on the Revised DEIR. I 1 A -2 L. 2- JUL-29-01 12=25 FROM=CITY OF TEMECULA ID=9096946477 Letter to Mr. Dave Hogan Re: Comments on the Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan July 20, 2001 Page 2 PROJECT IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES FACE B/131 The Temecula Valley is extremely rich in Luisciio cultural and archaeological resources. As noted in the Revised DEIR, only one archaeological site, Roripaugh 1, was recorded within the project boundaries by Drover in 1989 (DEIR, 3.14 Scientific Resources, p. 3-214). However, there are an array of sites located in areas surrounding the project, including, but not limited to, at least fifteen (15) archaeological sites that exist on the adjacent Johnson property. Although Roripaugh 1 has been characterized as an area of lithic scatter, the potential exists for discovering subsurface deposits (1989 Report, p. 8; DEIR 3.14 Scientific Resources, p. 3-214). Furthermore, Drover observed that "Roripaugh 1 may be part of a larger, possibly contemporaneous, complex of interrelated sites in the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage including both residential and seed processing locales." (1989 Report, p. 8). The Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee agrees with this assessment and stresses the potential for the project area in question to contain more extensive cultural resources. The Pechanga Band believes that a current study would reveal significant archaeological resources and Luiseho sites not previously identified by the twelve year old walk -over survey conducted by Drover in 1989: REVISED DEIR DETERMINATIONS In the 1989 Report conducted by Drover, the research methods and strategy utilized are described as "generally, intutitive in nature", without any mention of the precise fieldwork performed except to describe the surface of the land. We are forced to assume that the cultural resources assessment this agency is basing its Revised DEIR findings upon did not entail any subsurface or extensive archaeological testing, but merely a surface `walkover" of the project site. Lack of thorough and extensive archaeological survey of this property suggests that any determinations of impact to cultural resources cannot be made with accuracy. Mitigation measure 3.14.6 states that "....no significant.... archaeological .... resources were observed or are expected on the site,...." (Revised DErP, p. 3-215). The Pechanga band fervently disagrees with this assessment because: Drover's walk -over survey indicates that subsurface and additional resources are a distinct possibility; Further extensive surveys on this property were never completed in preparation for assessments regarding the project's impact, even though this was a recommendation by Drover in 1989; and The Pechanga Band was never consulted in regard to the potential impacts of this project on Luiseho sites. Rattier, this agency has chosen to rely, solely, upon a twelve year old walk -over survey to determine the impacts this development project will have on sacred Luiseiio cultural resources. As such, the Pechanga Band will not accept the City's evaluation as complete or accurate and fears that "(I)t is quite likely that eventual development will result in a direct impact" to Luiseho 71 I I 1 JUL-26-01 12:26 FROM=CITY OF TEMECULA I0:9096946477 Letter to Mr. Dave Hogan Re: Comments on the Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan July 20, 2001 Page 3 PAGE 9/13 sites. (1989 Report, p. 8). Therefore, the Pechanga Band requests that the mitgation measures be modified to include a Pre -Excavation Agreement to ensure that the development of the site will 7 not result in direct or indirect, significant impact on known and potentially unknown archaeological areas. REQUESTED INVOLVFMENT AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES Given that Native American cultural resources will likely be impacted by the project, the Pechanga Band wishes to be included in all mitigation planning, on a government to government basis with the City of Temecula. As a federally -recognized Indian tribe with an active tribal Cultural Resources Committee, and as a Luisefio tribe with a direct interest and role in the project under the California Public Resources Code, the Pechanga Band requests to actively participate in the formulation and execution of the mitigation and monitoring plan which will accompany this project. Accordingly, the Pechanga Band requests the following: That the following mitigation measures be included in the Final EIR: a. That the developer be required to enter into a Pre -Excavation Agreement, as a ' condition of approval prior to issuance of any land use or development permit, including any grading permit. The Agreement should be required to contain the following elements: I I 1 1 i) At least, but not limited to, two (2) tribal archaeological monitors to be present during excavation and groundbreaking work, to be compensated by the developer. ii) If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the developer be required to allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be capped to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. iii) If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. iv) All Luiseiio cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resume. E v tea.-ao-ioa 1�:Ln tKUM:GIIY UY 1EMEUULA ID:9096946477 Letter to Mr. Dave Hogan Re: Comments on the Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan July 20, 2001 Page 4 PAGE 10/13 ' rl• , 2. That tribal archaeological monitors be present during any Phase A and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this Revised DEIR for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Pechanga Band looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula and other interested agencies in protecting invaluable Native American cultural and archaeological resources found in the project area. Allowing aciive tribal participation will prevent misunderstandings and help your project move forward smoothly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 746-8941, ext. 110. Sincerely, CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES Laura Y. Miranda Attorneys for Pechanga Band cc: Saied Naaseh-Shahry I C JUL-JYl-N1 1 / ZI YKUI`l=l.l1Y UY IGVMUULH lU: bYlJbb4ti4 Y-/ Y.I. 2/ 1S S'1-A'YL UP CAI.I I'UKNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research := State Clearinghouse r'�°Frh�w"�? ' Cray Davis Stevc Nissen . GOvERNOR PIRIi7 irk July 27, 2001 1 ' Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43200 Business Center Drive Riverside, CA 92590 ' Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan -Revised Draft E1R SCH#: 1997121030 'Dear SaicdNaaseh: The Stare Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the ' enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 26, 2001, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State ' Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that. "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or.which are ' required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need ' mora information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft ' environmental documents, purstant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review proce3s. ' Sincerely, Terry Robert ' Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse p rr (' p)ISuU� I ' 7I Enclosures cc: Resources Agency �.h� ,J (JI Inv) ' 1400 'TEENY STRUl' P.O. BUS 3044 SACRAMLN'1'0, CAurORN1A 9012-5041 916-445-0613 FAS 9M-121-3018 www.ofR.C.{.Gllv,lCa-EAKINGHOi7SF_H'rML JUL-30-01 17:22 FROM:CITY OF TEMECULA tu:�n�eavevrr r...,n I.IUCUIIIUIII UCL411b rcWPUrt State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 1997121030 project Title Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan -Revised Draft EIR Lead Agency Temecula, City of Typo EIR Draft EIR Description Specific Plan covering 819.7 acres with 1,721 residential units. Project will provide several regional roadway links, Including Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road. Lead Agency Contact Name Saied Naaseh Agency City of Temecula Phone 909 694-6400 Fax email Address 43200 Business Center Drive City Riverside State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside - City Temecula - Region Cross Streets Parcel No. 957-34-01; 957-340-601, 003-8, 958-260-001-3, 957-130-001 & 002 Township 7S Range 2W Section 20121 Base Proximity to: Highways 79 North Airports French Valley Railways Waterways Santa Gertrudis Creek Schools Land Use Agriculture, Specific Plan -Low Density Residential. Project Issues AesthebcMsual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality: Archaeologic -Historic; Forest Land/Fire Hazaro; Flood Plain/Flooding: Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Selsmic; Minerals; Noise; Public Services; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity, Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Twic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian: Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Cumulative Effects; Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game. Region 6; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 06/1212001 Start of Review 06/12/2001 End of Review 07/26/2001 11 I 1 !into- Rmnlra in rtata fiAuis result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ' ' State of California ' MEMORANDUM To: Project Coordinator Resources Agency Mr. Saied Naaseh Temecula Planning Department Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. CA 92590 The Resources Agency Date: July 10, 2001 From: Department of Conservation Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations Subject: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Roripaugh Ranch Project — SCH #1997121030 The Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) has reviewed the DEIR for the 820 -acre, 1,721 -unit residential project. The Division monitors farmland conversion on a statewide basis and administers the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act and other agricultural land conservation programs. We recommend that the following issues be clarified in the final EIR. The DEIR (Page 3-15) notes that the property was withdrawn from the Murrieta Hot Springs No. 9 Agricultural Preserve in 1995. We recommend that the final EIR provide clarification as to whether the land was under Williamson Act contract at the time of its removal from the Preserve, and, if the land was under contract, how many years remained on the term of the contract at the time of its removal. This information is important because removal of contracted lands from an agricultural preserve does not terminate the contract. Removal of contracted land from a preserve does, however, automatically initiate the contract nonrenewal process. For a ten-year contract, nonrenewal will take from nine to ten years to complete. It is only upon completion of contract nonrenewal that the contract is terminated. Indeed, prior to the completion of contract nonrenewal, incompatible nonagricultural land uses (e.g., residential development) cannot occur on affected lands (Government Code Section 51236). For this reason, the final EIR should also clarify timing of development relative to expiration of the contract. The DEIR (Page 3-18) notes that project implementation will permanently remove 500 acres of agricultural land, including 210 acres of prime agricultural land. The DEIR compares forced agricultural use of nonprofitable lands as a taking of private land and subject to compensation. It is not clear how this opinion is germane to CEQA, which is an information document. The fact remains that 500 acres of essentially nonrenewable agricultural soil resources will be lost if this project is approved. This should be considered a potentially significant environmental impact that is described in the EIR. If the agricultural use of this land is no longer feasible, the reasons for this should be factually documented. 1 z I Project Coordinator and Mr. Saied Naaseb ' July 10, 2001 Page 2 If the conversion of agricultural land is found to be a significant impact, the final EIR should consider feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land loss, consistent with Temecula General Plan Goal of protecting prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses (DEIR, Page 3-18). For example, agricultural land conservation easements are used by a number of cities and counties in California to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Conservation easements can be implemented by at least two alternative approaches: the outright purchase of easements tied to the project, or via the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional or statewide organization or agency Whose purpose includes the purchase, holding and maintenance of agricultural land conservation easements. These organizations include local and regional land trusts and conservancies. At the state level, the Division's California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) is authorized to accept funds for the subsequent directed purchase (via grants to local organizations) of agricultural land conservation easements. Whatever the approach, if the use of conservation easements is considered, the conversion of agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional significance, and the search for replacement lands conducted regionally, and not limited strictly to lands within the Temecula area. Information on the CFCP, and conservation easements generally, is available on the Department's website, or by contacting the Division at the address and phone number listed below. The Department's website address is: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/CFCP/index.htm Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised DEIR. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information on agricultural land conservation issues please contact the Division at 801 K Street, MS 13-71, Sacramento, California 95814; or, phone (916) 324-0850. You may also call me at Kenneth E. Trott Environmental Coordinator cc:. Erik Vink, Assistant Director Division of Land Resource Protection Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District JUL 16 2001 1 1 I. 31 1 11 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS; Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF AERONAUTICS M.S..#40 'DIVISION .1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300 P.O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916).654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 July 10, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh-Shahry City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Naaseh-Shahry: Re: City of Temecula's Draft EIR for Roripaugh Ranch; SCH# 97121030 The California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of Aeronautics, reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The project includes a proposed elementary school within two miles of the French Valley Airport, In accordance with the enclosed Education Code Section 17215, the Department prior to acquisition of the school site must conduct a school site evaluation. If they have not already done so, the school district should be advised to submit written notification to the California Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at 916/654-5314. Sincerely, SANDY HESNARD Environmental Planner Enclosure c : State Clearinghouse, French Valley Airport, Riverside County ALUC JUL 1 200 I1 Education Code Section 1721 5, as amended by AB 747, Chapter 337 of the Statutes of 1999 17215. (a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of schoolsites before acquiring title to property for a new schoolsite, the governing board of each school district, including any district governed by a city board of education, shall give the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway of a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site. (b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition. If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Department of Education shall, in lieu of notifying the Department of Transportation, notify the United States Department of Transportation or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it may desire to give. (c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the proposed site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. As part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner and operator of the airport who shall be granted the opportunity to comment upon the proposed schoolsite. The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which a proposed site will be evaluated pursuant to this section. (d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of Transportation's report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district. The governing board may not acquire title to the property until the report of the Department of Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board may not acquire title to the property.. If the report does favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to acquiring the site. (e) If the Department of Transportation's recommendation does not favor acquisition of a proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acquisition of that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing site to include that site. (f) This section does not apply to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor to any additions or extensions to those sites. From Internet: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htmi Caltrans Aeronautics Program: January 13, 2000 Iv Ivinston H. Hickox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency July 6, 2001 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Mr, Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43200 Business Center Drive Temecula, California 92590 NOTI'CEOF"COMPL'ETION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH - SCH # 1997121030 Dear Mr. Naaseh: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of Completion (NOC) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above- mentioned Project. Gray Davis Governor Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: 1) The final EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at q the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at 1 the Project area 2) The final EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within Z the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the final EIR needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. ' 3) The final EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. ' 4) The NOC indicates that the project site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5, and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, the proposed development may fall under the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property". Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to ' construction if the proposed project is on a "Border Zone Property". ' The energy challenge facing California is mat. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website at www.dtscxa.gov. ca.gov. n Mr. Saied Naaseh ' July 6, 2001 Page 2. , 5) The NOC states that the project is located within an airport land use plan within two miles of a public airport that would result in a potentially significant impact and safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Proper investigations should be conducted to confirm that the airport has not contributed ' any chemical contamination to the proposed developmental areas. 6) Household hazardous waste management has not been addressed in the NOC for the final EIR. It is evident that the proposed project will increase household hazardous wastes. 7) The NOC indicates that the„project will include. two schools. During the proposed school property acquisition and/or construction utilizing state funding, it should be in compliance with the Assembly Bill 387 (Wildman) and Senate Bill 162 (Escutia) which requires a comprehensive environmental review process and that DTSC's approval is required. DTSC's role in the assessment , investigation, and cleanup of proposed school sites is to ensure that the selected properties are free of contamination, and if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a level that is protective of the students and faculty who will occupy the new school. A study of the site is to be conducted to provide basic information for determining if there has been, a, release, or if there is a threatened release of a hazardous material including agricultural chemicals or if there maybe a naturally occurring hazardous material present at the site, that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. Though the proposed daycare and preschool construction may not be using state fund, the purpose of the bill is to protect the children who will be attending this school. Therefore, proper environmental studies should be conducted to ensure that a threat to the school/day care children's health and the environment does not exist at the site. 8) The NOC indicates that due to prior agriculture use of the project site, onsite soils could contain pesticide residue. Therefore, the site may have contributed to the soil and groundwater contamination. Proper investigation and remedial actions should be conducted at the site prior to the new development. 9) An environmental assessment should be conducted at the site to evaluate whether the site is contaminated with hazardous substances from the potential past and current uses including storage, transport, generation, and disposal of toxic and hazardous waste/materials. Potential hazard to the public or the environment through routine transportation, use, disposal or release of hazardous materials should be discussed in the final EIR. 10) The NOC shows that a hazard impact is expected, therefore, the potential exists for the inadvertent release of hazardous materials from the future uses, to 1 tMr. Saied Naaseh July 6, 2001 ' Page 3 transport, and storage of hazardous material. It should be addressed in detail in the final EIR. to ' 11) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose them rather than placing them in ' another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) are applicable to these soils. Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 12) The NOC shows that significant hazard to the public is expected with future uses of the site, therefore, potential uses and storage of hazardous materials at the site should be addressed in the final EIR. Remember to obtain a hazardous ('Z ' material's storage permit from an appropriate regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to regulate hazardous substances handling, storage, treatment ---and/or disposal. Contact the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to ' evaluate the permit requirements. Include that information in the final EIR. 13) Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction should be remediated in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at the If further site. so, studies should be carried out to delineate the general extent of the contamination. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat ' to public health and/or the environment posed by the site. It is necessary to determine. if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If it is not an immediate threat, final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any assessments. 1) The NOC does not indicate whether any schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. If there exists any schools, then human health and the environment of students and faculty members should be protected during the j c� construction or cleanup activities. A study of the site is to be conducted to 1 provide basic information for determining if there has been a release, or if there is a threatened release of a hazardous material including agricultural chemicals or if there may be a naturally occurring hazardous material present at the site, that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 14) A groundwater investigation may also be necessary based on the nature of on- l S site contaminants and the depth to the groundwater. Mr. Saied Naaseh , July 6, 2001 Page 4 , 15) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is ' suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented.. If it is determined that contaminated Ira soil and/or groundwater exist, the final EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. ' DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484-5479. Sincerely, ' Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. ' Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Ivinston H. Hickox Internet Address: hnp://www.swrcb.m.gov/mgcb9/ Gray Davis Secretaryfor 9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite A, San Diego, California 92124-1324 Governor Environmental Phone (858) 467-2952 • FAX (858) 571-6972 ' Protection July 10, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh ' City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Review for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in the City of Temecula, California (SCH# 97121030) Dear Mr. Naaseh: The Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (RWQCB) has reviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Project that was ' received on July 9, 2001. The proposed project consists of the development of a 1,721 unit master -planned residential community on approximately 819 acres within the City of Temecula and Riverside County. ' The primary concerns and mandates of the RWQCB are the protection of water quality standards; these include numeric and narrative water quality criteria, beneficial uses; and the State's anti - degradation policy. Water quality criteria for inland surface waters are identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) . The anti -degradation policy states that any water quality degradation will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State; will not unreasonably affect existing and potential beneficial uses of such waters; and will not result in water quality less than described in the Basin Plan. Implementation of the proposed project will require section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. To obtain certification, the project must be conducted in such a way as to protect ' water quality and beneficial uses associated with Long Valley and Santa Gertrudis Creeks and 2 their tributaries. Beneficial uses include Contact and Non -contact water recreation (REC1 and REC2), Warin Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), and Cold Freshwater ' Habitat (COLD). Based upon review of the submitted DEIR, staff would recommend denial of 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed project for the reasons discussed below. The DEIR provides little information on the proposed impacts to water quality that will result from urban development. The document states that the project will contribute to pollution and 2 degradation of the streams onsite, but fails to identify expected pollutants, Best Management J ' Practices (BMPs) necessary to reduce pollutants below a level of concern, and mitigation measures. The project does propose the creation of four detention basins, but states that these are California Environmental Protection Agency The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora list of ' simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web -site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov. ` � Recycled Paper A ¢a Mr. Naaseh - 2 - July 10, 2001 for flood control purposes. No information on the type of basins was provided to demonstrate how these basins are intended to treat urban pollutants. Furthermore, the basins are proposed to be created in the existing streams. This will significantly alter stream functions; changing a, riverine system to that of a pond. This type of conversion will result in impacts to water quality and beneficial uses (e.g., change in plant communities, flow regime) and would not be authorized through the 401 process. Detention basins need to be located outside of the stream, in an upland area where they can trap urban runoff before it enters the existing creeks. The project also proposes the channelization of Long Valley Creek, but provides no other information than to show it as a soft bottom channel. A May 12, 1999, comment letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District implies that the sides will be ripraped. At a minimum, Long Valley Creek needs to have soft sides and bottom, be sized to allow conveyance of the 100 year storm event when fully vegetated, and does not require periodic maintenance (e.g., mowing, clearing of a low flow channel). Channelization of creeks often result in (1) introduction of additional pollutant loads that are detrimental to water quality, (2) lack of capacity to accommodate natural vegetation growth, increased runoff due to development, and stormwater flows, (3) conversion of riparian habitat to freshwater marsh, (4) loss of buffering capacity, (5) potential for increased storm damage due to constriction of the flood plain, (6) loss of riparian habitat and associated loss of wildlife, (7) constriction of wildlife corridors,. and (8) changes in hydrology, natural meanders, and sand deposition. Furthermore, diversity of in -stream habitat that supports WARM, COLD, and WILD beneficial uses will be lost because of the channelization. The RWQCB requires that every effort be made to keep Long Valley Creek as a functioning, self-sustaining ecosystem in its existing location where it still retains a natural floodplain and the necessary hydrologic soils. The channelized creek does not appear to have a floodplain or a natural meander pattem than will be supportive of the aforementioned beneficial uses. Also, a functioning stream has a wetland/upland transition zone that is not apparent along the creek banks. Impacts to beneficial uses will also occur from the proposed elimination of the lower portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek. The proposed approximately 1,600 feet long, 10" x 10" RCB box will eliminate connectivity between the upstream and downstream portions of the creek, and eliminate the WARM and WILD beneficial uses. As stated in the document, Santa Gertrudis Creek is a significant wildlife corridor; the proposed impacts will significantly impair this function. The proposed box culverts at road crossings for both Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creeks will also negatively impact beneficial uses. The road crossings should be sized to allow for 100 - year flood event while minimizing the amount of hardscape (e.g., riprap) downstream of the crossing. In other words, the crossings should be as large as possible to accommodate beneficial uses and should not be sized based on water volume. Bridge crossings should be used instead of culverts to minimize impacts to the streams. California Environmental Protection Agency ea Recycled Paper II 1 1 1 1 i 1 LJ C 1 Mr. Naaseh - 3 - July 10, 2001 The DEIR fails to identify mitigation measures other than deferring it to the permitting process and proposing some planting in the detention basins. The proposed "fringe" of riparian vegetation to be planted around the basins will not be acceptable as partial mitigation for the loss 7 of 10.8 acres of waters of the U.S. Furthermore, the fact that permits are required does not relieve the DEIR from the responsibility of identifying mitigation. The document needs to identify onsite opportunities for mitigation, the type of mitigation (e.g., plant community, creation, restoration), and the rationale for expected success. Mitigation not only needs to consider acres and plant community, but also lost functions. Alternatives selected for the alternative analysis are inadequate. It appears that the alternatives 8 only address changes in density and not changes in impact footprints. At a minimum, v alternatives that avoid channelization, minimize road crossings, and preserve all of Santa Gertrudis Creek need to be prepared and evaluated. Significant impacts to water quality and beneficial uses will result from the proposed project. The DEIR fails to identify urban pollutants and BMPs, provides no rationale for the proposed channelization of Long Valley Creek, fails to fully identify impacts and mitigation measures, and fails to identify and analyze alternatives that will avoid and reduce impacts to waters of the U.S. Based on the project description in the DEIR and the expected impacts, staff will recommend denial of 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed project. If you have any questions concerning the issues raised above, please contact Ms. Stacey ro Baczkowski of my staff at 858-637-5594. Respectfully, HN H. ROBERTUS Executive Officer San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Robert Smith California Department of Fish and Game, Juan Hernandez ' California Environmental Protection Agency Cd Recycled Paper JUL 16 2001 1 1 C 1 C] 11 C SPATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Eastern Sierra -Inland Deserts Region 4775 Bird Farm Road Chino Hills, California 91709 July 26, 2001 Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR SCH #1997121030 Dear Mr. Naaseh: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed development project consisting of 1,286 single-family dwelling units, 435 multi -family units, 190,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, two schools, 23.6 acres of parks, and 255 acres of flood control and open space on 819.7 acres in western Riverside County. The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Game Code section 711.7 and 1802 and CEQA. Guidelines section 15386) and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines section 15381). On July 16, 1999 the Department submitted a letter in response to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Subsequently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved the final Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for the County's Assessment District 161 (AD 161). The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan a signatory to that Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) has made modifications in its proposed development in conformance with United States Fish and Wildlife recommendations. In particular, the applicants reduced the number of units from 2,058 to 1,721, helped fund an underpass at Butterfield Stage Road, eliminated impacts from the proposed development on the Skunk Hollow vernal pool, and provided mitigation for impacts to gnatcatchers and gnatcatcher habitat. The 6,6 1 2 ' Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR - SCH 1997121030 ' AD161 SHCP includes provisions for setting aside 1,400 acres of sage scrub and related habitat, including 201 acres on the Roripaugh site and management for the . conserved habitat. , The project applicants have provided mitigation for impacts to sensitive ' biological resources, however have not provided impacts to streams and associated habitat jurisdictional to the Department. Under Section 1600 et seq of the Fish and Game Code, the Department requires the project applicant to notify the Department of any activity that will divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or the bed, channel, or ' bank (which includes associated riparian resources) of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed prior to the applicant's commencement of the activity. , Streams include, but are not limited to, intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue -line streams, and watercourses with subsurface flow. The Department's issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the local jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative Declaration or EIR for the ' project. However, if the CEQA document does not fully identify potential impacts to lakes, streams, and associated resources (including, but not limited to, riparian and alluvial fan sage scrub habitat) and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring ' and reporting commitments, additional CEQA documentation will be required prior to execution (signing) of the Streambed Alteration Agreement. In order to avoid delays or repetition of the CEQA process, potential impacts to a lake or stream, as well as ' avoidance and mitigation measures need to be discussed within this CEQA document. The Department recommends the following measures to avoid subsequent CEQA documentation and project delays ' 1. Incorporate all information regarding impacts to lakes, streams and associated habitat within the DER. Information that needs to be included within this document ' includes: (a) a delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project; (b) details on the biological resources (flora and fauna) associated with the lakes and/or streams; (c) identification of the , presence or absence of sensitive plants, animals, or natural communities; (d) a discussion of environmental alternatives; (e) a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and (f) a discussion of potential mitigation measures required , to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance. The applicant and lead agency should keep in mind that the State also has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. 2. Include in the DER a discussion of potential adverse impacts from any ' increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. 3, The Department recommends that the project applicant and/or lead agency ' I I 1 I I 3 Roripaugh stanch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR - SCH 1997121030 consult with the Department to discuss potential project impacts and avoidance and mitigation measures. Early consultation with the Department is recommended, since. modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Pre -project meetings are held every Monday at the Department's Chino Hills office. To schedule"a pre -project meeting or to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification package, please call (562) 590-5880. The formulation and approval of the AD 161 Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan is a successful example of a cooperative effort between the County, landowners, consultants and resource agencies to devise solutions to a complex and difficult land .use problem. The Department would like to express appreciation to the project applicants for participating in the Sub -Regional Habitat Conservation Plan.. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Robin Maloney- Rames, ES III, at (714) 817-0585. Sincerely, WA Jeff Drongesen, ES IV Supervisor Habitat Conservation - Southwest Region 6 cc: Jeff Newman, USFWS I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS ' Main Office 8x8 West Seventh Street x2th Floor Los Angeles, California ' 90017-3435 ., . ' f(213)236-1825 Sincerely, wwv.•scag.ca.gov July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan -SCAG No. 1 20010323 Dear Mr. Naaseh: Thank you for submitting the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of Intal plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project IccaycPm,dSupeMarbnMaeh.f n sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals" and San Bermrdioat - Plnr Vile Rmdene nd It.1 Ha,..—in. �e My, 4 - ... policies. If.you.have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me d ace n., Hai Courrdimember Be. Perri 4ed. •:ImmMia „-Prmdt_nc M,�,-Pm-Tenn-:..,' Er4867:: Thank - Sincerely, Angela - T Beach am a 4e.... 'n Augeln <.., rT Z T.] TkT tan Mg Irc /•)� /��//�/( o .r•� /�/�" wa. c t.. Cmnmr Darge Ban. &II Hal laf An,,] n Robert &uneh. Ra.nnead % - n C„'pA'nr Angelesranta C ;itn - ani .JEF EY . SMITH, AICP almrgtmMgd NV GnbWki.lmg& N -:.:: _• -...: ..... .. -. ...: - Senior Planner Dee Hn4tany,Tomna Mike Hemander, la �•Nan Hada, lm Ar • sandia Intergovernmental Review a 5rymdo • Il,unae Arklry. Inglnwod 'tl h MaCtaci>: Wwnry • Cindy NHe1ka.�N. ink. • scatty Murphy. Burhank • Pam 'Covmc Sanu Monln • Nin Pacbero. Im ,idea •Alex Padllla.Ina Mgelo • Beamee Prw. Ndley 'T" "c"IMpeln I • Gren R tlW kla r[ z m DBlu C..'n Dick W. - In _ m5yke.Wal AWTdbaa. Nbambn•dldnry - b. Ic. ft." - R,d wart. (m An[eln - Nu M[eka • Rmh Washburn. CaLbaua Im,g Beach G ^ai: Chade Sml,h. Onnge Coun' ea.Im Alamim •Ralph Baum Huntington nh • M Brwn, Buena Ark • Imr Bone. Tn"in aratnth Cowin. Can, Mev• Cathryn Drloung. • Rlchud Dlamra , tale (o • Aln ay • Sind, McC'racka. Anahnm - FFNlguei '. Bru • Tod Aidpeway. Newport &¢b - ea ids Camey: Bab itta . Nrenide Cama" • Ia.erNpe. AI.enWe • Gnp Pah. Cirhedcr " Ronna. Temaula •Ian Rudman. - Cnarla whin. Manz valley IRm e auaadiuo C..." Ion P@da, $an Iro Ccunq • Bill Aky,ndn. Ranch. amon8a.• Dnid hhl—, Romana • it, Inn ' a. Grand Temee • Bon Hun,, Yinanlle Nmon-Ar w Chino Hitin • Iudnh a'dlna. Ccyaa�un T h,dy Mhela, tBrte,n. Sim, n' [yt, an". • Du,na De Paaa, San memwa • 1 1'om8, ly. Hu<mme youn IrCounrT h+n',ncnn, Conminwn: Mrmn Comry Tnvapnnarim Com ioc L•u. Siml vLlm I July 11, 2001 ' Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 2 , COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN SCAG NO. 1 20010323 , PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The proposed Project is a revision of a previous project, and considers the development of a specific plan for the development of 1,721 residential units, 190,000 square feet of ' commercial, office and institutional uses. The development is also proposed to include algmenta_ty.and-,middle...schools,-parks, open spaces and a fire station. •The -proposed - Project is located within two governmental jurisdictions. Approximately 185.7 acres is 1 within -the ,City of _.Temecula, and the remaining- 63--4 ,acres are --presently- within _. _. ---�---=-inirrcorporated-River`side-County. ' INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides. he primary reference- forSCAG+sproject review, activity is - the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into ' -- three -categories: core ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June z 1994)r Regional •Transports#ion Plam(adopted April "1998), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality ' (adopted, January, 1 995)chapters constitute -,the_. core_ chapters. These core .chapters the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable , regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and. ancillary.policies, which_aredifferentiated in the comment portion of this letter. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) constitutes the region's Transportation —,_ -Plan,: Th�RTF:polCcies-.are.ancorporated�intothe-RCRG - -°. ---- ---- Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, ' Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may ' reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. ' Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. Each of the applicable policies ' 1 July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 3 related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the Project with those policies. SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS ' 1. The Revised Draft EIR provides a discussion of the relationship of the proposed q Project to applicable regional plans as required by Section 15125 [d] of Guidelines 1 for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. ' 2. The Revised Draft EIR provides a section and discusses Western Riverside Council of Government's Subregional Comprehensive Plan. The discussion is in response to a Z ' July 12, 1999 WRCOG comment letter which encouraged consistency with WRCOG's policies and goals._- ' 3. The Final EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, utilizing commentary from the following detailed SCAG staff comments. The response ' should also discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable ... ... regianaL.plaris _,We.suggest that -you -id---entify the_specificpolicies, by policy number, 'with --a discussion.ofconsisten*brsupport with each policy. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The-GrovAll,.-Maga ernerrt=Chapter= (GMC) -of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and ' Guide contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR does not reference SCAG's current growth forecasts (2001 RTP Growth Forecasts) for the Western Riverside Council of Governments subregion, unincorporated Riverside County and the City of Temecula. These forecasts are listed below: C July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 4 WRCOG Subregion Population Households Employment 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,119,215 1,416, 994 1,590,774 1,761,652 1,993,534 385,843 439,974 503,954 565,229 640,467 371,430 484,774 601,920 671,185 734,503 Unincorporated Riverside Co.. 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 344,480 414,995 490,941 565,617 666,953 Households.... 1..15,485 :- . x132742: 7,1;60;440 486;966 - -219;538 Employment 69,838 102,251 135,750 155,557 173,669 City of Temecula 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 54,097 74,189 76,704 79,178 82,535 Households 16,356 21,785 23,140 24,436 26,029 Employment 20;880 27,565 34,471 - --38,555 42,290 - - --It-would be- helpful if the Final" EIR would provide. a discussion and .address the - - mannerin::which.the:Project-is supportive -ordetracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the Revised Draft Elk, we are unable to determine if the Project is consistent with this core. RCPG policy. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth -staff_comments:..-The Revised- Draft-- EIR;--on page 2=16,` provides a discussion on project phasing. The proposed Project will be developed in three phases over a 15 to 20 year period. Infrastructure improvements and services will be implemented concurrently with each phase of development. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and -�J 7' July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 5 encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the policies of the RTP are the following: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR makes no reference of transportation investments based on SCAGs' Regional Performance Indicators and associated objectives pertaining to: Mobility -. Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient and economical movements of people and -goods.. ..... Average Wbrk Trip Travel Time in Minutes- 22 minutes PM Peak Highway Speed - 33 mph Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (All Trips) - 33% ' Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which - --- -opportunities--are-reached: --,Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. - Work Opportunities within 25 Minutes - 88% Environment - Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing systemand the environment. (All Trips) eetrng•Federal-and'StiteStandards'Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets Reliability -Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips) Transit= 63% Highway ----76%.... Safety - Transportation Systems should provide minimal, risk, accident, death and injury. (AU Trips) Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0.008 Injury Accidents - 0.929 Livable Communities - Transportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all residents have access to all opportunities with minimal travel time. (All Trips) ' Vehicle Trip Reduction- 1.5% July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 6 Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction— 10.0% Equity - The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips) Low -Income (Household Income $12,000)) Share of Net Benefits — Equitable Distribution of Benefits Cost -Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment. (All Trips) .,: Net Present Value:— Maximum Return on Transportation Investment Value of a Dollar Invested — Maximum Return on Transportation Investment The Revised Draft EIR does not address Transportation Investments based on - -- ---- ---= SCAG's- adopted • Regional- Performance-Indicators---The-Final-EIR should address the manner in which the Project is supportive of or detracts from the achievement ...of the_eight.core.... RTP...objectives. -Based-on the -information provided,. we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion on this policy. _ 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. SCAG.-. staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) identifies various:. traffic.. and circulation impacts and recommends improvement measures to mitigate these impacts. 'There are a number of mitigation measures including onsite and offsite roadway and circulation improvements, intersection, signals and other related -.improvements to -minimize -- - potential impaefs tier 61;n "The prop694-d improvements will be phased with development of the proposed Project. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR in Sections 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) and 3.6 (Air Quality) includes a number of mitigation measures that addresses the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of Transportation Control Measures. Section 3.5 recommends six TSM/TDM mitigation measures that propose to reduce project related traffic impacts. Section 3.6 recommends the establishment of a traffic management plan for individual contractors. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 1 July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 7 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4.02. The Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) recommends a number of roadway improvements that will help to maintain, operate and enhance the existing transportation system. The Project is supportive or this core RTP policy. GMC POLICIES TED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost; that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers - 3.05 Encourage patterrls of urban development and land use, which reduce. costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR, in Section 3.12 (Utilities), suggests that water, sewer and utility services are available to serve the proposed Project. The.P cjest.is,supportive-of.this.ancillary RCPG policy. to l2 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. ( 3 SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.05. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. [( SCAG staff comments. The Revised, Draft EIR addresses subjects that may have 1 environmental impacts. It is written in a manner, where all possible impacts are mitigated this will help minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Temecula. A discussion on discretionary agencies and actions required to implement the proposed Project are on page 2- 7 July 11, 2001 , Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 8 22 of the Revised Draft EIR. These actions will also help to maintain economic , vitality and competitiveness of the City of Temecula. In addition, the Revised Draft EIR on page 2-20 includes project objectives, which will also help to minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of . Temecula. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. , GMC �- LI RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPRPVE THE REGIONA The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and. clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve: open.space :and:: natural:=resources;. and - that are aesthetically -pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the- proposed, project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. 3.92 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4:04. The Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) includes a number of mitigation measures, which encourage the use of transit and provide opportunities for residents:-towalk-and, bike: be --Project is• supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.94 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. SCAG.. staff comments. . The - Revised Draft EIR, in Section- 2.0 (Project Description), provides a discussion on the density of the proposed Project along existing transportation corridors based on a regional network. Regional access to the site is available from the 1-15 and 1-215 Freeways to .the west. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.96 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.14. The Project is 11 11 ' July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 9 supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. lb ' 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns, which contain a range of urban densities. ' SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR, on page 2-8, includes a discussion of the characteristics of the proposed Project. The proposed Project includes the ' proposed development of up to 1,721 residential units on approximately 423.4 residential acres for a net average 4.06 units -per -acre. Residential densities will range from Very Low to High (Table 2-1, Proposed Land Uses). There will also be a mix of lot sizes and housing types to respond to a broad segment.of the housing market. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. I3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. SCAG staff comments. The Summary Section of the Revised Draft EIR includes Table ES -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, which lists environmental impacts • 2,C) of the proposed project and summarizes the types of measures to mitigate the ' impacts outlined in the Revised.Draft EIR. The Project is proposed in a manner that will minimize the -environmental-impacts. -The City of Temecula should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. ' 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and -animals. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.7. (Biological Z� Resources) discusses the Projects' impact on vegetation communities, sensitive ' species, wildlife, and .sensitive plants. Seven mitigation measures have been recommended to address the identified impacts. In addition, elements of the City of Temecula General Plan, which address environmental resources and ' conservation issues, support this policy. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. ' 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.3 (Earth Resources) 2Z identifies potential impacts related to geology and faults, topography/grading; ' liquefaction, soils and erosion, other hazards and offsite improvements. Mitigation 1 July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 10 measures are recommended to address identified impacts through the implementation of building codes and speck requirements and/or project design. The Project is supportiveof this ancillary RCPGpolicy. LJ 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noisein certain locations, measures ^ aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans SCAG staff coDraft EIR, SCAG staff comments on policies 3.18, 3.20 and in Section 3.10 (Noise) identifies potential short and long-term impacts related to construction, traffic, and residential noises.. Mitigation measures_ included in this section have been recommended to- address the identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy, j GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIA The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment.of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers. 3.24 Encourage --efforts of local- jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.17. The proposed Project. has -a potential to develop up to 1,721 residential units. The proposed Project will provide a mix of lot sizes and housing types to respond to a broad segment of the market. Project objectives listed on page 2-20 support this policy. However, there is no indication of affordable housing as part of the proposed development. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the Revised Draft EIR, the Project is partially supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. I July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 11 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of -society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.05. The Revised Draft EIR, in Sections 3.11 (Public Facilities) suggests that the proposed Project could have impacts on police and fire services, schools, library services and recreational facilities. Mitigation measures in the form of dedicated land for ' facilities, fees, plan preparation and design review and development standards will help to mitigate the identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 1 AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS The Air Quality Chapter (AQC) core actions that are generally applicable to the Project are as follows: - 5.D7 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed-(e.g.; indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles- traveledlemission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 4.04. The proposed ' Project considers the implementation of demand management based programs. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. ' 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation anis economic relationships to ensure ' consistency and minimize conflicts. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, in Section III -F (Air Quality), discusses ' regional, local and Project air quality relationships and regulatory requirements. Mitigation measures are recommended to address emission impacts related to construction, transportation and operations. In addition, goals of the Air Quality Element of the City of Temecula General Plan support this policy. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 1 I 1k zI N• July 11, 2001 ' Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 12 WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS ' The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater. discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR, on page 5-1, suggests that reclaimed water is not available or affordable in the Project area at this time. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the Revised Draft EIR, we are unable to determine if the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. OPEN SPACE CHAPTER ANCILLARY GOALS Outdoor Recreation 9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. SCAG staff comments. The proposed Project includes the incorporation of approximately 279 -acres of open space for recreational uses and facilities, including parks, wildlife habitat and active playing fields. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. 9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments for goal 9.01. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. 9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR does not discuss the subject of self- sustaining regional resources and facilities. It would be helpful if the Final EIR July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 13 would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is �� supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on information provided in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine if the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG goal. - Public Health and Safety r 9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards. SCAG staff comments. The Revised Draft EIR, on page 3-159, discusses the subject of a fuel modification zone space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards. The Project is supportiveof this ancillary RCPG goal. 9.05 . Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment. 3 S SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policies 3.22 and 9.04. _. ..._The Project is supportive of this, ancillary_ RCPGgoal. Resource Protection 9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands. SCAG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policy 3.20. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG goal. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. As noted in the staff comments, the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for 37 the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with or supports some of the core and ancillary policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Based on the information in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with core policies 3.01, 4.01 and ; g 11.07. Based on the information in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of ancillary policy 9.04. In addition, based on information provided in the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed 0 July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 14 Project is partially supportive of ancillary policy 3.24. 2. As noted in the General Staff Comments, the Final Environmental Impact Report should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of 31 ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. 'j 3. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in] �f^, accordance with CEQA requirements. I ' July 11, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ' Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency ' established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities, the Association is: Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and the, transportation planning process resulting in a ' Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. '134(g) -(h), 49 U.S.C. '1607(04g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. '450, and 49 C.F.R. '613. The Association is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of ' the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. ' Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b) -(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C. '7504(a) as a Co -Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to ' the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '7506. Responsible, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section ' 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. ' The authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A- 95 Review). ' Responsible ,for reviewing, pursuant to' Sections 15125(b). and_J5206-of. the_ CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. ' The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) ' Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Govemments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. ' Revised January 18, 1995 11 I South Coast ' Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmd.gov ' FAXED: JULY 12, 2001 July 12, 2001 Mr. Dave Hogan/Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: Temecula Dear Mr. Hogan: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to ' comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The AQMD would be happy to work with the Lead Agency to address these ' issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dr. Charles Blankson,. Transportation Specialist — CEQA Section, at (909)396-3304 if you have any questions regarding these comments, ' Sincerely Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources ' Attachment SS:CB RVC010612-07 Control Number JUL.l 6 2001 C- 2, Dave Hogan. 1- July 12, 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan - Temecula Air Quality Data: Table 3.6-2 on page 3-88 of the DEIR shows air quality data for the Perris Monitoring Station from 1992 through 1997. The AQMD recommends that air quality data for the three most recent years be presented in order to show the most recent trends in air quality for the project area. Please note that the air quality data for 1998, 1999 and 2000 for the air monitoring station are available and are attached. 2. The MAAQI Model: According to the discussion on page 3-94 of the DEIR, the SCAQMD MAAQI Model was used in estimating the project's operational emissions shown in Table 3.6-4. Please note that although the MAAQI model was developed by the AQMD, the AQMD no longer supports the use of this model in estimating project emissions. This is because mobile source emission factors used in the model are from an older version of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFAC model. The current version is EMFAC2000. Furthermore, the trip generation rates used in the model are from an older version (fifth) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The current version is the Sixth. For the final EIR, it is recommended that the lead agency use the calculation methodologies in Chapter 9 and the Appendix to Chapter 9 in the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) to calculate project emissions. Alternatively, the lead agency may use the CARB approved computer model URBEMIS7G in calculating both construction as well as operational emissions. The URBEMIS7G model can be obtained from the ARB web page: www.arb.ca.gov/urbemis7/urbemis7.html. Other methodologies can be used as long as documentation is provided regarding the source and applicability to the project. 3. Reducing PM10 Emissions: It is observed on page 3-91 of the DEIR that even with the implementation of a dust control program achieving an 80 percent control efficiency, PM10 construction emissions will still exceed the significance threshold of 150 pounds per day. It is recommended that to further reduce the daily PM10 emissions, the lead agency should include a mitigation measure requiring that no more than five acres of land be graded daily. 4. Dust Control Plan: Relative to comment 43, in the last paragraph on page 3-91 of the ■ DEIR, the lead agency identifies a number of dust control measures that can achieve affi/.1�■ dust control efficiency of up to 80 percent, yet none of these measures are included asJ part of the mitigation measures in Section 3.6.6. It is recommended that the dust control , measures be included as part of mitigation measure #1, the dust control plan. 5. Construction Emissions: Please delete the following sentence in the second paragraph on page 3-91 of the DEIR, "Because of their temporary nature, air quality impacts from construction have often been considered as individually less than significant." The SCAQMD strongly disagrees with this statement. Nonattainment designations are based on daily exceedances of the ambient air quality standards, so it is irrelevant if the 1 1 iDave Hogan -2- July 12, 2001 emissions are short- or long-term if they contribute to or cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard. ' 6. Other Mitigation Measures: Since NO, operational emissions will exceed the significance threshold even after the implementation of the proposed measures, it is ' recommended that the lead agency consider the following mitigation measures for inclusion in the project's mitigation program: ' • Use alternative clean fuel (e.g., compressed natural gas -powered ) construction equipment, • Alternatively, if diesel equipment is being used, require use of particulate filters and ' low sulfur diesel, as defined in Rule 431.2, i.e., less than 15 ppm sulfur content. 7. Editorial Corrections: (a) On page 3-89 of the DEIR, reference is made to ' Appendix I of CEQA Guidelines in the discussion on CEQA significance thresholds. This reference does not seem to be correct since Appendix I in the CEQA Guidelines has to do with Notice of Preparation for environmental documents. Please give the correct reference in the final EIR. (b) On page 3-90 of the DEIR, reference is made to Appendix E in connection with the air quality study done by Giroux and Associates. Please note that the air quality study report is in Appendix F and not Appendix E. (c) The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was released in 1993 as correctly noted on page 3-89 and not in 1994 as stated on page 3-90 of the DEIR. (d) Finally, at the bottom of page 3-98, ' there is an incorrect reference to SCAQMD Rule 403.2. The correct reference is Rule 403. Please correct these in the final EIR.. I I 1 I I I A 1 .40 alp 2000'A'IR'QUALITY . QnTrm rnACT-ATR 01TAi.:TTV AAANACENW,NT DISTRICT pg/m'_ Micrograms per cubic molar, of air, .;AAM -Annual Arithmetic Mean AGM -Annual Geometric Mean Pollutant not monitored. '- Less than-12'full montis�of.data: May not be.representative. ' '- Salton Sea Air Basin,. e) -. PM10-samples were: collected everyl6rday9'(every .3 days at Station. Numbers 4144 and A157) using the size -selective Inlet hlah volumesemolBnwith auartr III&media.. :0;- P1102.5 fedgral'standard was established effective September 16,;1997.;PM15 samples were collected eve11 ry 3 days at all silos except for the following silos: Station Numbers ` 060, 072; 087, 3176, and.4144 where Samples were adkea every day, and Station Number 5818 where samples were taken every 6'days ,g) =Total suspended particulates; lead, and:sulfale were.detertnlned from samples collected every6.days by the high volume,samplermethgd, on glass Fiber filter media. h) -.Federal PM10 alandard is AAM > 50pglnr3;:and:state 'standard is AGM 30 pglms:, i) -Federal PM2.5.standard ls.AAM, r 15.pOlms. .. j)1-:Eedoral lead standard is quarterly averege> 1:5 pg/m1 end state standardas monthly average.2 1.5,pg/m°: No location exceeded lead standards. - .Special monitoring Immediately downwind of :Millenary. sources oflead'was canipd;out at tourlocetlens in 2000. The maximum monthly average poncenlralion was. 0.46 pg/m"; and the maximum quarterly average concentration was 0:34 pg/ms, both recorded in Area 5, Southeast Los Angeles County.. .. jo - The data for,the samples collectedonhigh-wind-days (190 pgfm'on 427[00, 201',pglrn°on 5/15100'and 183 pg/m'on 9/21/00): were excluded Ina6cordance with EPA's Natural Events Policy: " .. Printed on Recycfed: - paper Suspended Particulates:BMlo o) Suspended Panlculales PMZ:S`0 Particulates TSP. g) Lead a)' Sulfate 0)' 2000 No xc Samples 'Exceeding Annual No, Ex Samples Exceeding) Annual Annual . No (Ex Samples Exceeding . 'Max. Slanda}d: .Averagesn) Max. Standard .Averagesi) Max, Average Max: Max. Max, Standard - No. Cone' edig!' 2MR. No. Conn. . Federal No. Cone. `Monthly Quadedy. Cone; Slats "Days. In - > 150 >150.. AAM' AGM Days In: >-65 AAM 'Days in. AAM Average Average in Source/Receptor Area Station of pg/m3, pglmc pglm� 'Cane: ;Cont. '.ol' pglms 'off pg/m, Cone ' pg/rap' Cone, Cone. I), Cone. l) pglmo .225 pgIm3 No., Location'' No. .[)ata -14-hour' 24 -flour •24-hour pglme' ..pg/m''.Oais- '24-hour 24=hour, ;pg/ma ,'Dale 24-hour. pg/m'' ;pglm' pg/ma 24-hour 24-hour Los, Angeles County - • 1' Central LA . 087 60: 80' :,0 15(25) .40.0 37.0 334' 87.8 11(3.3)' 22,0. 60 127 72.0 , 0.06 0.05" 16:4' 0 , ,2: Northwesl',Caeslal 111 County 091 - - - - - -- -- - - - .60 :87' 48:2. - - 14.1 0 3� Soulliwesl',Coaslal LA. County' 094 -..57 74 .0. 9(16) _ 36.1 ;334 - --- - - 61- - 127 64,8 0,08. 0.05, - 1612 0 4', South. Coastal LA Courtly. 072: _' :57 _105, 0, 12(21). .37.6 34:0:' 304' 815.. 19(1.3)• . 192• 61- 164 .68.2 0.05 0.04 26.7 -. .1 6 West San Feraa'ado Valle 074 - -- '-- - - - - -' 108 67.5 21c9 18:1- 7' EaSI San FernandoValley069:.' 60, 74 0 14(23) 39.1, 36.1. ' 70'' '84:4'' '3(4.3)• 23.8•. -- -� - - -- -• -- B .West Sen Gabriel Valley, 088': - - - 110 66.3 1(0.9)' '19.3 .68' '91 49:1 ,- - 13,9 0 9. East Son Gabriel Valleyi 060 57 94. ' 0: 24(42): 46.3 42.5 333 92.5. , :5(4,5) 20.1 59 157 '85;3 -• -- 17.2 0 9' .`East San Gabriel Valley 2 591.- 10 PonidnaWalnut 075 11' South' San GabriefValley ,' 085 ,- - -. - 116 ' 89.5 • 'A(3.4) 241 ;'57- 118 747'' 0.09' 0.06 13:1' 0 12' South Central LA CbunlyA: 084` -. _ -- <.. -- '121 82:1" 2(1:7), 23.0.. 60. :167 :74.9..0.09. 0.06: 11.4 0. 12 .South Central LA Caunly2: "801- -- - - '- -- - - - - - - -- -. -- 13- Santa Clarts Valley. 089: 61" 64 .0 '4 7 32.7 29,8 Orange County 16, North Orange County 3177-. 17' Central Orange County' 3176 • 61,' 126 0' 8(13) .39.9 35.7273' '1.13.9' 6(2:2)' 21.0 •- - - -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195- - ' ,. .-- - _. --' - _ ' _ '19' 'Saddleback' Vallay:l. 3186.-: .31• .60•' 0+' 1(3)' :28.9'. 27.4•'- - •• - -- - - - 19 Saddleback.Valle 2' 3812..60: 98 .0. 201 27.0 25.5 `719 94.7 Y 0.8 X14.7 - - - -• - - ,Riverside County - - - - '22 Norco/Corgna: .. 415:5 - 58. 129 0' 28(48) 49;3 434 •, - - - - - -- - " -- -. - -- ',23 .MelropoliIan Riverside County 1 . '4144 ...97 139 0 68(70)' 60.1 54.7 �. 304• 119.6- 11(3,6)' .28.2' 62 21.1: 115.5. 0.06, 0.05 11;0. _ 0 23 MelropollIan 'RlymsldeCounly2' 4146. - - - •- - 111' 79.3 -5(4.5) 25.5 63 144,' 828 0:04, 0.03 40,2. 0 24 116Y 4149:. 59 87 0 4322. .41`1.- 36.8 �:. - '25::Lake Elsinore .- .-, 4158'- '- - .. _ .. - _ - .• _ _ _- _. _ . 29 Banning Airport ' 4164 +.59' 69 .0 SO) 29.1• 24!7 30 Coachella Val A137 56' 44 0` 0' 244. 227 120 28.5 0 96 -•. - -_ _ 30 Coachella.Valle �2•^ .4157 1034 114k) 0k)' 52 50 k) ,51.9kL 48.4k) .115' - .28:6'. 0 11,2. .San Bernardino County. -- 32. NoAhvlestSan Bernardino: Valley' 5175 .' .- - - .- __ _, 56 122. 69.8; 0.07 0.051 11:6' -0 '. 33::.'Southwest Sap Bernardino' Valley: ._5817 58: 124. -0. 26(45). -50:4. 46.3 ::111 73.4( 2(1.8) 24.21 - - _ -- .34 Genital San BemardinoValley d: 5187- . 60. 108, 0 31(52)- 52.6 47:1. 111• 72:9 2(1-.8),. 24.5 57 '180.' 97.3 - 107 0 34 Central' San' Bernardino Valloy. 2:" 5203 66 108 0. 32(53) .50:1: 44,5"'.102' $9.8^ ,'3(2.9)' -'25.4' 59 '168 95.4': 0.06 0:05 12.4 0 .35 East Sam Bernardino: Valley 5204 61'.• 109 0 27(44) 39.T 46.0 _.. _ 37 Cenhah4an'Bernardino' Mountains.. 5181 -' :56.. 49: 0 0. 24!0 20.7 38 Easll San B'ernardino Mountains -5018-. ' - _ 58: 29.0.' 0 ' 10:6: District Maximum ". ..; . ... - .< •:139 0 ,. 68'-•. 60.1 54.7 119.6' 11 28.2` .. 211 '415.5 0:09. :0.06 �-;26.71 1' pg/m'_ Micrograms per cubic molar, of air, .;AAM -Annual Arithmetic Mean AGM -Annual Geometric Mean Pollutant not monitored. '- Less than-12'full montis�of.data: May not be.representative. ' '- Salton Sea Air Basin,. e) -. PM10-samples were: collected everyl6rday9'(every .3 days at Station. Numbers 4144 and A157) using the size -selective Inlet hlah volumesemolBnwith auartr III&media.. :0;- P1102.5 fedgral'standard was established effective September 16,;1997.;PM15 samples were collected eve11 ry 3 days at all silos except for the following silos: Station Numbers ` 060, 072; 087, 3176, and.4144 where Samples were adkea every day, and Station Number 5818 where samples were taken every 6'days ,g) =Total suspended particulates; lead, and:sulfale were.detertnlned from samples collected every6.days by the high volume,samplermethgd, on glass Fiber filter media. h) -.Federal PM10 alandard is AAM > 50pglnr3;:and:state 'standard is AGM 30 pglms:, i) -Federal PM2.5.standard ls.AAM, r 15.pOlms. .. j)1-:Eedoral lead standard is quarterly averege> 1:5 pg/m1 end state standardas monthly average.2 1.5,pg/m°: No location exceeded lead standards. - .Special monitoring Immediately downwind of :Millenary. sources oflead'was canipd;out at tourlocetlens in 2000. The maximum monthly average poncenlralion was. 0.46 pg/m"; and the maximum quarterly average concentration was 0:34 pg/ms, both recorded in Area 5, Southeast Los Angeles County.. .. jo - The data for,the samples collectedonhigh-wind-days (190 pgfm'on 427[00, 201',pglrn°on 5/15100'and 183 pg/m'on 9/21/00): were excluded Ina6cordance with EPA's Natural Events Policy: " .. Printed on Recycfed: - paper 2000 AIR. QUALITY �SOUTFI COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, " .ppm Pads Par Million parts of air, by volume. - AAM = Annual Arilltmeitc Mean Pollulenl not monitored - 'Legs than 12 full months or dale. May not. be representative: "Salton Sea•Air Basin. a) - The federal l -hour standard..(1-houraverage,CO >35':ppm) and stole l -hour standard (Vhour averageCO >:20ppm) were not exceeded.' b).- The federal standard is annual' arithmetic mean NO2 greater than 0,0534 ppm.. No'Imelion exceeded this standard. c)- The stale standards are 14hour average > 0.25 ppm and 14 -hour average > 0,045 ppm: No location exceeded stale standards. d) - .The federal standard is annualerithmelic'mean S02 > 0.03 ppm. No location exceeded lhls standard. . The other federal standards (3 -hour averagti> 0.50 ppm; and.24-ho'ur average > 0.44 ppm) vans not exceeded either. ; ys• South Coast Air Quality. Management District 21865 East Copley Drive. ':Di6mondBor; CA 917654182 http;//www.agnid.gov - rhe map showing the locations of source/receptor areas can be accessed via the Internal at htlp:/lw .agmd.gov/smog/afeamap:htmC Locations of sourcelfaceplor areas are.shovui: on the Soulh:Coasl Air QualityManagementDistrict-Air Monitoring Areas" niap available.fres of charge from. SCAOMD Puke Information. . - -Carbon 'Monoxide Ozone' . Nitrogen Dioxide ' Sulfur Dioxide No, Days Standard- No:.Days.Standard' Average No Days., Average 20®0 aae. - " Exceeded. ' Compared Standard, :Compared ..Max:. x Max. Federderal State Stelt e ..Max. Max, Fourth Federal 'Stale Max. to Federal Exceeded Max. Max.. 'ioFederal- ., No. !Conc. Conc. .No. Conc: Conc. High No: Conc. Slandar b) Stale No. Conc. .Cone: Standard dP Days In in 2.9.5. >9,0'' Days: in In -Conc:.' :>0.1Z 0.08 >:0:09•'Deys' In AAM' '- 5.0.25. '' Days'. in in. AAM. -Saurce%Receplor Area Stationi 'of ppm. 'ppm ppm .pPm. oL :pPm. .:plan ppm' . pprn ppm ppm: 'of .ppm in ppm' -of 'ppm. .ppm.' in I;hour 8 6 -hour 8 -hour. -Dara 1 -hour - 8 -hour 8 -hour 1 .8 -hour 1-hourr. 'Data '1 -hour 1-hou-Data' '4:hourc). 24-hourc) Location .. ;. o;. .Data. -hour -hour ppm .ppm .. Los'AnOalea!F Urdy ' 1 Central LA' 087 365 7 6.0 0' 0 365• 0:14'. 01105 0.086 -i. 4 :8 353 0:16 0(.0404- .0. 305' :0.08' 0.010' 0.0009' 2' Northwest Coastal LA'Counly '091 362. 6' 4.3' 0� :0 365 ,0.10 '0.079 0.071. 0 0. 2 361' :0:16 0.0273 0 -- - - -- 3 Soulhwest.Coaslai.LA Courtly 094 365 :9. .7.0, 0 0' : 359 -0.10- 0.075 0.065. 0 1 x664 0.13. 0.0275 0 '"-365 '0.17 0.017 .0.0017 4 South Coastal LA County 072 t-.363- 10 -�5:8 0 ;0 ;'365 0.12 '0.080 -0:069 ' `0 _-0 -0- 3' '358 '0.14 .0.0313.. 0. - 36S: 0.05.. '0.014. - 0:0015' . 6 West Son'Fernapdo Valley 074 365 :11' .9.8' '1 -2' --.362. '0.11 •0.084 :0:083 -0 0 '6 365 0.11 - 0.0285-: "0 - 7 'East San Fernando Valley :069- 365' B 61 0' :0 363 0.15. •0:119 :0098 3 'it - 16 -365 0.17 010415 0' 357 0:01 '0.004- '0.0001' .B West San Gabriel Valley: 08a 357' 9 7i4..' :0 : *0 .' 362 0.16 0.134 '0:106. 7 ..14 19 :355 0.17 010296 . 9 :East San Gabriel Valley 1 - 060 365 -:5 4`.9 :0 '0. 365 - 0:17'• . 0.141: 0:109 , ' --11' 116' 32 365 0.15 '0.0366 - 0: - - -- -- - 9- East San Gahriel,Velley2 591': '345. 4= .3.1 - .0 :0 - 358: 0.17 '0948- 0!113 -11 22 - .'39. .349 0.13 0.0290 -.0' •- ,- - - . 10 Pamona/Whilnut ' 07 : 360 -7 9.9' '::0 . ..0- 363. 0.15' •0;124- 0.089' 3 5 .18 -358 0.14. .0.0435 - '0' . -- - -- -• - >'11 " South' Sad Gabriel' Valley 085,"365. 7 'S.3 0 '0 ' 365: 0.14' 0.114 0,086., :2 4 11'- 365 0.14b '0,0366 0. - -- -- 12 South Central LA' County 4 '084 365. 13, '10:0. 4 '. .6 365 0.09. 0.064 0.0511 0 0 0. 360P .. " .0.14 .0.0386 0 •. --. -- -- .. -- 12 South Central LACounly 7 801' .222' 13' 9.5' 1' :3'' -222" '0:12' ..0.095" 0:085' -0• 4- 4- 221' '0:71• 0.0292'-- 13 Santa Clarila Valle 089,' 345 6: 4.9 0 0 .360 -,0.13 0:13 "0.111: 0.099 4 " "16 .360. 31. . 0:10 6.0246 0 .Orange County ` .. : -0,12' -16 North Orange County: :3177. 364 14 '.6.1 0 0 ''364. :0.14- 0:103 0.085 '1' '4 8 269' 0:0304' 17 ' •Central Orange County : 3176: 360' 8 6:8 -0 0.. 364 : 0.13 '0:101: 0.075 1 . 1 9 364. 0.13 0.0300 '0 -- _ 18 . North Coastal Orange.Counly 3195' .339' - 8' .6!3• -.0.1 365 0.10' -0.087 0.087 1 1 1 :362". 0.11 0.0205' 0 363 . 0:02 . • 0.008' 0.0005 19.' Saddleback Valley 9' 3186 .244" '5' 2.3' .0' ''0' 244' .0.13' 0.110'- 0:068'- 1'" 2- 3' 19 SaddlebackNelle'2 -. - .39.12'..305' -4" .3:3' "0. '0', 305' '0:75"' 0:129' 0.089' '2'. 8'' 25': -:•- -. - _' .. '`' _. ' :Riverside: County 22 Norco/Corona: .4155 •- - '•- - _ -. -- -- 23 Melrupolilae Riverside County 1-, 4144- ':365 :5 4.3 0 0 365 0.14' ', 0.113 '0:106, 3 29' '41 .298' - 0.10' :0:0236' 0' : '0:11' . 0.041`, 0.0008' 23 Metropolitan Riverside County2. 4146. 365 9' -' '4.3. -0 •.0 - - - _ .:329•' -- - -- -- - _- 24 'Perris Valley,.4149" .- - - - - 361 '0:16. '0.126 0.113. 15 4:1 65 - - 25 Cake Elsinore 4158 351 4 2.0 i0 '0 '361 '•0:13 0.109 0.099 1 31 - 45 '360 '0.08 -0.0175 0" - -- -- :29' Banning;Airport: 4164 -- - .363 0;14 0.111 0.103- :4 39: 52. 365 .021 '0.0237. 0' - - -- 30. Coachella Walley l^ 4137 _:353:• 3 -1.6 0. 0, '355' '0.12 0.105' ` '0.096- -'0' 33- 46 331 :0.07` 0.0178- 0 30' Coachello Valle 2- 14157 X87' ,3- 2.1" .a. . 0'- .354 '6.11 X0.096 "0.089- 01 `.9.- 43 ':' .87' 0.06' 0.0099" 0 - San Bernardino County - 32 NedhWest'SamBerrlardlrio Valle . y 5175 348 4 2.6. 0 0 365 018. 10.159. 0.118 10 19 43 357 0;15 0.0380 0' - 33 Southwest Son Bernardino Valley • 5817. -' -.. 34 Central San' Bernardino Valley1 .5197'- - - - - ''365 0.1T :0.139 .0.101: -.7 16 36 --365 0.12 0.0364 0 X274' 0.02!' 0.010' 34. Central Sen Bernardino.Valley.2 .' 5203. 304' 5' 4.3' ..' 0' . '0' -365 0:15. 0.125- '0.111 47 ' 27 48' .365• 0:10" 0.0325 '0- - --. - .0.0018' •- 35 East San Bernardino Valley' ;5204,.' _ -- -._ - ..365 0.15 0.133. 0.1113 11 51 X78. . . 37 CentralSan Bernardino Mountains .5181 ---- -• -- "354 '0,18 0.149.4123 17 73 '; 85, 38 : 'Eastl San. Bernardino Mountains :5818 - - - '• - Dislilct Maximum, 14- 10.0 2 - 6 -0.18 0.159 - 0:123 -' 17 73 85 ';. 0.21 0.0435- '.,:0' 'OAT 0.041 0.0018. .ppm Pads Par Million parts of air, by volume. - AAM = Annual Arilltmeitc Mean Pollulenl not monitored - 'Legs than 12 full months or dale. May not. be representative: "Salton Sea•Air Basin. a) - The federal l -hour standard..(1-houraverage,CO >35':ppm) and stole l -hour standard (Vhour averageCO >:20ppm) were not exceeded.' b).- The federal standard is annual' arithmetic mean NO2 greater than 0,0534 ppm.. No'Imelion exceeded this standard. c)- The stale standards are 14hour average > 0.25 ppm and 14 -hour average > 0,045 ppm: No location exceeded stale standards. d) - .The federal standard is annualerithmelic'mean S02 > 0.03 ppm. No location exceeded lhls standard. . The other federal standards (3 -hour averagti> 0.50 ppm; and.24-ho'ur average > 0.44 ppm) vans not exceeded either. ; ys• South Coast Air Quality. Management District 21865 East Copley Drive. ':Di6mondBor; CA 917654182 http;//www.agnid.gov - rhe map showing the locations of source/receptor areas can be accessed via the Internal at htlp:/lw .agmd.gov/smog/afeamap:htmC Locations of sourcelfaceplor areas are.shovui: on the Soulh:Coasl Air QualityManagementDistrict-Air Monitoring Areas" niap available.fres of charge from. SCAOMD Puke Information. . M = W = r 1999 AIR QUALITY SOUTH COAST ATR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT pg/m'- Micrograms per cubic meler of air. AAM - Annual Arithmetic Mean AGM -Annual Comnobio Mean --- Pollutant net monitored. ' • Less Than 12 lull months of data. May not be representative. J Salton Sea Air Basin. �•'v e)'-�lr.:�"samples were collected every 6 rLsing the size -selective inlet high volume sampler with quartz filter media. - PM2.5 federal standard was established effective September 16, 1997. PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days using.1he size selective Inlet high volume sampler. xI4 g) - Total suspended particulates, lead, and sulfate were determined from samples collected every 6 days by the high volume sampler method, on glass liber filler media. (l/ Federal TSP standard superseded by PM10 standard, July 1, 1987• Printed or, h) - Federal PMI0 standard Is AAId> 50 pg/m'; slate standard Is AGM > 30 pg/ms. Recycles Federal PM2.5 standard is AAIB > 15 pg/mx. Paper -Federal lead standard Is quarterly everege> 1.5 pg/ml; stale standard Is monthly average Z: 1.5 pg/nor. No location exceeded lead standards. Special monitoring immediately downwind of stationary sources of lead was carried out at lour locations in 1999. The maximum monthly average concentration was - 0.29 p0/m3, recorded In Area 5, Southeast Los Angeles County, and the maximum quarterly average concentration was 0.23 pglm ,recorded In Area 1, Centra) Los Angeles. a) Suspended Particulates PM2.5 0 Particulates TSP 8) Lead 91 Suilate 0) . Suspended Pedleulates PM 10 1 9 9Max. ' No. (%) Samples Exceeding Annual h) � No. (%) Samples Exceeding Annual q - Annual Na Max. (%) Samples Exceeding Standard Standard Averages Max. Standard' Averages Max. Average - 9 No. Conc. adoral tate No. Cone. Fedora No. Cone. Max. Max. Cone. Slate Days :In > 150 -50 AAM AGM Days in > 65 AAM Days in AAM Monthly Caudally in Source/Reoeptor Area Station of pg/m3 pg/m3 pg/m' Conc. Conc. of pg/m 3 pg/m3 Core. of pghn3 Cana Conc. )) Conc. 1) pg/m' ?. 25 pg/m' 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour Data 24-hcur 24-hour pglnn• Data 24-hour 1,0/1113 pgfo pg/m' 24-hour 24-hour No. Location No. Data pglm3 pg/m3 Los Angeles County 087 60- 88 0 19(33). 44.6 42.1 136 69.3 2 (2) 23.1 60 138 73.7 0.13 0.07 17.9 0 1 Central LA 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 - - - -- - - - - - - 56 108 50.9 -- -- 13.9 0 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 094 60 69 0 G (10) 35.6 '' 334 -- -- - - 55 113 63.9 0.05 U,04 18.8 0 4 South Coastal LA County 072 59 79 0 13 (22) 38.9 36.4 148 66.9 1 (1) 21.5 60 158 64.2 0.06 005 13.7 0 6 West San Fornando Valle 074 - - - -- -- - 71' 79.0' 1 (1)- '1Z5' -- -- - -- -- -- --- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 60 82 0 21 (35) 43.7 40.6 106 79.5 1 (1) ' 23.3 -- - - - -- -- - 0 West San Gabriel Valley 088 - -- -- -- -- - 95' 73.0' . 1 (1)- 20.6' 57 109 55.1 -- -- 16.4 0 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 60 103 0 35 (58) 56.3 51.5 144 81.3 3 (2) 25.6 55 209' 101.3 -- - 17.8 0 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 -- 10 Pornone/Wlalnul 075 1 I South San Gabriel Valley, 085 -- - -- - -- 111 85.6 2 (2) 25.7 59 182 86.6 0.21 0.09 25.6 1 (2) 12 South Central LA County 1 084 - -- -- - 110 67.8 1 (1) 24.2 59 176 90.9 0.17 0.09 15.6 U 12 South Central LA County 2 801 -- -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- - - - -- 13 Santa Clarila Valle 089 56 75 0 12 21 38.4 34.5 - - - - - - - - - Orange County 16 North Orange County 3177 - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- -- -- ---- 17 Central Orange County 3176 39' 122' 0' 15(39)- 49.4' 43.4' 115 68.7 2 (2) 24.4 - -- -- -- -- -- - 18 North Coastal Or9419e County 3195 -- -- - -- -- -- -- •- -- - - ^ 19 Saddleback Valley 1 3186 60 111 0 6 00) 36.7 34.2' -- -- - - - -- -- -- - - - 19 Saddleback Valley 2 3812 33' 56' 0' 1 3' 28.8' 27.6' 68'S6.G' 0' 16.8' - - - Riverside County 22 Norco/Carona 4155 56 136 0 31 (55) 55.4 49.0 -- - -- -- -- - •- -- - -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 64 153 1(2) 46 (72) 72.3 64.9 151 111.2 9 (6) 30.9 60 261 - 120.0 0 0G 0.05 10.7 0 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4148 - - -- - -- 110 900 2 (2) 26.9 70 140 90.3 0.05 0.04 10,6 0 24 Perris Valley 4149 60 112 0 30 50 50.0 44.0 -- - -- -- -- - - -- -- -- - 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- 29 Banning Airport - 4164 34' 86' 0' - 4(12)' 34.5' 29.8' -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- 30 Coachella Valley 1- 4137 58. 104 0 3 (5) 28.8 26.1 -- - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- 30 Coachella Valle 2- 4157 56 -119 0 30 54 52.7- 49.8' 83' 29.6' 0' 12.6' San Bernardino County 32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 - - - - - - -- - - - 56 150 77.6 0.07 0.05 11.7 0 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley.l 5171 57 112 0 32 (56) 55.3 49.9 96' 85.9' 2(2)' 25.7' - - -- - - -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 5617 55 183 1(2) 37 (67) 65.9 58.6 -- r - - -- -- - -- - - - -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 59 116 0 36 (61) 602 54.3 121 98,0 3 (3) 25.9 W 232 108.3 - - 12.4 0 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 59 134 0 33 (56) 56.5 50.6 104 121.5 4 (4) 25.7 55 203 102.8 007 0.05 10.9 0 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 57 92 0 23(40)' 46.6 40.5 -- 1, - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 37 Central Son Barren ino Mountains 51H7 57 47 U - 0 27.1 23.6 r -- -- -• -- -- -- - -- -- - -- District Maximum 183 1 46 72.3 64,9 121.5 9 30.9 261 '120.0 0.21 (L09 25.6 1 pg/m'- Micrograms per cubic meler of air. AAM - Annual Arithmetic Mean AGM -Annual Comnobio Mean --- Pollutant net monitored. ' • Less Than 12 lull months of data. May not be representative. J Salton Sea Air Basin. �•'v e)'-�lr.:�"samples were collected every 6 rLsing the size -selective inlet high volume sampler with quartz filter media. - PM2.5 federal standard was established effective September 16, 1997. PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days using.1he size selective Inlet high volume sampler. xI4 g) - Total suspended particulates, lead, and sulfate were determined from samples collected every 6 days by the high volume sampler method, on glass liber filler media. (l/ Federal TSP standard superseded by PM10 standard, July 1, 1987• Printed or, h) - Federal PMI0 standard Is AAId> 50 pg/m'; slate standard Is AGM > 30 pg/ms. Recycles Federal PM2.5 standard is AAIB > 15 pg/mx. Paper -Federal lead standard Is quarterly everege> 1.5 pg/ml; stale standard Is monthly average Z: 1.5 pg/nor. No location exceeded lead standards. Special monitoring immediately downwind of stationary sources of lead was carried out at lour locations in 1999. The maximum monthly average concentration was - 0.29 p0/m3, recorded In Area 5, Southeast Los Angeles County, and the maximum quarterly average concentration was 0.23 pglm ,recorded In Area 1, Centra) Los Angeles. 1999 AIR QUALITY SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY :MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ppm - Pads Per Million pads of air, by volume, AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Polluted! not monitored. 'Less than 12 full months of data.. May not be representative. iN'l ;�,,y South Coast '•Salton Sen Air Basin. it, Air Quality Management District a) - The federal 1 -hour standard (1 -hour average CO > 35 ppm) and state 1 -hour standard (1 -hour average CO> 20 ppm) were nor exceeded. 21865 Last Copley Drive b) - The federal standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 greater than 0.0534 ppm. No location exceeded this standard, ME Dtalll0ltd Bar, CA 91765-4 192 c) - The stale standards are 1 -hour average > 0.25 ppm and 24-hour average> 0.04 ppm. No location exceeded state standards. e..v et d) - The federal standard is annual arithmetic mean SO2 greater than 60 pg/me (0.03 pprn). No location exceeded this standard. N littl)://wwAr.itqiiid.gov The other federal standards (341ouraverage > 0.50 ppm, and 24-hour average > 0.14 ppm) were not exceeded sillier. You can access the map showing the locations of sourcelreceplor areas via the Internet at hilp:)/www.agmd.govismoglareamap.htinl. The locations of soureelreceplor areas are shown in detail in �'Satl_Air Mana��l Dlst " onileas" freeho�OMD nfor _ Carbon Monoxide Ozone Nilrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide " No. Days Standard No. Days Standard Average Compared to No. Days Standard Average Compared to -11 911 Exceeded a) Exceeded Federal Exceeded Federal s, Max. Max, Fedirial Stale Max. Max. Fourth Federal Stale Max. Standard b) Slate Max. Max. Standard or No. Cone. Cone. No. Cone. Cone. High No. Cone. No, Cone. Con.. Days in in 2 9.5 > 9.0 Days in In Cone. > 0.12 > 0.08 > 0.09 Days in AAM > 0.25 Days In in AAM Source/Receplor Area Station Of Ppm pPm ppm ppm of ppm ppm Ppm ppm ppm ppm of ppm In ppni or ppm pprn In Data 1 -hour 8 -hour 8 -hour 8 -hour Data 1 -hour 8 -hour 8 -hour 1 -hour 8 -hour 14hour Data 1 -hour ppm 1 -hour Data 1 -hour of 24-hour cl ppm No. Locallon No. Los Angeles Counly 1 Central LA 087 364 7 6.3 0 0 362 0.13 0.11 0.079 1 2 13 347 0.21 0.0391 0 333' 0.05' 0.010' 0.0023' 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 362 6 3.8 0 0 365 0.12 0.08 0.069 0 0 4 359 0.13 0.0291 0 - -- - - 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 094 361 10 8.4 0 0 362 0.15 0.09 0.066 1 4 1 356 0.13 0.0295 0 363 0.09 0.020 00040 4 South Coaslal LA County 072 358 7 5.4 0 0 362 0.13 0.08 0.068 1 0 3 359 0.15 0.0342 0 360 0.05 0.011 00027 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 365 9 7.6 0 0 '365 0.10 0.09 0.081 0 1 5 354 0.12 0.0287 0 - - 7 East San Fernando Valley Ill 362 9 9.0 0 0 362 0.12 0.10 0.084 0 3 13 343 0.18 0.0456 0 346 0 01 0.003 0.0001 - 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 356 9 6.6 0 0 361 0.12 0.10 0.086 0 4 15 362 0.16 0.0379 0-- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 336' 5' 3.9' 0' 0' 339' 0.14' 0.10' 0.095' 2' 9' 24' 327' 0.16' 0.0390" 0' - -- -- - 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 - 591 - - - - - 362 0.14 0.11 0.096 3 8 25 357 0.14 0.0328 0 -- -• -• -- 10 Pumona/Wlelnul 075 356 10 6.7 0 0 358 0.14 0.10 0.089 '2 10 19 346 0.16 0.0503 0 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 363 7 5.6 0 0 363 0.12 0.10 0.080 0 2 6 333- 0.16' 0.0391' - 0 - 12 South Central LA County 1 084 3G7 19 11.0 8 10 363 0.12 0.06 0.041 0 0 1 343 0.18 0.0428 0 - -- -- -- 12 South Central LA County 2 801 349, 19 11.7 6 6 342' 0.16' 0.09• 0.083' 1' 2' 6• 148' 0.16' 0.0404' 0' - -- -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 089 356 7 3.6 0 0 357 0,12 0.10 0.095 0 13 18 141' 0.10' 0.0284' 0' Orange County 16 North Orange County 3177 364 11 5.3 0 0 365 0.12 0.09 0.078 0 1 6 364 0.15 0.0351 0 -- -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3178 123• 8' 5.3' - 0' 0' 157" 0.10' 0.68' 0.061 0' 0' 1• 154' 0.12' 0.0327' 0' 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 359 8 6;4 0 0 350 0.10 0.08 0.070 0 0 1 347 0.12 0.0209 0 363 0.02 0.008 0.0007 19 Saddleback Valley t 3186 365 4 2.5 0 0 361 0.10 0.08 0.071 0 0 2 - -- -- -- - -- 19 Saddleback Valley 2 3812 Riverside Counly 22 Nmco/Corona 4155 -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 354 7 4.4 0 0 359 0.14 0.11 0.104 3 27 38 354 0.13 0.0255 0 358 0.03 0.011 0.0014 23 Metropolitan Riverside Comely 2. 4146 300' 7- 4,1' 0' 0' -- -- -- - -- - - -- - _ 24 Perris Valley 4149 365 0.11 0.10 0.091 0 7 10 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 - - -- - 360 0.14 0.13 0.106 4 37 51 334' 0.11' 0.0200' 29 Banning Airport 4164 - -- -- -- - 358 0,14 0.13 0.114 5 33 55 361 0.31 0.0243 1 - -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 1- 4137 350 3 ' 1.8' 0 '0 349 0.13 0.11 0.098 1 21 27 350 0.07 0.0195 0 30 Coachella Valle 2" 4157 - - -• 358 0.13 0.11 0.089 1 7 13 --- Sen Bernardino County 32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 - -- - -- -- 361 0.15 0.12 0.103 4 17 29 357 0.13 0.0398 0 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 1 5171 - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- __ 33 Southwest San Bornardino Valley 2 5817, -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 - - -- - -- 365 0.14 0.10 0.098 4 16 26 343 0.15 0.0388 0 355 0.01 0.010 00018 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 358 5 4.0 0 O 355 0.16 0.13 0.115 14 31 45 355 0.14 0.0358 0 -- -- - -- 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 - - -- - -- 365 0.15 0.13 0.115 12 39 59. -- -- -- _-_- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 - - -- - -- 365 0.17 0,14 0.133 30 90 93 -• -- - _ -_ -: __ __ District Maximum 19 11.7 6 10 0.17 0.14 0.133 30 90 93 0.31 0.0503 1 0.09 0.020 0.0040 ppm - Pads Per Million pads of air, by volume, AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Polluted! not monitored. 'Less than 12 full months of data.. May not be representative. iN'l ;�,,y South Coast '•Salton Sen Air Basin. it, Air Quality Management District a) - The federal 1 -hour standard (1 -hour average CO > 35 ppm) and state 1 -hour standard (1 -hour average CO> 20 ppm) were nor exceeded. 21865 Last Copley Drive b) - The federal standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 greater than 0.0534 ppm. No location exceeded this standard, ME Dtalll0ltd Bar, CA 91765-4 192 c) - The stale standards are 1 -hour average > 0.25 ppm and 24-hour average> 0.04 ppm. No location exceeded state standards. e..v et d) - The federal standard is annual arithmetic mean SO2 greater than 60 pg/me (0.03 pprn). No location exceeded this standard. N littl)://wwAr.itqiiid.gov The other federal standards (341ouraverage > 0.50 ppm, and 24-hour average > 0.14 ppm) were not exceeded sillier. You can access the map showing the locations of sourcelreceplor areas via the Internet at hilp:)/www.agmd.govismoglareamap.htinl. The locations of soureelreceplor areas are shown in detail in �'Satl_Air Mana��l Dlst " onileas" freeho�OMD nfor _ The Gas Company - A A �SempraEnergy- company July 2, 2001 The Keith Companies 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Southern California Gas Company - 1981 W. Lugonia Avenue Redlands. CA 92374-9720 Mailing Address: PO Box 3003, SC8031 Redlands, CA 92373-0306 Gas Co. Ref. No. 01436 OM Re: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report — Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula. SCH #97121030. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above -referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: 2 a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. � C-3 ,i b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figureis not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. Z , We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial , customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1 -800 -GAS -2000. Sincerely, , John DeWitt Technical Supervisor 1 11 I I I L� [_1 I I LJI r, I I JVL-3'U—U'1 1/�LY YKVI'Il-33Y Vl- 1L1'ILl-ULM lU=�V�O�40Y// r/".UL 341/aJ MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager July 25, 2001 Mr. Saied Naaseh Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Naaseh: RoriDaueh Ranch Specific Plan — Revised Draft Environmental Imnact Reno The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has reviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The original DEIR, circulated in 1999, proposed the development of 788 acres of land in the City of Temecula. The current project site occupies 819.7 acres and proposes 1,721 residential units with a gross density of 2.1 units/acre and a net density of 4.06 units/acre. The project includes 1 1,286 detached single family units, 435 multi -family units, 21.3 acres (190,000 square feet) of commercial, office, and institutional uses, a 12 -acre elementary school site, a 20 -acre middle school site, a 3 -acre neighborhood park, a 20.6 acre community park with lighted athletic fields, 255 acres of flood control and open space uses, and a fire station. The following is our response as an affected public agency. Background The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) was formed in 1928 under an enabling Act of the California Legislature. Metropolitan provides supplemental water to the southern California coastal plain to augment local water supplies developed by surface catchment, groundwater production and wastewater reclamation. Metropolitan receives water 2 from the State Water Project (S WP) and from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct. This supplemental water is delivered to 27 Metropolitan member agencies through a regional network of canals, pipelines, reservoirs, treatment plants, and appurtenant facilities. The member agencies serve approximately 17 million people living within a 5,200 -square -mile area. 70D N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing address., Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 • Telephone (213) 217-6000 Lf Jill-J1U-1"1 3/�L4 tRVI'1=L33Y Vl 1L1'ILI. LILN 1V �bYl `✓b`JHb4// F'HIiL 31/1J Mr. Saied Naaseh , Page 2 July 25, 2001 Specific Comments Figure 1-1 (Related Area Projects), Figure 2-2 (Project Vicinity Map), and Figure 2-3 (Proposed Land Use Plan): These figures need to be revised to indicated that Metropolitan's right-of-way for the Second San Diego Aqueduct (San Diego Pipeline Nos. 3, 4, and 5) is not part of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Introduction, Page 1-6: Section 1.7 Additional Environmental Documentation should read — Further North of the proposed project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has certified an EIR and is currently in construction of a bypass pipeline to convert the existing San Diego Pipeline No. 3 from a raw water... Project Description, Page 2-22: Section 2.9 Intended Use of the EIR — We need to reiterate that this Section should show an item that states: "Consideration and approval by Metropolitan where Metropolitan's existing fee property or easements are crossed or encroached upon (e.g., drainage facilities, water lines, utilities, traffic, etc.)" Various mapping within document: MWD's right-of-way is indicated as a "70' MWD Fee ESMT" and a "50' MWD ESMT", presumably where "ESMT"means easement. The 70' width should be referred to as "fee property", rather than easement, easement implies that there is an underlying owner and we have an easement over that land. Water Resources, Section 3.4: It appears that Figure 3.4-3 shows a slight reduction in 100 -year hydrology due to the construction of new drainage facilities onsite, particularly those between Nicolas Road and Calle Chapos. However, the plan does not address the potential increase in downstream velocity created by constricting the outlet flows through a 10 -foot by 10 -foot box culvert (south of Nicolas Road) and (3) 10 -feet by 6 -feet reinforced concrete box culverts north of Calle Chapos. This increased downstream velocity would have impacts to Metropolitan's facilities (i.e., increased erosion over San Diego Pipelines Nos. 3, 4, and 5) and therefore needs to be addressed. Transportation and Circulation, Section 3.5. In the last paragraph, first sentence, "A regional trail is also planned along the MWD easement and adjacent to the Panhandle and Village Core areas." In addition, Figure 3.5-9 (Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan) and Figure 3.11- 3 (Conceptual Open Space & Recreational Master Plan) show the proposed regional trail clearly within Metropolitan's existing right-of-way. Metropolitan's property is not part of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and hence reference to a regional trail on Metropolitan's property must be deleted. Biological Resources, Section 3.7: Roripaugh Ranch will need to obtain all regulatory approvals, permits, and appropriate mitigation associated with any potential take of sensitive UUL-3N-0 1 ,KUo� lY VY ItMt"U iV=tlY170J'io4// 11�ate/•v Mr. Saied Naaseh Page 3 July 25, 2001 I Very truly yours, biological resources by the proposed project within Metropolitan's right-of-way, while Simonek coordinating with Metropolitan's Substructures Department regarding Enclosures: engineering/construction activities through Metropolitan's right-of-way. As applicable to Lake Skinner Map Metropolitan's right-of-way, Roripaugh Ranch and Metropolitan may need to coordinate jointly with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Access on Metropolitan property for any environmental studies will also need to be coordinated with Metropolitan. Figure 3.11-4 (Area lJ rde Open Space Concept Plan): This figure erroneously conveys a broad O ' range of open space for Johnson Ranch and Lake Skinner for use by wildlife. It does not show Metropolitan's properties, facilities, and operational areas, which are excluded from open space requirements. (See Attached Map) Metropolitan responded to the original EIR in July of 1999. As indicated in our previous correspondence, Metropolitan requests that the City analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the growth management plan adopted by the Southern California Association of I Governments (SCAG). Metropolitan uses SCAG's population, housing, and employment projections to determine future water demand. Development above these forecast provisions may increase demand on Metropolitan's resources and facilities beyond that anticipated. Additionally, Metropolitan encourages projects within its service area to include water conservation measures. While Metropolitan continues to build new supplies and develop means for more efficient use of current resources, projected population and economic growth will increase demands on the current system. Water conservation, reclaimed water use, and groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using water efficient fixtures, drought - tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the ' proposed project. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Environmental 3 Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 217-6242. I Very truly yours, SLaura Simonek Principal Environmental Specialist Enclosures: Lake Skinner Map I JUL-Jw-wl l' /:2b YKUM=l l ly UY '1tMt: L:ULH 1 U, ylOyby4b4'/'/ r Hl,c l si I s I I I I I I I I I I I JUL-12-2001 THU 04:25 PH MA NU. r. u1 i 1 • RIVERSIDE C U UV T Y FAIX I. 11'1'!IRANSMITTAL p.O. $Ok 1150 * 3525 FOURTEFNTII STREET RLVERSUAI , CA 92501 pEoNE: (909)955-5916 FAX: (909)955-6686 ._ TO: ��- You should receive � pa.-C(S), including this cover pave. It you do not receive ali lne page, please call (909) 955-8916. .Iois'1'2�m>,�c - F.co�oW r DLVI:�APh1 �.,vr - Co��rlunrry D cvei.ornlc�T - Ri'nc•:� ea.o, :Mr,,jT - tiousrne - AviATIov /] 1iA?It51nf•. CULI`TY N.U[/t nyn NA-iION�1.DATl FGS-17YN•- LO\4nRD Dca�yMUS4Unl 6/ Ale k. P-1 JUL-12-2001 THU 04:25 PM FAX NU. r, uc ' RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR NEEDED ADDITIONS TO DOCUMENT 1. D.E.I.R. Table ES -1: The term 'Master Plan' is utilized here and throughout the document when the document is actually the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Referencing the Airport C.L.U.P. as F.V.A :CLUP will suffice. I I 2. Figure 1.3.Label the current airport property as such with a line indicating the , runway.' 3. Figure 1.4.1-abel airport property and indicate the runway, Hunter Road is only on the west of SR 79. 4. P 1-13 1-16. The current Subdivision and Development Codes for Temecula are not consistent with the C.L.U.P. and therefore, should not overrule the S.P. which needs to be consistent. The City Codes need to reflect the C.L.U.P's requirements , for avigation easements,. height and lighting limits. 5. 2.7. The middle school is a'discouraged use' from the perspective of the C.L.U.P. 2, and the text marked to indicate. It is preferable to move the site eastward from the .7 site. 5, 2-43. Any ballfield lighting in P.A. 5 is problematic from the height and glare, and to P.A. 24. would be more appropriately restricted 7. 3-13 Planning Area 5. The lighting facilities for the park and/or school can be a] S, hazard for navigation B. 3.1. Areas 1,2,3,4,7,8,9. Add Plan Standards regarding: , 1) Avigation Easements 2) Height limit in accordance with Part 77. 3) Lighting standards to contain lighting to below horizontal plane. , 4) Electrical influence with navigation devices. 5) The preclusion of schools for these areas. 9. 4.13 P.A. 5. Again, these uses should be precluded. • stadiums • amphitheaters • lighted ballfields 0 churches , ' JUL-12-2001 THU 04:2b I'M rHA nu. 10. 6-14, In 6.3.4.8. Uses 1.3. and 4 would likely be inconsistent with the C.L.U.P. Q and should be deleted from the following P.A.s 1,2,3,4,7,8 and a portion of 9. 8 The text on Page 7.4 of C.L.U.P. Notes A.B. 1-4 (Attached) must be included. 11. The following uses shall be prohibited; (1) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. (2) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. 1 (3) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe 1 air navigation within the area. (4) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be deterimental to the operation.of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 12. 6-15. 6.3.4.D. Lot coverage standards in the T.P.Z. are 50% of the gross and 65% 10 ' of the net. Add this to areas 1,2,3,4,7,8 and 9. 13. E.I.R. ' The added discussion of noise and safety hazards regarding the airport have addressed the issues, but the recommendation needs to include a technical standard for the windows such as a minimum STC rating. t 1 5� C 1 IFAS HAREDIEDCOMW IRFORTSWLUCIRORIPAUGHRNCH. doc) C IT Y OF M U R R 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 Telephone: 909-304-CITY(2489) Fax: 909-698-4509 July 11, 2001 J rMr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 I E T A Internet Address: httpJ/mur ieta.ca.us JUL 1 8 2001 ' RE: Planning Application No. 94-0073 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan; Revised (May 18,2001) Traffic Impact Analysis ' Dear Mr. Naaseh: i The following comments are submitted for consideration in opposition to approval of the above -referenced project. The City of Murrieta's review of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and draft EIR finds it lacking in two crucial areas. , ' First; it is understood that the City of Temecula's proposed plan for the subject 820 acres located at the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road easterly of SR -79 calls for 1721 ' dwelling units plus commercial retail, office and school uses. Further that the resultant total project trip generation is 28,165 trip ends daily. While the report recognizes the importance of the Murrieta Hot Springs Road linkage from the I-215 interchange to the project from 1 transportation perspective, it does not include the Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive intersection. From a traffic capacity viewpoint this is the most critical intersection in Murrieta in relation to traffic generated by the project. The impact to this intersection, as well as how the mitigation measures will be funded, should be included in the analysis. Secondly, the projected growth rate for Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the subject EIR is significantly low compared to the measured four (4) year 1998 — 2001. Our traffic volume data as documented in our comments on the Harvestoii Specific Pian EIR shows that the annual (compounded yearly) growth rate is 13.2%. It is concluded that the "Study's" ambient rate may be significantly low, at least for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and should be readdressed. 1 JZ 0- July 10, 2001 W+ AY�iiWpW Debbie Ubnoske, Director Planning Department - City of Temecula Board of DirectorsPost Office Box 9033 George ht. Roods President Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Lisa D. Herman Sr. Cis President SUBJECT: - RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Ralph H. Daily Csaba F. Ko Doug C. Ktdberg Dear Ms. Ubnoske: Soou A. Nclntyre Jefrre,.Ln,wtler Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject project and offers the DQiren: following comments: _ - - John F. Hernigar - GeneralManager Phillip L Forbes 1. As described on Page 1-6 within Section 1.7 "Additional Environmental Director r Finance. heastuer Documentation," the EM -20 Turnout and Transmission Main project is an E.P."Bob"Leroc. RCWD facility, not an Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Direnorof Engineering facility. The EIR for this project was certified by RCWD and this facility Kenneth C. Denly will not provide water service to those portions of Roripaugh Ranch that Director of Operations &blaintenanee -- - are outside of the service boundaries of RCWD. Perq-It Leuck Controller . Linda M. Fregoso 2. As described on Page 1-8 within Section 1.7.2 "Rancho California Water Diatriot Seeretar)%AdmlNstrpdVe District EM -20 Turnout Project EIR" and on Page 2- serrisshlaaaaer 1_ within Section C.Michael Co.ett 2.2.6 "Offsite Improvements, improvements to Nicolas Road were not Best Best &Krieger LLP included in the RCWD environmental analysis because roadway 2 Genetxl Counsel Y Y improvements to Nicolas Road were not constructed by RCWD. In addition, RCWD was not required to construct any improvements to Nicolas Road. RCWD's pipeline construction within Nicolas Road merely replaced "in-kind" roadway facilities. 3. As shown on Figure 1-1 and as described on Page 1-9 within Section 1.7.5 "Nicolas Reservoir MND," the Nicolas Reservoir Project is an RCWD facility. This reservoir facility will provide water service to only those properties within RCWD's service boundaries within the 1485 Pressure Zone. Water service from this facility could be provided to Roripaugh Ranch upon completion of an inter -agency water service agreement between RCWD and EMWD and upon construction of RCWD's proposed pipelines within Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road (as described in the Nicolas Reservoir MND). E — 7 Debbie Ubnoske/City of Temecula July 10, 2001 Paee Two 4. Please revise Section 3.12.1 "Water" to indicate that portions of Planning Areas 27, 28, and 29 are within the service boundaries of RCWD and that water service to these areas would be provided from RCWD's 1485 Pressure Zone. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Andrew Webster or Steve Brannon. Sincerely, RANCHO Vr''I-7O CA IFORNI WATER DISTRICT E. P. `Bob" Lemons, P.E. Director of Engineering. 01\BL:AW:rnc031TEG . c: - Steve Brannon, Development Engineering Manager Andrew Webster, Planning & Capital Projects Manager 101 t I LJ u I I 1 I I NIT ' July 1T2001 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT David B. Allmen Dave Hogan/Saied Naaseh City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Comments on Revised Draft EIR — Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mr. Hogan and Mr. Naaseh BOARD OF EDUCATION Richard Shafer Presieer. Barbara Tooker cies, Ed Elder Member Robert Browr Member Stewart Moms Member. Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has reviewed the Revised Draft EIR for Roripaugh Ranch, and I provides the following comments, to supplement our previous response letter (6/11/99—Appendix B), acid J correct some erroneous information in Section 3.11 and Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR regarding schools: 1.The elementary and middle school sites located within the plan are included in our District's Facilities Master Plan. TVUSD is certain of the need for both of these schools, and is actively developing the design of each school. TVUSD is currently pursuing an acquisition agreement for both sites, based on the sites being 1 excluded from all special tax districts and delivered to TVUSD at predetermined times based upon number of building permits issued within Roripaugh Ranch, very similar to the requirements for the delivery of the park sites within Roripaugh Ranch. We request that the EIR and Specific Plan show both sites as dedicated for school sites only, excluded from all special tax districts. 2.The Roripaugh Ranch area lies within the current attendance boundaries of Chaparral High, James L. Day Middle, and Nicolas Valley Elementary. These boundaries are subject to change on an annual basis. These sites are currently operating with enrollments at or exceeding their permanent capacity with students from residences in closer proximity to these schools than Roripaugh Ranch. 3.Page 3-151 requires a complete revision. • Paragraph 1 should state that TVUSD currently has 12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools (including 1 continuation high school). • Table 3.11-2 is not accurate and should be removed. • Our Master plan requires the construction of 16 additional schools (including the Roripaugh Ranch middle and elementary schools) to meet the enrollment demands of approved and proposed developments within our District boundaries, which are estimated to build -out by 2015. • Under current State Law (SB -50; 1998), Developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developerlrVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.17 and $6.35 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the State declared Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re- calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SS -50 provisions. 4. Mitigation Measures, Page 8-15. In addition to providing the elementary and middle schools, compliance with SB -50 will be required as described above. If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 506-7914. I Sind ' ah — Director of Facilities Services —3 31350 Rancho Vista Rcad / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909)676-2661 �s I I Temecula Valley Citizens For Responsible Government June 22, 2001 After my conversation with City Councilman Ron Roberts, I was told that the developers for the Roripaugh Project had stated at a city council meeting that I had seen this project and approved it. Neither is the truth. Mr. Ashby either has me confused with another ' David Robinson or has made statements that are slightly disingenuous. My first meeting with City Council Member Ron Roberts was on Monday, June 11, 2001. This is the first time I have seen a plan for the Roripaugh Ranch. iI would therefore request an additional 45 days upon receipt of this letter to review the EIR and the revised draft EIR and the plan. Some areas of major concern for this project are not only being possibly misrepresented as an advocate for the plan and having seen it, but also extensively on the Calle Contento and Northeast section of the project for high density housing with insufficient buffering adjacent to 2 '/z and 5 acre rural housing. Therefore, before a thorough study and a responsible response to this massive project of 788 acres and proposed 2,058 units can be reviewed, I am asking for a 45 -day delay and to stop any "fast-trackine." In lieu of the recent energy crisis in California, rolling. blackouts are not only a threat but a reality. Withoutmandatory solar heating requirements for new housing we feel it is Z ' somewhat irresponsible to build more houses when lighting the existing housing in California has become nearly impossible. There are other serious adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated below a significant level. ? Namely, LOS D Service in traffic gridlock which is already affecting all Temecula 7 citizens, and the disappearance of clean air that once enveloped the Temecula area. I look forward to working with the city council and planning commission on this large project and would urge patience and due diligence before such a large high-density ' housing project involving either the county or city adjacent to numerous rural houses and ranches, and caution against a quick haphazard approval by the city council. 1 40941 Winchester Road 0 Temecula, CA 92591 0 (909) 695-1079. Fax: (909) 699-5335 F-1 City of Temecula ' Planning Department 42100 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan PLANNER: Saied Naaseh Dear Sir/Madam: After my conversation with City Councilman Ron Roberts, I was told that the developers for the Roripaugh Project had stated at a city council meeting that I had seen this project and approved it. Neither is the truth. Mr. Ashby either has me confused with another ' David Robinson or has made statements that are slightly disingenuous. My first meeting with City Council Member Ron Roberts was on Monday, June 11, 2001. This is the first time I have seen a plan for the Roripaugh Ranch. iI would therefore request an additional 45 days upon receipt of this letter to review the EIR and the revised draft EIR and the plan. Some areas of major concern for this project are not only being possibly misrepresented as an advocate for the plan and having seen it, but also extensively on the Calle Contento and Northeast section of the project for high density housing with insufficient buffering adjacent to 2 '/z and 5 acre rural housing. Therefore, before a thorough study and a responsible response to this massive project of 788 acres and proposed 2,058 units can be reviewed, I am asking for a 45 -day delay and to stop any "fast-trackine." In lieu of the recent energy crisis in California, rolling. blackouts are not only a threat but a reality. Withoutmandatory solar heating requirements for new housing we feel it is Z ' somewhat irresponsible to build more houses when lighting the existing housing in California has become nearly impossible. There are other serious adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated below a significant level. ? Namely, LOS D Service in traffic gridlock which is already affecting all Temecula 7 citizens, and the disappearance of clean air that once enveloped the Temecula area. I look forward to working with the city council and planning commission on this large project and would urge patience and due diligence before such a large high-density ' housing project involving either the county or city adjacent to numerous rural houses and ranches, and caution against a quick haphazard approval by the city council. 1 40941 Winchester Road 0 Temecula, CA 92591 0 (909) 695-1079. Fax: (909) 699-5335 F-1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 July 2, 2001 TO: FROM: Saied Naaseh, Planning Department Ronald M. Knowles City of Temecula 39675 Cantrell Rd. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92591 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 693-5555 RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR 1. Water flow: I am very concerned about the "downstream" impact of this plan on adjacent property owners. My residence is tax parcel No. 957-130-005. The northwest portion of my property is next to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Past diversions of the natural water flow have already caused over 20 feet of my property to now "be in the creek". During February and March 1998; the water flow in the creek exceeded 150' in width and 3' in depth next to my property. Any attempts to reclaim tax parcel No. 957-130-002 (a 2.87 acre parcel) would decrease the natural water flow of the creek. This would divert more water to the southern portion of the Santa Gertrudis creek bed, which would erode even more of my property. Tax parcel No. 957-130-002 should be part of the open space areas. I also question the water flow report for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. Existing photos of Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek show a much greater amount of water flow in Santa Gertrudis than in Long Creek. Both sides of Santa Gertrudis Creek should be reinforced with concrete to the existing paved portion of Nicolas Road. If only one side is reinforced, my property and others will be flooded. The north side of Santa Gertrudis Creek should have at least a 100 foot open space area for flood control, environmental and habitat conservation. I am also concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. The proposed storm drain for Long Creek could flood the downstream property and "wash out" Cantrell Road. Long Creek should be reinforced with "rip rap" and concrete to where Long Creek intersects Santa Gertrudis Creek. Copy to: Michael D. Rawson Riverside County Flood Control 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 F-2- roll -Z 1 m 11 July 2, 2001 TO: Saied Naaseh, Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 FROM: Ronald M. Knowles � 39675 Cantrell Rd. Temecula, CA 92591 (909)693-5555 RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: No. PA94-0075 I am concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek. The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. Cantrell Road could be "washed out' during heavy rains preventing any access to my residence. ' To protect my ingress and -egress I want the developer to grant me a fifteen foot � easement on the southern portion of tax parcel 957-130-004. This would allow my property to have access to Butterfield Stage Road. J ' Proposed land use for section No. 27: 11.9 acres planned for a 135 unit complex. ' My property and others are zoned very low residential. This plan places 135 units in a 3 space that would previously only have had two to three houses. An increase from 3 units to 135 does not require an adjustment in life style, it destroys the life style. It would seem that in a project of almost 820 acres, this 135 unit complex could be located in an area that would not destroy the existing rural characteristics of the Nicholas ' Valley. __ . _ . .... We are not asking for moree open space, but we are requesting the ranch plan take into consideration the life style of the existing property owners. u I t F�3 1 JUL-26-01 12.27 FROM:CITY OF TEMECULA ID:9056646477 PAGE 12/13 .0 w.nu.w Rn r•.1G ..<w ,. ..wa n». 1 1 11 1 1 1 Dirou Dial. (714) 662.4640 E-mail: hvanllglm@Turm.COM july 17, 2001 City of Temecula Attention: Dave Hogan/Saied Maasah-Shahry Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Ttanecula, CA 92590 1 Re; RoripAr7oh Ranch Specific Plan I IR Gentlemen: _ a Vista. This levier is being sent on behalf n h proeBay� a P�&c ner of Bay supportsthegojecc, l situated to the north of the Roripaugh Ranch pro! have been asked to write because my review of the ng t for the Ras been Ranch Specific Speech Plan disclosed that an important mitigation measure relating to traffic has been omitted. Specifically, in the Technical Appendices un� ctes Draft eol e traffic report indicates the proposed project relating 10 wil have aess to ,,Recommendationsl of thfi Mlurieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. However, Section 7.0 continues on and velopment is participating in the current extension of states clearly: "The Roripaugh Ranch de 1 the Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing temtinus at Calistoga Drive." (Traffie Report, P. 7-1.) Similarly, Secrion 7.0 clearly states that it is incumbent upon the project to participate in the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. "However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed to construct Wrrieta Hot Springs Road and 13unerfield Stage Road within the project site at their ultimate crass -section widths, in addition to providing off -sire improvements to provide safe access. (Ibidr emphasis added) AlthoughTechnical APP ' rhe codices are clear that the Roripaugh Ranch was tension of contemplated to be conditioned to ap 0-e-, lcipa oa i P the ex ie the owner of Rancho Bella Visteta Hot Springs a) with the adjoining property such that Municm riot Springs Road SeTves the Project, there is no condition Tee ommende as a mitigation measure in the body of the draft EIR to implement this recommendation of the traffic report. Therefore, as currently constituted, all mitigation measures which are recommended by 1 ID1A15677-oow ,mwu.o, Dovumt 1 ICY<.•n• r•c-urV .OIu:DrO.., 1W.CrY ...wC<.wn w� RUTAN rent/ wIL.wK Ivwi•n <GVnh 11O1h.•r\ ...u•K• N•<. .rYr =. nrn• re "Y MO l..rn• •.Gw•a 1Jµ M.L w Cow..a....e.w. r.G II•-+•r.. l�r����/ _G,.... sur:. tswclo• _.�. r.n.. .. ,• , ;.,~:la ,ra[+. Ar1 wAI,. 6 rrrY...• .•OPu.'•.IVaWw •• �rwr. h•Or -kn.Ya •t &T U���1 1 ..rwOY. bV•I n Jd.. . =........ YIwI V Owl ,.�-e W ..e.[.v (iNaDr 41w rl•y Cw11[a n�Ur'y •~•a��{ WX.. r I•.X. OnN W (Wr ula °•-"•.ern.w yro.. .w..or TIORNEYS AT LAW YXur[Y..rn \aG.nw r..;a,a rGrr -..•.<.�•ea A..•. r.\N MV, n nOrar t�rCw• lw•urV1n w.w[ 4WfI.Crf11. CO[YOtnTIUnS WNCr.w... c.rw�iNa•• Mlr IWn\ �wYn•YOlnt • Yyw-�K.... ti arG+ wlnaTncG+mYInLwL�X[KOiFiAOn<a ^'[�•,,,. NrY..yM1,.Vo aWnf •nCw IwFKG., C..u4n. waeww• ell •nTOX DO,I,EvnMO,,OVOEtwTX fLQ0A .s.Xrlarl. uln.r 0•+n1n. RX, •OwtIL V.0 Ier•aeV "w�.n CnuFOin,MDGie-nA Wtuw• ��fGR.- — 1 .•.o snVn 0 Wye no.X�r aw••-tr.e.'. a.A1 W".�w COST. nrtsn, 70. POST O,FICI NOG 1916 iu;aws Ie.an ••• \...a..ru yr unw •w RO. Yw. ww IF..rr•.If1Y GltlCI M..VwIG 0...O...uw.< D�.Aa fOwal.I .•n VCn. rY.W.nw rrJYwa.ODrl (A.rvulyn COT/. m17n, CnllrOiXl.1).l.-1TSD uCYlwuF n••inG-9Da: .��n-p•IRw r..man•. `•:w.n x� .mow m . '�y'„�•,., •n,.crY• - ow. qcunOnt11vN1.Sloa vwt,n ET nODG!»-�� �t.••cem lyu +. Dirou Dial. (714) 662.4640 E-mail: hvanllglm@Turm.COM july 17, 2001 City of Temecula Attention: Dave Hogan/Saied Maasah-Shahry Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Ttanecula, CA 92590 1 Re; RoripAr7oh Ranch Specific Plan I IR Gentlemen: _ a Vista. This levier is being sent on behalf n h proeBay� a P�&c ner of Bay supportsthegojecc, l situated to the north of the Roripaugh Ranch pro! have been asked to write because my review of the ng t for the Ras been Ranch Specific Speech Plan disclosed that an important mitigation measure relating to traffic has been omitted. Specifically, in the Technical Appendices un� ctes Draft eol e traffic report indicates the proposed project relating 10 wil have aess to ,,Recommendationsl of thfi Mlurieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. However, Section 7.0 continues on and velopment is participating in the current extension of states clearly: "The Roripaugh Ranch de 1 the Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing temtinus at Calistoga Drive." (Traffie Report, P. 7-1.) Similarly, Secrion 7.0 clearly states that it is incumbent upon the project to participate in the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. "However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed to construct Wrrieta Hot Springs Road and 13unerfield Stage Road within the project site at their ultimate crass -section widths, in addition to providing off -sire improvements to provide safe access. (Ibidr emphasis added) AlthoughTechnical APP ' rhe codices are clear that the Roripaugh Ranch was tension of contemplated to be conditioned to ap 0-e-, lcipa oa i P the ex ie the owner of Rancho Bella Visteta Hot Springs a) with the adjoining property such that Municm riot Springs Road SeTves the Project, there is no condition Tee ommende as a mitigation measure in the body of the draft EIR to implement this recommendation of the traffic report. Therefore, as currently constituted, all mitigation measures which are recommended by 1 ID1A15677-oow ,mwu.o, Dovumt 1 JUL-26-01 12:27 FROM=CITY OF TEMECULA ID=9096946477 BUTAN &TUCKER, City of Temecula July 17, 2001 Page 2 -__ -- PAGE the traffic report are not being imposed upon the project. Clcarly, a failure to impose feasible mitigation measures .renders the approval of the project, even with a statement of overriding considerations, inappropriate. Therefore, In order to address the shortcomings of the current draft ETR, we recommend the inclusion of the following condition of approval: "The developer will be required to participate fully in financing its fair share of the costs of extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road with the adjoining property owner. Developer will fond its portion of the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road prior to developmeni of Phase 1(460 dwelling touts)." We believe the inclusion of the foregoing language will adequately mitigate the impacts of traffic contemplated by the project. However, absent the imposition of this condition, we asr believe is inadequate in that toctatntueues asuggested by thTrafstudy of the EIR andwuld open the project egalc�ing Very truly yob, Za(�Ln & KER, LLP Ligten HV:eg cc: Liz Jackson pave Gatzke Karin Krogius 235ro15072D4' 703700.0150117MI 1 1 I [1 1 1 `J �I '07/L5/01 14: 4J 1"714 JtfB uu71 ai,n Um From: Mike and Sue Knowlton ' 39130 Pala Vista Drive cc: S. Nelson Temecula, CA 92591 694-6848 ' EMAIL: sinkCalpenet -----.--To: - City of Temecula-{Mayor-,-Council-Members, Planning-Commisioners-and Planning Staff Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 13:30 Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Plan RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: No. PA94-0075 ' Environmental Impact Report Response Notification: We have attended meetings from 1995 to the present concerning the Roripaugh Ranch Plan. and believe that the impact of the most recent development plans have inadequately addressed. l As follows: 1 F,,5- Soil Erosion and Redirection of Water Flow: We are concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek_ The improper construction and use of these facilities could flood most of the downstream properties. Cantrell Road could be 'washed out" during heavy rains preventing any access to my residence and others. ' Both sides of Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek MUST be reinforced with rip -rap and concrete to their intersection at Calle Girasol. The traffic and pedestrian circulation crossings at each instance for all corridors within the project and for the Nicolas Road crossing at Santa Gertrudis outside the project must be constructed to 3 safely endure flow that can expected to be seen along these water courses based on historical data. The development must be done right the first time so as not to become a safety issue nor financial burden to the community after the development is. completed. Additionally, control and mitigation impact of drainage from the panhadle that flows across Liefer Road is not adequately addressed. Residents need to be assured that measures will be taken out side of the boundaries of this project to mitigate the impacts expected to occur as a result of this project. 1 F,,5- V 11401 V1 19.94 Y114 Jv0 vv,l Proposed land use: Density distribution within the project as currently planned is in need of reshaping to better flow with the properties outside the boundaries. Of special note is the disproportionate density in the Nicolas Valley region (West) as compared to the Calle Contento region (South and East). Additionally, the high density housing and commercial property are located in an area which creates a distinctly negative view line for the rural residents. I offer the following as a compromise. Each of these options needs to consider the movement of the open space to help meet these goals, but would appear to be a reasonable alternative the current plan. 1) Have the lot sizes and buffer strip be equal for the West Panhandle, Western perimeter, Southern perimeter and Eastern perimeter. Start with 10,000 sf lot sizes and gradually increase the lot sizes as you move into the project so as to maintain the number of lots close to the 1700 needed to fund district. 2) Leave areas 27,28 & 29 zoned as R -R and leave them out of the development entirely, 3) Take the land use plan for areas 27.28 & 29 and 11 b and 12 and move these be immediately adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs RD and Buttefled Stage roads as Gose to their intersections as possible and to the north and east of each as possible. These land uses are best served by these major arterials and have no business in the valley area. 4) The gate at Calle Contento should be removed for the plan. A review of the Specific Plan from 1993 shows this as a thoroughfare and special interests of this sort should not hamstring the city and its residents. This road would allow traffic to flow to Anza and Rancho California Rds and ease circulation down other major roads into and out of the project. The circulation on this road should be minimal and as such should not have an adverse impact on the residents of this area. Access on this road needs to be open and ungated as was the design in much the same way that Mr_ Thornhill noted the that Nicolas Road needs to be open, despite wishes to the contrary by local residents. We are not asking for more open space, but we are requesting the ranch plan take into consideration the life style of the existin property owners. The city should not be bullied into accepting a flawed development plan .JWe also believe that plan should treat all impacted areas and residents equally to the degree that a reasonable individual would agree when it comes to land use purposes. Nicolas Valley residents are not lesser constituents than the Calle Contento �residents.... as my mother would say, "Whets good for the Goose is Good for the Gander!" ' Mike and Knowlton 39130 a Vi rive Temecula, CA 92591 (909)694-6848 _ 1 i 1 l' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL MATERIALS 1. SB 221 Materials 2. Jurisdictional Delineation 3. Farmland Conservation 4. Supplemental Traffic Analysis FINAL Environmental Impact Report I 1 ' SB 221 / SB 610 COMPLIANCE PACKET FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT I I I I 1 1 I !l I I I RECD AUG 2 9 2002 August 28, 2002 i1Klww SUBJECT: RORIPAUGH RANCH - WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT WarrSaied Naasch, Associate Engineer Stephen J. Corona Building & Safety Department City of Temecula Ralph If. Daily Post Office Box 9033 Nair! of Direetnra Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Lima D. nernn,n Dear Mr. Naasch: Presidenl Jeffrey I- "tinkle' SUBJECT: RORIPAUGH RANCH - WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Sr. vire President (SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221) IN SUPPORT OF THE Stephen J. Corona SPECIFIC PLAN Ralph If. Daily _ Ile. R. Drake John E. Hoagland Dear Mr. Naasch: Cwba F. Ko Rancho California Water District (RCWD) understands the proposed Roripaugh Glnce,z: Ranch development includes approximately fifteen (15) residential lots adjacent to .John F.11ennigar Nicolas Road within the RCWD service area and 1485 Pressure Zone. Based on GcnerW Manager consultations with our engineer, RBF Consulting, Senate Bill (SB) 610 does not Phluip1-Forb a Director of Finance- require a Water Supply Assessment from RCWD for this portion of the Roripaugh Trc""'rer Ranch. This is due to the fact that the proposed development within RCWD is less E.P.9toli Lemona Dlrcriar of Engi tweri ng than 500 dwelling units, and does not fall under any one of the other six criteria that Kenneth C. Deady would constitute a "project' subject to SB -610 requirements. Furthermore, SB 221 Direct rof Operations &Maincronce does not apply since this proposed development within RCWD is less.than 200 Perry R l.ouck units and the project is contiguous to an urban area. Controller Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative Please note that the proposed water demands for this portion of the Roripaugh Services Manager Ranch development were already included in the RCWD 2000 Urban Water C. Michael Cowett heat Heat &Krieger IAA Management Plan. Please contact me (909-296-6900) or Charlie Marr at RBF GeneralCaune<I Consulting (949-472-3416) if you should have any questions Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Andrew Webster, P.E. Planning & Capital Projects Manager 02\AW:nw085\FEG c: Ron Craig, RBF Consulting -Ontario, CA Charlie Marr, RBF Consulting -Irvine, CA Peter Olah, Ashby USA LLC Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Read • Post ORrc noa 9017 • Temecula, California 92589-017 • 190912966900 • FAX 19091296-6860 I 1 SB 221 COMPLIANCE PACKET FROM ' EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT I I I I I 11 1] I I I I 1 1 1 11 Ll 1 LI EASTERN MUNICIPAL W A T E R D I S T R I C T _—SINCE 1950�.� x ,,V Y Board ofDirertors Board secretary Mary C. white RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan General Manager Anthony J. Pack May 3, 2002 President approved and authorized the water demand assessment for your project. Rodger D. Siems Attached for your use is the following documentation: Vire President Kent Norton Richard R. Hall Keith Companies Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA 22690 Cactus Avenue Marion V. Ashley Randy A. Record Moreno Valley CA 92553 David J. Slawson Appendix A - Year 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Redwine and Sherrill Dear Mr. Norton: Board secretary Mary C. white RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan General Manager Anthony J. Pack In response to your recent request, please know that on May 1, 2002, EMWD's board Direcrorofwe approved and authorized the water demand assessment for your project. Metropolitan Water DirtrictofSo. Cali Attached for your use is the following documentation: Marion V. Ashley ✓• Tnantrer May 1, 2002 Board Letter v Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA - Water Supply Assessment Report Water Supply Assessment Report Supplemental Information LegalCounsel Appendix A - Year 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Redwine and Sherrill Appendix B - Water Facilities Master Plan Map Appendix C - EMWD's 2002/2003 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program tFLI Appendix D- Report on. Metropolitan's Water Supplies i 0 L �17FI I trust the attached documentation will meet your needs. Sincerely. osph Makwinski JM:aa attachments cc: C. Bachmann, EMWD W. Back, EMWD Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Fax: (909) 928-6177 ' Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: LA .emwd.ory I I ! Treasurer Joseph J. Kuchler CPA ' Legal counsel Redwine and Sherrill 1 1 1 rEASTERN MUNICIIPAL WATER STR C T SINCE 1950---= Board of Directors General Manager Approve and Authorize the Water Demand Assessment for the. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION That the Board, by Minute Order, approve and authorize the attached water supply assessment for the Roripaugh Ranch project, in accordance with the provisions of SB 221 and SB 610. Concur. aft '& Anthony J. Pack General Manager Director. Hall Division: 2 Submitted by: -C les J. Bachmann Assistant General Manager Engineering ' Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Far.: (909) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: w vemwd ory IX.H. Board oicDirertors ' President Rodger D. Siems Vice President Richard R. Hall Marion V. Ashley Randy A. Record May 1, 2002 ' David J. Slavrson Board Secretary Mary C. White TO: CrntratManager Anthony j. Pack FROM: Director oftbr ' Metrofolitan Water SUBJECT: District of So. Calif. Marion V. Ashley ! Treasurer Joseph J. Kuchler CPA ' Legal counsel Redwine and Sherrill 1 1 1 rEASTERN MUNICIIPAL WATER STR C T SINCE 1950---= Board of Directors General Manager Approve and Authorize the Water Demand Assessment for the. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION That the Board, by Minute Order, approve and authorize the attached water supply assessment for the Roripaugh Ranch project, in accordance with the provisions of SB 221 and SB 610. Concur. aft '& Anthony J. Pack General Manager Director. Hall Division: 2 Submitted by: -C les J. Bachmann Assistant General Manager Engineering ' Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Far.: (909) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: w vemwd ory IX.H. 1 1 i 1 1 1 AST7SINCE MUNICIPAL UNICIPAL WATSTRICT 50 1 1 1WATER SUPPLY 1 ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 Roripaugh Ranch 1 1 1 1 May 1, 2002 1 1 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this "Water Supply Assessment Report" is to satisfy the requirements under Senate Bill 610 (Costa) and Senate Bill 221 (Kuehl) that adequate water supplies are or will be available to meet the water demands associated with the proposed development. SB 610 focuses on the content of a water supply agency's Urban Water Management Plan and stipulates that, when.an environmental impact report is required in connection with a project, the appropriate water supply agency must provide an assessment of whether its total projected water supplies will meet projected water demand associated with the proposed project. SB 221 also requires a water supply assessment and is triggered when a tentative map, parcel map, or development agreement for a project is submitted to a land use agency for approval. Both bills define a project as one which has the water demands equal to or greater than that associated with a 500 dwelling unit subdivision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject project, Roripaugh Ranch, is a 2,058 -unit, single- and multiple -family residential development in the Temecula area of Riverside County. The project will also include a small component of neighborhood commercial sites, two school sites, parks, recreation facilities, and a fire station. Figure No. 1 shows the project's location and its relation to Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) water facilities. The water demands associated with this development are projected to be approximately 1,430 acre feet per year (AF/yr). It is anticipated, with a development of this magnitude, that build out would not occur for many years, and that increases in demand on EMWD's supply system would be spread over an eight-year duration. This Would result in an average increase of 179 AF/yr. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT From a facilities perspective, the project is adjacent to existing water pipelines. The project would be conditioned to construct all new facilities needed to distribute water throughout the development area. With respect to water supply, the project is in an area that does not support substantial groundwater production. As a result, water supply to this project would be imported water . D:1WordDm Rodpaugh WSAR.dm 1 obtained through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). As described in a February 11, 2002, MWD document titled "Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies," MWD has provided assurance of continued supplemental water supply for at least 20 years. Additional details of the District, its water supply availability, and demand management practices, along with additional details of MWD's supplemental water supply programs, are contained in the attached supplement. CONCLUSION Based on the above, EMWD has determined that it is able to provide adequate water supply to the subject project. 2 05/03/02 1 . 1 1 1 1 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 1 SINCE 1950 1 1 1 WATER SUPPLY 1 ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 SupplementalInformation ' 1 1 May 2002 1 1 1 1 I ' BACKGROUND Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) was formed in 1950 and annexed to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) in 1951. The District was formed to augment ' dwindling local water supplies with imported water being made available through MWD. In addition to water service, the District's role has expanded to include wastewater collection and ' water recycling. Its service area currently encompasses 555 square miles with an estimated population of over 430,000. With the acquisition of the Fruitvale Mutual Water Company in 1973, EMWD became a ' groundwater producer, a role, which over time has developed to the point where approximately 20% of the District's current water demands are met with groundwater. The remaining 80% of ' water supply needs are met with imported water through MWD. Additional details of EMWD, its service area, and its water management and supply capabilities are contained in the attached Year 2000 Urban Water Management Plan under Appendix A. ' WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ' EMWD maintains and periodically updates a comprehensive Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP). This working plan defines those water supply, transmission, and storage facilities ' required for accommodation of projected growth within the District. The current plan, dated May 2002, projects facility requirements through 2020, in five-year increments. On a yearly ' basis, a 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is prepared, which is based on a further. refinement of the WFMP. This allows the District to more accurately match facility needs with ' development trends. Appendix B contains an overview WFMP District map delineating proposed improvements while Appendix C contains the District's most recent 5=year CIP for ' water projects. ' URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Under California water code, all major urban water agencies are required to prepare formal Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP). EMWD prepared its first such document in 1995 and prepared an updated version in 2000. While this 2000 document (attached in Appendix A) ' D:\WordDoc\Wtr Spy Assmt Report.doc 1 u I I 1 I was prepared in accordance with the water code in place at that time, SB -610 has placed some additional requirements in the content of the management plans: In general, the additional requirements address groundwater supply and management details. The District is in the process of updating its UWMP to bring it into compliance with the new legislation. Since future development, as described in the Year 2000 UWMP, is not proposed to be served by groundwater, but rather served by additional imported water delivered by MWD, the lack of an updated UWMP will not impact the District's ability to develop water supply assessments for proposed projects. ' SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY As noted above and as described in the attached UWMP, EMWD currently meets approximately 20% of its water demand with local groundwater, while 80% is imported through MWD. As ' development continues to occur, it is envisioned that the increased water demands would need to be met with imported water. MWD, in recognition of the role that they play throughout Southern California as a supplemental water supplier, has developed their "Report on ' . Metropolitan's Water. Supplies" dated February 11, 2002. In this report, attached as Appendix D, MWD outlines the programs which they have or will put in place to allow them to ' meet the supplemental water demands of their member agencies beyond the 20 -year planning period stipulated by current legislation. 1 J I 2 04/23/02 I 1 ' JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT FROM GLEN LUKOS ASSOCIATES 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I LJ I ! 14 fOY.i4 Ut —NN LaKU-, _44 "b1: bci 11HY Jb 'F7_ 14:1.. SAX CO' ER SHEET PRt IJECT NUMBER: TO: FF.OM: W LTE: FA X NUMBER: SCBJECT: GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services 0163-40RORI Pete Olah % Tracy Darlene A. Shelley May 30, 2002 - 909/898-1620 Roripaugh Ranch Arached is a copy of the impact table you requested for Roripaugh Ranch. Call me if you need snl( further information. 0 2c712 Birtcher Drive ■ lake Forest ■ California 92630-1782 Telephone: (9.49) 837-04D4 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834 ! `+4`_tz(nN_'A ULtNN LaKub Table One: Total Impacts to Corps Jurisdiction In Square Feet, Acreage, and Linear Feet) at the Ror.paugh Ranch Project Area Drainage Number Total Impact to Corps Jurisdiction (in square feet) Total Impact to Corps Jurisdiction (in acres) Total Impact to Streambed (in linear feet) Drainage 1 8,395 0.19 1,970 Tributary 1.1 930 0.02 310 Tributary 1.2 3,000 0.07 750 Tributary 1.3 1,225 0.03 550 Tributary 1.4 570 0.01 300 Tributary 1.5 330 0.01 210 Drainage 2 1,900 0.04 240 Tributary 2.1 1,675 0.04 720 Tributary 2.2 410 0.01 300 Tributary 2.3 285 0.01 190 2.4 110 0.002 70 -Tributary Tributary 2.5 0 0 0 Tributary 2.6 0 0 0 Tributary 2.7 800 0.02 170 Tributary 2.8 500 0.01 250 Dsinage 3 (Santa C ertrudis Creek) 31,235 0.72 1,230. Tributary 3.1 0 0 0 Tributary 3.2 0 0 0 Tributary 3.3 0 0 0 Tributary 3.4 0 0 0 Tributary 3.5 0 0 0 Drainage 4 (Long Valley Wash) 60,985 1.40 17,350 Tributary 4.1 2,300 0.05 1,150 Tributary 4.2 1,750 0.04 1,010 Tributary 4.3 5,255 0.12 1,690 Tributary 4.4 2,325 0.05 1,000 Tributary 4.5 510 0.01 390 Tributary 4.6 1,240 0.03 660. Tributary 4.7 5,070 0.12 1,840 „'7'�J : J�.J4 ULCNII _l!” i'I.HT Jl IJP 14:14 Tributary 4.8 1,200 0.03 600 Tributary 4.9 1,550 0.04 1,400 Tributary 4.10 490 0.01 490 Tributary 4,11 870 0.02 290 Tributary 4.12 1,050 0.02 350 Tributary 4.13 310 0.01 310 Tributary 4, I4 360 0.01 360 Tributary 4.15 180 0.004 180 Tributary 4.16 590 0.01 230 Drainage 5* 0 0 0 I]rliivage 6 (Off Site for Butterfield Stage Road Alignment) 3,050 0.07 260 Drinage 7 (Off Site for Butterfield Stage Road Alignment) 560 0.01 290 Drainage 8 (Off Site for Butterfield Stage IR oad Alignment) 1,160 0.03 590 I; etland Impacts 7,000 0.16 N/A Total 117,120 2.69 25,740 x: Uisced dramage; Corps did not claim as jurisdictional drainage. s: C 163-40a.tb1 RORIPAUGH RANCH CUBIC YARDAGE DISPLACEMENT TO CORPS JURISDICTION Width @ Lgration LiO a F(. OH M Depth Cubic Ft. Quixicyards IQW A. Panhandle Area Drainage No. 1.0 1,970 4.0 3.0 23,640.0 875.56 Tributary If 1.1 310 15.0 10.0 46,500.0 1,722.22 1.2 750 4.0 3.0 9,000.0 333.33 1.3 550 4.0 3.0 6,600.0 244.44 1.4 300 2.5 1.5 1,125.0 41.67 1.5 210 2.3 1.0 472.5 17.50 Total Drainage No. 01: 3,234.72 B. Panhandle Area Drainage No. 2.0 240 4.8 3.0 3,456.0 128.00 Tributary# 2.1 720 2.3 1.5 2,520.0 93.33 2.2 300 2.0 1.0 600.0 22.22 2.3 190 1.5 1.0 285.0 10.56 2.4 70 1.5 1.0 105.0 3.89 2.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 2.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 2.7 170 2.0 1.5 510.0 18.89 2.8 250 2.0 1.0 500.0 18.52 Total Drainage No. 02: 295.41 C. Santa Genrudes Creek Drainage No. 3.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded Tributary If 3.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded 3.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded 3.3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded 3.4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded 3.5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 excluded Total Drainage No. 03: 0.00 D. Long valley Channel Drainage No. 4.0 17,350.0 9.00 4.00 624,600.00 23,133.33 Tributary# 4.1 1,150.0 2.17 1.00. 2,491.67 9228 4.2 1,010 1.89 1.00 1,907.78 70.66 4.3 1,690 1.88 1.00 3,168.75 117.36 4.4 1,000 2.63 1.50 3,937.50 145.83 4.5 390 2.00 1.25 975.00 36.11 - 4.6 660 1.75 1.00 1,155.00 42.78 4.7 1,840 3.00 1.90 10,488.00 388.44 4.8 600 2.00 0.93 1,116.00 41.33 4.9 1,400 1.12 0.85 1,332.80 49.36 4.10 490 1.00 0.63 308.70 11.43 4.11 290 3.00 1.45 1,261.50 46.72 4.12 350 3.00 1.45 1,522.50 58.39 4,13 310 1.00 0.78 241.80 8.96 _ 4.14 360 1.00 0.48 172.80 6.40 4.15 180 1.00 0.50 90.00 3.33 4.16 230 1.00 0.60 138.00 5.11 Total Drainage No. D4: 24,255.84 E. South Tract Boundary Eastside of BSP. Drainage No. 5.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excluded (Disced Area) F. Butterfield Stage Road Alignment (Offsite) Drainage No. 6.0 260 55.00 8.00 114,400.00 4,237.04 G. Butterfield Stage Road Alignment (Ogsite) Drainage No. 7.0 280 26.00 8.00 58,240.00 2,157.04 H. Butterfield Stage Road Alignment (Offsite) Drainage No. 8.0 590 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excluded (Disced Ares) TOTAL CUBIC YARDAGE DISPLACEMENT TO CORPS JURISDICTION: ............. .......................... 34,180.05 Prepamd by Paradigm Engineering Group - Juna 11, 2002 I I 1 1 February 14, 2001 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, California. 92879-1 3 14 GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services ' SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation of Roripaugh Ranch, Riverside County, California. ' Dear Mr. Ashby: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) . and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction for the above -referenced property.' Roripaugh Ranch in the City of Temecula, Riverside County [Exhibit 11, is comprised of approximately 805 acres of active agricultural land and contains five blue -line drainages (as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Bachelor Mountain, California ' [dated 1953 and photorevised in 1973]) [Exhibit 2]. On July 22, 28 and 29, 1998, and August 24, 1998, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and ' (2) CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. ' An additional off site delineation was performed on October 20, 1999 and November 5, 1999 that included drainage courses for the proposed alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. The road will extend perpindicularacross a series of ridges and valleys from Roripaugh Ranch at the northern end ' of the alignment to Rancho California Road at the southern end. The delineation noted three ephemeral drainages off site associated with the proposed alignment. Enclosed is a 200 -scale map [Exhibit 31 which depicts the areas of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction. Photographs to document the ' topography, vegetative communities, and general widths of each of the waters are provided as Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5 depicts Corps and CDFG jurisdiction off site for the alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. Wetland data sheets are attached as Appendix A. This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations and written policy and guidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatoryagencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. If a final jurisdictional determination is required, GLA can assist in ' getting written confirmation of jurisdictional boundaries from the agencies. 23712 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest California 92630-1782 Telephone: (949) 837-0404 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834 11 Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 2 ' Corps jurisdiction for the project totals approximately 10.0 acres, of which approximately 0.8 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to Corps jurisdiction total 2.69 acres, of which 0.61 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands. CDFG jurisdiction for the project totals approximately 13.2 acres, of which approximately 4.7 acres consist of vegetated riparian habitat. Impacts to CDFG jurisdiction total 3.00 acres, of which 0.83 acre consists of vegetated riparian habitat. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation 200 -scale color aerial photograph, a 200 -scale topographic ' base map of the property, and the previously cited USGS topographic map were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFG jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual2 (Wetland Manual). While in the field the jurisdictional area was recorded onto a 200 -scale color aerial photograph using visible ' landmarks. Other data were recorded onto wetland data sheets. To precisely determine on site jurisdiction, four separate field days were spent on the property to ' thoroughly accomplish the delineation of jurisdictional waters. Close inspection of the property was warranted due to the extensive ripping and tilling of the soil associated with ongoing agricultural activities which could disturb historical waters. We carefully inspected the site for ' small, potentially water -filled depressions and vernal pools that may not be easily recognized on the aerial photo. ' The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the following soils as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: ' Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (AtC2) & Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes (AtD2). These mapping units consist of an ' undifferentiated group of soils on top of convex terraces, on ridges, and in concave areas where dissected terraces and alluvial fans merge. These soils are mostly used for dryland farming. '- Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87-I, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 3 ' Gullied land (GzG) consists of acid alluvium on older fans and terraces. It is frequently severely eroded and supports sparse annual grasses and forbs. ' Greenfield Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (GyC2). Soils of the Greenfield series occur ' on alluvial fans and terraces. These well -drained soils are developed in granitic alluvium and are used for dryland farming and pasture. ' Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC). The Handford series consists of well - drained to somewhat excessively -drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils developed in granitic alluvium and are used for dryland pasture and grain production. Rough Broken Land (RuF) consists of alluvial materials that are remnants of old fans and terraces. ' These soils often support annual grasses and forbs. Terrace Escarpments (TeG) consist of variable alluvium developed on terraces. These soils may be used for pasture, but frequently support coastal sage scrub plants. ' Ramona Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (RaA), Ramona Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (RaB2), Ramona Sandy Loam 5 to 8 percent, eroded (RaC2), Ramona Sandy Loam 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (RaD2) & Ramona Sandy Loam, 15-25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RaE3). The Ramona series consists of well -drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that are ' frequently used for dryland pasture and grain production. Ramona and Buren Loams 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RmE3) & Ramona and Buren ' loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RnE3). These sandy loam soils occupy convex, dissected old terraces, and are used for dryland pasture and citrus production. Riverwash (RsC) occurs on slopes of 0 to 8 percent in valley fills and on alluvial fans. These sandy, gravely, or cobbly areas lie in the channels of major streams and creeks. Drainage is variable. Tujunga Loamy Sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes (TvC). The Tujunga series consists of excessively -drained soils developed in granitic alluvium that are used for dryland pasture and grain production. This soil unit occurs on gentle to moderately sloping alluvial fans and floodplains. 1 I 1 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 4 None of these soil units are identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United States.s However, Riverwash (RsC) and Tujunga Loamy Sand (TvC) are listed in the local hydric soil list prepared by the SCS for western Riverside County.° (The Tujunga unit is considered hydric only when it is associated with a specific landform, i.e., drainageways, of which the Riverwash soil unit is a major component.) According to the Riverside County report, the Riverwash soil unit may support hydric inclusions in floodplain channels if Hydric Criteria 2A and/or 4 are present: 2A: Somewhat poorly drained and have a f•equently occurring ' water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season. '4: Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. ' Also in the Riverside County report, the Tujunga Loamy Sand unit may support hydric inclusions when associated with drainageways containing Riverwash if Hydric Criteria 2A and/or 2B(1) are present: 2A: Somewhat poorly drained and have a f equently occurring water table at less than 0.5 feet f•om the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season 2B(1): Poorly drained or very poorly drained and have: (1) a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5'feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches. United States Department of A.-riculture, Soil Conservation Service. 199 L Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.) USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Field Office Official List of Hydric Soil Map Units For Western Riverside Area. Califomia, Soil Survey Area No.: CA679, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Davis, California. 1 ' Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 5 Prior to delineating the drainages at the site which could potentially contain these hydric units, we contacted Ken Oster, Soil Scientist, USDA Templeton Field Office, to discuss methodology. We ' also consulted the USDA's Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States to assure accuracy in our field determinations. The USDA has prepared a regionally specific guide to aid in the identification and delineation of hydric soils in the field, including delineating sandy soils. Indicators listed by the USDA to ' identify hydric conditions in sandy substrates, such as sandy -bottomed stream channels and drainages, include Indicator S5 -Sandy Redox and Indicator S6 -Stripped Matrix: ' S5. Sandy Redox: A layer starting within 15 cm of the soil surface that is at least 10 cm thick, and has a matrix chroma 2 or less with 2% or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations as soft ' masses and/or pore linings. ' S6. Stripped Matrix: A layer starting within 15 cm of the soil surface in which iron/maganese oxides and/or organic matter have been stripped from the matrix exposing the primary base color of soil materials. The stripped areas and translocated oxides and/or organic matter form a diffuse splotchy pattern of two or more colors. The stripped zones are 10% or more of the volume; they are rounded ' and approximately I to 3 cm in diameter. These indicators were utilized duringour analysis of soil test pits associated with hydrophytic ' vegetation in stream channels and along their banks in order to document the presence of Corps jurisdictional wetlands at the site. 5 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 1996- Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 6 II. JURISDICTION A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 and includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce, (4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (6) the territorial seas, and (7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWIvt) which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. In 1989 the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation developed an updated methodology which was . adopted by the Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and which replaced the 1987 Wetland Manual.6 The use of this 1989 manual was perceived by many to excessively increase the jurisdictional limits of wetlands. After several congressional hearings, EPA, Corps, SCS, and USFWS published proposed 1991 revisions to the 1989 manual.' A few days afterwards, the 6 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. ' Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, "1989 Federal Manual for Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions." August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 4044640480. ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 7 ' President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992 which, in effect, prohibits the use of the 1989 manual. Because the 1991 proposed revisions to the 1989 manual have not yet been adopted, the only remaining valid methodology is the 1987 Wetland Manual. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Manual generally requires that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual provides great detail in methodology and allows for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands ' (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Weilands9); ' soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and ' hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year. 10 ' B. California Department of Fish and Game tPursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank ' of any river, stream, or lake which supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least ' periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has ° This delineation was performed using, where appropriate, the 1987 Wetland Manual. It is unlikely that any actions will be taken on a revised wetland manual in the near future. If a new manual is adopted, it may be necessary to review our delineation to determine its compliance with any changes set forth. ' 9 Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). 10 For most of low-lying southern California, five percent of the growing season is equivalent to 18 days. I ' Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 8 ' supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." ' CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinion: Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the ' . potential to contain fish, aquatic insects and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural waterways... ' Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be treated by [CDFG] as natural waterways... ' Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally not be subject to Fish and Game Code provisions... ' Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the Corps. Exceptions are CDFG's ' exclusion of isolated wetlands (those not associated with a river, stream, or lake), the addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands, and the addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian area's federal wetland status. III. RESULTS ' A. Corps Jurisdiction ' Corps jurisdiction associated with Roripaugh Ranch totals approximately 10.0 acres of waters of the United States, of which 0.8 acre consists of wetlands within the OHWM. The boundaries of the waters of the United States are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibits 3 and 5]. The Corps jurisdictional acreage for each drainage is discussed below. ' Thirty-eight Corps jurisdictional drainages occur within the Roripaugh Ranch project site and three additional drainages occur off site associated with the proposed alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. For the purpose of discussion, these drainages have been grouped into watersheds comprised: ' of a main drainage channel which corresponds to one of the five blue -line streams depicted on the above-mentioned USGS quadrangle map. On our map, Drainages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 correspond to these blue -line streams [Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map]. On this map, Drainage 3 corresponds to Santa ' Gertrudis Creek; the remaining blue -line streams are unnamed. In addition, the three ephemeral 1 I Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 10 this drainage include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), tocalote (Centourea melitensis), and black ' mustard (Brassica nigra) [Exhibit 4, Photo 11. Drainage I is an ephemeral stream since it supports only one small grove of elderberry shrubs and does not occupy a topographic position in the landscape to collect groundwater seepage. la. Tributary 1.1 Approximately 1,980 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 1.1. . No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this stream course which drains steep slopes in the extreme northwestern comer of the property. Tributary 1.1, however, is an intermittent drainage that is densely vegetated with riparian vegetation consisting of willows and mule fat [Exhibit 4, Photo 2]. ' lb. Tributaries 1.2 and 1.3 Approximately 4,860 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 1.2 ' and 1.3. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry, ephemeral drainages. These shallow drainages support mostly ruderal vegetation, small patches of sparse coastal sage scrub, and Eucalyptus groves [Exhibit 4, Photo 3]. The OHWM of this, and other drainages in this area of the Ranch have been disturbed by ongoing agricultural tilling [Exhibit 5, Photo 4]. ' I.C. Tributaries 1.4 and 1.5 ' Approximately 2,440 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these ephemeral drainages. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry deeply incised tributaries which drain southwest off the property. These drainages are vegetated ' with ruderal vegetation and coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 5]. 2. Drainage 2 ' Approximately 5,130 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 2. No ' jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this dry, ephemeral drainage which lacks riparian vegetation. Drainage 2 is a northeast -southwest trending unnamed blue -line stream that is located in the northern portion of the project site. This broad, sandy drainage supports mostly coastal sage scrub and occasional groves of eucalyptus along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 6]. Most of the northern OHWM of Drainage 2 has been obliterated due to historical agricultural practices [Exhibit 4, Photo 71. I ' Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 9 ' drainages, Drainages 6, 7, and 8, located off site are mapped in Exhibit 5. In general, these ' drainages flow east to west across the site, and their tributaries drain historically farmed slopes and alluvial terraces. In many cases, these tributaries are permanently interrupted by discing or plowing, and only small remnant sections of their former drainage remains intact. One drainage ' (Drainage 5) is shown on the USGS map as a blue -line stream but is not jurisdictional due to these ongoing agricultural operations. ' Of the thirty-eight drainages on site and three drainages off site, only five of these, Drainage 1. 1, Drainage 3 (Santa Gertrudis Creek), Drainage 3.1, Drainage 3.3, and Drainage 4, carry the frequency and duration of flows necessary to support hydrophytic vegetation within or along ' their banks. Therefore, these five streambeds are classified as "intermittent drainages" according to the definition published in the Federal Register. 11 At Roripaugh Ranch, each of these intermittent steambeds occupies a topographic position in the landscape which collects ' groundwater seepage from the surrounding terrain, thereby supplementing seasonal storm flows as a source of water to support wetlands and riparian habitat. The remaining thirty-three ' jurisdictional streambeds located on site and the three jurisdictional drainages located off site. meet the definition of an "ephemeral drainage" which is also provided in the Federal Register. These ephemeral drainages do not collect groundwater seepage from the surrounding terrain and. ' they do not support hydrophytic vegetation. We carefully searched the property and we did not locate any vernal pools or other water -filled ' depressions with a basin morphology at Roripaugh Ranch. Also, we did not identify any species listed as obligate indicators of vernal pools in the Corps' Special Public Notice regarding vernal pools. 12 ' 1. Drainage 1 ' Approximately 8,660 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with this dry, ephemeral drainage. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this drainage. Drainage 1 is an east - west trending blue -line drainage located in the northwest portion of the project site. It runs through ruderal vegetation consisting of oat and brome grass (Avena sativa and Bromus sp.), and sparse coastal sage scrub comprised of buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California ' sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Other species of exotic vegetation commonly found within " Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits. Federal tRegister !uly 1, 1998. " US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. November 1997. Special Public Notice, Regional General Condition No. I - Vernal Pool Notification. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 11 2a. Tributary 2.1 Approximately 1,900 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with this ephemeral drainage. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with Tributary 2.1. Tributary 2.1 is a north -south trending, deeply incised drainage that runs through coastal sage scrub and tilled land before draining into Drainage 2. 2b. Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 Approximately 2,440 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these ephemeral drainages. The OHWM of these drainages has been disturbed and/or removed by ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 81. Those not impacted by agriculture support sparse coastal sage scrub and lack vegetated riparian habitat [Exhibit 4, Photo 9]. 2c. Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8 Approximately 3,640 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these ephemeral drainages. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8. These dry, deeply incised drainages support coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 10]. This hilly area of the Ranch supports several non jurisdictional gullies that lack evidence of an OH WM or other indicators of a streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 11 ]. 3. Drainage 3 Approximately 214,218 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 3, of which 19,570 square feet consists of jurisdictional wetlands located within the OHWM. Drainage 3, Santa Gertrudis Creek, is a blue -line stream depicted on the above-mentioned USGS map. This intermittent, east -west trending drainage channels peak storm flows and collects groundwater seepage from the surrounding canyons. In general, Drainage 3 is vegetated mostly with ruderal exotic species including eucalyptus, tocalote, and black mustard, and/or sparse coastal sage scrub species throughout its length. Riparian scrub consisting of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), black willow (Salix gooddingii), red willow (Salix laevigata), however, does become a major component of the vegetation in the northeast section of the property Soils associated with this drainage consist of the non -hydric Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam in the southwest section and the non -hydric Rough Broken Land and Arlington & Greenfield Fine Sandy Loam in the northeast section. The hydric Riverwashffujungasoil units occur in the central section of the drainage. I ' In the southwestern section of its drainage, this blue -line stream supports a dry, but broad sandy ' streambed vegetated mostly with ruderal exotic species and does not support wetlands [Exhibit 4, Photos 12 & 13]. Along the center section of its stream course, between Tributaries 3.1 and 3.2, however, Drainage 3 supports occasional clumps of mule fat and willows along its banks and broad patches of Corps jurisdictional wetlands within the OHWM. Wetlands within the OHWM of Drainage 3 comprise approximately 19,570 square feet of Corps Jurisdiction (0.45 acre) [Exhibit 4, Photos 14, 16, & 17], and are vegetated with heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) , downy monkey flower (Mimulus pilosus), mule fat, and red willow. The hydric soils associated with these in -channel wetlands are characterized by a splotchy soil profile as a result of the mobilization and/or translocation of organic material to below the sandy soil surface. These characteristics correspond to the USDA's hydric soil indicator S6 -Stripped Matrix and the Wetland Manual's organic streaking criteria. Photo 15 ' [Exhibit 4] shows a ped taken from the channel of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Data Point No. 11). This soil profile depicts a diffuse, splotchy pattern of low-chroma organic material located beneath the surface layer of sand. The Munsell color of the dark material is 10 YR 5/1 when moistened (see data sheets attached as Appendix A for additional details). Many of the stream -side terraces along Santa Gertrudis Creek are elevated one- to several feet above the channel and do not support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soil indicators. These terraces and other similar areas along the streambed support non -hydric clay loam soils with a Munsell color of 10 YR 4/3 when moistened. Photo 18 [Exhibit 4] depicts a non -wetland terrace dominated by weedy plants and non -hydric soils. The northeast section of Santa Gertrudis Creek drains steep canyon slopes vegetated with.dense coastal sage scrub. The rocky to cobbly streambed supports dense riparian vegetation within and adjacent to the streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 191. The steeper slope of the stream and the shallow depth to bedrock precludes development of wetland soils in this area. 3a. Tributary 3.1 ' Approximately 24,230 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 3.1, ' of which 17,780 square feet are jurisdictional wetlands. Tributary 3.1 is a north -south trending intermittent drainage that flows through sparse coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 20], but nevertheless, collects sufficient storm and groundwater seepage from ' surrounding hillsides to support wetland functions. Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 12 ' In the southwestern section of its drainage, this blue -line stream supports a dry, but broad sandy ' streambed vegetated mostly with ruderal exotic species and does not support wetlands [Exhibit 4, Photos 12 & 13]. Along the center section of its stream course, between Tributaries 3.1 and 3.2, however, Drainage 3 supports occasional clumps of mule fat and willows along its banks and broad patches of Corps jurisdictional wetlands within the OHWM. Wetlands within the OHWM of Drainage 3 comprise approximately 19,570 square feet of Corps Jurisdiction (0.45 acre) [Exhibit 4, Photos 14, 16, & 17], and are vegetated with heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) , downy monkey flower (Mimulus pilosus), mule fat, and red willow. The hydric soils associated with these in -channel wetlands are characterized by a splotchy soil profile as a result of the mobilization and/or translocation of organic material to below the sandy soil surface. These characteristics correspond to the USDA's hydric soil indicator S6 -Stripped Matrix and the Wetland Manual's organic streaking criteria. Photo 15 ' [Exhibit 4] shows a ped taken from the channel of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Data Point No. 11). This soil profile depicts a diffuse, splotchy pattern of low-chroma organic material located beneath the surface layer of sand. The Munsell color of the dark material is 10 YR 5/1 when moistened (see data sheets attached as Appendix A for additional details). Many of the stream -side terraces along Santa Gertrudis Creek are elevated one- to several feet above the channel and do not support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soil indicators. These terraces and other similar areas along the streambed support non -hydric clay loam soils with a Munsell color of 10 YR 4/3 when moistened. Photo 18 [Exhibit 4] depicts a non -wetland terrace dominated by weedy plants and non -hydric soils. The northeast section of Santa Gertrudis Creek drains steep canyon slopes vegetated with.dense coastal sage scrub. The rocky to cobbly streambed supports dense riparian vegetation within and adjacent to the streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 191. The steeper slope of the stream and the shallow depth to bedrock precludes development of wetland soils in this area. 3a. Tributary 3.1 ' Approximately 24,230 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 3.1, ' of which 17,780 square feet are jurisdictional wetlands. Tributary 3.1 is a north -south trending intermittent drainage that flows through sparse coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 20], but nevertheless, collects sufficient storm and groundwater seepage from ' surrounding hillsides to support wetland functions. ' Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 13 ' These wetlands are dominated by willows,, and developed as a result of a man-made ' impoundment which blocks drainage within the creek. Also, the wetland impoundment supports approximately 6,200 square feet of open water [Exhibit 4, Photo 211. 3b. Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 Approximately 7,930 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry, shallow to ' deeply incised drainages [Exhibit 4, Photos 22 & 23]. These tributaries drain moderately steep slopes and support coastal sage scrub along their banks. Drainages 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 ' are ephemeral drainages. Drainage 3.3 is an intermittent drainage, however, which apparently collects peak storm runoff and supplemental groundwater seepage from the. . surrounding steep slopes to support hydrophytic vegetation. 4. Drainage 4 ' Approximately 61,188 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 4, of which 4,950 square feet are jurisdictional wetlands located within or immediately adjacent to the ' OHWM. Drainage 4 is a relatively broad, east -west trending blue line drainage located in the southern portion of the project site. Drainage 4 is an intermittent, sandy bottomed drainage that supports intermittent clumps of riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat, cocklebur, black ' willow, and red willow [Exhibit 4, Photos 24 & 25.1. Soils associated with Drainage 4 consist of Ramona Sandy Loam and the Tujunga Loamy Sand along the western portion of the drainage. Greenfield Sandy Loam occupies the central and eastern sections of its drainage. Corps jurisdictional wetlands occur at the extreme western edge of property. Wetland vegetation consists mostly of mule fat and cocklebur. This wetland supports a silty clay loam inclusion ' characterized by a 5Y 3/1 Munsell color when moistened, and a SY 3/2 Munsell color with mottles towards the edge of the streambank. See the data sheets attached as Appendix A for additional details. ' The central portion of Drainage 4 is steeply incised and supports mostly ruderal vegetation along ' its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 26]. Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 ' Approximately 18,880 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry ' ephemeral drainages which support mostly ruderal vegetation or sparse coastal sage scrub I Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 14 ' along their banks [Exhibit 4, Photos 27 & 28 ]. Most of these drainages are deeply incised, ' and agricultural activities have not severely disturbed their OHWM. 4b. Tributaries 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 ' Approximately 7,410 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these dry, ephemeral drainages which do not support jurisdictional wetlands [Exhibit 4, Photo 29]. The OHWM of these drainages have been altered and/or permanently interrupted.due to ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 30]. These drainages support mostly ruderal vegetation. 5. Drainage 5 ' Drainage 5 is depicted as an unnamed blue -line stream on the above-mentioned USGS map. No Corps jurisdiction is associated with this drainage which has been permanently altered due to ongoing agricultural activities. At the time of our delineation, we did not find an OHWM nor did we find any other evidence of a streambed such as shelving [Exhibit 4, Photo 311. ' 6. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 Approximately 1.6 acres of Corps jurisdiction, none of which consist of jurisdictional wetlands, ' is associated with Drainages 6, 7, and 8. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 are west -east trending ephemeral streams that are located off site south of the project site. These drainages support mostly coastal sage scrub and upland invasive grasses along their banks. Drainage 6 exhibits an OHWM ' ranging in size from 11 to 15 feet wide, Drainage 7 exhibits an OHWM ranging in size from two to three feet wide, and Drainage 8 exhibits an OHWM ranging in size from one to three feet wide. 1 B. CDFG Jurisdiction ' CDFG jurisdiction associated with the Roripaugh Ranch project totals approximately 13.2 acres and includes all areas within Corps jurisdiction. This total includes approximately 4.7 acres of vegetated riparian habitat and 306,549 square feet (8.5 acres) of open water and unvegetated streambed habitat. The boundaries of CDFG jurisdiction are depicted on the enclosed maps ' [Exhibits 3 and 5]. At Roripaugh Ranch, most of the riparian vegetation is associated with the two primary blue -line ' streams that flow east to west across the site: Drainage 3 (Santa Gertrudis Creek) and Drainage 4. I 1 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 15 Drainage 3. 1, which is a tributary to Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Drainages I and 1.1 support only relatively minor stretches of riparian habitat. The remaining drainages on site and off site drain historically farmed slopes and alluvial terraces currently dominated by non-native ruderal vegetation, sparse coastal sage scrub, or fallow soil. In many cases, these drainages have been disturbed by ongoing disking or plowing which has permanently altered the historic hydrologic regime necessary to support native riparian plants. ' Drainage 5, a former blue -line stream depicted in the above-mentioned USGS map, lacks a streambed and riparian vegetation due to historic and ongoing disking, and therefore, it is not considered jurisdictional in this report. ' 1. Drainage 1 ' Approximately 10,100 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with this drainage. Drainage I supports approximately 1,440 square feet of riparian vegetation consisting of ' elderberry scrub located on the banks of the streambed. The majority of this silty to sandy streambed is largely unvegetated and supports mostly ruderal species [Exhibit 4, Photo 1]. ' la. Tributary 1.1 Approximately 8,280 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with this dry drainage. Tributary 1.1 supports approximately 6,300 square feet of dense riparian vegetation consisting mostly of mule fat and small willows within the streambed and along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 21. lb. Tributaries 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 Approximately 7,300 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with these. tributaries. The. limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these dry ' streambeds which do not support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photos 3 -5]. 2. Drainage 2 Approximately 5,130 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 2. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for this dry streambed which does not ' support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photo 6]. Most of the historic streambed in Drainage 2 has been disturbed/removed by tilling [Exhibit 4, Photo 7]. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14,2001 Page 16 2a. Tributary 2.1 ' Approximately 1,900 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 2.1. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in this drainage. No riparian vegetation is associated with this dry streambed. 2b. Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 Approximately 2,440 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. The limits of the Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in ' these drainages. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry streambeds [Exhibit 4, Photos 8 & 91. 2c. Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8 Approximately 3,640 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8. The limits of the Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these streambeds. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry, deeply incised drainages ' [Exhibit 4, Photos 10 & 1 I]. 3. Drainage 3 ' Approximately 257,715 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 3 (Santa Gerturdis Creek). Drainage 3 supports approximately 103,984 square feet of riparian vegetation including riparian scrub consisting of mule fat, willows, and elderberry, and in -channel. hydrophytes such as heliotrope and downy monkey flower [Exhibit 4, Photos 12 & 13]. Most of Drainage 3 is vegetated with ruderal exotic species including eucalyptus, tocalote, and black mustard, and/or with patches of coastal sage scrub. Riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat and willows and other hydrophytes are uncommon along the southwest and central sections of the drainage [Exhibit 4, Photos 14 - 171. However, the northeast section of Santa Gertrudis Creek does support dense riparian vegetation within and along the streambed and dense coastal sage scrub along its steep canyon slopes [Exhibit 4, Photos 18 & 191. 3a. Tributary 3.1 ' Approximately 24,230 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 3. 1, of which 17,780 square feet is vegetated riparian habitat and includes all areas within ,. Corps jurisdiction. Tributary 3.1 flows through sparse coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, -_ r:w Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 17 Photo 201, but nevertheless, supports a man-made impoundment vegetated with willows [Exhibit 4, Photo 21]. Approximately 6,200 square feet of open water habitat is associated with this impoundment., 3b. Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 Approximately 7,930 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry, shallow to deeply incised drainages [Exhibit 4, Photos 22 & 23]. These tributaries drain moderately steep slopes and mostly support sparse coastal sage scrub along their banks. 4. Drainage 4 Approximately 140,910 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 4, of which 79,722 square feet is vegetated riparian habitat, and includes all areas within.Corps jurisdiction. Drainage 4 is an intermittent, sandy bottomed drainage that supports riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat, cocklebur, and willows mostly along the extreme east and western sections of its drainage [Exhibit 4, Photos 24 & 25 ]. The central portion, however, is steeply incised and supports mostly ruderal vegetation along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 26]. 4a. Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 43, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 ' Approximately 18,880 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 4. 1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in these drainages which do not support riparian vegetation. Most of these drainages are deeply incised and support mostly ruderal vegetation or sparse coastal sage scrub along their banks [Exhibit 4, Photos 27 & 28 ]. ' 4b. Tributaries 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 Approximately 7,410 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with these dry drainages which do not support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photo 291. Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in these drainages. Many of these streambeds have been ' altered due to ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 30] and support mostly ruderal vegetation. I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 18 ' 5. Drainage 5 Drainage 5 is depicted as an unnamed blueline stream on the above-mentioned USGS map. No CDFG jurisdiction is associated with this drainage which has been permanently altered due to ongoing agricultural activities. At the time of our delineation, we did not find any evidence of a defined streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 31]. 6. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 Approximately 1.6 acres of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainages 6, 7, and 8. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these dry streambeds which do not support riparian vegetation (Exhibit 5)_ ' IV. DISCUSSION !. A. Impact Analysis ' 1. Corps Jurisdiction The project, as proposed, will impact 2.69 acres of Corps jurisdiction, of which 0.61 acre consists ' of jurisdictional wetlands. Most of the tributaries to Drainages One through Five will be impacted as part of the project. A majority of Drainages 3 and 4, intermittent drainages supporting riparian habitat, will be preserved to the extent practicable on site. Drainages 1, 2, 6, ' and 7 will be filled as a result of project impacts. Drainage 5 is a non jurisdictional drainage and was not figured into total impacts to Corps jurisdiction. ' 2. CDFG Jurisdiction ' The project, as proposed, will impact 3.00 acres of CDFG jurisdiction, of which 0.83 acre consists of vegetated riparian habitat. Most of the tributaries to Drainages One through Five will be impacted as part of the project. A majority of Drainages 3 and 4, intermittent drainages ' supporting riparian habitat, will be preserved to the extent practicable on site. Drainages 1, 2, 6; and 7 will be filled as a result of project impacts. Drainage 5 is a non jurisdictional drainage and was not figured into total impacts on CDFG jurisdiction. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 19 B. Corps Regulations and Procedures The discharge of dredged or fill material (temporarily or permanently) into waters of the United States requires prior authorization from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Activities that usually involve a regulated discharge of dredged or fill materials include (but are not limited to) grading, placing of riprap for erosion control, pouring concrete, laying sod, preparing soil for planting (e.g., turning soil over, adding soil amendments 13), stockpiling excavated material, mechanized removal of vegetation, and driving of piles for certain types of structures. Activities that do not involve a regulated discharge (if performed in a manner to avoid discharges) include excavation, placing a structure, driving pilings (for transportation structures), clearing of vegetation using hand held equipment and working above the ground surface, pumping water, and walking or driving non -track vehicles. Federal law recognizes wetlands and other waters of the United States as valuable natural resources. Therefore, federal agencies, principally the Corps, USFWS, and EPA strongly discourage activities within federal jurisdiction that alter aquatic habitats. In addition, Corps policy, derived from the National Environmental Policy Act, prohibits "piece-mealing," the submission of separate permit applications for discharges which are reasonably related to the same project. 1. Individual Permits If a proposed discharge is not authorized by one or more NWPs, an individual permit will be required. The average processing time for an individual Section 404 permit in the Los Angeles District Corps generally ranges between 120 days and one year, but, for complex projects, has been known to exceed three years. This processing time does not include the time necessary to prepare the application for submittal or hold pre -application meetings with the agencies. a. Pre -application Meeting The prospective 404 permit applicant may request a meeting with the Corps prior to submitting an application. These meetings are generally intended for large or controversial projects. The meeting may be held with the Corps alone or with a group of agencies that ultimately will be involved in the 404 permitting process, including the USFWS, EPA, and CDFG. The meeting may be held in the offices of one of the agencies or at the site of the proposed work. 13 Similar planting activities associated with ongoing farming operations may be exempt from regulation by Section ' 404 of the Clean Water Act. I Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 20 As these pre -application meetings are generally held only for.large and controversial projects, ' they pose the possibility of drawing unwanted attention to the project. Nevertheless, these meetings can be helpful because the applicant can gain early understanding of agency concerns and philosophy prior to submitting the permit application and can then respond by means of plan revisions or incorporated mitigation. A flexible applicant, willing to consider agency concerns in ' advance, may be able to significantly shorten the formal permitting process through a strategically coordinated response to all agency concerns. ' Interagency coordination should be initiated as soon as possible after the project design and mitigation design have been finalized. Nevertheless, it is important that the project and ' mitigation be presented to the agencies in such a way that the agency representatives feel that they have the opportunity to provide input. ' b. Application ' Corps regulations dictate the minimum information necessary to constitute a complete application. This information is fairly general; the applicant is not required to provide detailed engineering plans. The application must address the entire project including all planned phases. ' Federal law prohibits "piece-mealing" a large project in an attempt to derive regulatory relief through giving the appearance of several small, unrelated projects, each with relatively minor impacts. The Corps is interested primarily in how much fill will be placed, where it will be placed, how it will be placed, and why it will be placed. Not required by regulation, but strongly recommended to any applicant wanting to avoid delays, is a mitigation plan addressing any impacts to habitat that might occur as a result of the proposed work. Such mitigation will be required prior to issuance of a permit, therefore, presenting a reasonable mitigation plan up front is an opportunity to show good faith. c. Public Notice Upon receipt of a complete application, the Corps will publish a public notice (including drawings) for distribution to interested parties (including federal, state, and local agencies, and local news media). The public is given the opportunity to provide written comments to the Corps during the public comment period (usually 30 days). At the end of the comment period, the applicant is sent all comments received. The Corps does not consider the response to the public notice as a "vote" of the public for or against the issuance of a permit; however, issues raised by the commenters must be addressed. LJ ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 21 d. Decision Document After receipt of the response to comments (if any), the Corps should be ready to prepare a multi- purpose document consisting of an environmental assessment (EA), a public interest review, and ' a 404(b)(1) evaluation (alternatives analysis). The applicant is often asked to provide most of the information that makes up this document. By providing that information in the format of the document itself, the applicant can help shorten the permitting process. The issuance of a Section 404 permit is considered a major federal action and thus requires an environmental evaluation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As ' required by this act, the Corps prepares an EA addressing the entire proposed project, (not just the part within Corps jurisdiction). The conclusion of this EA must be either that the proposed project does or does not pose significant impacts to the human environment. If the conclusion is ' that the project does not pose significant impacts, then the Corps may go onto the next step (the public interest review), otherwise the Corps must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS is a thorough examination of the proposed project and alternatives, and takes 18 to 24 months to prepare and process. During this time. the public is provided opportunity for input and review. As in the case of the multi-purpose environmental document, the applicant is ' often asked to provide most of the information that makes up the EIS. In its public interest review, the Corps is required by regulation to consider whether or not the ' proposed project is in the public interest. 14Thedecision to issue a permit will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The,benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable ' detriments (including cumulative effects). EPA regulations require the Corps to evaluate 404 permit decisions according to certain ' guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Two components of the 404(b)(1) guidelines cause difficulties for many projects, the "least damaging alternative" and ' "water dependency" components. The first of these components requires that the Corps issue a Section 404 permit only for the project alternative that is least damaging to special aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands) that also accomplishes the basic project objective. The second ' 14 Among those aspects of the human environment to be considered in the public interest review are the probable ' impacts of the proposed project on conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, Flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. 1 I 1 1 [1 .1 11 1 11 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 22 component requires the Corps to presume that if the proposed project is not water dependent, a less damaging alternative (e.g., an upland site) exists. In the past a non -water dependent project which mitigated for damaged habitats at a greater than one-to-one ratio was seen to be the least damaging alternative (the proposed project would increase the amount of special aquatic habitat). This practice effectively allowed the Corps to circumvent the water -dependency requirement of the Guidelines. However, the November 15, 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between. EPA and the Corps t' requires the Corps when considering individual permit applications (not NWPs) to "first make a determination that potential impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable." Thus, the MOA specifies that the Corps cannot consider mitigation as part of the project when determining the least environmentally damaging alternative. B. CDFG Regulations and Procedures Unlike the Corps, CDFG regulates not only the discharge of dredged or fill material, but all activities that alter streams and lakes and their associated habitat. CDFG has no abbreviated permitting process comparable to the Corps nationwide permits. A CDFG 1601/1603 Agreement is required for all activities resulting in impacts to streambeds and their associated riparian habitats. A 1601/1603 notification (application) will not be accepted by the CDFG until after an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration has been certified. CDFG generally requires that any impacts to streambeds and adjacent riparian habitats be fully mitigated. To ensure rapid and favorable action on a 1601/1603 notification, a mitigation plan should be submitted with the notification package. It normally takes 30 days for the CDFG to process a 1601/1603 notification. C. Potential Mitigation If the division engineer takes discretionary authority and requires an individual permit, or if authorization is sought under a NWP requiring case-by-case approval by the Corps through the pre -discharge notification process, or if the proposed work does not qualify for authorization by NWP, then the Corps (and the state and federal resource agencies) will likely require mitigation for the impacted wetland/riparian habitat. 15 "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines," dated November 15, 1989. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 23 Unlike the Corps, the CDFG will likely require mitigation for all impacts to streambeds and their associated riparian habitats resulting from any aspect of the proposed project, regardless of Corps requirements or extent of impacts. Mitigation can take several forms. It can consist of (1) avoidance of impacts, (2) reduction of impacts, or (3) compensation for impacts. 16 The first two types of mitigation (avoidance or reduction of impacts) are much preferred by the agencies and should be investigated to the maximum extent possible. In cases where impacts cannot be avoided or significantly reduced, compensation must be considered. The contribution of money or the purchase of existing wetlands is almost never considered by the agencies (this was once a more common practice, but has not been accepted by any of the agencies for several years). Compensation is the creation of habitat to replace similar habitat unavoidably eliminated at a ' different location. In order to be accepted, the concerned agencies must be convinced that the proposed compensation will totally mitigate for the lost habitat. Because the creation of habitat ' requires time (usually several years) there is a temporal loss of habitat unless the mitigation is performed several years in advance of the removal of the existing habitat. As a result, the agencies often require compensation at a ratio of greater than one-to-one. Our experience with NWP number 39 is that habitat replacement is usually required at a ratio of between 1.5: ].and 2:1; however, a ratio of 3:1 is not unheard of for the loss of high quality wetlands. If performed on the project site or immediately adjacent to the project site, the mitigation is said to be "on site." If no mitigation opportunities are available at or adjacent to the project site, 'off site" mitigation may be considered. Generally, as the distance between the project and mitigation sites increases, the value of the mitigation (as determined by the agencies) decreases. In addition, if the mitigation is too far off site, disputes may arise between local governing bodies in which one local government refuses to allow mitigation within its boundaries for a project outside its boundaries. Compensation does not have to take place on property owned by the developer. 16 The November 15, 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and EPA directed the Corps to require that impacts to waters of the United States be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Although the MOA was intended to apply to individual permits only, recent experience with Corps permit managers has indicated that they are requiring prospective nationwide permittees to document that discharges into waters of the United State3'&nnot be avoided and that there are no available upland alternatives. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 24 Please find attached: (1) Regional Map [Exhibit 1]; (2) Vicinity Map [Exhibit 2]; (3) Jurisdictional Delineation Map [Exhibit 3]; (4) Site Photographs [Exhibit 4]; (5) Off Site Delineation Map [Exhibit 51; and (6) Data Sheets [Appendix A]. If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact either Martin Rasnick or Darlene Shelley at (949) 837-0404. Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. wjz� X-e-� Martin A. Rasnick Regulatory Specialist S:0163-40c.rpt z m 01 F GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 1 P'. ris ity Roumjtcs-�,�.� �c L - nl H )LIN ?A( K; )MT PROJECT Tl, .�l� il qn�n fill Wmd PM, 11 r AWc f 1 f 201A%'M IQY iLike its` F ,q 41 ut Almb., . �ISPAI ' b I -L �LLEVtLAP W �0. ff, 41 7'. p"u. "k -�-4NDIM, AIWVA v, M.. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 1 a N a m a O C G) cn Go N A m 0 0 C 7 0 a m 1' I ,\\�: 'iii. '1 \•V^1i � -J n�' \.�-`�'^w / `� �'. ( "II �l �^ � ,—,\1 (IJ �� �/v, �) I j,/";_.— V `. \.�� , o\ rU,� V Winl cv 17 /38/ lu {' n PROJECT SITE 1 \/�/'>i' � r'\ L710 C�� •V ( _�/ �I .d / V / H o }•Jaw "✓ / `-� Vii( Dranage I �!�/%I/ I/ T.�Tna owr �i I �I� t�5 I\, �'' `i � 'lrl %- I i —✓ .° rJ�g�.�f'.I(�l L :.y�f�1.1 �` 1 _, C—fs' ��c U /�J, l` laa.� 00 ,zoo R Z a '17 ��� \40 A5`\�S�_ 1 . \ 1 30 � �, / A\. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 2 kyr' `oEll pt. 1` ��.1, % _ } t�.f✓„��, .tri' 1.���-'�� ,Si.� j,J ',m ' il � %SJ -tel ! }' _ V � �. ^{ • �� r % M '�,i ry1� ' • .tip 41 r LEGENDJ.^ n i \� rOSC'EO ' /' ♦ •� [ ov RO R I PAU G H RANCH _ { _ GLENN'LUKOS ASSOCATE£`a GRC DevelopmentLff liheatio,--, -. � 1' • ' KEITH INT�RmNA DONA EIT L INC I I 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 4Qk it - y i'ho¢= - Vmw of Drainage I looking sooUi-worst The channel normo is sandy and unveq,, atet, while the adjacent bank, Support sparse coastal sage scrub and Eucalyptus M. aye r I ,. e• t nbulary t t looking north This dry sandy bottom tributary Is thickly vegetated with mule fat and willows Photo 3 View of Tributary 1 9. looking west Thy portion of the OHM.1 of th, Inbidary has been interraple<I by 1111 .i q.v:n activities. The tributary is vegetated with eucalyptus and ruderal vegetation RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Photo 4 View of a non lunsdtcadnal erosional feature associated with ongoing agricultural acuwues ca — 1k � _ . - Y!`Ay`M. ♦ ...1 y Photo 5 View looking nodh at Tributary t 4 This narrowly incised streambed lbws south through sparse coastal sage scrub. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES RORIPAUGHRANCH - I Site Photographs EXHIBIT 4 1 1 1 1 ,s.. i 1 \ R T l Stf .�Ft Pholn 6 View looking south -well at Drainage 2 The banks of this broad sanity bottomed drainage is vegetated with coastal sage scrub 0 i• r-T� � ' MYP- �. Photo 7 View looking north-east at Drainage 2. The northern section of the OHMM of this drainage has been interrupted by ongoing agricultural activities Photo 8. View looking north-west at a non jurisdictional feature The area has been disturbed by agricultural activities RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 Photo 9. View looking east at Tributary 2.5 The banks of this dry narrow drainage are vegetated with coastal sage scrub e .r *- -1 b M_A 'drys. `i Photo 10 View:ookmg south at Tributary 2 / This deeply Incised drainage cuts through dense coastal We scrub Photo 11. View looking south ata non jurisdictional gully vegetated with coastal sage scrub I I RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 w~ tltltl Photo 15. Profile of sandy hydric soils at test pit 11 within the OHWM of Santa Genrudis Creek Arrows point to splotchy areas of translocated organics. Munsell color 10 YR 511 when moistened Photo 15 View of a wetland within the OHWM of Santa Ge0tudis Greek. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES RORIPAUGH RANCHSite Photographs _. _ EXHIBIT 4 I 1 1 1 1 11 C] I Photo 17 View looking upstream at a wetland with in the OHWM of Santa Gertrude; Creek The vegetation is comprised of heliotrope. mulefat. red willow. and downy monkey flower Photo 19 View of the terrace adjacent to Santa Gertmds Creek The creek bank supports upland weeds consist,, -+ black mustard, telegraph weed and tree tobacco Photo 19 View looking at the northeast portion of Santa Gertrude; Creek This rocky bottomed streambec Heavily vegetated with mule fat The steep nature of this Whan of the streambed deters the development of hydnc soils m this area. RORIPAUGH RANCH GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Site Photographs _ EXHIBIT 4 I F1 L I 1 1 1 1 Photo 20. View looking north at the downstream Portion of the drainage in Tributary 3.1 This dry, narrow section of the drainage is vegetated with buckwheat, tarragon, white sage, black mustard and red brome Photo 21 View looking north at the we0and area of Tributary 3 1 This broad basin is thickly vegetated with large willows RCIRIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 1 1 1 1 1 Photo 22 View looking south at Tributary 3.2 This wide sandy -bottomed drainage drains south to its confluence with Santa Gertrudis Creek Photo 23 View looking northwest at Tnbutary 3 4 The confluence of this drainage with Santa Genrudis Creek is disturoed by agricultural activities GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs _ _ EXHIBIT 4 Photo 24 View looking the western most Parton of Drainage a A wetland vegetated win mute lar ramex cockli and ,tack mustard is present Photo 8 View ionking east at Drainage 4 This drainage is wide and Sandy-hotlumed Photo 25 View looking west at Drainage 4 ndlacert to the nn0unnce of Trioutary 4 t 71 GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs EXHIBIT 4 r.�L.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Photo 27 View looting west a1 Tributary 4 / This dry, deeply incised drainage cuts through ruderal vegetation southwest toward its confluence with Drainage 4 Photo .'t5 flew looking south at Wtataay 4 i This tributary Is narrow and is not ritsturbec Dy agricultural activities due to steep slopes RORIPAUGH RANCH Site Photographs _ _- GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 Photo 29 View looking south at Tnbulary 4 B The banks of this narrow. dry IrlbdlaN suppod ruderal vegetation In tributary has been disturbed by agricultural actwdws Photo 30 View looting south at Tributary 4 16 This narrow Inbutary drams mderal vegetation and is hslulhed nr agricultural activities Photo 71 This view of line southwest podmn of Ronpaugb Ranch demonstrates the current topography or the Prcnec! site This former blue -line drainage is no longer evident due to current agricultural activity 1 GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES ' - -- ANCH Sitee Photographs EXHIBIT 4 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (19 87 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) A' Date: %• Project/Site: A ,,,ch Feld Observanons: - - Applican UOwner: V UCounty: a- Investigator: r q 42 /iri State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community 10: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es N Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: (it needed, explain on reverse.) Depth to Saturat.d Soil: (in.) ' VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soedes Su.rur.. Indicator r it D L - —LL- a. Uhl± C6:4!l(5 fL/ 4. 6. 7. Percent of Oominant Species that are 00L. FACW at FAC la.cludinq FAC-)_ Ramerks: HYDROLOGY Odmineat Pqm Scec•es Strew, Indicator 11. 12. 17. 14, is. 16. x U _ Recorded Data (Descnbe in Ramarksl: - _ Stream, Laka, or T.d. Gauge _ Aerial Photographs _ Other No Recorded Data Available Wetland hydrology Indicator,: Primary Indicator: Inundated - saturated in Upp.r 12Inches Wale, Marks O ih Line —_s.dim.nt Deposits Feld Observanons: - - _ Drainage Parterres in Wetlands a- secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: AZA (in.) _ Oxidized Root CMnnela in Upper 12 Inches _ Waw-Stainad Lcavas Depth to Fre Waxer in Pit- (in.) _Local Soil survey Oats _ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturat.d Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Ramarks) F I SOILS /L Mao Unit Name (Series and Phase): �7'[—�Ch-lam( Orange Cass: ✓ Field Ob*ervsticns Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes o Profile Oesc lotion: Oepth Matrix Color Moble Calor* Mottle Texture. Concretions, mchesl Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsetl Moistl Abundance,Contraet Stmeture. era. n 6 erK f Z , S Y M2- nvAe, ,u Hydric Sol Indicators: _ Histosol Concretions _ Hiszic Epipdon _ —High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil Aguic Moisture Regime _ listed on Local Hydric Soils list Reducing Conditions Gloved or Low•Chrome Colors _ listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent? Y o (Grds) Welland Hydrology Present? o Hydric Soils Present? al No Remarks: (Circle) to this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yaa No ' DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) pplicant/Owner. vestigacor: Date: _ County: State: i Normal Circumstances exist on the site?CYe� No Community ID: the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID: the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed, explain on reverse.) ETATION S varrum I•.dic aro• J *'cant of Dominent Species that are 06L. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-1- lemarks: LOGY Recorded Data (0,1cnba in Remarksl: _ Stream, Lab, or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Photograph, Other �No Recorded Oat, Available yield Ob,erveri,ns: 'Depth of Surface Wets,: —fin.) 1Depth to Free Wet,, in Pit; —fin.) Depih to Satur,t,d Soil: —(in.) Dofninenl plant Seeues Stratum Indicator II 9. 6l Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: - _ IrW ndated _ S,tureled in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks _ Orih Lines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Panama in Wadands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): —Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Wuer-Stained Leaves Local Sail Survey Data FAC -Neutral Test Other IExplain in Ramarks) SOILS Mao Unit Name tS,.ies and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Profile D�esc^�—non: - Matrix Color Depth mchesl Horizon (ldunsell Moiatl 4.[y ULA Hydric Sol Indicators: Drainage Cass: Feld Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Mots• Colors Motile Texture. Concretions. L well Moiatl Abundance.Cen[raa( Structure etc. _ Histosol Histic Eoioadon Sulfidic Odor _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or wlo--Chtome Colors Remarks: NQ -,il- Jd/ I e WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Weiland Hydrology Present? Hydric Sols PrOeem? Remarks: _ Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Ujtad on Local Hydric Soils List _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) No ?Girds) •+ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wodand? DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Proiect/Site: _ K /%�� 7/1rLfw Applicant/Owner:ar Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist On the site? //�� Is the site Significantly disturbed (Atypical Situ6e's No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Situation)? Yes (No (If needed, explain on reverse.) Yes o VEGETATION Dominant Plant S—cief 1 n5F'/ 5(HSrum Indc atol 1..N ---G_ 2.�i v /vAy-f/-.r..� J, 1. 7 Percent in Dominant Species that era 081. FACW of FAC Remarks: ' HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Ooscnb• in Remarksl: Stream, lake, or Td• Gauge _ Aanai Photographs _Other �tNo Recorded Oat* Available Field Observations: ' Depth of Surface We(.,: Gn.l Depth to Free Water in Pit Depth to Seturased Soil: Gn.l Ramarkst Date.- County. ate:Countyy State: Community ID: Transect IO: Plot 10: Oom:nant Plant Scec.es Stremm Indicate, 9. 10. IL 12. 11. I 14,_ 16- UU X Worland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators _ Inundated saturated in UPPOI 12 Inches Old' Marks _ Ontt Gnos _ Sediment Deposits _ Orainoga Patterns in Wetlands - Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidised ROo( Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Lc*ves Lpcal Soil Survey Oat. FAC-Nautral Test _ Other (ExPisin in Remarkal SOILS Map Unit Nanta (Seias and Phase): Taxonomy IS,bgrouol: Profile O�ti°^= Matrix Color Depth inches) Horizon {MumeR Moist( �� L� /vY2 3(1 Yf- �h �v Hydric Soil Indicators: Drainage Cassc Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? - Yes No Motile Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, nfetl Maatl AbundanceiContrasS SINCturQ (C. _ Histosol _ Histic Eoioedon _ Sulfidic Odor _ Awic Moisture Regime _ Reducing Conditions Glayed or low-CMoma Colors Remarks41! jr)o„Iwn Hat : s�``f� lI/. it =yam 3/ —Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface Lays( in Sandy Sails _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ listed an Local Hydric Soils List _ listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyiic Vegetation Present? • o (Circle) Wed•nd Hydrology Present? • No Hydric Soils Pres•nt7 No RemaAt•: J,I3lHEC la this Sampling Point Within a Welland? C 4,-7 // No DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) t/Size: OCI Date:ant/Owner: rCounty:igator: Field Oburv.uons:_ F State: Ch rmal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes CNy Transect ID: area a potential Problem Area? Yes ® Plot 10: (If needed, explain on reverse.) ' VEGETATION Dominant Plant So. ., Str.mm Indicator Domin.m Plan, Scecaf Stratum Indicator Field Oburv.uons:_ Drainage Panerns in Wetlands i. idGLl F R✓R— �r i 1. a. , 2. Oeplh to Fre. Water in Pit: (in.) —Local Soil Survey Oat* 6. 0.011, to Saturated Soil: (in.) 14. 7. is. e. 16. Perc.nt of Oomin.nt Socias that are DBL; FACW or FAC (excluding FA,^, -I. Remarks: ' HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Oats (Oucnbe,in Remarks): _ Strum. Lake. or Title Gouge Aerial Photographs1 -LI- — Other N. Recorded Oat& Available - _ Wat.nd Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indictors: _ ndated 0S. toted in Upper 12 Inches -�Xyy ear Morks � `Qrih Ijm• _ sediment ooparsit$ Field Oburv.uons:_ Drainage Panerns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators Q or more required):. Depth of Surface Wats: _lin.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ W41or-Itoimd Leaves Oeplh to Fre. Water in Pit: (in.) —Local Soil Survey Oat* FAC-Neutr.l Test 0.011, to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS idLp UAii Nam• I ' •• ' (S on Oreinape Cass:_.. "• -' �_ Feld Observations Taxonomy (Sub9m4o'l" a - Confirm[ Maoosd Typs7 Yes No I Profits Oascriodon: -- - Oepth Matrix Color Mettle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions. - rnchesl Horizon (M\un�sell Moist) (Mu -Tall Moistl AbundanceXantraat Structure. etc. �I_•..L t Hydric Soil Indicators: Histasol _ Concretions _ _ Histic Epioedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sods Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Selly Sala _ _ AQuic Moisture Regime .o _ i•1 - - r �i . n Local Hydric Sails list Reducing Conditions -_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Z�-Glsyed or low-Cnroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Rsmsrki: � d c So r WETLAND DETERMINATION HVdrophytic Vegetation Present) � No (Girds Wetland Hydrology Present? • No Hydric Sods Present? No Remerke: M12 I T G i,, -(n (Girds la this Sempring Point Within a Wedand7 No R NO err+ t r rvnrer ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: S&� Eilwm F zr'Ac ' Applicant/Owner: I Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N 1 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION 1 Date: -717( County: State: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: Dominsnr Plant Species Stratum fr.dicatar Dominant Plan, Seec•es Svetum Indicator 1- (a Gl''C — - =QC — 2- s �w,/ --FEcls(/ 3. s. C,& (D r%�_ t S. 10. I1. 12. S. 13. 6. 14, 7. is. e. 16. Perunr of Dominent Species that are DBL. FACW w FAC (aecluding FAC.), GLS Remarks: ' HYDROLOGY Recorded Oat- IOescnba in Romar43l: _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge _ Aorid Photographs � _ Other t/ No Rocordod Oau Avalab(s Worland Hydrology Indiction: Primary Indicators: Inundated _—Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Water Marks , zonh Lines Sed"vnsnt Ooomiu Field Obunatia ns: Drainage Patterns in Wsdands Secondary Indicators (2 or more ra Quiradl: Depth of SuAacs Water: (n,l _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper II Inches Depth to Freo Water r. in Pi /� —ET (n.) _ Water -Stained Leaves _ Local Sail Survey Data FAC -Neutral Tut Depth to Sawnted Soil; fin.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 1 1 SOILS r. F- Hydric ame Oreinage Gass: Phase): Feld Obse"stions Confirm ?Aappad Typal Yes No cdotion: �'Texture. Concretions. Metrix Color Mortis Colors MottleHorizon (Mup<IIMoftl IMumeg Moiftl AbuMance:Contrafz StrvcNre Sail Indicators: _ Hiscosol _ Concreaom High organic Content in SuAace Layer in Sandy Sails_ Histic Epipdon - _ 0,gartic Streaking in Sandy Sols _ $ulfidio Odof _ -' wy :� _ `h �iytid.on local HYdtic Soils List R�ma ; Aauic Moiscunegi _ Moisture Ustd on National Hydric Soils List _ ReducingConditionsRegime Glayd or low -Chrome Colors _ _ Other (Eiplain in Ramsriu) Rom art NCJf Y�if l WETLAND OETERMINATION � I Hydtaphytic Vegetation Prevent? No (Grde) Wedand Hydrology Present? #,: Hydric Sails Present) N Remarks: N l r (Circle) l Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Yes (N r.pp. v. f...r ,r 7�ii�e. a i.. .J.t' ; lr- 2.. DATA FUHIVI ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) r Project/Site: / ( dNc t., Applicant/Owner-. Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? rI Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) K.. _ VEGETATION Date: County: State: re N Community 10: es No Transect ID: Yes No Plot ID: F_ Ootm'yinent Plant Soeciaa Strewn, 2.- it rY1LY(O(N1.(%c Indicator Dominant Plant scac•es Stratum Indicator 10. 3. _ Aerial Photoprepns _.Inundated. Other_ a, bra a K4 125 5. _ c Recorded Oats Aveibcl• 12. 17. 7.yIC �T^ _Drainage Patterns in Watlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water, Oxidised Root Channels in UPper 12 Inches Wetst•Stsined Leaves Depth to Free Water in Rt: fin.) _ _Lord Soil Survey Data Paraent of Dominant Spades that or, OBL. FACW or FAC. (secluding FAC -1. _ FAC-Nautrd Test OePth to Seturatad Sail: _ Un_) Remarks: Remarks: HYDROLOGY - _Record ad Data (Oucno• in Remerkal: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _Strum- Lek•. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photoprepns _.Inundated. Other_ Saturated in UPper 12 Inches _ c Recorded Oats Aveibcl• _ Water Marks �[ Orin lines _ SedimonPOeoofits Feld Oheervetions: _Drainage Patterns in Watlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water, Oxidised Root Channels in UPper 12 Inches Wetst•Stsined Leaves Depth to Free Water in Rt: fin.) _ _Lord Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Nautrd Test OePth to Seturatad Sail: _ Un_) _Other (Esplain in Remar%sl Remarks: SOILS :'�l - r4kr," Map Unit Nam• (Sales and Phase): - Drainage Cass:. Fal- Observations Taxonomy (SubyrouDl: Confirm Mapped Typal Yat No Profile Oesc lotion: Depth L Matrix Color Motda Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions. tnchast Horiton IMumell(�M{oist) tMunsell Moist% Abun/d�a.ccomontrast Structure. etc. -7 Hydric Sol Indicators: Histosol —Concretions _ Histic Epipodon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy $6ils = - _ Sulf-idic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ listed on local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils List Wave//d or))low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: A�j' WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophync Vegetation Present7 Y 10 (Old*) (Circ)•) We Hydrology Present • No Hydric Soils Present) • (!D It th)e Sampling Point Within a Wadand7 Y•s No Remarks: a DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ir Project/Site: _" Applicant/Owner. Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? �Y so Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes l 0 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N 1 (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION 1 i 1 1 Dominant plant soea'ee 2 Strewn, In +tor Recorded Data IOescnb• in Ramarka): Wedend Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs 3. MCI P _ A. _ Saturated in upper 12 Inches r1 — Wait, Marks Drift Linea S ediment Deposits _42rainage 6 Field Observations: 7.)�I..^./ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surlac• Water: Fla (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches U r,/ fes• _ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: Date: _ County: State: Community 10: Transect 10: Plot 10: Dominant Plan' Scev" Stratum Indicator x- 10. _ 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 - Percent or Dominent Species that are 0.8L. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -1. Remarks: ITI�IL�I[raZH�1 Recorded Data IOescnb• in Ramarka): Wedend Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ _ Saturated in upper 12 Inches r/fir _Other No Recorded Oat& Available — Wait, Marks Drift Linea S ediment Deposits _42rainage Field Observations: Panarns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surlac• Water: Fla (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (n.) _Local Soil Sarvey Oata _ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in-) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Map unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Crass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup]: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No r Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mord• Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions, mchesl - Horizon {Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundanaeXantrost Structure. etc. t:, 72L-�d� /t�—r ,t,q ors: sol _ Concretions c Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sals idic Odor L Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ic Moisture Regime lilted on Local Hydric Sails List ucing Conditions listed on National Hydric Soils List . ed or low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) r!�1 ✓�/'r ' Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? Welland Hydrology Preaent7 Hydric Sails Present? Remarks: G �/eT7C7,j to this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? No DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: r.- Applicant/Owner: Investigator: '- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? r, Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? ' (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Date: I/ County: I State: Community 10: Transect 10: Plot 10: Oominan[ Ptent Specie. 1. stratum Indicate. Oom:nam Pit., Scec.es Stsetum Indicator 9. Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs 7. Irwndated _ Other .� Saturated in Uppor 12 Inches Za Reeordod Oats Available _ Water Marks e. �' - N?- 14. Feld Observations: _Orrnage Panarns in Wetlands Second Indicator, (2 or more required): Depth at Surtac• Water: bn.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Portant of Damine n[ species that are COL. FACW ar FAC (ascluding FAC -1. , soy S Ramorks: '^� HYDROLOGY _ Racordad Oeta (Oaacnbo in Remarksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream, Lake. or Tida Gouge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Irwndated _ Other .� Saturated in Uppor 12 Inches Za Reeordod Oats Available _ Water Marks —Drift Lino' _ Sediment Oaoashs Feld Observations: _Orrnage Panarns in Wetlands Second Indicator, (2 or more required): Depth at Surtac• Water: bn.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit' fin.) _Local Sail Survey Oats _ FAC -Neutral To at Depth to Saruratad Soil: Gn.) _ Other (Explain in Romarksl Remarks: r SOILS Map Unit Name (Saiaa and Phase): Drainage Can: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroutil: Confirm Msoped Type? Yes No Profit Oescriotion: Depth Matrix Color Memo Colors Molds Texture. Conations, nnhesl Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Mc'4tl Aburdance:Contrast Stmcw,e. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol —Concretions _ Histic Epioadon _ High Organic Conant in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols Sulfdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols _ _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sails List _ Reducing Conditions —Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Glsyed ar Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophync Vegetation Present? Yes too(Circlel (Circie) Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes 9Hydric Soils Present? Y�e/s� /( is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Ysy o Remarks: G R ..✓V ��Qi( Approved y HZIUSTME j DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:`.---0�at Applicant/Owner. 1 Investigator: We - Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ' Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) tVEGETATION Date: t? --Z County State: N� Community 10� Yes /dol Transect 10: Ye Plot 10: Dominant Ram Soecles Svatarsr Indiparor Oam:nom P4m Sceu e+ Stratum Indicator Primary Indicators: 2. _ to l dated 10. 3. ZNaR acordad Oats Available 11. 4 �c-�r�5 in lines ZZ6/_ Sediment Osposits 12. S. _ Drainage Patterns in Wedands 1]. 6. Depth of Surface Wetac (in.) 14. 7. _ Wast.-Slainad Leaves is. 8. 16. Depth to Satunaed Soil: '� 6n.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks:. Percent of Oominant Species that are OBL. FACW an FAC (ascluding FAC -1. V Ramerka: ' HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Ducnba in Remarksl: Wetland Hydralogy Indicatnn: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _ to l dated __ Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ZNaR acordad Oats Available _ Wear Marts �c-�r�5 in lines ZZ6/_ Sediment Osposits Feld Observations: t _ Drainage Patterns in Wedands Secondary Indicators 12 or more roquiredl: Depth of Surface Wetac (in.) _Oxidized Root.Channals in Upper 12 Inches _ Wast.-Slainad Leaves Depth to Fra. Was, in Pit: (n.) _Local Soil Survey Data FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Satunaed Soil: '� 6n.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks:. f3 1(Ec. r� Tt} STY -O ' (-;e- J . ,. SOILS Moo Unit Name (Soies and Phase): Or*inoge Casa: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confine Mapped Type? Yes No t Profile Oescriotion: Oepth Matrix Color Mottle Calors MON* Texture. Concretions, (inches) (_Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundanceKontrast Structure, ate. /)Horizon CYI N i 1 ) IN fYl_. s Hydric Soil Indicators•. _ Histosol —Concretions _ Histic Epipdon _ High Organic Content in SuAaca Layer in Sandy Sols _ Sulf'Idic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils AQuic Moisture Regime_ Luted on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyd or Low•Chroma Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: ,✓�� r dolr,-<' Y WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present] Hydric Soils Present) IRemarks: /Yer a No (Circle)I IG No ea o ` Is this Sampling Point Within a Wdand7 Yes i u/4 fan e DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION `- ti 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' f Project/Site: /� �?'(.1 al/ x: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Q Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Date: p-'2Iq County: State: rig Y s Community ID: es No Transect 10: Yes N Plot 10: Dominant Plant Soeciee Stratum Indiestor Dam:nent pgnr scene• Strstvm Indicator _ Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remukal: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Photographs _ Other cRecorded Oats Available Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks nh lines _ Sediment Deposits Haid Obsarvahom; _Orsinage Panama in Wetlands ,. Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oepth o/ Surface Water: (in.) I a... _ -Waxer-Shined Leayss Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Noulrei Test OePth to Saturated Soil: �. (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 7. 15., Parcent of Dommant species that era 08L. FACW w FAC (excluding FAC -1- _ HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remukal: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Photographs _ Other cRecorded Oats Available Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks nh lines _ Sediment Deposits Haid Obsarvahom; _Orsinage Panama in Wetlands ,. Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oepth o/ Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ -Waxer-Shined Leayss Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Noulrei Test OePth to Saturated Soil: �. (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks.. . i SOILS Map Unit Name (Sense and Phase): Drainage Casa: Field Observetions Taxonomy ISubgrovol: Confirm Maooed Type? Yes No Profile Description: - Depth Matrix Color More Calors Mottle Texture. Concretions. mchosl Horiton (Mvmdi Moistl tMumell Moisti AbundsncafContrast Structure, etc. Hydric Sol Indicators: _ Hiatoscl _ Concretions _ Histic Ellioadon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sultidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Sols List _ _ Gloved or low -Chrome Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 11t7 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Q (Grdel (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Hydric Soils Present? Yes A Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? Yes Remarks: L 1 A// -� a I,�le (/Gh 0 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: cez12y..9i� �Li/.7± Applicant/Owner: investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed,.explain on reverse.) EGETATION Date: County: State: Y No ' Community 10: Yeso Transect 10: Yes N9,,' Plot 10: _ �1 7. 99i e. 1 �I Percent of Dominant Spouas that ere 001.. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -I. _ Ramarks: HYDROLOGY Oats (Oescnb• in Remarkal: Oominsm Pram soeciea Stnrum Indicator Oor..7nem Pram Scevr-1 watum marcator _Imndata _.Aerial Other Saturated 12, Inches _ ✓No Recorded Oats Available rin t;ne. - Sedirtront Oeoosrts Field Obssrverions: ra+nag• Panarnt in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): —"' Gn-1 Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches J. _ I1. Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) a FAC -Neutral Test 12. _ Other (Explain in Remarks) S. 1]- ME 6 14. �1 7. 99i e. 1 �I Percent of Dominant Spouas that ere 001.. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -I. _ Ramarks: HYDROLOGY Oats (Oescnb• in Remarkal: Worland Hydrology Ind7Upp.r _Recorded Stream. (aka- or Tids Gauge Printery Indicators: _ Photographs _Imndata _.Aerial Other Saturated 12, Inches _ ✓No Recorded Oats Available rin t;ne. - Sedirtront Oeoosrts Field Obssrverions: ra+nag• Panarnt in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): —"' Gn-1 Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water•- _ Water -Stained leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Sail Su"QY Oats FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: - Gn-). _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: k1 SOILS Moo Unit Name (Sean and Phase): Orainag• Can: Feld Observations - - Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapoed Type? Yes No Profile Descriorion: Oopth Matrix Color MON• Colon Macao Texture, ConcradoM, mch•s1 Hodron (Munsell Moist) (Murrell Moist% Abundaracsronrrast Structure, otc. r Hydric Sail Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions Histic Epipodon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils - Sulfidic OdorVOrganic Streaking in Sondy.Soils Apuic Moisture Regime Ultod on Local Hydric Sails list Rcducing Conditions listed an Notional Hydric Soils List Gleyad of low -Chrome Colors _ _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent? Wdand Hydrology Present? Hydric Sails Present? Remarks: / Sandy 7 No (Citdol I CircNl Y•s No • No to this SamplingPoint Within • Welland? re• No DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) f .v'L Praject/Site: _ 41ZP ! /7e- 0'7 Date: 4 Applicant/Owner: - -, County: Investigator: Kc State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? see No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Oominant Plant Soseies Strarum Indicator Oonwnant Plant Seedes Screw, Indicator 2. 10. 3. I1. 4. 12. 5- 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 6. 16. _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Rarnarka: ]]]] Percent of Dominant Spades that are OBI. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -i. Remarks: HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Oats (Ducnbe in Remarksl: _ Stream. lake, or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Photogrephs _ Other \ ''u\Recorded Data Available4ter Worland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Marks J( nh linea %7—��adimant Deposits Field Observerionv _ Orainege Patterns in Wetlands _ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surlece Water: Gn.l _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ...� _Water-Stalnad Lavas - Depth to Fne Weur in Pit: fin.) _ Local Sail Survey Data FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: Gn.l _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Rarnarka: SOILS Map Unit Nam* (S*iss and Phase): . Drainage Cass: Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroupl: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profit* Oescriotion: Depth Matrix Color Mama Colors Mottle Texture, Concratiana, orches) Horison (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundanc*lCon[rast Structure. etc. Hydric $oil Indicators: _ His[osol _ Histic Epipedon _ Suffidic Odor _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Reducing Conditions GI*yed or low -Chrome Colon Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION _ Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Uited on local Hydric Soils List _ Listed on National Hydric Soils list Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Pnsent7No (Circle) (Circle) Weiland Hydrology Present7 Y•s No Hydric Soils Prevent? Yes ©o b this Sarttpling Point within • Wedand7 Y•• Remarks: �) n Ult --t— l u • DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: / C Worland Hydrology Indicators: Date: 1r__11y'9� ApplicantlOwner. _ Agrid Photographs County: Investigator: -� ✓ State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?N Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes(N Plot 10: (If needed. explain on reverse.) _ Water-S(ained Lovas VEGETATION 17 Oominant Plant Seeues SVatum Indicator 10. I1. 12. 14. Is. 16. Percent o/ Dominent Species that era 00L. FACW at FAC (occluding FAC-). 11 1 Ramarks: HYDROLOGY I/ _ Recorded Data (Oaxnbe in Remarksl: Worland Hydrology Indicators: Dominant Plant Soedes Strarun, Indicator _ Agrid Photographs _Inundated 2. ne. -� ✓ ]. �� r fjliih lino - ' T_--- 5��`_ed'umnt Deposits - Raid Obs arverions: 17 Oominant Plant Seeues SVatum Indicator 10. I1. 12. 14. Is. 16. Percent o/ Dominent Species that era 00L. FACW at FAC (occluding FAC-). 11 1 Ramarks: HYDROLOGY I/ _ Recorded Data (Oaxnbe in Remarksl: Worland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: - _ Agrid Photographs _Inundated Other_` S-aturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Oats Available `tt^^''ear Maras fjliih lino - ' T_--- 5��`_ed'umnt Deposits - Raid Obs arverions: _ Or«nage Patterns in Wedends Secondary Indicators (2 or more requiradl: Depth of Surface Water:. On.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water-S(ained Lovas Depth to Free Water in Pit: Coon.) _Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Nautrol Test Depth to Saturated Soil: On.) —Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: SOILS Moo Unit Name (Seize and Phase): - Orafnage Cass: Field Observedons Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm fAsoped Type) Yes No Profile Oescriotion: _ Osoth Matrix Color Motile Calors Motto Texture. Cancredons, mchesl Horizon tMunaetl Moist) (Munsell Moisil AbundancslContrast Structure. etc. Hydric Sol Indicators: - _Histosol _ Histic Epioedon _Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Sulfidic Odor VOrganic Streaking in Sandy Sols AQuic Moisture Regime 7`t tilted an Local Hydric Sails list _ Reducing Conditions _ Ustad on National Hydric Soils List - _ Gleyed or low -Chrome Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophync Vegetation Present a No (Circle) (Circlal - Wedand Hydrology Present a No ,� Hydric Soils Present) Y a Noo)— / Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand) C Tai. %No Remarks: j7/44f Sir:Lr JfO; DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:_9S/70L1. Iff9/! A--u!rc k.?. Applicant/(0, ner: Investigator: 0o Normal Circumstances exist on the site? !n` Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ' Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed. explain on reverse.) 4 VEGETATION Date: County: Slaw No Community Yes o Transect 10: - Yes Plot ID: Dominant Plant Soedee Strarum t� Indicator Demi...m plant Se eciet Stratum Indicator — 10. 2.. A ' �` ' ry - _ Other 12. 6. -r T. /1 ^ - .. .. t 9. lS _ 14. 1s. . Percent of Dominant Species that are 08L. FACW or FAG '(excluding FAC -1. _/ L Remarks: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): .. _ of uvnoni ncv Recorded Data (Oatcnb. in R.merka): Worland Hydrology Indiauors: _ Stream. Laka. ar Tida Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Inumst.d _ Other _ Saturated in 00041 12 Inches . _ (�NO Racardad Oats Available _ star Marks Onrt Linn 2=n.nt Deposits F.ld Obs.rv.tions:_Drainage Panama in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oepth of Surface Water: Con.) _ Oxidiiad Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Wats+-Stained Leaves Depth to F,.• Water in Pit: (n.) _ _Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Noutral Tut O.pth to Saturated Soil- �- Gn.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remarks) -C� SOILS Map Unit Name (Seiss and Phasel: Profile Oescriorion: Depth Matrix Calot Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) U; (�c- Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histasal _ Histic Epipedon _ Sulfidic Odor _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Reducing Conditions Gieyed or Low -Chrome Calors Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Drainage, Cass: Feld Observations Confirm Mapped Typal . Yes No Mars Calors Motds Texture, Concretions, {Munsell Moistl Abundanco,Contrast Structure. at,;. I t - � / cfj': c _ Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Ulted an Local Hydric Soils Uzi _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Uzi Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrophyric Vegetation Present) �Yp'oe :No (Circlel ICirdo) Weiland Hydrology Present? (.:Y No Hydric Soils Present? Yoe Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand] Yee Remarks: / / �r G wjz T /G! n a DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Sn 4 j ?w* r11-1 Project/Site: 1 %% Date: 1�l Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: State: �' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? <Yes) No Community 10: _! Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: T (If needed. explain on reverse.) Depth of Surface Warr, r g,. VEGETATION Oaminam Plant Soedes stratum India 1. f Dominant Plant Scecles Stratum Indicator 7. 1 4. 1 ;5. .� �', yt "'}.•" ^, .'. =�. Jt 1. 1 6. 7. Parcenp of Dominant Species that ora OBL. FACW or FAC (ascludino FAC -1. HYDROLOGY "s y s _ Recorded Data (Oascnba in Rema.ks): - _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gaup• Aerial Photographs _ Other - V N _o Ra_cardad Date Available Wetland Hydroboy Indicator: Primary Indicator:. _ Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Water Marks ]7_1rih lino edimmt Deposits Field Obsarverions: _ Drainage Panerna in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Warr, (n.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Fre Water in Pit --. (in.) _Local Soil Survey Date FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Sail' 4n.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remarhsl // Remarks. !q (J1_ Pov)r `)!ifIl`' SOILS Map Unit Name (Seias end Phase): Drainage Cass-- - - Feld Ohaervetions Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm Msoped Type? Yes No Profile Descriotion: t Depth Metrix Color Mauls Colors Mottle Texture, Concretion, Inches) Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) AEundance:CantrasT Structure, etc. dam- . y� H � — � Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histasol Concretions _ Histic Epipodon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on local Hydric Soils list —_ _ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Giayed or low -Chrome Colon —Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? a .No Hydric Soils Present? Y No jl WW rNl G (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y; No UA IA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) r b �- CC Project/Site: % / GYN Date: Applicant/Owner: V. County: !� - Investigator: State: �— Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: =— �+— —_ Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (If needed. explain on reverse.) VEGETATION 1 Oominam Plant Specie Stratum Indicator 2. I --\ o (.s.1LN .( a. -...'YJ[ eL- 5 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI. FACW or FAC (axcluding FAC.). Remarks: ' HYDROLOGY .1 Oomin s..t plant SCeb<e Stratum Indicator 10. it. 12. 13. 14. 1 -1/4 S1 ��//Gi � r e /�t / f !'i / _ Recorded Ons (Oucnba in Remarks): SUeam. lake, or Tide Gauge _ Aerial Photographs _ Otha V No Recorded Oat& Available Wadand Hydrology Indicators: .\ Prfrtury Indicator%. _Inundated _ Saturated in Uppei 12 Inches Wager Marks Drift lines _ Sediment Deposits Feld Observations: _Drainage Psnarns in Wedands Secondary Indicators f2 or more rewired): Depth of Surface Wates: fin.) _ Oxiditad Root Channels in Upper 12 Inchp Waer-Shined leavas Depth to Free Water in Pit- (in.) _ _ Local Soil Survey Data • FAC -Neutral Tut Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ _ Other (Explain in R&msrksl SOILS Map Unit Name (Seise and Phase): Orainag• Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm lAaopad Type? Yat No Profile Oescr:Otion: Oepth Matrix Color Mottle Calors Mottle Texture. Concretions, orches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moisl) Abund.nc.lCentrast S_tnrclure, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosal Concretions _ Histic Epipsdon _ _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Suttidic Odor _ Orgertic Streaking in Sandy Sols _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ UlIted on Local Hydric Sails List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List Gley.d or Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 6;:� No (Qrc(el (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? rQ N Hydric Sail. Present A Yee 'to/ /? la this SwMfing Point Within a Welland? Yee [T10 Approves by H u r92 a DA IA FUHM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: / ' Date: AppiicanrJOwner: County:` Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?) No Community 10: '. V Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes fJ'oJ Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes XVJ Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Pont Soecies Straws, Indicator oominant plant Seaga, Stratum Indicator Field Obee"ononc_ Drainage Patterns in Worlands 10. Depth of surface Water-, 3. r A. Depth to Free Waui in Pit: 12- _Lord Soil Survey Dae S- 11. Depth to Saturated Soil: - 6. _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 14- 7. 1s 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Soecias that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -1. Remarks: HYDROLOGY _Recorded Data (Descnb• in Remarks): —Scream. Lake, or Tde Gauge Aerial Photographs Other Vl'No Recorded Data Available Worland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _1,%i dated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Water Marks Drib lines _ Sediment Deposits Field Obee"ononc_ Drainage Patterns in Worlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more reduiradl: Depth of surface Water-, —Oxidized Raa[ Channels in Upper 12 Inches Weter-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Waui in Pit: (in.) _Lord Soil Survey Dae FAC•Nautrol Tast Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remark •: SOILS Mao Unit Nome (Series and Phase): - Drainage Cass: Said Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type) Yea No Prorla Oescriotion: Oapth Matrix Color Mottle Calors Monde Texture, Concretions. orches) Horizon (Munsel� (Munsell Moistl AbundsnceXontrest Structure OTC. Hydric Sol Indicators. Hizzosol _ Concretions _ _ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sult-tdic Odor�GOrgaruc Streaking in Sandy Sails _ Apuic Moisture Regime Uoxltad on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List Gleyed at low-Chrame _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ %Colors Remarks: v WETLAND DETERMINATION HydrophyTic Vegetation Present? Y; �- No (Circle) (Circle) Wadard Hydrology Present No (aya� Hydric Soils Present No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wodand? U No Remarks: OA IA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) no /1. Iwa PrajecUSite: LIGE C Date: Applicant/Owner: f County: v Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community I0:1� =! ; Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yesv o Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (No/ Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) is, VEGETATION Dominant plant so.<i., Stratum Indicator Dora:naet Plant Scene, Stratum Indicator 2. 10. _ A4rial Photograph, _ trwrWated !. 12. S. 1]. 6. 14. 7. is, a. 16. _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Percent or Dominant Speo'as that are OBL. FACW or FAG �� C (axcluding FAC -1. Remarks: HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Oascnbe in Remarks): Worland Hydrology Indutors: _ Stream, lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ A4rial Photograph, _ trwrWated // _ Other No Recorded Oats Available Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks rih linea 111 ediment Deposits Field Oburvenons:—_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secpndary Indicators (2 or more faduiredl: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Weter-Stained leaves Depth to Free Waor in Pit (in.) _ _ local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Noutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil- On-) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: /� l , 1 /1AY SOILS MAO Unit Name (Series end Phase): Orainag• C.ass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroual: Confirm Mapped Typal Yea No pror.10 Oesc iolian: _ t Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, mchesl Horizon (Munsell Moist) [Munsell Moistl A_ bundanceXantrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipodon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Selly Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ tilted on Local Hydric Soils Ust _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust Gleyed or Lro�w Chroms Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent) Wedand Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present) Remarks: No (Circle) (Circial tt No � �n Mol- /Nor �" Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedendl Yea lav l - ml/ e -HQ%/ . 9 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Z G/i C7/,/ AA a Dominant Pt nt So,xv. Date: Applicant/Owner: Drainage Panarns in Wetlands County: Investigator:State: 2. _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ( ems- No Community 10: 0 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yespyo Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) 12. ' VEGETATION Pr �rud'i J _ Recorded Data (Oascnba in Ramarksl: Stream, Lake. or Tide Gaupo _ Agrial Photographs _ Other Recorded Data Available Dominant Pt nt So,xv. SverTum Indicator Dominent Plant Seeoe• Stratum Indicator Drainage Panarns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguiredl: 2. _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches 10. Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit- (n.) _Local Soil Survey Date 11. Depth to Senrnud Sail:timl ' 4. 12. S. 13. 6. 14, ' 7. is. e- 16. Percent of Dominent Spacies.the( (excluding FAC -1. are OBL. FACW or FAC J / Remarks: HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Oascnba in Ramarksl: Stream, Lake. or Tide Gaupo _ Agrial Photographs _ Other Recorded Data Available Worland Hydrology Indicators: primary Indicators: _ Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks nh Dna od"vnont OeOo"Its Fuld Obaorvariom:_ Drainage Panarns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguiredl: Depth of Surface Water: fin.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit- (n.) _Local Soil Survey Date _FAC-Nautral Test Depth to Senrnud Sail:timl _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Nam. (Sanas and Phase): Orainag• Cass: Feld OOservatio" Confittn Mapped Type) Yes No Profile Description: Oapth Matrix Color Memo Colors Morrie Texture. Concretions, tnchesl -HorizonMunsell Moist (Munsell Moistl AEOndanceXon[faet Structure,OTC. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ Histic Epipedon _ Sulfidic Odor _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Lar Chroms Colors Remarks: /%0 (—N 1161 / WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent? Wedand Hydrology Present7 Hydric Soils Present? Remarks. /1 � t n( _ Concretions _ High Organic Conten[ in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Orgastic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Ulted on Local Hydric Soils list _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust Other (Explain in Remarks) Ye( No (Circle) 7a No Yes Ne !"f..2 ?'%q Is this Sampling Point Within • Wedand7 Yea DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: I Date: ApplicantlOwner: County: Investigator:State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 6F ''� No Community 10: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yeso Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot 10: (If needed. explain on reverse.) - - VEGETATION Dominant Near So. ;.. Strum Indicator or Oaminent Plant Scec.ea Stratum Indicator hrf�1 G' 1. ice* --4 9. - � f r. •.l!'r � 10. 7. 11- x. 12. S. 17. 6. Id. 7. 1S 8. 16. Patcmc of Dominant Species that are OeL. FACW or FAC (aacluding FAC -1. Remarks: IHYDROLOGY 1 1 1 1 _ Recorded Dec. (Ducnbe in Ramarkal: Wadand Hydrology Indiutwv _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs _kwndawd _ other - - Recorded Oata Available _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches :Voar Marks \. /prih nos %%%§aliment Deposits Field Observations: _Drainage Panama in Wetlands Satandary Indicators (2 or more retluiredl: Depth of Surface Water: lin.) _ Otidiiad Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Leaves �— Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) _Local Spa Survey Det• _ FAC -Neutral Tut Depth to Seturaad Soil: on.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Mao Unit Name (Seise and Phase]: Orainage Casa: Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm Mapped Type) Yes No Profile Oescriotion: , Oapth Metrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions, t chosslll Horizon (Muntell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Z//!/ Abundanco,Contrast Structure. etc. Y19 i ,/% i!/ Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epioadon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils _ Suliidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails Aquic Moisture Regime _ Uited on local Hydric Soils list _ Reducing Conditions _ Usted an National Hydric Sols Ust Gleyad or low//•Chrr7oma Colonss�l _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: nG'7 N r/ ✓ 0 f` Ir t _ WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?GrNo (Grclel (CiPresent?i• Wetland Hydrology Present? � o Hydric Soils Present) yea No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedandl Yes No Remarks: I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I FARMLAND CONSERVATION MATERIALS ' 1996-98 Farmland Conversion Report 1 1 1 1 1 1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 Urbanization increased by 25% over the previous two-year period. Representing more than two years of data gathering and analysis, the newest Farmland Conversion Report is the most detailed yet. Improved graphics have made this report larger than previous versions, therefore the PDF format document has been split into sections to facilitate downloads. Paper copies are also available by contacting FMMP. Executive iary Chapter One Introduction and changes to mapping in 1998 Chapter Two Summary and Analysis of the data Appendix A County Conversion Tables Note: if you are only interested in a few tables, they will download faster individually as Excel 97 files. Appendix B and C Regional Acreage and Conversion Tables Farmland of Local Importance definitions Slow Modem? A no -graphics version of the main report. Got DSL? Download the entire report (7.6 MB) in one document. Press Release Report Cover Image: A color infrared photo (left) and Important Farmland Map (right) in Stockton, California. Back to FMMP Home For further information contact: California Department of Conservation Sta MP Staff Division of Land Resource Protection Phone: Meet the FMMP P 59 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Fax: (916) 327-3430 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 Email: fmmpCDconsrv.ca.gov Page 1 of 2 1 http://www.consrv.c&gov/dlrp/finmp/finmp_98rpt.htm 5/27/2002 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CALIFORNIA FARMLAND CONVERSION REPORT 1996-98 Prepared by the Staff of the FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM California Department of Conservation JUNE 2000 I 1 1 L 1 1 California Farmland Conversion CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM The goal of the Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program is to provide land use conversion information for decision makers to use in their planning for the present and future use of California's agricultural land resources. To meet this goal, FMMP provides maps and statistical data to the public, and local, state, and federal governments on a biennial basis. The FMMP was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts started in 1975 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). The intent of the USDA-NRCS was to produce nationwide agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use. As part of this mapping effort, a series of definitions known as the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria were developed. The LIM criteria classified the land's suitability for agricultural production based on physical and chemical characteristics of soils and actual land use. Important Farmland maps are derived from USDA-NRCS soil survey maps using LIM criteria and the biennial monitoring conducted by the FMMP to determine the 1996-98 irrigation, cultivation and conversion status of the land in its inventory area. The FMMP compiles two kinds of . farmland maps: Important Farmland Maps for those areas that have modern soil surveys, and Interim Farmland Maps for those areas lacking modem soil survey information and for which there is expressed local concern on the status of farmland. The first Farmland Conversion Report was released in 1988 and identified farmland changes from 1984 to 1986 for 38 counties, covering 30.3 million acres. Six subsequent reports have included additions to the project area as modern soil surveys became available. The present status of mapping, a total of 44.1 million acres in 48 counties, is shown on Figure 2. MAPPING CATEGORIES The following sections provide a brief description of mapping categories used on the Important Farmland and Interim Farmland Maps. A more detailed explanation of the technical parameters which qualify lands to be classified in these categories is contained in the Department of I ' Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program LJ 1 1 I I Figure 2. Status of Farmland Mapping, 1998 I I 1 1 1 1 California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS EXPLANATION OF TABLES An acreage summary for each category for all project counties appears in Tables 1 and 2 for 1996 and 1998, respectively. These tables also indicate the percentage of each county that the FMMP maps. Figures for "Total County Area" in Tables 1 and 2 are derived from a digital county line file developed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and adopted by FMMP during the 1996 update. Areas that are not mapped by the FMMP typically do not have modern soil surveys, are large public land holdings, or do not contain significant cultivated agricultural land uses (e.g., National Forest areas, San Francisco County, Alpine County). Table 3 presents a summary of all Important Farmland conversions between 1996 and 1998. It is a summation of the individual county tables found in Appendix A. Table 3 does not include land use conversions for the Interim Farmland Map sections of Butte, Colusa, Kern, and Tulare counties. Table 3 and the individual county land use conversion tables, found in Appendix A, are composed of three components: M M M M M M CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION N,MMfn rAI.M O�w.�.� 0.nennx� M = = = = = = M TABLE 1 1996 ACREAGE SUMMARY 1. 'County Area Inventoried" represents Sane cantles and portion, of counties mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2. Lassen, Plumes, and Sierra counties am Included within the triaounty area referred to as 'Sierra Valley" In the USDA•NRCS wit survey for that region. 1996 ACREAGE SUMMARY IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL URBAN& COUNTYAREA COUNTYAREA COUNTY IMPORTANTFARMLAND FARMLAND GRAZING LAND BUILT -LIP OTHER WATER INVENTORIED PERCENT NOT TOTAL PRIME STATEWIDE UNIpUE LOCAL NON -IRR SUBTOTAL LAND SUBTOTAL LAND LAND MEA 1 MAPPED INVENTORIED COUNTYAREA Alameda 7,567 1,515 1,401 0 10,483 230,800 200,889 138,084 78,882 52,528 528,937 100% 0 525,337 Amador 3,577 1,510 2,751 3,798 11,378 191,327 202,909 7,181 84,968 5,923 300,975 77% 67,450 987,825 Contra Goats 41,089 13,936 8,703 48,881 108,993 174,171 282,384 136,253 49,428 51,774 514,079 100% 0 514,019 El Dorado 1,211 1,053 4,521 81,482 88,269 185,443 279,712 25,955 230,456 8,880 538,403 47% 606,520 1,144,823 Frawo 371,81511 149 001 98,008 91,168 642 035 908 360 960,985 89 287 79 895 3,977 1,129,194 28% 2,727,318 3,860 512 Glenn 171,102 89,677 11,898 186,464 406,931 176,910 585,241 5,929 252,686 6,979 848,129 100% 0 849,129 Imperial 200,239 921,730 592 33,091 566,592 0 556,592 29,4911 448,494 986 1,028,589 36% 1,899,857 2,868,426 Nan 539,555 119,492 55,691 0 708,738 895,051 1,803,788 1 75,261 870,578 991 2,550,619 49% 21870,789 6,221,982 Nings 142,378 439,887 24,772 6,778 607,015 243,778 650,799 27,220 12,720 46 690,788 100% 0 890,]88 Lake 17,120 1,418 8,064 18,794 45,983 245,293 290,688 12,888 800,898 48,]99 660,989 100% 0 850,983 Los An Nee 24.356 977 071 30,800 511.883 218,002 274,886 156,680 848602 9,461 1,077,304 49% 7451988 2529,470 Madera 102,991 65,709 158,484 37,002 381,576 401,701 783,877 22,695 49,155 5,918 881,016 63% 618,490 1,977,596 Marin 168 925 124 87,756 68,983 91,924 180,307 99,763 139,977 44,816 378,802 100% 0 978,882 Mariposa 29 98 131 0 238 408,200 408,438 2,162 71,779 6,047 488,446 82% 447,151 935,597 Merced 288,413 139,768 93,580 31,241 699,024 583,709 1,176,799 30,183 37,626 16,978 1,261,420 100% 0 1,261,420 Modoo 73.211 47,672 8,111 100,333 229 927 601 333 830,860 3,467 17,2,41 68,298 907,666 34% 1,782 013 2,689,881 Monterey 173,230 38,209 19,610 0 225,057 1,07856 1,303,249 49,231 782,274 6,978 2,121,127 100% 0 2.121,127 Nape 29,619 7,492 15,027 22,142 74,120 188,722 260,942 20,925 202,137 22,633 505,858 100% 0 505,859 Nevada 875 1,016 914 19,888 21,590 190,887 151,957 14,308 122,778 2,145 281,388 47% 992,446 623,836 Orange 19,068 1,225 5,949 0 20,236 30,953 59,189 262,247 187,098 988 309,460 100% 0 509,460 Placer 9,867 5,548 23,301 114270 132894 33,894 188,878 35,002 184,904 5,047 411,591 43% 548,639 960,090 Riverside 166,763 55,842 41,820 241,461 507,386 136,507 642,893 231,987 1,001,125 58,811 1,934,816 41% 2,798,479 4,673.095 Sacramento 123,104 74,276 11,989 28,428 237,175 1]0,710 407,886 146,904 62,833 18,461 636,083 100% 0 698,083 San Berdto 35,492 11,668 647 90,046 86,912 682,699 879,451 8,181 202,798 1,018 888,989 100% 0 889,389 San Bernardino 90,722 12,169 4,914 5,258 52,469 864,887 1,007,490 232,806 290,939 1,013 1,4]6,988 11% 11,391,800 12,867,789 San Diego 17,100 13,902 67.734 105.190 197.928 142857 940,789 907,189 1607,938 11,383 2,188,899 80% 545,507 2,712,200 Sen Joaquin 499,134 98,169 48,739 63,479 633,538 156,185 709,7201 69,739 42,905 10,236 912,600 100% 0 912,800 San Luis Obispo 40,208 11,658 26,749 278,987 957,602 862,367 1,019,888 97,054 294,738 10,389 1,302,171 61% 822,036 2,124,201 San Met. 2,531 177 2,739 4,024 8,471 43,768 55,227 70,768 162,387 83,879 963,461 100% 0 353,451 Sante Barbara 89,532 S,TST 25,168 28,160 128,647 597,097 726,]40 59,258 260,538 4,264 1,039,814 64% 693,776 1,893,390 Santa Clara 33,071 5174 1,949 8,806 49.198 404 279 433 473 176,728 196,087 8,457 835,223 100% 0 635,225 Sento Cruz 17,230 3,068 4,209 718 26,219 78,187 41,400 27,719 216,227 357 286,709 100% 0 285,709 Shasta 21,502 4,685 402 10,212 38,601 410,143 448,948 30,014 538,217 6,053 1,021,290 41% 1,443,943 2,483,173 Sierra Valley (2) 3,336 4,071 3,148 75,358 85,911 108,065 193,976 745 2,975 75 197,771 4% 5,111,595 5,309.366 Shkly. 92,978 30,714 30,818 657,128 810,830 977,765 1,168,595 12,907 59,805 20,185 1,281,292 32% 2,780,939 4,062,225 Bolenc 150886 11,498 13,504 0 175,867 202,121 377988 61,010 101,184 52,182 382,389 10094 0 982.369 8.0 94,289 15,684 22,189 96,983 189,108 441,882 610,961 64,06] 399,933 17,079 1,026,080 100% 0 1,028,060 Stanialaua 170,046 27,832 49,042 98,140 285,062 118,840 401,702 49,171 21,918 3,430 478,242 49% 491,927 970,169 Sutter 170,171 713,441 23,252 0 308,504 49,478 868,342 10,818 20,778 1,762 389,440 100% 0 389,440 Tehama 77,168 18,651 19,088 131,226 288,118 706,683 952,703 10,768 889,901 8,133 1,839,495 97% 53,405 1,892,900 Tulare 85 497 20,521) 6,913 70.543 111 448,037 W7,519 71,382 137,722 4,629 605,462 28% 2.293.8241 3,099,278 Venture 52,141 37,811 22,437 11,148 129,997 208,762 932,089 92,889 127,041 3,838 505.952 47% 618,021 1,173,973 -YNo 289,148 18,806 69,899 79,119 420,771 149,281 584,032 24,472 67,6]7 7,9]1 859,452 100% 0 853,452 Yuba 48,481 11,011 37,545 0 95,347 142,225 237,372 11,110 138,969 6,192 411,827 100% 0 411,827 TOTAL 4.340. 288 2 089 643 1,052.30 2 757 840 10,242,994 13,674,271 23,917,265 2 910121 11 583 953 886 309 39,057,8" 41,897,7831 80,955,6271 1. 'County Area Inventoried" represents Sane cantles and portion, of counties mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2. Lassen, Plumes, and Sierra counties am Included within the triaounty area referred to as 'Sierra Valley" In the USDA•NRCS wit survey for that region. 1996 ACREAGE SUMMARY INTERIM AGRICULTURAL UR COUNTY AREA COUNWAREA COUNTY INTERIM FARMLAND FAR 0 GRAZING LAND BUILT4IP OTHER WATER INVENTORIED PERCENT NOT TOTAL IRRIGATED NON -IRR SUBTOTAL LAND SUBTOTAL LAND LAND AREA 1 MAPPED INVENTORIED COUNTYAREA Butte 237,708 9,388 287,014 264,589 531,689 38,888 328,006 20,969 917,909 88% 168,944 1,073,253 CNusa 329,947 10,768 960,109 237,671 577,974 4,175 84,883 1,904 886,618 110% 71,773 740,393 Nem Tulare 287,727 649 717 10,009 7,408 907,738 837128 868,822 10 930 1,178,358 53] 484 21,175 93,084 1,464,162 77,837 8,868 0 2,670,789 780,413 51% 25% 2,390,819 2,918,881 3,221,982 9,088,278 TOTAL 1,534,49911 37,539 1,572,0381 1,381,621 2953839 go 992 1 932 988 31 ]Z9 5 097 ]O0 6 OHB 388 10 194 904 1. 'County Area Inventoried" represents Sane cantles and portion, of counties mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2. Lassen, Plumes, and Sierra counties am Included within the triaounty area referred to as 'Sierra Valley" In the USDA•NRCS wit survey for that region. 1996 ACREAGE SUMMARY M M M M M M CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATOR DNmw d Low Rwwr.. pnflo bn TABLE 2 1998 ACREAGE SUMMARY M M M 1.V •County Ara Inv.nlpMB• nlR.wnb Ul9w O.udlw erM PertlaN d0ountlw a mauve M tlM Farm WM M.ppinp eM Mwtlbrirq Propnm. 2. L.e.en, Plumes,e BMT. e0uretw en lmlue.e wlwn tlM WCO9ntY en. r.t.rree Woo'81*nA Valley' In UI.USDA-NRCS WI .0 ylor that r.9lon. 1998 ACREAGE SUMMARY IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL URBAN& COUNTYAREA COUNTYAREA COUNTY MIPORTANTFARMLAND FARMLAND GRAZING LAND BUILT-UP OTHER WATER INVENTORIED PERCENT NOT TOTAL PRIME STATEWIDE I UN10UE LOCAL SUBTOTAL LAND SUBTOTAL LAND LAND AREA 1 MAPPED INVENTORIED COUNTY AREA Alem.do 7,660 1,865 1,699 0 10,517 248,886 258,871 139,098 79,940 62,528 528,397 100% 0 525,937 AmeBor 8.766 1,)89 2,779 .447 11,284 191,870 202,90/ 7,912 56,195 6,929 900,876 77% 8),450 987,826 Cod7.0 AA ".wl, 12,2/2 6,660 47,636 tw,914 173.041 279,988 137,517 43,894 68,269 514,019 100% 0 514,019 EI OO iulo 1,200 1,019 4,020 81,269 NAM 188,288 273.429 26,690 280,400 6,880 598,/08 47% 908,520 1,144,929 Froom 85)190 141,M 95,217 9 644 06,101 319,814 966 916 93,313 70,075 3,891 1,12 194 29% 2,727,318 3,850,512 GI.m 188,456 60,637 11,075 189,449 408,150 115.297 681,458 5,879 258,281 6,016 809,129 100% 0 849,129 imp.rl.l 199,707 319,872 592 ",218 654,880 0 654,889 23,962 A4.7w 985 1,028,689 M% 1,899,85) 2,888,429 Nem 537,082 112,258 61,097 0 703,M7 896,146 1,598,632 79,290 871,966 "1 2,550,919 49% 4670,769 5,221,882 KIM. 14ZSM {2.172 24,496 6,512 602,708 244,174 848,892 28,241 15,594 69 890,786 100% 0 890,786 Lek. 16,719 1,408 9,214 /8,962".m 248,1n 28.485 18,458 501,272 46,799 860,989 100% 0 850,989 Lw A Iw 24,632 991 939 M 798 67 292 218,118 275 410 159.5U $991" 946) 1,077 504 0% Z52S.4T0 Me0.n 102,125 86,897 15.891 90,576 8).969 899.229 TT8,215 22,242 ",657 5,818 851,"6 88% 516,/90 1,877,696 Merin 198 812 26 55,859 8),4)5 91,818 159,923 0.240 184,424 4{,876 978,662 100% 0 878,662 IMHpo e . 29 98 191 0 258 4011,830 406,608 .2,225 T1,688 ."7 488,446 52% 447,151 995,597 M.now 28.057 160,068 9.893 47,928 699,"6 woo,I 1,174,579 8.659 99,3" 1.978 1,261,420 100% 0 1,261,420 N1w. 73.210 4T,877 8,262 100 883 =,48a 801 266 00,735 3,467 17,166 50,2211 907,566 54% 1.782.015 Z 889 881 MNbny 170,7" 8.719 15,289 0 224,718 1,075,01 1,900,749 50,031 754,102 6,246 2,121,127 100% 0 2,121,12T Nees ",9" 8.069 15,752 20,8" 70.494 18.819 280,941 2.699 2C2,5T8 22,535 605,868 100% 0 505,859 NweOe 975 988 304 20,279 21,96 12.889 161,86 14,647 122,761 2,145 294,988 A7% 992,446 82.838 Oneim. 11,089 042 8,269 0 18,200 38,517 56,717 269,987 181,770 we 'm 'I'M 10014 0 50.4" Ple0er 9.750 5,196 ?? 728 11 453 16 125 31,695 183,820 37,50S 165,055 5,0 7 411 591 0.9% 548.559 960.090 RNanitle 159,462 SS,766 61,674 248,896 M1,740 1",697 838,987 20.889 1,000,442 55,918 1,994,518 41% 2,738,479 4,879,085 Bwrem.d0 121,974 67,713 18,521 99,)92 2",940 1",244 402,198 tN,718 ",922 18,252 .9."3100% 9 696,969 Ben Benito ",278 9,766 902 38,981 ",827 44.629 6)7,965 8,749 209,6,1,019 88.889100% 0 M.9" Ben S.m.relm 2.9)5 1.027 8,689 5,098 44,927 9",229 1,005,168 2",981 2MA37 1,018 1,475,999 11% 11,991,00 12,88),)89 Sen DIoN 10 BM 13,617 07,635 105 441 144 818 142.335 339148 311.491 1.504.625 11,420 2158 599 60% 6, 507 2,712,200 Sen JOequh 428,1, 44,788 52,715 69,682 ,2,980 152,449 785,089 74,596 44,297 11,646 81.600 100% 0 Sl.6w Sen wt. OOMpo 38,892 13,912 M,we 273,888 857,788 "1,921 1,019,709 37,183 23.800 10,844 1,30.171 61% 822,090 2,124,207 Sen 7Mteo 2,644 177 2,989 3,988 9,717 0,751 55,465 70,881 161,417 65,796 389,451 100% 0 359,461 Sento Bo,M. 721/5 8.7" 2.827 28,199 1",405 889,694 724,"6 ",532 281,979 4,2" 1,039,814 64% 599,776 1,69.680 Bente Clan MON 4,NI 1,413 8,6117 41010 M.677 0.9) 88) tip 481 209,60D 6 ABT 695 226 100% 0 835.225 Bente On= 17,179 8,447 4,844 BM 25,496 10,718 42,216 Mae 214,648 957 286,709 100% 0 20.70 Shoots 20,207 4,881 865 10,173 85,819 Aw,888 44.157 91,196 53SAM 6,053 1,021,280 41% 1,419,949 2,488,173 BI.O. Vtlley (2) 9,692 4,571 .664 91,442 10,889 80,706 189,610 TAS 7,406 75 197,771 4% .111,695 5,90.388 %klyou 92,442 30,819 ",161 66.268 810,825 870,998 1.187,761 1.445 00,961 20,186 1,291,292 92% 2,)80,999 4,002,225 Brier» 1508" llwe 18970 O 175,412 10,271 374,683 53.130 1OZ374 52.182 88 969 100% 0 5112.369 Somme a,887 16,178 26,037 92,887 170,"9 488,,6 ew,"5 8.176 83%ow 17,214 1,02.080 1N% 0 1,029,090 Blenh4u /5.644 27,344 44.895 87,888 2BO,bw 115,644 897,250 00,461 24,970 6,"1 478,242 49% 491,927 970,10 Suitor 170,229 118,880 22,2860 80,144 4.821 360,986 10,689 21,044 1,762 9,0 8844 100% 0 "9,44 0 Tehem. 77,609 19,495 19,492 129,700 248,291 70,882 ,2,563 10,782 870,007 9,133 1,899,496 9]% ,,405 1,BD.M0 Tule. 979 28487 )228 70,730 191{94 446199 896597 11929 16 86) 4,629 1 806452 28% 2,293,824 909279 Verlfun 61,011 87,888 2.644 11,078 12.2, 207,869 881,w8 9.022 126,10 8,999 555,952 47% 816,021 1,179,979 Yd9 25.916 18,201 ,,245 74,301 419,565 10.9,88/ 55),000 2.688 0,40.5 7,971 65882 tD0% 0 659,062 Yub. 467" 11042 "w0 0 0788 1 228 296979 11179 1574" 9192 411 -7 10014 0 /11827 TOTAL 1 4.311LINIS 2.082.777 1 074 795 2J66,149 10 219 NB 13 449 ME 29,822 973 2977067 11 609 988 BBT 848 39,087 840 41,897,7831 80 855,02) 1.V •County Ara Inv.nlpMB• nlR.wnb Ul9w O.udlw erM PertlaN d0ountlw a mauve M tlM Farm WM M.ppinp eM Mwtlbrirq Propnm. 2. L.e.en, Plumes,e BMT. e0uretw en lmlue.e wlwn tlM WCO9ntY en. r.t.rree Woo'81*nA Valley' In UI.USDA-NRCS WI .0 ylor that r.9lon. 1998 ACREAGE SUMMARY INTERIM AORICULTURAL URBAN& COUNTYAREA COUNTYAREA COUNTY INTEROMFARMLAND FARMLAND GRAZING LAND BUILT.UP I OTHER I WATER INVENTORIED I PERCENT NOT TOTAL IRRIOATEO NONJRRIOATM BUBTOTpL LAND SUBTOTAL' LAND LAND AREA 1 MAPPED INVENTORIED COUNTYARFA Bebe 258.246 9,476 2",721 2",776 5{,494 ",249 928,214 20,969 01),00 BB% 165,944 1,079,259 ' Crim. 82."9 11,498 34.6{5 2",874 57.419 4,299 87,00 1,9" 688,818 DO% 71,776 71.999 Nem Tule. 29.8)2 8,989 948 650 B 145 30.881 853 886 87.449 10 318 1,174,810 689 913 21,568 88 588 1,4,,598 70,908 6,9w 0 2,870,)0 780,41E 51% 26% 2,550,819 2 918 881 6,221,302 3 089 276 TOTAL 1,525,716 96 606 1,001 222 1,982 619 9w "1 101 681 1,980,658 91 446 5,037,7051 S w6,fi09 10 194,904 1.V •County Ara Inv.nlpMB• nlR.wnb Ul9w O.udlw erM PertlaN d0ountlw a mauve M tlM Farm WM M.ppinp eM Mwtlbrirq Propnm. 2. L.e.en, Plumes,e BMT. e0uretw en lmlue.e wlwn tlM WCO9ntY en. r.t.rree Woo'81*nA Valley' In UI.USDA-NRCS WI .0 ylor that r.9lon. 1998 ACREAGE SUMMARY I Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ASSUMPTIONS IN ANALYSES The analyses of conversion data in this chapter are compiled from Part III of all tables in Appendix A. This includes the Interim farmland portions of Butte, Colusa, Kern, and Tulare counties. The integration of Important and Interim Farmland figures in the project -wide and regional analyses result in larger conversion numbers than can be seen in Table 3 alone. The figures ' can be seen by region in the Regional Conversion Summary (Appendix B). l_J I C] 1 1 1 To facilitate general analyses, grouping of Important and Interim Farmland categories has been conducted and certain simplifying assumptions have been made. For example, Unique Farmland is considered to be an irrigated farmland category in these analyses, even though a small proportion of land within the Unique Farmland category supports high value nonirrigated crops, such as some coastal vineyards. Conversely, Farmland of Local Importance is considered to be a nonirrigated category although it also supports some irrigated pastures on non -Prime and non - Statewide Importance soils. STATISTICAL NOTES Residual Polygons The minimum -mapping unit for all farmland categories, Other Land, and Urban and Built -Up Land is 10 acres. For Grazing Land and Water the minimum mapping unit is 40 acres. Small residual polygons less than the minimum -mapping unit are sometimes created during the map updating process. These residual polygons are too small to be shown on the Important and Interim Farmland maps and are therefore combined with the most appropriate adjacent land use type on the map. These changes are statistically tabulated during computer processing and are reported as small conversions in the final land use conversion tables. TABLES LAND USE CONVERSION SUMMARY 1996-1998 Land Use Conversion CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Division of Land Resource Protection PART Land Use Totals and Net Chances PART III Land lige Qnnvnminn from 1GOR #.I GOA Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program PART II Land Committed to Nonacricultural Use TOTAL 199888 ACREAGE CHANGES ACREAGE Fes Land of TOTALACREAGE ACRES ACRES TOTAL NET LAND USE CATEGORY INVENTORIED LOST GAINED ACREAGE ACREAGE 1996 1988 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL (- (+) CHANGED CHANGED Prime Fanmlad (1) 4,949,298 4,916,886 99,479 66,067 165,648 39,412 Farmland of8tetewlde Importance (1) 2,089,648 2.D82,777 68,910 36,539 91.849 -20,771 Unique Farmland(1) 1,062,303 1,074,796 46,614 89,107 116,721 22AN Famdard of Local Importance 2,757,845 2,766,149 84,784 99,098 177,892 8,904 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 10,242,994 10,219,608 287,197 263,811 661,008 -29,986 Grazing Land 19,674,271 19,609,965 139,0116 62,179 196,264 -70,906 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 23,917266 29,822,979 420,282 925,990 746,272 -84,292 Urban anal BuM41p lard 2,910,121 2,877,667 19,962 86,888 108200 67,698 Other Lad 11,689,966 11,689,968 87,102 112,615 199,817 26,479 Water Area 688,609 687,848 2,767 4,110 6,977 1,949 TOTAL AREA INVENTORIED 2 99,067,844 1 99,067,844 1 529,5131 829,619 1,069,026 1 0 PART III Land lige Qnnvnminn from 1GOR #.I GOA Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program PART II Land Committed to Nonacricultural Use ,..,,w w ver neeuar: (1) Flguresfor"Net Acreage Changed" In Part I and forcomensicns between the Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland categories In Part Ill. are partially due b technical revisions to the Ibis of soils qual8yingfor Prima Farmland and Famdad of Stalewlds Importance. Bee tedfor further dotalb. (2) This table Include, acreage date for 46ccunties. Cmwersbn data for coumtles nuipped using Interim Far. land categories (Butte. Colum. portions of Kern and Tubs counties) are rot Included. LAND USE CONVERSION SUMMARY TOTAL LAND USE CATEGORY ACREAGE Fes Land of 1998 Rime Farmland 29,764 Farmland of Statewide Importance 6,786 Unique Farmland SA54 Famlandof Locallmportawa 97,408 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 79,409 Grazing Land 79,142 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 162,651 Urban and Bullt4lp Lend 0 Other Lard 60.966 WaterArea 0 TOTAL ACREAGE REPORTED 209,206 ,..,,w w ver neeuar: (1) Flguresfor"Net Acreage Changed" In Part I and forcomensicns between the Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland categories In Part Ill. are partially due b technical revisions to the Ibis of soils qual8yingfor Prima Farmland and Famdad of Stalewlds Importance. Bee tedfor further dotalb. (2) This table Include, acreage date for 46ccunties. Cmwersbn data for coumtles nuipped using Interim Far. land categories (Butte. Colum. portions of Kern and Tubs counties) are rot Included. LAND USE CONVERSION SUMMARY Farmland of Fes Land of Su Rotel Total Urban and Total LAND USE CATEGORY Palma Statewide Unique local Important (Laing Agricultural BuIlWi, Other Wats Converted To Famlmrd Importance Famdad Importance Famlard two Lad Lad lad Area Anther Use Prime Farmland (1) to: - SA92 6,604 28,045 99,141 13,680 52,721 19AU 26,554 626 99,479 Farmland at Statewide Importance (1) to: 4,998 - 9,621 20,198 28,597 8,177 98,774 6,486 14.029 28 66,310 Unique Farmland (1) to: 6,682 9,046 - 7,929 17,697 10,872 26AN 2244 15,981 0 48,514 FamdarddLocellmpmte, a to: 20,989 11206 22,901 64,666 10,198 84,754 SA45 9,853 1,742 84,794 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 92,489 18,80.9 31,425 66,112 139AM 42,828 182,668 96,829 68,521 2,396 287,197 Grazing Lad W. 14,817 7,842 26,964 91,197 79,680 79,600 16,785 36,537 149 139,086 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 47,306 27,446 1 57,390 1 87249 1 219,990 42,8281 282,2181 52,408 109,118 1 2,638 1 420,282 Urban and Bu0t41p Wal to. 4,022 1,852 901 1,916 8,160 2,480 10,890 - 8,881 71 19,982 Otlartad 4x 14,908 8298 10,753 9,977 36,877 10,870 61,647 94,066 - 1,601 87,102 Water Ams to: 433 4 0 1,167 1,534 t 1,696 436 798 2,767 TOTAL ACR EAGE CONVERTED to: 65,067 35.6"1 69.1071 99,098 263,8111 62,1791 326,9901 58,896 112,616 4,110 629,619 ,..,,w w ver neeuar: (1) Flguresfor"Net Acreage Changed" In Part I and forcomensicns between the Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland categories In Part Ill. are partially due b technical revisions to the Ibis of soils qual8yingfor Prima Farmland and Famdad of Stalewlds Importance. Bee tedfor further dotalb. (2) This table Include, acreage date for 46ccunties. Cmwersbn data for coumtles nuipped using Interim Far. land categories (Butte. Colum. portions of Kern and Tubs counties) are rot Included. LAND USE CONVERSION SUMMARY L-1 1 I 1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program PROJECT -WIDE CONVERSION SUMMARY The rate of urbanization in the FMMP project area increased 25 percent between the 1996 and 1998 update cycle. During the 1998 inventory there were 69,885 acres of new Urban Land, compared to 55,859 acres in 1996. Urbanization increased in all categories of land use mapped by the FMMP (Figure 6). Urbanization of irrigated farmland categories increased from 17,385 acres in 1996, to 21,664 acres in 1998. Aside from urbanization, irrigated farmland conversion occurred due to development of low density residential ranchettes, new or expanded confined livestock facilities, wetland and wildlife habitat set -asides, mining activity and land lying idle for three update cycles (approximately six years). There was a net decrease of 40,473 acres of irrigated farmland during the 1998 inventory, compared with 65,827 acres lost in the previous update period (Figure 7). This "net loss" represents a 0.45 percent decline from 9.02 million irrigated acres mapped in 1996 to 8.98 million acres in 1998. Net losses from Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance totaled 54,183 acres. Proportionally, 62 percent of this loss was from Prime Farmland (33,412 acres), and 38 percent (20,771 acres) was from Farmland of Statewide Importance. These losses were offset to some degree by a net gain of 22,493 acres of irrigated farmland on lesser quality soils (Unique Farmland). Nearly one-third of the gross loss of Prime Farmland was conversion to Farmland of Local Importance, primarily because the land had been left idle or used for dryland farming for three update cycles. This land could also be left idle in areas adjacent to existing Urban Land in anticipation of new development. Additional reasons why Prime Farmland had been left idle were market or water supply issues, drainage and salinity problems, or other economic issues. Tracking idle land minimizes the effects of crop rotation cycles that leave the land fallow for a number of seasons. Should any of this land become irrigated in the future, it will be shown as a - conversion to irrigated farmland. a California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 Figure 5. Project -wide Land Use in 1998 (acres) 13,558,828 2,862,777 4,315,M5 Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance Unique and Irrigated :'iat Farmland EllFarmland of Local Importance and Nonirrigated Farmland Grazing Land Other Lard Urban and Built -Up Land OWater Figure 6. Net Sources of New Urban and Built -Up Land 1996 and 1998 Prime Statewide, Local, Grazing, Other Land, Water Unique, Irrigated Nonirrigated 1996 1998 WE I I Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 1 11 Figure 7. Net Change in Mapping Categories 1996 and 1998 Prima Statewlda, L..I. Gra:mg Omer Land Urban Unit., NenirriUatad Conversions from Grazing Land during the 1998 inventory totaled 70,108 acres. Much. of the conversion was to irrigated and nonirrigated farmland expansion, but substantial amounts of Grazing Land were also converted to rural ranchette development, as well as to recreational use and habitat preserves. ' REGIONAL CONVERSION SUMMARY AND RANKING ' The FMMP project counties were aggregated into eight regions (Figure 8) based on climate and ' geography, in order to examine the relative amount of change in different parts of the state. The ' most important types of conversion were summarized for each region 1998 C and are shown in Appendix B. Regional rankings of Appendix B data are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The Southern California Region continues to be the most active in terms of overall urbanization, with a net increase of 30,306 acres (43 percent) of new Urban Land (Table 4). About 22 percent of new Urban Land in this region was developed on irrigated farmland, with the remainder coming from areas of native vegetation, dryland farming, and grazing. This Region had a loss of 17,864 acres of irrigated farmland during the 1998 update period (Table 5), down somewhat from the 19,836 acres of irrigated land lost in 1996. The San Joaquin Valley Region, although second in overall Califomia Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 Figure 8. California Regions I ' Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (- L TABLE 4 NET SOURCES OF NEW URBAN LAND (compiled from Appendix B regional data) Notes to Reader: FMMP project counties are grouped into regions as shown in Figure 4. Total mapped acreages are listed below. Infonnaeon not included for newly mapped areas of Siskiyou and Modoc counties and for Lake County. Southern California 8,748,783 Sierra Foothill 2,028,143 San Joaquin Valley 12,334,536 Sacramento Valley 7,387,183 Central Coast 5,352,501 Northwestern 850,983 San Francisco Bay 5,006,691 Northeastern 2,386,729 ' Irrigated categories include Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland on Important Farmland maps; and Irrigated Farmland on Interim Farmland maps. ' Nonirrigated categories include Grazing Land, Other Land, and Farmland of Local Importance on Important Farmland maps; and Grazing Land, Other Land, and Nonirrigated Farmland on Interim Farmland maps. 1994-1996 1996-1998 TYPE OF CONVERSION RANK ACRES RANK ACRES NEW URBAN FROM 1. Southern California 22,494 1. Southern California 30,306 ALL CATEGORIES 2. San Joaquin Valley 11,996 2. San Joaquin Valley 14,414 3. San Francisco Bay 8,217 3. San Francisco Bay 12,472 4. Sacramento Valley 4,895 4. Sacramento Valley 6,791 6. Siena Foothill 3,570 5. Sierra Foothill 3,276 5. Central Coast 4,703 6. Central Coast 1,761 N/A Northwestern NI 7. Northwestern 787 7. Northeastern 21 8. Northeastern 78 Regional Totals 55,896 Regional Totals 69,885 NEW URBAN FROM 1. San Joaquin Valley 7,919 1. San Joaquin Valley 9,505 IRRIGATED CATEGORIES 2, Southern California 4,632 2. Southern California 6,817 4. San Francisco Bay 1,628 3. San Francisco Bay 1,970 5. Sacramento Valley 1,320 4. Sacramento Valley 1,812 3. Central Coast 1,763 5. Central Coast 1,449 6. Sierra Foothill 123 6. Sierra Foothill 77 7. Northeastern 0 7. Northeastern 35 N/A Northwestern N/ 8. Northwestern -1 Regional Totals 17,385 Regional Totals 21,664 NEW URBAN FROM NOW 1. Southern California 17,862 1. Southern California 23,489 IRRIGATED CATEGORIES 2. San Francisco Bay 6,589 2. San Francisco Bay 10,502 4. Sacramento Valley 3,574 3. Sacramento Valley 4,979 3. San Joaquin Valley 4,041 4. San Joaquin Valley 4,909 S. Siena Foothill 3,447 5. Sierra Foothill 3,199 N/A Northwestern NIA 6, Northwestern 788 6. Central Coast 2,940 7. Central Coast 312 7. Northeastern 21 8. Northeastern 43 Regional Totals 38,474 1 Regional Totals 1 48,221 Notes to Reader: FMMP project counties are grouped into regions as shown in Figure 4. Total mapped acreages are listed below. Infonnaeon not included for newly mapped areas of Siskiyou and Modoc counties and for Lake County. Southern California 8,748,783 Sierra Foothill 2,028,143 San Joaquin Valley 12,334,536 Sacramento Valley 7,387,183 Central Coast 5,352,501 Northwestern 850,983 San Francisco Bay 5,006,691 Northeastern 2,386,729 ' Irrigated categories include Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland on Important Farmland maps; and Irrigated Farmland on Interim Farmland maps. ' Nonirrigated categories include Grazing Land, Other Land, and Farmland of Local Importance on Important Farmland maps; and Grazing Land, Other Land, and Nonirrigated Farmland on Interim Farmland maps. H 1 1 I California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 TABLE 5 CHANGES AFFECTING IRRIGATED FARMLAND (compiled from Apprendix B regional data) 1994-1996 1996-1998 TYPE OF CONVERSION RANK ACRES RANK ACRES NEW IRRIGATED 1. San Joaquin Valley 18,474 1. San Joaquin Valley 67,327 FARMLAND 3. Central Coast 8,520 2. Central Coast 27,871 2. Sacramento Valley 17,472 3. Sacramento Valley 16,638 4. Northeastern 6,043 4. Northeastern 12,205 6. San Francisco Bay 2,788 5. San Francisco Bay 12,074 5. Southern California 4,905 6. Southern California 11,093 NA Northwestern NA 7. Northwestern 2,246 7. Sierra Foothill 1,217 B. Sierra Foothill 1,306 Reqional Totals 59,419 Regional Totals 150,760 IRRIGATED FARMLAND 1. San Joaquin Valley 14,259 1. San Joaquin Valley 41,187 LOSSES TO OTHER LAND 2. Sacramento Valley 5,834 2. Sacramento Valley 12,732 4. Central Coast 2,131 3. Central Coast 6,396 3. Southern California 5,275 4. Southern California 4,504 5. San Francisco Bay 571 5. San Francisco Bay 2,698 NA Northwestern NA 6. Northwestern 692 6. Sierra Foothil 404 7. Siena Foothill 331 7. Northeastern 4 8. Northeastern 194 Regional Totals 28,478 Regional Totals 68,734 DOWNGRADES FROM 1. San Joaquin Valley 38,933 1. San Joaquin Valley 32,716 IRRIGATED TO LOCAL, 2. Sacramento Valley 15,004 2. Sacramento Valley 24,873 NONIRRIGATED, AND GRAZING 3. Southern California 14,606 3. Southern California 17,015 4. Central Coast 5,580 4. Central Coast 9,571 - 5. San Francisco Bay 2,515 5. San Francisco Bay 5,485 7. Northeastern 530 6. Northeastern 1,493 6. Sierra Foothill 1,618 7. Sierra Foothill 1,456 NA Northwestern NA S. Northwestern 750 Reqional Totals 78,786 Regional Totals 93,359 REGIONS WITH "NET LOSSES" 3. Sacramento Valley -4,745 1. Sacramento Valley -23,015 OF IRRIGATED FARMLAND 1. San Joaquin Valley 42,858 2. San Joaquin Valley -21,764 - 2. Southern California -19,836 3. Southern California -17,864 6. Sierra Foothill -929 4. Sierra Foothill -562 REGIONS WITH "NET INCREASES" 1. Northeastern 5,509 1. Northeastern 10,474 OF IRRIGATED FARMLAND NA Central Coast -980 2. Central Coast 9,744 NA San Francisco Bay -1,988 3. San Francisco Bay 1,772 NA Northwestern NA 4. Northwestern 742 "NET CHANGE" IN IRRIGATED FARMLAND Pmjectwide Totals -65,827 ProjecN4de Totals 40,473 I J I 1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program urbanization, ranked first in conversion of irrigated farmland to Urban Land. A total of 9,505 acres of new Urban Land occurred on irrigated farmland in this region, which is an increase from the 7,919 acres reported in 1996. The Southern California Region ranked second in the conversion of irrigated farmland to Urban Land, with 6,817 acres, which was up from the 4,632 acres of irrigated land converted to Urban Land in 1996. The Sacramento Valley Region led the state with a 23,015 -acre overall loss of irrigated farmland. This loss was substantially more than the 4,745 acres lost during the 1996 update. Much of the loss was due to land left idle for three update cycles, ranchette development and the establishment of wetland and wildlife areas. New urban development accounted for 8 percent of the irrigated farmland loss. The San Francisco Bay Region accounted for 12,472 acres of new Urban Land, third in overall urbanization. Its growth rate was up from the 8,217 acres reported for the previous update cycle. About 16 percent of the new Urban Land in the region occurred on irrigated farmland. The four remaining regions of the state- Central Coast, Northeastern, Northwestern and Sierra Foothill - accounted for 7 percent (1,560 acres) of all new urban conversion from irrigated farmland. Most of this growth was accounted for in the Sierra Foothill Region (3,276 acres), which had about the same growth rate as in the prior reporting period (3,570 acres). The Central Coast Region experienced a reduction in the urbanization rate with 1,761 acres in 1998 versus 4,703 acres in 1996. The counties of the Northeastern Region showed only a modest increase in new Urban Land in the current reporting period with 78 acres, compared to only 21 acres in 1996. The current report is the first time conversion data has been gathered for the Northwestern Region. Lake County, the sole county in the region, showed an urban increase of 787 acres. This reporting period saw four regions with a net increase in irrigated land. The Northeastern Region gained 10,474 new acres of irrigated land, primarily in the Sierra Valley where pasture and alfalfa were identified as being flood irrigated during the spring months. The Central Coast showed an increase of 9,744 acres of newly irrigated land, primarily due to new vineyards. The San Francisco Bay and Northwestern regions also had increases in irrigated land, with 1,772 and 742 acres respectively. COUNTY CONVERSION SUMMARY AND RANKING The counties leading the state in urbanization of irrigated land were in the Southern California and San Joaquin Valley Regions (Table 6). Riverside County led the state in having the most irrigated farmland I L 1 1 1 California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 TABLE 6 COUNTY CONVERSION RANKING (compiled from Appendix A county acreage data) ' (1) Numbers shown are net acres. I 1 1994.96 199698 RANK ACRES RANK ACRES TYPE OF CONVERSION MOST IRRIGATED FARMLAND 3. Riverside 1,585 1. Riverside 2,335 TO URBAN (1) 1. Fresno 2,071 2. Fresno 2,269 20. Orange 239 3. Orange 1,951 2. San Joaquin 1,803 4. San Joaquin 1,402 7. Kern 963 5. Kern 1,386 4. Tulare 1,223 6. Tulare 1,383 9. Stanislaus 760 7. Stanislaus 1,195 10. Kings 623 8. Kings 1,075 5. Monterey 1,214 9. Monterey 1,049 18. Santa Clara 306 10. Santa Clara 910 TOP 10 URBANIZING COUNTIES 1. Riverside 6,273 1. Riverside 8,902 FROM ALL CATEGORIES (1) 12. Orange 1,896 2. Orange 7,740 8. Kern - 2,397 3. Kern 4,343 2. San Diego 5,584 4. San Diego 4,322 4. Fresno 3,148 5. Fresno 4,016 16. Los Angeles 1,191 6. Los Angeles 3,873 5. Sacramento 2,534 7. Sacramento 3,812 25. Santa Clara 651 B. Santa Clara 2,755 13. Ventura 1,542 9. Ventura 2,639 7. Placer 2,431 10. Placer 2,607 LARGEST"NET LOSSES"OF 3. Riverside -12,212 1. Riverside -11,023 IRRIGATED FARMLAND 12. Yolo -1,689 2. Yolo -8,288 4. Fresno -4,173 3. Fresno -7,410 1. Kern -17,143 4. Kern -7,106 10. Sacramento -2,113 5. Sacramento -5,541 2. Kings -13,290 6. Kings -5,041 5. Tulare -3,866 7. Tulare -4,532 13. Glenn -1,599 B. Glenn -4,310 18. Stanislaus -881 9. Stanislaus -3,969 11. Contra Costa -2,057 10. Contra Costa -3,253 LARGEST "NET INCREASES" OF 5. Santa Barbara 425 1. Santa Barbara 7,719 IRRIGATED FARMLAND 13. Sierra Valley 111 2. Sierra Valley 6,454 9. Sonoma 230 3. Sonoma 5,386 NA San Luis Obispo none 4. San Luis Obispo 5,285 NA Merced none 5. Merced 3,933 NA Siskiyou none 6. Siskiyou 3,867 NA Madera none 7. Madera 3,739 6. Napa 396 8. Napa 1,773 2. Tehama 2,403 9. Tehama 1,639 NA Lake NA 10. Lake 742 ' (1) Numbers shown are net acres. I 1 I 1 I 11 �I 1 1 u I Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ' converted to Urban Land with 2,335 acres, followed by Fresno County (2,269 acres), and Orange County (1,951 acres). Southern California counties led the list of the top 10 urbanizing counties during the 1998 inventory. Riverside County led all other counties with 8,902 new urban acres, up from 6,273 acres reported from 1996. Riverside's growth was primarily due to new subdivisions and golf courses around the cities of Corona, San Jacinto, and Perris, and in the Coachella Valley area. Riverside County was also the leader in net losses of irrigated land, with 11,023 acres going out of production. Orange County experienced substantial urban growth during the current reporting period, showing 7,740 acres of new development, compared to 1,896 in 1996. Much of Orange County's new growth surrounded the cities of Anaheim, Los Alamitos, Orange and Tustin. New subdivisions, business parks and expansions at U.C. Irvine accounted for much of the growth. San Diego gained 4,322 acres of new Urban Land, primarily through new housing, industrial, commercial development, and golf courses around San Luis Rey, Valley Center, Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar and Poway. In the San Joaquin Valley, Kern and Fresno counties showed a combined Urban Land increase of 8,359 acres. This was up from the 5,545 acres reported from 1996. New development was concentrated around Bakersfield and Oildale in Kern County, where new housing, schools and a wastewater treatment plant have been built. In Fresno County, the cities of Fresno and Clovis and the Highway 99 corridor saw new housing, agricultural processing plants and a new shopping center. Sacramento County experienced an increase of 3,812 new acres of Urban Land. The primary areas of growth were around the cities of Elk Grove and Folsom. New housing, shopping centers and golf courses were the primary developments. In the San Francisco Bay area, Santa Clara County had 2,755 new urban acres. New housing, strip malls and office parks were found around the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and infill within the City of San Jose. Placer County was the leading area of new urban growth in the Sierra Foothill Region, with 2,607 acres. Roseville, Stanford Ranch, Granite Bay and Lincoln grew to include housing, commercial development, four golf courses and expansion of landfills. The counties with the greatest net loss of irrigated farmland were Riverside, Yolo, Fresno and Kern. In addition to new housing developments, much of the farmland converted in these counties was due to land lying fallow for three update cycles (six years). The Central Valley had eight of the top ten counties with I 1 1 1 the largest losses of irrigated farmland. Santa Barbara County and the Sierra Valley led the state with net gains in irrigated farmland. Santa Barbara's gain of 7,719 acres was due largely to new vineyard development, but the Santa Maria area saw gains in strawberries and row crops as well. The Sierra Valley's gain of 6,454 acres was due to newly identified irrigated pasture and alfalfa. LAND COMMITTED TO NONAGRICULTURAL USE Counties and cities may voluntarily submit documentation to FMMP on Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use. This information is then made available as an overlay to the existing land use data. To date, jurisdictions in 39 of the 48 project counties have submitted information for this category. Because the information is voluntarily submitted, includes areas that will change over a long time period, and includes both low - California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-98 and high-density developments, Committed Land can only be seen as a general indication of expected urbanization trends. Among the jurisdictions submitting Committed Land data, a total of 205,746 acres are slated for nonagricultural uses in the future (Table 7). Of these lands, 14 percent (29,764 acres) are currently mapped as Prime Farmland by FMMP, and 21 percent (43,693) are within other irrigated categories. Approximately 79 percent of the Committed Land (162,053 acres) is currently mapped as Farmland of Local Importance, Nonirrigated, Grazing Land, and Other Land. These figures represent an 11 percent increase in Committed Land compared to those reported from the 1996 period. Committed Land located on Prime Farmland decreased by 6 percent over the previous reporting period, and overall irrigated farmland identified as Committed Land use declined by 5 percent. TABLE A-21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1996-1998 Land Use Conversion CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Division of Land Resource Protection PART County Summary and Chanae by Land Use Cateaory PART III Land Use Conversion from 1996 to 1998 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program PART II Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use TOTAL 1996.98 ACREAGE CHANGES ACREAGE ES TOTAL NET 5,104 TOTALACREAGE LAND USE CATEGORY INVENTORIED 1,296 ED ACREAGE ACREAGE 1996 1998CHANGED 4,485 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 28,459 Urban and Built -Up Land CHANGED Prime Farmland 168,763 159,462,736 0 M21,44115,795 12,771 •9,301 Farmland of Statewide Importance 55,642 53,766666 Land Land 3,408 •2,076 Unique Farmland 41,320 41,6741,577 47 7,341 2,800 354 Farmland of Local Importance 241,461 246,8381,817 0 11,036 18,257 5,377 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 507,386 601,7405,795 2,256 0 37,236 -5,646 Grazing Land 135,507 134,597 980 70 1,050 -910 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 642,893 636,337 22,421 15,865 38,286 •6,556 Urban and Built -Up Land 231,987 240,889 463 9,365 9,828 8,902 Other Land 1,001,125 1,000,442 6,083 5,400 11,483 •683 Water Area68,811 525 56,948 1,737 74 1,811 -1,663 TOTAL AREA INVENTORIED (1) 1,934,618 1,934,616 30,704 30,704 61,408 0 PART III Land Use Conversion from 1996 to 1998 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program PART II Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use Notea to the Reader. (1) Refinements made to lake boundaries from 1;24,000 -scale quadrangles may result in different acreage totals for Water and adjacent land use categories than those In the 1994-96 report. (2) Conversion to Farmland of Local Importance due to land left idle for three update cycles. (3) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to ranchettes Identified throughout the county. (4) Conversion to Prime Farmland primarily due to newly irrigated agricultural land on the Valerie and Indio quadrangles. (5) Conversions from Urban and Built -Up Lend primarily due to urban line corrections and newly Identified nurseries. (6) Conversion from Water Area due to land use changes In and around Lake Elsinore. TOTAL LAND USE CATEGORY ACREAGE Farmland of 1998 Prime Farmland 5,104 Farmland of Statewide Importance 739 Unique Farmland 1,296 Farmland of Local Importance 16,835 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 23,974 Grazing Land 4,485 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 28,459 Urban and Built -Up Land 0 Other Land 21,141 Water Area 0 TOTAL ACREAGE REPORTED 49,600 Notea to the Reader. (1) Refinements made to lake boundaries from 1;24,000 -scale quadrangles may result in different acreage totals for Water and adjacent land use categories than those In the 1994-96 report. (2) Conversion to Farmland of Local Importance due to land left idle for three update cycles. (3) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to ranchettes Identified throughout the county. (4) Conversion to Prime Farmland primarily due to newly irrigated agricultural land on the Valerie and Indio quadrangles. (5) Conversions from Urban and Built -Up Lend primarily due to urban line corrections and newly Identified nurseries. (6) Conversion from Water Area due to land use changes In and around Lake Elsinore. Farmland of Farmland of Subtotal Total Urban and Total LAND USE CATEGORY Prime Statewide Unique Local Important Grazing Agricultural Built -Up Other Water Converted To Farmland Importance Farmland Importance Farmland Land Land Land Land Area Another Use Prime Farmland (2) (3) to: - 51 47 7,341 7,439 0 7,439 2,161 1,436 0 11,036 Farmland of Statewide Importance (2) to: 69 - 36 2,161 2,256 0 2,256 125 361 0 2,742 Unique Farmland to: 85 45 452 582 0 582 233 408 0 1,223 Farmland of Local Importance (3) (4) to: 1,129 429 492 2,050 47 2,097 2,499 1,774 70 6,440 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 1,283 525 575 9,944 12,327 47 12,374 5,018 3,979 70 21,441 Grazing Land to: 0 0 31 101 132 132 160 688 0 980 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 1,283 525 606 10,045 12,459 47 12,506 5,178 4,667 70 22,421 Urban and Built -Up Land (5) to: 38 0 146 64 248 0 248 212 3 463 Other Land to: 414 141 825 551 1,931 23 1,954 4,128 1 6,083 Water Area (6) to: 0 0 0 1,157 1,157 0 1,157 59 521 1,737 TOTAL ACREAGE CONVERTED to: 1,735 666 1,577 11,817 16,795 70 15,865 9,365 5,400 74 30,704 Notea to the Reader. (1) Refinements made to lake boundaries from 1;24,000 -scale quadrangles may result in different acreage totals for Water and adjacent land use categories than those In the 1994-96 report. (2) Conversion to Farmland of Local Importance due to land left idle for three update cycles. (3) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to ranchettes Identified throughout the county. (4) Conversion to Prime Farmland primarily due to newly irrigated agricultural land on the Valerie and Indio quadrangles. (5) Conversions from Urban and Built -Up Lend primarily due to urban line corrections and newly Identified nurseries. (6) Conversion from Water Area due to land use changes In and around Lake Elsinore. TABLE A-21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1998-2000 Land Use Conversion CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Division of Land Resource Protection PART County Summary and Change by Land Use Category PART III Land Use Conversion from 1998 to 2000 Farmland Mapping and Monil PART II Land Committed to Nonagricultul LAND USE CATEGORY Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance Unique Farmland Farmland of Local Importance IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL Grazing Land AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL Urban and Built -Up Land Other Land Water Area TOTAL ACREAGE REPORTED 1998-00 ACREAGE CHANGES ACRES ACRES TOTAL NET Total TOTALACREAGE LAND USE CATEGORY INVENTORIED LOST GAINED ACREAGE ACREAGE 1998 2000 Grazing H+ Built -Up CHANGED CHANGED Prime Farmland 159,459 150,984 11,874 3,399 15,273 -8,475 Farmland of Statewide Importance 53,767 49,431 4,890 554 5,444 -4,336 Unique Farmland 41,674 40,950 1,328 604 1,932 -724 Farmland of Local Importance 246,838 243,456 14,898 11,516 26,414 -3,382 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 501,738 484,821 32,990 16,073 49,063 -16,917 Grazing Land 134,599 124,769 9,949 119 10,068 -9,830 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 636,337 609,590 42,939 16,192 59,131 -26,747 Urban and Built -Up Land 240,888 264,968 340 14,420 14,760 14,080 Other Land 1,000,442 1,007,256 9,586 16,400 25,986 6,814 Water Area 66,948 62,801 0 5,853 5,853 5,853 TOTAL AREA INVENTORIED 1,934,815 1,934,616 52,865 52,865 105,730 0 PART III Land Use Conversion from 1998 to 2000 Farmland Mapping and Monil PART II Land Committed to Nonagricultul LAND USE CATEGORY Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance Unique Farmland Farmland of Local Importance IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL Grazing Land AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL Urban and Built -Up Land Other Land Water Area TOTAL ACREAGE REPORTED notes to the Reader: (1) Conversion between Important Farmland Categories primarily due to corrections made to soil unit identification throughout the county. (2) Conversions to Farmland of Local Importance primarily due to land left Idle for three update cycles. (3) Conversions to Water Area due to the completion of the Diamond Valley Reservior near Hemet and the addition of Mystic Lake in San Jacinto Wildlife Area. (4) Conversions to Prime Farmland due to newly irrigated agricultural land, primarily in the Blythe area, Coachella, Perris and Moreno Valley areas, and the largest component a 1000+ acres citrus orchard southwest of the Blythe airport. (5) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to the establishment of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, and the Southwestern Riverside County Multi -Species Reserve Farmland of Farmland of Subtotal Total Urban and LAND USE CATEGORY Prime Statewide Unique Local Important Grazing Agricultural Built -Up Other Water Farmland Importance Farmland Importance Farmland Land Land Land Land Area Prime Farmland (1)(2)(3) to: 63 7 7,387 7,457 0 7,457 2,220 122 2,075 Farmland of Statewide Importance (1)(2)(3) to; 62 - 16 3,812 3,890 0 3,890 73 119 808 Unique Farmland (1)(3) to: 1 104 1 106 77 183 225 899 21 Farmland of Local Importance (3)(4)(6) to: 3,012 233 212 3,457 32 3,489 3,330 6,900 1,179 IMPORTANT FARMLAND SUBTOTAL 3,075 400 235 11,200 14,910 109 15,019 5,848 6,040 4,083 Grazing Land (3)(5) to: 1 39 19 85 144 144 268 8,214 1,323 AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBTOTAL 3,076 439 254 11,285 15,054 109 15,163 6,116 16,254 5,406 Urban and Built -Up Land (6) to: 8 8 0 188 184 10 194 146 0 Other Land (3) to: 315 107 350 63 835 0 835 8,304 447 Water Area to: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL ACREAGE CONVERTED to: 3,399 554 604 11,516 16,073 119 16,192 14,420 16,400 5,853 notes to the Reader: (1) Conversion between Important Farmland Categories primarily due to corrections made to soil unit identification throughout the county. (2) Conversions to Farmland of Local Importance primarily due to land left Idle for three update cycles. (3) Conversions to Water Area due to the completion of the Diamond Valley Reservior near Hemet and the addition of Mystic Lake in San Jacinto Wildlife Area. (4) Conversions to Prime Farmland due to newly irrigated agricultural land, primarily in the Blythe area, Coachella, Perris and Moreno Valley areas, and the largest component a 1000+ acres citrus orchard southwest of the Blythe airport. (5) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to the establishment of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, and the Southwestern Riverside County Multi -Species Reserve ' Farmland & Open Space Resources -- Index LJ [1 News & Inro Programs & services search Kids only DOC Home Earthquakes are detected every day in Calffomia by sensitive scientific instruments called seismographs. ' California Farmland Division of Land Resource Protection c roar Pro ana Prams to conserve California's farmland & open ace resources . roaram 9 P P Farmland Maooin Californians make their home amidst some of the most productive farmland and diverse open spaces in the world. The Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) works with landowners, local governments, and researchers to conserve these resources for everyone's future. Page 1 of 2 Open Space Subvention Proaram Our Mission ' DLRP provides information to guide land use planning decisions and programs Farmland Security that allow agricultural and open space landowners to voluntarily protect their zones land. ' Resource Latest News Conservation DiW Assistance Proaram • Resource Conservation District Assistance Program — Watershed ' Coordinator grant program report to the legislature is now available! Land Evaluation and • 1998-2000 farmland conversion data — 34 counties now available. Re Assessment (LESA) Model Most recent releases: Glenn and Tehama Counties ' • California Farmland Conservancy Program — updated RFGA released! DLRP program areas Grants and Landowner Financial Assistance DLRP is California's principal source of financial assistance to landowners and local governments for farmland and open space protection. A range of voluntary programs help to meet individual needs. ' • property tax incentives for retaining agricultural and open space land uses • grants for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements • conservation project grants to Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) Mapping and Research DLRP is a consistent, timely, and accurate source of information on the status of agricultural land resources in California. Urban development, the types of agricultural land affected by growth, and the locations of land protected from development are mapped. thttp://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/index.htin 5/27/2002 and Monitodno ro ra Land Consematlm ' (VWlliamsonl Act Californians make their home amidst some of the most productive farmland and diverse open spaces in the world. The Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) works with landowners, local governments, and researchers to conserve these resources for everyone's future. Page 1 of 2 Open Space Subvention Proaram Our Mission ' DLRP provides information to guide land use planning decisions and programs Farmland Security that allow agricultural and open space landowners to voluntarily protect their zones land. ' Resource Latest News Conservation DiW Assistance Proaram • Resource Conservation District Assistance Program — Watershed ' Coordinator grant program report to the legislature is now available! Land Evaluation and • 1998-2000 farmland conversion data — 34 counties now available. Re Assessment (LESA) Model Most recent releases: Glenn and Tehama Counties ' • California Farmland Conservancy Program — updated RFGA released! DLRP program areas Grants and Landowner Financial Assistance DLRP is California's principal source of financial assistance to landowners and local governments for farmland and open space protection. A range of voluntary programs help to meet individual needs. ' • property tax incentives for retaining agricultural and open space land uses • grants for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements • conservation project grants to Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) Mapping and Research DLRP is a consistent, timely, and accurate source of information on the status of agricultural land resources in California. Urban development, the types of agricultural land affected by growth, and the locations of land protected from development are mapped. thttp://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/index.htin 5/27/2002 ' Farmland & Open Space Resources -- Index Page 2 of 2 ' . farmland conversion reports and GIS data, every two years . new programs to map the location of agricultural easements and land receiving tax incentives ' Technical Assistance DLRP has developed a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model to ' aid local agencies and individuals in evaluating the agricultural characteristics of specific sites, as indicated in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. ' Contact Us DLRP staff work with many agencies and individuals to better understand and better serve their needs. Workshops, guidebooks, and coordinated research efforts are some of the the formal components. For help or more specific information, contact us directly and let us know what we can do to assist you! Meet the DLRP management team. L 1 1 1 1 1 Last updated May 09, 2002 Copyright O California Departnrcnt of Conservation, Division of lard Resoorce protection, 2000. All rights reserved. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties u to the suitability of this product for my purpose. ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/index.htm 5/27/2002 1 CFCP Index Page I of 2 ' CFCP California Farmland Conservancy Program ' HOME The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) is a voluntary program that seeks to encourage the long-term, private stewardship of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. The CFCP was ' CFCP Fundina created in 1996, and provides grant funding for projects which use and support News agricultural conservation easements for protection of agricultural lands. See Public Resources Code Sections 10200 to 10277 for the enabling statutes for the CFCP, and California Code of Regulations Title 14 Division 2 Chapter 6, which ' provide the framework for its functions. CFCP Grant Application ' ,n Funding News Information on the amount of funds made available to CFCP in CFCP the current fiscal year's budget. Frequently Asked Questions Grant Application Iy; Information on Request for Grant Applications and process, l _ including downloads of related documents. CFCP In the Frequently Asked Questions News Answers to the most common questions about various aspects of the CFCP. Rm��fo< California Farmland Conservancy Program in the Grant Recipients ! --, _:. News Press releases about the CFCP and CFCP projects. Resources for Grant Recipients Information and standard documents for recipients of CFCP grants, including model easement language, invoices, etc. Would you like to be included on our mailing list? Please submit your request via email to cfcp(dpconsrv.ca.gov. Be sure to include ' the following information: name, affiliation, address, telephone & FAX numbers, and preferred email address. For more information about the CFCP, contact: ' California Department of Conservation Division of land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/CFCP/index.htm 5/27/2002 CFCP Index Phone: (916) 324-0850 Fax: (916)327-0430 Email: cfcp@Consrv.ca.gov Back to Top Last updated May 09, 2002 Copynght ® California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2001. All rights reserved. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any purpose. Page 2 of 2 http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/CFCP/indcx.htin 5/27/2002 ' Farmland Security Zones 1 Farmland Security Zones ' What is a farmland security zone? A farmland security zone is an area created within an agricultural ' preserve* by a board of supervisors (board) upon request by a landowner or group of landowners. in size ' What new benefits do farmland security zone contracts offer to landowners? Page 1 of 3 " An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into Williamson Act contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board or city council having jurisdiction. Agricultural preserves must generally be at least 100 acres in size ' What new benefits do farmland security zone contracts offer to landowners? Page 1 of 3 ' What is the process for establishing a farmland security zone contract? ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 Farmland security zones offer landowners greater property tax reduction. Land restricted by a farmland security zone contract is valued for property assessment purposes at 65% of its Williamson Act valuation, or 65% of its Proposition 13 valuation, whichever is lower. New special taxes for urban -related services must be levied at an unspecified reduced rate unless the tax directly benefits the land or living ' improvements. Cities and special districts that provide non-agricultural services are generally prohibited from annexing land enrolled under a farmland security zone contract. Lastly, school districts are prohibited from taking farmland security zone lands for school facilities. What is a farmland security zone contract? It is a contract between a private landowner and a county that enforceably restricts land to agricultural or open space uses. The minimum initial term is 20 years. Like a Williamson Act contract, farmland security zone contracts self -renew annually, thus unless either party files a "notice of nonrenewal' the contract is automatically renewed each year for an ' additional year. ' What is the process for establishing a farmland security zone contract? ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 ' Farmland Security Zones Page 2 of 3 Yes. A landowner or a group of landowners may petition the board to create a farmland security zone for the purpose of entering into farmland security zone contracts. ' What type of land is eligible for a farmland security zone contract? ' To be eligible for a farmland security zone contract, the subject land must be designated on the Important Farmland Series maps as predominantly one of the following: a Prime Farmland 1 a Farmland of Statewide Importance a Unique Farmland a Farmland of Local Importance How is a farmland security zone contract terminated through nonrenewal? A landowner may initiate nonrenewal of a farmland security zone contract by serving a written notice to the local governing body at least 90 days prior to the renewal date. The farmland security zone contract then "winds down" over the remaining 19 -year term, with the taxes gradually rising back to the full, unrestricted, rate. Upon termination of the farmland security zone contract, the farmland security zone designation for that parcel is also terminated. Can a farmland security zone contract be terminated through cancellation? http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 The process is entirely voluntary for both the landowner and the county. The landowner with a Williamson Act contract must submit a petition for ' a farmland security zone contract to the local governing body. If the board approves the proposal, it will rezone the subject property as a farmland security zone. Once the subject property is rezoned, the board will rescind the Williamson Act contract and simultaneously place the same property under a farmland security zone contract. Landowners who are not participating in the Williamson Act may petition a board to create a farmland security zone for the purpose of entering into contracts. If two or ' more landowners with contiguous parcels request the creation of a farmland security zone, the county will place the parcels in the same ' farmland security zone. Can a landowner who does not have land currently enrolled in a Williamson Act contract apply for a farmland security zone ' contract? Yes. A landowner or a group of landowners may petition the board to create a farmland security zone for the purpose of entering into farmland security zone contracts. ' What type of land is eligible for a farmland security zone contract? ' To be eligible for a farmland security zone contract, the subject land must be designated on the Important Farmland Series maps as predominantly one of the following: a Prime Farmland 1 a Farmland of Statewide Importance a Unique Farmland a Farmland of Local Importance How is a farmland security zone contract terminated through nonrenewal? A landowner may initiate nonrenewal of a farmland security zone contract by serving a written notice to the local governing body at least 90 days prior to the renewal date. The farmland security zone contract then "winds down" over the remaining 19 -year term, with the taxes gradually rising back to the full, unrestricted, rate. Upon termination of the farmland security zone contract, the farmland security zone designation for that parcel is also terminated. Can a farmland security zone contract be terminated through cancellation? http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 I Farmland Security Zones Page 3 of 3 ' For further information contact: California Department of Conservation 1 Division of Land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 1 Phone: (916) 324-0850 Fax: (916) 327-3430 ' Email: dhyna,consrv.ca.gov 1 1 [1 J 1 1 11 1 Last updated May 09, 2002 Copyright O California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 1998. All rights reserved. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any purpose. ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 Yes. However, in order to approve cancellation a city or county must 1 make both of the required findings that 1) the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act and 2) cancellation is in the public interest. In the resolution approving cancellation the local 1 government must find that 1) no beneficial public purpose is served by continuing the contract, 2) the uneconomic nature of the agricultural use is due to circumstances beyond control of the landowner and local ' government, 3) the landowner has paid a cancellation fee equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the land as through unrestricted by the contract. The Director of the Department of Conservation may approve 1 the cancellation upon making specified findings. ' For further information contact: California Department of Conservation 1 Division of Land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 1 Phone: (916) 324-0850 Fax: (916) 327-3430 ' Email: dhyna,consrv.ca.gov 1 1 [1 J 1 1 11 1 Last updated May 09, 2002 Copyright O California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 1998. All rights reserved. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any purpose. ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LCA/farm_security_zone.htm 5/27/2002 ' Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model I 1 I 1 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA) Page I of 2 California Farmland Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a point -based approach for Comervanw rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific Prooram measurable features. The California LESA Model was developed to provide lead agencies with an Farmland Mapping optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the and Monitoring environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistent) Program 9 q Y Y considered in the environmental review process (Public Resources Code Section 21095), including in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews. Land conservation twillismson) apt The California Agricultural LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single Open soave Subvention Program numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance. The LESA Manual, produced in 1997, provides detailed instructions on how to Farmland Security Zones utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to speck projects. The Manual is available for download below. ' Resource Conservation Dlstnct Assistance Proaram J 'J NOTE: These documents are in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF). You will need Adobe's Acrobat Reader to view or print these documents. The software can be obtained at no charge from Adobe Systems Incorporated. Please note that clicking directly on some of the links to specific files on this page may cause the referenced file to open directly inside your internet browser. If you wish to download the file directly to your computer, right -dick on the link and select "Save As..." (or equivalent) from the pop-up menu. For more information about the Califomia Agricultural LESA Model, please contact: ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/LESA/LESA.htm 5/27/2002 Executive Summary and Table of Contents (10kb.pdffile) California Agricultural Land linstruction Manual(96kb.pdffile) Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Appendix A (CA Agriculture worksheets) (37kb.pdffle) SA Project Scoring Example) p �fill) �(41 kb. NOTE: These documents are in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF). You will need Adobe's Acrobat Reader to view or print these documents. The software can be obtained at no charge from Adobe Systems Incorporated. Please note that clicking directly on some of the links to specific files on this page may cause the referenced file to open directly inside your internet browser. If you wish to download the file directly to your computer, right -dick on the link and select "Save As..." (or equivalent) from the pop-up menu. For more information about the Califomia Agricultural LESA Model, please contact: ' http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/LESA/LESA.htm 5/27/2002 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Page 2 of 2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916-324-0850 FAX: 916-3273430 Email: dIrp(ftonsry ca aov Last updated May 09, 2002 Copyright O California Departmrnt of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2001. All rights reserved. The Dcparbnent of Conservation makes no warranties u to the suitability of this product for any purpose. http://www.consrv.c&gov/dlrp/LESA/LESA.htm 5/27/2002 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual I 1J� For further information, please contact: California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 (916) 324-0850 FAX (916) 327-3430 -® California Department of Conservation, 1997 The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual 1997 Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation K 1 C TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 2 ' Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System ........................... Background on Land Evaluation and Site 2 Assessment Nationwide.................................................................................... 2 ' Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 3 ............................................................................. ' The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and SiteAssessment Model 6 ....................................................................................... ' Section I. Required Resources and Information ................................................. Section ll. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural 6 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors ................................. 7 A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors ....................................... 7 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating ....................... 10 2. The Storie Index Rating ...................................................... 12 ' B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors ..................................... 13 1. The Project Size Rating ...................................................... 13 ' 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating ......................... 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating ........................ 16 23 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating......................................................................... 28 ' Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring .......................................... : 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA................................................................... 31 ' Bibliography........................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step-by-step ' scoring instructions........................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project ...................................................... B-1 i I 1 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I ' Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 ' (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional t methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review ' process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two ' Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given ' project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. I I 1 1 1 fQIII i:1107Billet IiN iJ Defining the LESA System The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point -based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soil - based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Background on LESA Nationwide In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g.; funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis. Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government. Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions. Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is I 1 ' also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priority areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts. Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA ' models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach ' is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model ' In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department ' of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact ' analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2). Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or ' impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land". Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in ' California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Govemor's Office of ' Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey I 1 I n u 1 showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in tum be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Presentation of the California LESA Model The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections: Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects. Section II. provides step-by-step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the rationale for the use of each factor. Section III. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project. Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the purpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue. I 11 I ' Additionally: Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step-by-step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects. Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project. 1 1 I 1 5 L I ' The California Agricultural LESA Model ' Section I. Required Resources and Information The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require: ' 1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers 2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map 3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical: • A transparent grid -square or dot planimeter method of aerial measurement • A hand operated electronic planimeter • The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. A modem soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil -mapping units fora given project. [Note: If modem soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a specific project survey]. 5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series, the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information. 6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. J 1 1 L L 1 1 1 11 I Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors This section provides detailed step-by-step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992-3213; phone: (916) 671-4276. 1) The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils.having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class 1). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Storie Index - The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are 7 I 1 1 11 I 1 I 1 1 1 considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, . texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity). In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists. Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting. Identifying a Proiect's Soils In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following: Step 1. Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey. Step 2. Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate. the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale. Step 3: Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol In Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A). Step 4. Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B. Step 5. I ' Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C. 1 1 1 11 1 I ' 1. Land Evaluation - The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 1. In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV -e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). 1 II Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units Land Step 2. Capability From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in 1 Column E. Ile Step 3. ' Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for Ille each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. 1 II Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units Land LCC Capability Point Classification Rating 1 100 Ile 90 Ils,w 80 Ille 70 Ills,w 60 IVe 50 IVs,w 40 V 30 VI 20 VII 10 VIII 0 io Ili � l� . i� � - � � iii s � i� I� � >• �■ � Illi � s Table 1A. Land Evaluation Worksheet Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores A B C n F F G H Soil Map Unit Project Acres Proportion of ProiectArea LCC LCC Ratino LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score (Must Sum LCC Storie Index Totals to 1.0 Tota Tota 11 able 1 B. ite Assessment Worksheet 1. Totai ProjE Project Size Score Highest Projec� Size Scor I 2. Land Evaluation -The Storie Index Rating Score [1 1 1 12 Step 1. From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already ' based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). ' Step 2. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H. Step 3. ' Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) [1 1 1 12 I 0 1 I 1 11 1 1 Scoring of Site Assessment Factors The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score. Step 1. Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project. Step 2. . Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site. Step 3. For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). 13. I 1 I U I 1 1 Li Table 3. Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above . 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0 10-19 10 fewer than 10 0 Explanation of the Project Size Factor The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols -Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols -Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). The inclusion of the measure of a project's size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries. While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct ' indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of ' economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA ' model. 14 1 I ' In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that ' comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the 1 Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality ' soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers ' were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to be considered attractive for them to farm. ' The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of.information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project. ' This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be ' considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime") is necessary. 1 15 I ' 2. Site Assessment - The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different ' restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non -drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score. ' Step 1. Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed ' project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4. ' Step 2. Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion ' being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site. A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged ' together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a ' separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. ' [As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions: Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only; Portion 2 is served by ground water only; Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.] Step 3. Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water ' resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0. 16 1 Table 4. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability A: B C D E Project Portion Water Source Proportion of Project Area Water Availability Score Weighted Availability Score CXD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum to 1.0) Total Wate Resource Scor 17 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Step 4. For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non -drought years. These italicized terms are defined below: Aphysical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction -- for example by requiring the planting of salt -tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.) Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when: t) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2; 2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and 3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production. (A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) • Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop. • A drought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the state are by their arid nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated. agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports. 1 rI 1 119A Step 5. Each of the project's water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified. in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its ' corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4. Step 6. For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability ' Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet 8). (Table 1 rI 1 119A Table 5. Water Resource Availabilitv Scorino I Option Non -Drought Years Drought Years WATER RESOURCE RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? SCORE 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO — — 50 9 YES NO YES NO — -- 45 10 YES YES NO NO 35 11 YES YES YES NO — 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non -drought years 25 13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non -drought years (but not in drought years) 20 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0 20 I ' Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was ' developed in cooperation with Nichols -Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols -Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA ' Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural ' production (such as being forced to change to lower -value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused ' on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions. Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual ' systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost — a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories-- physical and economic. These are separated because, ' generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system. ' Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to ' avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options ' included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not. ' The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, ' was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? ' 21 I L I If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project ' site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project ' site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries. The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past — it should be a prediction of how the water system will ' perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 1 11 1 I 1 I 22 1 1 ' 3. Site Assessment - The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1.' Defining a Project's "Zone of Influence" Step 1. Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site. Step 2. Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangle A). ' Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) ' beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B. Step 5. ' Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. ' [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.] I 1 23 ' Figure 1. 1 1 I !1 1 1 1 24 I 1 ' Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land ' Step 1. Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing 90-100% agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department 80-89 of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources' Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land 75 - 79 that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has 70-74 been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or 65-69 because the land has become formally "committed" to a nonagricultural use. Land that has 60-64 become formally committed, whether fallow or not, should not generally be included in ' determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the .50-54 Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.] ' Step 2. Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a ' Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8) . LJ 1 11 Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence in Aricultural Use Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75 - 79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 .50-54 30 45-49 20 40-44 10 40 < 0 25 I 1 1-1 1 C I Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. In a simple example, a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself. Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural . development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below: (a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals: Or 1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 2. Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 3. Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864); 4. Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1-3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does not qualify as a permanent commitment. 26 I ' (b) , It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below: ' 1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment; 2. Payment of assessment; ' 3. Sale of bonds; 4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure; ' 5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1-4 above and exhibit an element of permanence." ' Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a project's ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here. 1 LI J 27 7 I ' 4. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding ' Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: ' • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources ' . Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. ' Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1. Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above. Step 2. Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence Defined as Protected Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45-49 20 40-44 10 40 < 0 Pxa Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Stone Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in ' Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed,. yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. CI I I 29 Table S. Final LESA Scoresheet A B C D Factor Name Factor Rating 0-100points) X Factor Weighting Total =1.00 = Weighted Factor Rating Land Evaluation 1. Land Capability Classification <Line 1>_ X 0.25 = ------- 2. Storie Index Rating <Line 2>_______ X 0.25 = ------- Site Assessment 1. Project Size <Line 3>_______ X 0.15 = _______ 2. Water Resource Availability <Line 4>____ _ _ X 0.15 = ------- 3. Surrounding Agricultural Lands <Line 5> X 0.15 = _______ 4. Protected Resource Lands <Line 6>_ X 0.05 = Total LESA Score <Line 7>_ (sum of weighted factor ratings) 30 I ' Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA 1 A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land ' Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being ' capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. ' The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as ' well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. ' Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant 1 40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA ' subscores are eachrg eater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant 31 I 1 ' Bibliography I1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land- A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987. I2. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991. ' 3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. ' 4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990. ' 6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservafion ' Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996. 7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J. ' Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. ' 8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 1 1 32 M M = = IIIIIIIIIN Appendix A. California Agricultural LESA Worksheets NOTES Calculation of the Land Evaluation (LE) Score Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score: (1) Determine the total acreage of the project. (2) Determine the soil types within the project area and enter them in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet provided on page 2-A. (3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil type in Column C. (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. (6) From the LCC Scoring Table below, determine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil type and enter it in Column E LCC Scorinq Table LCC Class I I Ile lls,w Ille Ills,w iVe IVs,w V Vle,s,w Vlle,s,w VIII Points 1 100 90 80 70 1 60 1 50 1 40 30 20 10 0 (7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. (8) Sum the LCC scores in Column F. (9) Enter the LCC score in box <1> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. Part 2. Storie Index Score: (1) Determine the Storie Index rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G) and enter the scores in Column H. (3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box <2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A-1 Land Evaluation Worksheet Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores A R C n F F G H Soil Map Unit Project Acres Proportion of Pro'ect Area LCC LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score (Must Sum Totals to 1.0) LCC Storie Inde Total Total Scor Scorel I A-2 Assessment Worksheet 1. Tota Proj( Project Size Score Highest Project Size Score LSSA Worksheet (cont.) NOTES Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) Score Part 1. Project Size Score:. (1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 1 provided on page 2-A, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column - I, J or K - that corresponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it). (2) Sum Column I to determine the total amount of class I and II soils on the project site. (3) Sum Column J to determine the total amount of class III soils on the project site. (4) Sum Column K to determine the total amount of class IV and lower soils on the project site. (5) Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Proiecl Size Scoring Table below and determine which group receives the highest score. Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points >80 100 >160 100 >320 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0 10-19 10 10< 0 (6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box <3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A-3 M M = = = LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score: (1) Determine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is dryland agricultural activity as well. (2) Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is available in each portion. Enter this information in Column 6 of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. (3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion identified, and enter this information in Column C. (4) Using the Water Resources Availability Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non -drought years, and whether physical or economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into Column D. (5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportion of the project area it represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E (6) Sum the scores for all portions to determine the project's total Water Resources Availability Score (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. I:Q Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability A B C D E Project Portion Water Source Proportion of Project Area Water Availability Score Weighted Availability Score (C x D) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum to 1.0) Total Water Resource Score A-5 MI IM s M M M M M M M w Water Resource Availability Scoring Table Option Non -Drought Years Drought Years WATER RESOURCE RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? SCORE 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO 50 9 YES NO YES NO 45 10 YES YES NO NO 35 11 YES YES YES NO 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non -drought years 25 13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non -drought years (but not in drought years) 20 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0 I•Q: M M M M Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score: (1) Calculate the project's Zone of Influence (ZOI) as follows: (a) a rectangle is drawn around the project such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely encompass the project area. (b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one Quarter mile on all sides beyond the first rectangle. (c) The ZOI includes ail parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself. (2) Sum the area of all parcels to determine the total acreage of the ZOt. (3) Determine which parcels are in agricultural use and sum the areas of these parcels (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step (3) by the total area of the ZO1 found in step (2) to determine the percent of the ZOI that is in agricultural use. (5) Determine the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI In Agriculture Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <19 10 (5) Enter the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score in box <5> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. RWA � I� � � f• I� f• � . � I� I� I� � f• I� � I� � � Site Assessment Worksheet 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land A R C n F F n Zone of Influence Surrounding Surrounding Protected Total Acres Acres in Acres of Percent in Percent Agriculture Protected Agriculture Protected Agricultural Resource Resource Resource Land Land Score Land Score Land (A/B) (A/C From Table From Table 0 M M M M M M M M1 s M M w M M M M M M M LESA Worksheet (cont.) NOTES Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score: The Protected Resource Lands scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surrounding agricultural and protected lands calculations. (1) Use the total area of the ZO1 calculated in Part 3. for the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California Agricultural LESA Guidelines. (3) Divide the area that is determined to be protected in Step (2) by the total acreage of the ZO1 to determine the percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI Protected Protected Resource Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <20 0 (5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. M M M M M== M M= M= M M M l= M LESA Worksheet (cont.) NOTES Final LESA Score Sheet Calculation of the Final LESA Scorer (1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column. (2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to determine the Final LESA Score for the project. For further information on the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual. 10 Factor Factor Weighted Scores Weight Factor Scores Land Capability 0.25 Classification Storie <Z> 0.25 Index LE ' ., 0.50 Subtotal p egg, Q A. Project <3> 0.15 Size Water Resource 0.15 Availabilit Surrounding <5> 0.15 Agricultural Land Protected <6' 0.05 Resource Land SA: A 0.50 Subtotal c Final LESA Score For further information on the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual. 10 M M = 111111110-11111110 M M Appendix B. California LESA Project Scoring Example Uplands Estates is a fictitious 200 acre proposed project. Four soil mapping units have been identified on the site: Cc, LI, Si and Lt. Using an electronic planimeter, the acreage of each was found to be 30, 120, 10 and 40 acres, respectively. The acreage of each soil type is divided by the total project acreage, 200 acres, to determine the proportion of each. The LCCs for the four soil types are found in the County Soil Survey to be: Cc -Class We, LI -Class 1, Si -Class Ilia and Lt -Class Ile. From the LCC Scoring Table the LCC point scores for the four soils are found to be 40, 100, 70 and 90, respectively. The proportion of each soil type represented is multiplied by its point score in Column F, and is summed to get a total LCC Score of 87.5 points, which is then entered in box <1> of the Final LSSA Score Sheet. Storie Index ratings for each soil type, 34, 86, 66 and 75, were determined from the County Soil Survey. The Storie Index ratings are multiplied by the proportion for each soil type and Column H is summed to get a total Storie Index Score of 75 points, which is then entered in box <2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet 1111111110 M 111111110 1111111110 M M California LESA Model - Worksheet for Scoring Calculation of the Land Evaluation (LE) Score Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score: (1) Determine the total acreage of the project. (2) Determine the soil types within the project area and enter them in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet provided on page 2-B. (3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil type in Column C. (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. (6) From the LCC Scoring Table below, determine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil type and enter it in Column E. LCC Scorina Table LCC Class I Ile Ils,w Ille Ilis,w Ive IVs,w V I Vle,s,w Vlle,s,w VIII Points 1 100 1 90 1 80 1 70 60 1 50 1 40 30 1 20 10 1 0 (7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. (8) Sum the LCC scores in Column F. (9) Enter the LCC score in box <1> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Part 2. Storie Index Score: (1) Determine the Storie Index rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G) and enter the scores in Column H. (3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box <2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-13. Land Evaluation Worksheet - Uplands Estates Example Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores A B C D E F G H Soil Map Unit Project Acres Proportion of Pro'ectArea LCC LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score Cc 30 0.15 IVs 40 6 34 5.1 LI 120 0.6 1 100 1 60 86 51.6 Si 10 0.05 Ille 70 3.5 66 3.3 Lt 40 0.2 Ile 90 18 75 15 (Must Sum Totals 200 to 1.0) LCC Storie Inde Total 87.5 Total Score 75 Score Rw Assessment Worksheet 1. Project Size Score Total Acres Project Size Scores I J K LCC Class 1 -II LCC Class III LCC Class IV - VII 30 120 10 40 160 10 30 100 10 1 0 Highest Project Size Score 100 M=== M= M== i M= M= M Column I sums to 160 acres, Column J sums to 10 acres, and Column K sums to 30 acres. Column 1 - 160 acres of class /-II soils corresponds to a score of 100 points. Column J - 10 acres of class 111 soils in corresponds to a score of 10 points. Column K - 30 acres of class IV or lower soils corresponds to a score of 0 points. The highest score is for column/; 100 points. Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) Score Part 1. Project Size Score:. (1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 1 provided on page 2-B, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column - I, J or K - that corresponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it). (2) Sum Column I to determine the total amount of class I and II soils on the project site. (3) Sum Column J to delennine the total amount of class III soils on the project site. (4) Sum Column K to determine the total amount of class IV and lower soils on the project site. (5) Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Project Size Scoring Table below and determine which group receives the highest score. Project Size Scorina Table Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points >80 100 >160 100 >320 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0 10-19 .10 10< 0 100 points is entered in box <3> of the (6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box <3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet. I Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. M UPLANDS TAT EXAMPLE (cont.) There are two types of irrigation on the site; groundwater and water district water. The site is divided into three portions according to irrigation availability: Portion I - both irrigation district and groundwater— 50% of the site; Portion It - irrigation district only - 25%. of the site; and Portion I - unirrigated - 25% of the site. Phi ( - While irrigation is always feasible, economic and physical restrictions become evident in drought years (Option 5) yielding a score of 80 points. Portion 11- While irrigation is always feasible, economic restrictions become evident during drought years (Option 2) yielding a score or 95 points. Portion tll - irrigation is not feasible and dryland farming is only feasible . in non -drought years (Option 13), yielding a score of 20 points.; subtract 75 points. Dryland farming is not feasible in non -drought years; subtract 5 points. Poftisol - (80 points)(0.5) = 40.0 points Portion_(( - (95 points)(0.25) = 23.7 points Portion I - (20 points)(0.25) = 5.0 points Portion I + Portion 11 + Portion 111= 68.7 points, which is entered in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet. Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score: (1) Determine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is dryland agricultural activity as well. (2) Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is available in each portion. Enter this information in Column B of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. • Water Resources Availability. (3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion identified and enter this information in Column C. (4) Using the Water Resources Availability Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non -drought years, and whether physical or economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into Column D. (5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportionof the project area it represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E. (6) Sum the scores for all portions to determine the project's total Water Resources Availability Score (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-8. al- Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability A B C D E M Water Weighted Project Water Proportion of Availability Availability Portion Source Project Area Score Score (C x D) Irrigation district and .50 80 40 1 groundwater Irrigation district only .25 95 23.7 2 not irrigated .25 20 5.0 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum Total Water 68.7 to 1.0) Resource Score M Water Resource Availability Scoring Table Option Non -Drought Years Drought Years WATER RESOURCE RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? SCORE 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO — — 50 9 YES NO YES NO 45 10 YES YES NO NO 35 11 YES YES YES NO 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non -drought years 25 13Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non -drought years (but not in drought years) 20 14 INeither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0 M M i_ M M M = UPLANDS ETAT XAMP (cont.) Upland Estates is surrounded by 4 parcels: parcels IN, X, Y and Z, 200, 180, 150 and 100 acres, respectively. The total acreage of the ZOI is the sum of these parcels or 630 acres. Parcels W, X, and Y are in agriculture. The amount of the ZO1 in agriculture is 530 acres. The percent of the ZOI in agriculture is 530 acres divided by 630 acres, or 84%. Eighty-four percent of the ZOI in agriculture corresponds to a score of 95 points. 95 points is entered in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet. M = = M M M M" m M r M Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score: (1) Calculate the project's Zone of Influence (ZO1) as follows: (a) a rectangle is drawn around the project such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely encompass the project area. (b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one quarter mile on all sides beyond the first rectangle. (c) The ZOI includes all parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself. (2) Sum the area of all parcels to determine the total acreage of the ZOI. (3) Determine which parcels are in agricultural use and sum the areas of these parcels (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step (3) by the total area of the ZOI found in step (2) to determine the percent of the ZOI that is in agricultural use. (5) Determine the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI in Agriculture Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40.44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <19 0 (5) Enter the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score in box <5> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-13. Site Assessment Worksheet 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land A B C n F F r Zone of Influence Surrounding Surrounding Protected Total Acres Acres in Acres of Percent in Percent Agriculture Protected Agriculture Protected Agricultural Resource Resource Resource Land Land Score Land Score Land (A/B) (A/C From Table From Table 630 530 380 84 60 95 80 ME. M e M M M M M M M M IM M M M M M M M M UPLANDS ETAT 4 jEXAMPLF (cont.) Parcels W and X are under Williamson Act contract. The sum of these parcels' areas is 380 acres. The area under protection divided by the total acreage of the ZOI (3801630 acres) gives the percent of the surrounding area under protection, or 60%, corresponding to a Protected Resource Land Score of 80 points. 80 points is entered in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet. Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score: The Protected Resource Lands scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surrounding agricultural and protected lands calculations. (1) Use the total area of the ZOI calculated in Part 3. for the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California Agricultural LESA Guidelines. (3) Divide the area that is determined to be protected in Step (2) by the total acreage of the ZOI to determine the percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI Protected Protected Resource Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <20 0 (5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds ' Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points 40 to 59 Points 60 to 79 Points 80 to 100 Points Not Considered Significant Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are eachrg eater than or equal to 20 points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points Considered Significant 31 Final LESA Score Sheet UPLANDS ESTATES EXAMPLE (cont.) Calculation of the Final LESA Score: (1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column. (2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to determine the Final LESA Score for the project. The component LE and SA factors have Factor Factor Weighted been entered into the Final LESA Score Sheet. Scores Weight Factor Scores The LE factor scores are multiplied by the factor weights to determine the weighted score for each. Ft35 ps y ' ,.�u, ^ iv N x.� roti, P4. a` �•a, ^"• Land Capability <t> 87.5 0.25 21.9 Classification Storie <2> 75.0 0.25 18.7 Index The weighted LE factor scores are summed to determine the LE portion of the Final LESA score The SA factor scores are multiplied by the factor weights to determine the weightedAq score for each. LE Subtotal 0.50 40.6 AFaclo 8 x y a �' F Project <3> 100.0 0.15 15.0 Size Water Resource <4> 68.7 0.15 10.3 Availability Surrounding <5> 95.0 0.15 14.2 Agricultural Land Surrounding Protected <6> 80.0 0.05 4.0 Resource Land The weighted SA factor scores are summed to determine the SA portion of the Final LESA scorea+A SA Subtotal ¢,:-. a •r, 0.50 43.5 Final LESA Score 84.1 The LE and SA subtotals are summed to determine the Final LESA score Because the Uplands Estates example attained a score above the 80 point threshold, the project would automatically be determined to be significant without a further review of the Land Evaluation or Site Assessment subscores. For further inforrnation on the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual. KW On �Uj% �d✓ks��-ts Table 1A. / affable 1B. Land Evaluation Worksheet Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores A B C n F F r: u Soil Map Unit Project Acres Proportion of Pro ect Area LCC LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Index Score ��{ Cej i3z* ?8 s9s rod 7o of LCC Totals 80S (Mo 1 Sum Tt�� a 6 Storie (ndex Tota �V, If3 11 iite Assessment Worksheet 1. Project Size Score Total Acres Project Size Scores I J K LCC Class I-II LCC Class III LCC Class IV - VIII i3z* ?8 s9s rod 7o loo Highest Projecal Size Scor j� 67 acres (om) Valli/ M hilt M IIIA M M M M== M M M a M M M M w Agricultural Soil Analysis Using LESA System A B C D E F G H SCS Soil Acres % Site LCC Group LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Storie Score AtC2 18 2.2% Ille-8 70 1.54 56 1.23 AtD2 17 2.1% IVe-8 50 1.05 50 1.05 GyC2 40 5.0% Ile -2 90 4.50 70 3.50 GzG 55 6.8% Ville -1 0 0.00 20 1.36 HcA 4 0.5% IIs -4 80 0.40 76 0.38 HcC 79 9.8% Ile -2 90 8.82 71 0.96 RaA 4 0.5% 1-1 100 0.50 77 0.49 RaB2 5 0.6% lie -1 90 0.54 72 0.43 RaC2 60 7.5% Ille-1 70 5.25 61 4.58 RaD2 90 11.2% IVe-1 50 5.60 62 6.94 RaE3 222 27.6% Vle-1 20 5.52 45 12.42 RmE3 4 0.5% Vle-1 20 0.10 45 0.23 RnE3 21 2.6% Vie -1,8 20 0.52 40 1.04 RsC 15 1.9% Vlllw-4 10 0.19 25 0.48 RuF 165 20.5% Ville -1 0 0.00 25 5.13 TeG 5 0.6% Vlle-1 10 0.06 30 0.18 TvC 1 0.1% Vllw-4 10 0.01 30 0.03 TOTAL 805 100.0% 34.60 40.43 Class Total Acres 1- II 132 --> Note: 15 acres in Plateau area, 50 acres in Santa Gertrudis III 78 Creek area, and 67 acres in Long Valley IV - VIII 595 805 n:\31367\eir\LESAeval.xls M M M M111011 M M= M M M M M M M M M Table 4. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability A B C D E Project Portion Water Source Proportion of Project Area Water Availability Score Weighted Availability Score CxD 1 art asp/>� c v,)p leo �d G S 6 S 2 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum to 1.0) Total Wate Resource Scor 17 M M M MIllMll M M M a M M Ili M M M M M M w Table 5. Water Resource Availability Scoring Option Non -Drought Years Drought Years WATER RESOURCE RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? Irrigated Production Feasible? Physical Restrictions ? Economic Restrictions ? SCORE 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO 50 9 YES NO YES NO 45 10 YES YES NO NO -- -- — 35 11 YES YES YES NO 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non -drought years 25 13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non -drought years (but not in drought years) 20 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0 20 Table 8. Final LESA Scoresheet A B C D Factor Name Factor Rating 0-100points) X Factor Weighting Total = 1.00 = Weighted Factor Rating Land Evaluation 1. Land Capability Classification <Line 1>-3-�_ X 0.25 2. Storie Index Rating <Line 2> `j0�_ X 0.25 = IO,.LQ __ Site Assessment 1. Project Size <Line 3> _0q__ X 0.15 2. Water Resource Availability <Line 4>__6,5__ X 0.15 = _ 9�7,5- 53. 3. Surrounding Agricultural Lands <Line 5>_�Q X 0.15. 4. Protected Resource Lands <Line 6>__3Q X 0.05 Total LESA Score <Line 7>11z _ (sum of weighted factor ratings) r] on r 1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 BY URBAN CROSSROADS ' OF CITY OF MURRIETA COMMENTS I I 11 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 I ' May 24, 2002 ' Kent Norton THE KEITH COMPANIES ' 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9024 COMMENT 2 Page 3-10 "Existing Average Daily Traffic" (ADT) ' The traffic volume on Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the 1-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive in April 2001 was 31,500 vpd. This volume is considerable below the 26,900 shown ' on page 3-10. RESPONSE 2 ' The traffic volume shown on page 3-10 for Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the 1-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive was estimated from the PM peak hour traffic volumes included in the Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR using Year 2000 traffic counts. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the volumes would be less than counts conducted in the Year 2001. Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Traffic Study Response To Comments The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following response to the City of Murrieta's comments (Dated April 29, 2002) regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Traffic Study (Dated November 26, 2002). COMMENT 1 ' The most critical intersection that will be impacted by this project in Murrieta will be Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive. This intersection was not included in the Traffic Impact Analysis. RESPONSE 1 ' Although not explicitly analyzed in the traffic study, the project EIR does acknowledge that this intersection is impacted by project traffic ' and fair share costs will be contributed by the project toward feasible mitigation measures. COMMENT 2 Page 3-10 "Existing Average Daily Traffic" (ADT) ' The traffic volume on Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the 1-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive in April 2001 was 31,500 vpd. This volume is considerable below the 26,900 shown ' on page 3-10. RESPONSE 2 ' The traffic volume shown on page 3-10 for Murrieta Hot Springs Road between the 1-215 northbound exit ramp and Alta Murrieta Drive was estimated from the PM peak hour traffic volumes included in the Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR using Year 2000 traffic counts. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the volumes would be less than counts conducted in the Year 2001. Mr. Kent Norton THE KEITH COMPANIES May 24, 2002 Page 2 COMMENT3 Page 5-25 Under General Plan Build -out without the Project the following locations will be at the "F" level of service (LOS): 1. 1-15 S/B Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) 2. 1-15 N/B Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road 3. Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road 4. Margarita Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) RESPONSE The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan (adopted on November 9, 1993) has indicated that the following four major roadway corridors are projected to have traffic operating service levels that fall below the minimum target level, Level of Service D, and therefore remain significant impacts with or without the Roripaugh Ranch project. 1. Winchester Road/State Route 79 (north): i. From 1-15 to Ynez Road ii. From Margarita Road to Nicolas Road; and iii. From Date Street to Auld Road 2. State Route 79 (south): i. From Interstate 15 to Pala Road 3. Margarita Road: i. From Whitewood Road to Margarita Road (within Environmental Study Area); and ii. From Margarita Road to Date Street (within Environmental Study Area) COMMENT4 Using the Year 2007 with Project PM peak hour traffic volumes and the traffic lane arrangements shown in the Traffic Impact Report (pages 5-21 & 5-18) for the intersections on 1-15 at Winchester Road & Winchester Road at Ynez Road a Semi -traffic simulation was conducted to estimate the average vehicular delays. The results of the simulation are included in Appendix A. Mr. Kent Norton THE KEITH COMPANIES May 24, 2002 Page 3 RESPONSE 4 So noted. COMMENT 5 The simulation results confirm the results in the Traffic Impact Report (page 5-18) that these intersections are at the "F" level. RESPONSE 5 So noted. COMMENT 6 The Traffic Impact Report does not show how these unacceptable LOS's are to be corrected. RESPONSE 6 See Response 3. COMMENT 7 It is therefore concluded that the projected traffic from the proposed project cannot be served in accordance with the established LOS policy. RESPONSE? See Response 3. COMMENT 8 Pg. 3-4 "Existing Number of through Lanes and Intersection Controls" There is no "right turn only" lane for westbound traffic. RESPONSE 8 Based on a 20 foot westbound through -right lane, a de -facto right turn lane has been assumed at this location. COMMENT 9 Pg. 5-18 "Intersection Analysis for Year 2007 with Project Conditions" ' The level of service (LOS) of "D" calculation incorrectly assumes there in a "right turn only" lane for westbound traffic. The LOS should be recalculated with the correct lane arrangement. ' See Response 8. COMMENT10 Pg. 5-28 'Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout with Project Condition" The LOS determination is based on the assumption that there will be 3 thru lanes in each direction. There is no identified funding to widen Murrieta Hot Springs to 6 lanes. RESPONSE 10 ' Based on the City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element, Murrieta Hot Springs road is identified as an Urban Arterial with a 6 lane cross-section east of the 1-215 Freeway. COMMENT11 ' Based on the General Plan Build -out with Project for the PM peak hour the Project traffic represents 8.8% of the total 489/5546 = 8.8%. ' RESPONSE 11 ' Comment noted. COMMENT12 ' It is therefore concluded that the project should pay 8.8% of the cost of widening Murrieta Hot. Springs Road from Rte 79 (Winchester Road) to 1-215 freeway. ' RESPONSE12 ' Based on the percentages calculated above, this appears to be a reasonable estimate. If you have any questions regarding these responses to comments, please do not hesitate to call at (949) 660-1994. Sincerely, Scott Sato, P.E. Senior Associate '00044-09 SS:jt Mr. Kent Norton THE KEITH COMPANIES ' May 24, 2002 Page 4 ' RESPONSE9 ' See Response 8. COMMENT10 Pg. 5-28 'Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout with Project Condition" The LOS determination is based on the assumption that there will be 3 thru lanes in each direction. There is no identified funding to widen Murrieta Hot Springs to 6 lanes. RESPONSE 10 ' Based on the City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element, Murrieta Hot Springs road is identified as an Urban Arterial with a 6 lane cross-section east of the 1-215 Freeway. COMMENT11 ' Based on the General Plan Build -out with Project for the PM peak hour the Project traffic represents 8.8% of the total 489/5546 = 8.8%. ' RESPONSE 11 ' Comment noted. COMMENT12 ' It is therefore concluded that the project should pay 8.8% of the cost of widening Murrieta Hot. Springs Road from Rte 79 (Winchester Road) to 1-215 freeway. ' RESPONSE12 ' Based on the percentages calculated above, this appears to be a reasonable estimate. If you have any questions regarding these responses to comments, please do not hesitate to call at (949) 660-1994. Sincerely, Scott Sato, P.E. Senior Associate '00044-09 SS:jt 1 1 I RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR APPENDIX D t DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN I I I I I I I 1 FINAL Environmental Impact Report RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Miti ation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING DEIR — avigation (1) Prior to approval of the Specific Plan, the developer Developer Transmit ALUC City Planning Approval of easements needed shall transmit the Specific Plan to the County's Airport cotmnents to City Department the Specific for uses in Plateau Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and Plan area for French comment. Official comments will be transmitted to the Valley Ai ort City prior to any decision-making action on the project. Measure modified (2) Prior to recordation of any final map in Planning Developer Transmit proof to City Planning Building to match ALUC Areas 1-39 the developer will provide the County's City of ALUC Department pemnit for any COAs Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with Avigation receiving and unit or use Easements for all the parcels in Planning Areas 1-58 satisfaction with approved in and send a copy of that proof to the City Planning avigation PAs 1-9 Department. easements (3) Prior to recordation of any final map in Planning Developer Transmit proof to City Planning Any final map Areas 1-5, the developer shall provide the City Planning City of ALUC Department approved in Department with proof that avigation easements have approving PAs 1-5 been obtained for all the lots in Planning Areas 1-5. avigation easements Added monitoring (4) Prior to recordation of any final maps in Planning Developer Transmit copy of City Planning Any final map by City staff to Areas 1-5, the developer shall demonstrate to the City buyer information Department approved in assure distribution Planning Department that buyer information contains a to City — City staff PAs 1-5 statement regarding avigation easements. This to spot check sales information shall be provided either in the White Report office distribution or supplementary information with an affidavit of disclosure Provided by the developer. Measure modified (5) Prior to recordation of any final maps in Planning Developer Transmit proof that City Planning Any final map to match ALUC Areas 1-59 the developer shall demonstrate that structues comply Department recorded in COAs proposed structures comply with the current height with height PAs 1-9 restrictions of the French Valley Airport and ALUC. restrictions • Underlined text has been added from DEIR — strikeout text has been deleted from DEIR RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification Changes per City staff and developer (6) One or both of the proposed school sites can be converted to residential use provided that all of the following are met: (a) approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is obtained from the City to convert from Educational Designation to Low Medium Residential Designation; (b) the School District has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning Areas 28 and/or 29 as schools sites; and (c) the total number of units for the entire project does not exceed 2,015 units. Developer Obtain SPA and lettter from TVUSD documenting no need for school site(s). City Planning Department Converting a school site to residential use COA from ALUC 1. Provide Avigation Easements to the French Valley Developer Transmit proof to City of ALUC approving avigation easements City Planning Department Any final map approved in PAs 1-9 Airport for those Portions of the project within the Influence Area prior to final map approval (NOTE — see Land Use & Planning Mitigation Measures 3.1-2 trough 3 1-51 COA from ALUC 2. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into any Developer Submit noise study showing interior living areas meet noise criteria City Planning Department Precise grading plan approval building construction to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45 -decibel levels (NOTE — see Noise Mitigation Measures 3.10-5 and 3.10-6 COA from ALUC 3. Install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of Developer Submit plans that demonstrate lighting restrictions City Planning Department Approval of any plans within Planning Areas 1-8 lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). COA from ALUC 4. The Plan and EIR are amended to recognize the Developer Amend Specific Plan and EIR to incorporate required materials City Planning Department Prior to final map approval approved CLUP and the aiport is to include the appropriate text and graphic illustrations COA from ALUC 5. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Developer Transmit proof that structues comply with height restrictions City Public Works Department Any final map recorded in PAs 1 —9 Surface" shall be permitted (NOTE — see Land Use & Planning Mitigation Measure 3.1-5) COA from ALUC 6 The following uses shall be precluded: a) stadiums' Developer Amend Specific Plan and EIR to incorporate restrictions City Planning Department Prior to final map approval b) amphitheaters: c) lighted ballfields: and d) churches RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification COA from ALUC 7 The following uses shall be prohibited a) Any use Developer - Specific Plan and EIR shall incorporate these restrictions City Planning Department Prior to final map approval which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator: b) any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport: c) any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area: or d) any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. - TCSD staff requested an additional mitigation measure (8) Prior to recordation of any final maps or the Developer Obtain approval of avigation easement Document filing of avigation easement for PA 6 TCSD Planning Department Prior to recordation of final maps or Prior to construction of PA 6 recordation of any avigation easements, whichever is fust, the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) shall approve the wording for - and authorize the filing of, an avigation easement for the neighborhood park (Planning Area 6) The avigation easement for PA 6 shall be recorded and documented with the Planning Department prior to construction of Le gark. Condition of Approval 1. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall provide the City with: a) approved Avigation Easements for the Plateau area; and b) General Plan Amendment to Circulation Element per Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.5-7. Developer Document approval or receipt of materials Planning Department Prior to final map approval 3.2 AGRICULTUREllllllllllllllllll/l1/lllllll!IIIIIII/I/IIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIl1/lllllllllllllll/ll/l/llllllllllllll/llllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!llll DEIR I None Proposed RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification FEIR Prior to issuance of a grading pemrit the Developer Developer Submit proof of City Planning Issuance of a shall apply to the County of Riverside for dis- (previous response application prior to Department grading permit establishment of the Murrieta Amicultural Preserve No to State Dept. of issuance of a 9 (MAP #9) which includes the Roripaugh property Conservtion) grading permit Prior to the issuance of a wading permit the Developer. . shall demonstrate to the City that MAP #9 has been dis- established. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES DEIR — Potential (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Developer Submit appropriate City Public Issuance of a impacts related to geology, seismicity, and soils engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for the following Planning Areas: geotechnical reports with grading permit Works Department grading permit for the affected PAs PA(s) Report Topic(s) application for each indicated or improvements 12 liquefaction Planning Area 14 liquefaction, landslides 15 landslides 17 landslides 18 liquefaction (south end) 19 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek 20 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek 22 liquefaction 23 liquefaction 24 liquefaction 27 liquefaction (sports park) 28 liquefaction (school site) 31 liquefaction 33A, B liquefaction Nicolas liquefaction (offsite improvements) If a particular lot cannot accommodate appropriate setbacks, it will not be built. These reports will specify appropriate foundations and other design parameters to alleviate identified potential geotechnical impacts. These reports will be prepared and approved by the City Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of grading permits. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Party Process Party Action For: Verification (2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for offsite Developer Submit geotech. City Public Issuance of a improvements related to the project, engineering reports reports with each Works grading permit addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and grading permit Department for the offsite foundation design will be prepared for any affected application for improvements areas that have not already had such studies, to the offiste satisfaction of the Public Works Department. improvements (3) At least two days prior to scheduled blasting, the Developer Submit proof of City Public Issuance of a developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the sign posting at Works grading permit intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify least 2 days prior Department residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will to scheduled occur. Any blasting activities will be limited to the blasting and place hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior a note on the to any blasting, the developer shall obtain permission grading plans from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. (4) Contour grading shall be utilized on slopes over 30 Developer Submit contour City Public Issuance of a PW feet, however, if it cannot be used, a report by a grading report Works grading permit registered civil engineer must be submitted with the from registered Department grading plans that demonstrates why such techniques civil engineer and Planning are not feasible in the particular location. Grading plans Department PD must clearly identify slopes over 30 feet high. This report must be submitted and approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Standard COA 2. Grading permit (provide a blasting note on all Developer Obtain grading City Public Issuance of a grading plans regarding proper notification) permit prior to Works Dept. grading permit blasting and provide proper sips Standard COA 4. Control of runoff during construction — compliance Developer Submit Stormwater City Public Approval of ' with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations Pollution Works Dept. grading. Prevention Plan permits. (SWPPP) to City for review M== M=== M M r== M M== M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification 3.4 WATER RESOURCES DEIR - Potential (1) Prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit, the Developer Submit proof of City Public Issuance of a impacts related to Developer shall provide a Drainage Management Plan DMP approval by Works rough grading offsite drainage (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long RCFCWCD Department permit or Valley Creek irmnediately downstream of the project recordation of City staff requested site. The DMP must provide permanent erosion control any maps, wording changes measures sufficient to protect properties downstream whichever properties of Santa Gertrudis Creek, Lone Valley Wash, comes first, and the Plateau portion of the Project from flooding, for the Valley scour, erosion, and/or other drainage -related damage up portion of the to a 100 -year storm. The DMP will demonstrate that project runoff leaving the project site will not negatively increase velocity.or flow. The report will demonstrate how total offsite flows from the 2 channels can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible from existing flows. The DMP will identify maintenance responsibilities and be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The DMP shall incorporate any changes to the project drainage reports and demonstrate the project meets all applicable requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) relative to drainage improvements and drainage -related construction activities. The DMP must demonstrate the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts and any increases in offsite runoff If it cannot demonstrated that these conditions are met, City staff requested change uses will be medified to aeltieve these standaFils no building permits shall be issued. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public FEIR — responding to MWD concerns Works Department and the RCFCWCD. For the purposes of this measure, downstream impacts also refers to MWD pipelines that could be impacted. M m m m m m m m m m MM m s m m m m m RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - Potential (2) Prior to recordation of any maps or issuance of Developer Provide proof that City Public Issuance of a impacts related to grading pennits, whichever comes fust, the Developer maintenance Works grading permit offsite drainage shall provide a maintenance agreement for the portions agreement is Department or recordation of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek on approved by of any maps, the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the RCFCWCD whichever City Public Works Department, the Riverside County comes first Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins, and the other facilities must be maintained by RCFCWCD/HOA, with funding rovided by the HOA. (3) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer Developer Provide proof that City Public Issuance of a shall coordinate any construction that could impact MWD has Works grading permit facilitlies of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to reviewed and Department assure that their facilities are not damaged by project aproved plans construction, either onsite or offsite. (4) Prior to the issuance of rough grading permits, as Developer Demonstrate City Engineer/ Issuance of a CE part of implementation of the mass grading plan, the appropriate City rough grading developer shall identify and make, as necessary, interim improvements have Inspectors permit channel improvements including, but not limited to, been made and Cl grading and construction of detention basins during the include info on period before Phase 2 permanent channel improvements grading plans are constructed to protect downstream facilities constructed during Phase 1, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Interim improvements will require a mass adin ermit. City staff requested (5) The City reserves the right to require the developer Developer Make offsite City Engineer Throughout changes to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows near the drainage the project project improvements and to adequately disperse them improvements as development by the use of rip -rap. armorflex, or equivalent needed and process improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of required the City Engineer. This measure shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Party Process Party Action For: Verification (6) The tuning of all bridge improvements shall be Developer Install bridges with City Engineer Approval of consistent with the transportation mitigation measures, road improvements road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. improvement Plans City staff requested (7) Prior to recordation of eaek my—final map, the Developer Provide copy of City Public Prior to changes developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map CLMR to City Works recordation of Revision (CLMR) and comply with that process, to the Department any final map satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. (8) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Developer Provide proof to City Public 1" building Phase 2, the developer shall submit appropriate City that FIRM Works permit in each documentation to the Federal Emergency Management materials were Department tentative tract Agency sufficient to update the Flood Insurance Rate submitted to map Maps for Planning Areas 12, 13, 14, 27, 33A, and 33B FEMA for Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 31 for Long Valley Wash. (9) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer Submit approved City Public Issuance of developer shall prepare and submit a Water Quality WQMP to City Works grading Management Plan (WQMP) to the SDRWQCB for Department permits review and comment covering both construction and occupancy of the project. The WQMP shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. Standard COA 1. NPDES compliance, BMPs, and SWPPP report Developer Submit SWPPP to City Public Issuance of City for review Works Dept. grading permits Standard COA 2. Building pads I foot above 100 -year flood plain Developer Submit Flood Plain City Public Approval of limits Development Works Dept. tract maps Permit and/or issuance of grading permits RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION/ll/lllllll/Illllllllllllll/ll/lll/lull!lllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllll/ll/lllll11lllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR- Offsite (1) The following shall be used to implement the Developer Construct City Engineer Approval of traffic impacts mitigation measures in this section: (a) all proposed improvements as any road from the project road improvements shall include associated flood required improvement control, stonn drain, water, and sewer lines; (b) all plans references to bridges shall mean hydro -arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer; (c) full - width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements with the right-of-way; (d) half -width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from curb to the raised landscaped median, the full -width raised landscaped median, where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half; (e) on center improvements shall mean (l) a 38'width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, or (2) a 40' width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 12' tum lane. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification DEIR (2) Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Developer Provide proof that City Public Issuance of phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the the appropriate Works building improvements identified (in Table 1). The City improvements have Department pennits per reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess been made per Table 1 of those indicated until the mitigation measures Table I necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project -related traffic: a) I- 15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) I-15 _ southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; - and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The City will require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentataive tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. 10 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification DEIR Traffic Measure 2 continued Developer Provide proof that City Public Issuance of the appropriate Works building In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) improvements have Department pennits per document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) been made per Table 1 estimate trip generation for the particular development _ Table 1 phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primay access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are smrunarized in the attached Table 1. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Responsible Party -Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification FEIR — Added fair (3) The developer must make a fair share contribution Developer . Provide proof that City Public Issuance of share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections appropriate fees Works building to improvements identified (in Table 2). The City reserves the right to have been paid or Department permits per along Murrieta Hot withhold building permits in excess of those indicated improvements Table 2 Springs Road at the until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the made per Table 2 request of the City Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for of Murrieta each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project -related traffic: a) I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. Additional or supplemental traffic shall be conducted studies prior to approval of future tentataive tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. 12 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 13 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Party Process Party Action For: Verification FEIR — Added fair Traffic Measure 3 continued Developer Provide proof that City Public Issuance of share contribution appropriate fees Works building to improvements In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) have been paid or Department permits per along Murrieta Hot document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) improvements Table 2 Springs Road at the estimate trip generation for the particular development made per Table 2 request of the City phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic of Murrieta added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the imtmediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primay access to the new development. Critical intersections and roadways are defined as those faciliteis that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 2. (4) When the appropriate warrants are met, the Developer Install required City Public Prior to developer will contribute a fair share contribution signals and provide Works issuance of towards the installation of traffic signals and related related intersection Department building intersection improvements at: (a) Butterfield Stage improvements permits and as Road at La Serena Way; and (b) Meadows Parkway at warrants are La Serena Way. met DEIR — Potential (5) Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, Developer Submit plans for City Engineer Approval of impacts related to the developer shall demonstrate that the sight distance review and street onsite intersections at each of the project entrances meets City and Caltrans approval improvement standards, to the satisfaction of the Citv Engineer. I plans (6) Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps for Developer Submit plans for City Engineer Approval of Planning Areas 17, 18, and 19, the streets shall be review and street designed to provide safe horizontal and vertical approval improvement alignments including special considerations to speed plans control on steep grades. 13 M M ! = = = M = i = = = M M = = M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 14 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - (7) At the same time the Specific Plan is approved, the Developer Submit GPA for City Planning Approval of Consistency with Circulation Developer will obtain approval for a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element for the Circulation Element Department the Specific Plan Element of the following: (a) the designation of Calle Contento as a City's General Plan Principal Collector Road is recommended to be deleted within the project site; and (b) the designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an Augmented Arterial Highway (122' right-of-way) from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to Nicolas Road. DEIR - Project (8) Prior to approval of development plans for Planning Developer Submit plans City Planning Approval of impacts related to Area 11, the developer shall provide pedestrian and showing pedestrian Department development system tmngtnt. and bicycle facilities in this area, to the satisfaction of the and bicycle plan for PA I I demand ningint. City Planning Department. facilities (9) Prior to issuance of any building permit for Developer Construct or pay City Planning Issuance of Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14-31, 33A, or 33B, the fee for 50 spaces Department any building developer shall provide and construct 50 designated permit for PAs Park -N -Ride spaces in Planning Area 11, or as an 10, 11, 12, 14 - alternative, pay a sum of $8000 per space for a total of 31, 33A, or $400,000 to the City. 33B (10) Prior to the fust building permit in Phase 2, the Developer Provide proof of City Planning I" building PD developer shall fund operation of a shuttle bus service contribution Director and permit in to and from the project. The developer shall pay the toward shuttle bus RTA Director Phase 2 RTA to operate the shuttle bus service for a period of 3 service operation RTA years for project residents, but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fair share basis. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and RTA. (11) Prior to tentative tract map approval in each phase, Developer Provide proof of City Public Tentative the developer shall coordinate with the RTA to providing transit- Works Tract Map incorporate transit -related facilities and design features related facilities approval in into the project, to the satisfaction of the City Public each phase Works Department. 14 M ! M== M= M ! M M=== M M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 15 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Miti ation Measure* Par - Process Par Action For: Verification City staff requested (12) In conjunction with constructing Nicolas Road Developer Construct path City Along with TCSD changes offsite in Phase 1, the developer shall install a 6 -foot Community construction of wide tetnperery asphalt path so Fesidents along the Services Nicolas Road north side of Nicolas Road ean aeoess the public, Department offsite and . This path shall be built to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Public Works Department PW Services and Public Works Departments. The asphalt path shall be extended from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek during Phase 2. Resident concern (13) Prior to issuance of the grading permits and/or Developer Provide letter to City Public Prior to on costruction building permits, the developer shall provide the City City Works issuance of traffic and trail with a letter stating that all contractors will be Department and/or grading appearance prohibited from using Nicolas Road for construction- building related traffic. pernrits (14) Prior to tentative map approval for Planning Area Developer Demonstrate trail City Public Prior to 19, the 15400t wide multi -use trail within a 30 -foot fuel design that meets Works tentative map modification zone shall be designated to be screened City and project Department approval for from offsite homes on an as needed basis. Screening standards PA 19 or shall be accomplished through the use of either design of the landscaping or topography,to the greatest extent trail, feasible. However, the primary goal of this trail is to whichever provide access to the trail from adjacent onsite and comes first offsite lots. 15 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification FEIR — City of (15) Prior to the issuance of essupanay buildin permits Developer Provide proof of City Public I" building permit in Murrieta concerns of nPligsoiin the appropriate phase, the developer shall payment to City of Works about offsite road make a fair share contribution to four planned Murrieta Department Phase t impacts intersection improvements alone Murrieta Hot Springs Murrieta Hot Road within the City of Murrieta 1) I-215 southbound Springs Road rampsc 2) Alta Murrieta Drive; 3) Margarita Road: and at 1-215 SB 4) Winchester Road, ramps and Alta Murrieta Drive I" building permit in Phase 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Road - at Margarita Road and Winchester Road 16 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Part Prerequisite City/Agency Verification 3.6 AIR UALITYlllllllllllllllll/lllll/l/llllllllll/l/lll/lllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllll/lll/ll/lllllllll/l1/llllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR- potential (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Developer Submit DCP to City Public Issuance of short-term Developer will submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City for approval Works grading permit (construction) and City consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. These Department long term requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite (operations) air improvements. The DCP will include activities to pollutant emissions reduce onsite and offsite dust production. Such activities will include but are not limited to: (a) Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil will be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. (b) Street sweeping will be conducted, as needed, along paved site. access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track -out at the conclusion of any work day. (c) All trucks hauling dirt away from the site will be covered to prevent the generation of fugitive dust. (d) During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, sprayed with chemical binders, or activities on unpaved surfaces will be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. FEIR —added DCP (e) chip sealing access roads if needed). items e ( ) — (g) in (f)hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces. response to (g) add chemical binders or surfactants to water. SCAQMD request During the construction phase of the project, if the measures identified in the DCP are not implemented as proposed, the City shall halt construction until such time as the situation is corrected, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 17 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 18 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Party Process Party Action For: Verification (2) Prior to the issuance of grading and building Developer Submit proof of City Public Issuance of permits, the Developer will document to the City that tune-up Works grading and appropriate construction equipment has had tune-ups or compliance Department building equivalent work to assure low NOx emissions. These permits requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. This documentation must be provided prior to the commencement of any work on any equipment anticipated to be used for more than 30 days. In addition, the developer shall encourage the use of alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas) on construction vehicles and equipment. All diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only low sulfur fuels (less than 15 ppin sulfur content). (3) Prior to the issuance of grading and building Developer Submit proof of City Planning Issuance of permits, the developer will document to the City that all compliance with Department grading and workers have been encouraged to carpool, and workers carpooling building will be informed in writing. These requirements apply requirements permits to offsite as well as onsite improvements. (4) Prior to the issuance of building permits and grading Developer Submit TMP to City Public Issuance of permits, individual contractors will submit a Traffic City for approval Works building and Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department grading Department that includes, but is not limited to: permits (a) scheduling receipt of construction materials to non - peak travel periods (7:30 - 8:30 AM/4:00 - 6:00 PM); (b) routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and (c) hunting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods; (d) construction traffic will be limited to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and not allowed on Nicolas Road except for improvements on Nicolas Road; and (e) staging areas away from existing residential uses. 18 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 19 F Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure's Party Process Party Action For: Verification 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DEIR - Removal of (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map Developer Submit approved City Planning Issuance of a Riversidian sage recordation, whichever is first, the developer shall SAA to City Department grading permit scrub, transitional obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements (SAA) with or map areas, and native the California Department of Fish and Game for recordation, grasslands will be impacts to onsite drainages, including but not limited to, whichever is offset by the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek. While first preservation and this is a standard agency requirement, several unique management of 201 requirements of the Roripaugh site require this measure acres of land under to be spelled out in detail. the AD 161 SHCP. The removal of alluvial fan scrub, Existing disturbed wetland areas on the site will be restored I and maintained according to conditions of mulefat scrub, approval of the SAA. The two flow-by/detention basins riparian scrub, and sandy wash habitat shown in the Master Drainage Plan in the two major drainage channels will be constructed with "soft" (i.e., would be offset through measures natural) bottoms and abe allowed to revegetate naturally (in Planning Areas 13 and 25). They will be maintained associated with on a regular basis for flood control purposes. Willow various permit and other appropriate riparian species will be planted in acquisition areas designated by the CWA 404 permit being processes, processed for this project. This vegetation will create new wetland habitat (approximately 4-6 1.22 acres) to compensate for the loss of existing onsite wetlands (0 g FEIR 0.61 acres). The project is expected to impact a total of clarification from 2,69 acres of land under ACOE jurisdiction It is also expected to impact 3.0 acres of land under CDF&G D. Rosenthal jurisdiction of which 0.83 acres is riparian habitat The (Letter F-2) revegetation areas may be near the flow-by/detention basins or within the creek channels, as approved by the Army Corps in approved 404 pennitting documents. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, Drainage Management Plan, the basins will be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the following areas: 19 M M M M= M= M M= M M .M M MM m m m RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" - Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification Biology Measure I (continued) Developer Submit approved City Planning Issuance of a SAA to City Department grading permit Basin Constructed prior to issuance of... or map recordation, South end of I' building permit PA 3, 4A, or 413 whichever is (PA -7C) first, Southwest portion 1" building permit PA I A, 2, or 3 PA IA (PA -7B) Santa Gertrudis 250" building permit PA IA, 2 or 3 Creek (PA 13) Long Valley Wash I" building permit east of Butter - (PA 25 & 26) field Stage Road (PA 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, or 31) and concurrent with Long Valley Wash channel improvements. These basins shall be maintained by the Developer, although the basin in Planning Area 13 may be maintained by the County's designated conservation organization under the AD 161 SHCP. Non- performance of maintenance duties will be cause for suspension of building permits for the project,regardless of development phase. In addition, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA 404 permit for the Project within 30 days of approval by the ACOE. DEIR - Potential (2) Prior to any grading or vegetation clearing, a Developer Obtain approval of City Planning Issuance of a impacts to directed survey shall be conducted to locate on site gnatcatcher report Department grading permit California coastal California gnateatcher nests. If occupied by the USF&WS and clearing gnatcatchers gnatcatcher nests are present, no grading or removal of and submit and grubbing habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting approved report to permit sites during the nestingibreeding season (tmid-February the City through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource age c . 20 M M m m m==� M== mm MIM m m m RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 21 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - Potential (3) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any Developer Obtain approval of City Planning Issuance of a impacts to raptors vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other owl report by the Department grading pennit improvements, a focused burrowing owl survey will be CDF&G and and clearing completed and any burrowing owls occurring on the site submit approved and grubbing copy to the Citv will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and pennit burrow exclusion will follow the CDFG protocols for this species (CDFG 1993). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropnate resource agency. (4) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any Developer Obtain approval of City Planning Issuance of vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other raptor nesting Department grading pennit improvements, a directed survey shall be conducted to report by the and clearing determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor CDF&G and and grubbing species. Surveys shall be conducted between April and submit an permit June.. If raptor nests are present, no grading or removal approved copy to of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known the City nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid- March through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. _ 21 M M M m m i m M� m MM m m m m M M m RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification DEIR - The (5) The open space in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 913, and 13 Developer Submit copy of City Planning Prior to continued integrity will be managed by a conservation organization approved HMP to Department recordation of of the SHCP authorized by the most current AD 161 SHCP City a final map habitat areas is Agreement. Prior to issuance of a gmding ..o.....:. ^w necessary to tentative map approval, •• hiehe,..�.�,�- - �--t, the developer prevent potential shall provide the City with a Habitat Management Plan impacts to regional (HMP) signed by the agency that biological will own and maintain the habitat area, covering resources activities related to the AD 161 Habitat area on the project site (Planning Areas 8, 9A 913, and 13). The HMP will address the exact boundaries of the area, fencing, lighting, landscaping, fuel modification, access roads for fire equipment, pedestrian and equestrian trails, and access gates to the preserve area, including public access to the Johnson Ranch and UCR property. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the AD 161 SHCP and the approved HMP, including but not limited to the following: (a) Roadways in or adjacent to the open space areas, including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife (e.g. "WARNING - WILDLIFE XING"). Speed laws near corridors should be strictly enforced. (b) No fences shall impede movement within the corridor. If a fence is necessary in these areas, it should be a two -strand smooth -wire or split -rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. (c) Fencing shall be installed and maintained along the perimeter of the open space areas (Planning Areas 8- 10) to minimize intrusion by humans, pets, etc. (d) Habitat or corridors shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads, etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is required for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to corridors. 22 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 23 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - ' The (e) If night-time lighting is necessary in the area of Developer Submit copy of City Planning Prior to continued integrity wildlife corridors, only appropriate restrictive lighting approved HMP to Department approval of a of the SHCP pointed away from the corridor should be allowed. In City tentative map habitat areas is addition, streets should not terminate at the edge of the necessary to corridor because this may promote turning of prevent potential automobiles which would flood the corridor with impacts to regional headlight illumination. Streets that do terminate shall biological have fencing or other visual screening to limit light resources intrusion into the habitat area. (f) During the vegetation clearing or grading, all areas of Riversidian sage scrub proposed to be preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access, parking or storage will be pennitted within the fenced area. Vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations will be restricted. Failure of the developer to abide by the guidelines of AD 161 SHCP and the HMP will be grounds for suspension of grading and building permits for the project, as well as the recordation of all maps, regardless of phase. This action is appealable to the City Council in disputed cases. (6) Prior to final map approval, the Developer shall Developer obtain USF&WS City Public Final Map PW document that an effective Fuel Modification Zone approval and Works approval (FMZ) has been planned around the AD 161 SHCP area submit approved Department to (PAs g, 9, and 13), to the satisfaction of the City FMZ map or report approve after PD Planning and Public Works Departments, City Fire aproval by Department, and the City Planning FEIR — correction Ciamp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No maps shall be Dept., City requested by D. approved until a mutually agreeable FMZ plan is Fire Dept., and FD Rosenthal approved by the City Public Works Department, subject USF&WS (Letter F-2) to concurrence with the other affected agencies/departments. 23 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 24 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - Loss of (7) Prior to approval of any final maps, all mature trees Developer Submit map City Planning Any final map native trees onsite should be shown in the tentative trap an exhibit (mature showing mature Department approval = 3 inches truck diameter at breast height or larger), trees to be lost The developer shall replace mature trees lost through . development at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as outlined in the Master Landscape Plan and Landscape Material Palette in Section 5 of the Specific Plan at appropriate locations throw out the project, DEIR — no impacts (8) If the project will result in the potential take of any Developer Obtain clearance or City Planning Prior to to state -listed state -listed species or species otherwise considered incidental take Department issuance of species sensitive by the CDF&G, the developer shall obtain the permit if needed grading pennit necessary incidental take permits from CDF&G prior to and send copy to issuance of a grading permit. Cit (9) Prior to construction of the all-weather crossing of Developer Obtain CWA City Planning Prior to Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road, the developer permit as needed Department issuance of shall obtain an appropriate Clean Water Act (CWA) and send copy to grading permit permit as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of City Engineers. The project shall mitigate the loss of identified jurisdictional land at a minimum 1:1 ratio within the general project area. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA permit to the City Planning Department. City staff requested (10) Prior to grading the portion of the Butterfield Developer Conduct protocol City Planning Prior to changes Stage Road extension south of the SDI Communities surveys and Department issuance of property, as identified in the AD 161 SHCP documents, transmit results to any grading the developer shall conduct protocol surveys for coastal USF&WS and send permits in California gnatcatchers within and inunediately adjacent an approved copy Phase 2 or to the roadway alignment. If individuals or nests of the to the City prior to road species are found within the extension right-of-way, the construction, developer shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat at a whichever is minimum 1:1 ratio within an existing Habitat first Conservastion Plan in the general project area. This mitigation must be provided prior to issuance of any building Uadin permits in Phase 2 of the proposed project or prior to road construction whichever is first. 24 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 25 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification Standard COA 1. SKR Mitigation Fee based on gross acreage Developer Show proof of City Planning Grading payment to Geunty Department permit City -before pulling ennits Standard COA Prior to issuance of a grading permits, any biological Developer Prior to start of any City Planning Grading (FEIR— response studies that require access to MWD property must bioloical survey Department permit to MWD concerns) obtain approval prior to the start of work. affecting MWD property — provide City with copy of MWD approva. Project Design 1. Developer shall prepare a Drainage Maintenannce Developer Submit proof of City Public Issuance of a Feature Plan (DMP) for Santa Gertrucis Creek and Long Valley DMP approval by Works grading permit Channel See Measures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. RCFCWCD Department 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCESl/llllllll/l/l/llllllllllll/lll/l/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll11lllllllll!lllllllllll!llllllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllllllll!lllllllllllll!l1/llllllllllllllllllll DEIR None Proposed 3.9 HAZARDS DEIR - potential (1) Prior to the issuance of a gradingpermit, the Developer Submit proof that City Public Prior to hazrnat developer shall demonstrate that the contaminated areas contaminated areas Works issuance of a contamination identified in the 1999 Phase 1 Environmental Site have been Director grading permit Assessment (ESA) report have been remediated remediated. according to applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. DEIR — response to (2) Prior to issuance of any baildinggradin permits, Developer Contact VCP if City Public Prior to DTSC concerns the developer shall contact the Voluntary Cleanup necessary— Works issuance of about monitoring Program (VCP) if cleanup oversight is required, and document contact Department any grading hazrnat cleanup contact a DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment to City along with permits during construction Assessment must be prepared. their determination (3) Prior to the City's acceptance of the grant deeds for Developer Provide City Public Prior to PW the 2 park sites (Planning Areas 6 and 27) and the fire documentation that Works acceptance of station site (Planning Area 32), the developer shall the park and fire Department, grant deeds for TCSD demonstrate that the sites are not contaminated by station sites are not TCSD, and parks and fire hazardous materials, to the satisfaction of the Temecula contaminated City Fire station sites FD Community Sevices Department (TCSD). Public Department Works, and the Fire Department. 25 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT IN Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification FEIR — DTSC (4) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer Developer Document contact City Public Prior to cormments shall contact the State's Certified Unified Program with CUPA and Works issuance of a Agency (CUPA) to identify any haztnat permitting their determination Department grading permit authority or agency related to the project. FEIR — . DTSC - (5) Prior to issuance of a building pennit, the Developer Developer Prior to issuance of City Public Building cormments shall obtain a hazardous waste storage permit if so a building permit Works Dept. permit directed by the State's Certified Unified Program approval Agency (CUPA). 3.10 NOISElllllllllllllllllllll/ll/llllllllllllllll/lllllll/1/llllllllllllll/ll/I/lllllllllllll/lIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!lllll!llllllllllll!lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR — short -tern (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer Submit NCP to City Public Issuance of PW for both onsite Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan City for approval Works and grading eF and construction as (NCP) with the City Public Works Department. The Planning building well as offsite NCP will commit the developer to the following Departments permits PD improvements measures. Failure of the developer to abide by these restrictions will be grounds for suspension of building or grading permits, regardless of phase, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. (a) All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be lhnited to the hours of 7 a.m. to -7 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays. (b) All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. (c) All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. IN RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 27 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification (2) Prior to texfative asap precise grading plan approval, Developer Submit noise City Precise a noise mitigation analysis shall be performed for single mitigation analyslis Community grading plan family residences within 200 feet of the edge of right- for appropriate Development approval and of -way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield writs or buildings Department Development Stage Road, the North and South Loop Roads, or for Plan any other noise -sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. (3) Prior to tentative map precise grading plan approval Developer Submit noise City Precise the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation analysis mitigation analysis Community grading plan for all non-residential uses within 100 feet of the edge for appropriate Development approval, of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road or buildings Department Development Butterfield Stage Road (e.g., Planning Area 11), or for Plan approval, any other noise -sensitive uses on the project site or issuance of potentially exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB building CNEL.The analysis must demonstrate that planned permits, noise protection will meet City standards, to the whichever is satisfaction of the City Community Development first Department. (4) Prior to approval of the final park design, the Developer Document that City Prior to CD developer shall document that outdoor recreational outdoor recreation Cormnunity approval of areas are designed to have exterior noise levels of less areas meet noise Development final park than 70 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City criteria and design TCSD Community Development and Community Services Communtiy Departments. Noise attenuation along Butterfield Stage Services Road for the sports park should be in the form of berms Departments rather than walls. (5) Prior to tentative map approval, the developer shall Developer Submit noise study City Planning Precise document that interior living areas have noise levels less showing interior Department Grading Plan than .45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City living areas meet approval Planning Department. noise criteria 27 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 28 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR - Potential (6) Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes Developer Demonstrate to City Planning Issuance of noise impacts from in Planning Areas 1-413, the developer shall demonstrate City that windows Department building aircraft to the City Planning Department that the homes will meet criteria permits for have double -paned windows with at least a 25 STC PAs 1-413 rating installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft overflights from French Valley Airport. (7) Prior to the issuance of building permits in each Developer Demonstrate to City Issuance of Planning Area, the developer shall demonstrate that City that Department building written information is available and being provided to information is permits for prospective residents in Planning Areas 1-413 on being provided as PAs 1-413 avigation easements, height restrictions, and occasional required overflights noise and hazards). Standard COA Developers and new development must meet Developer Submit plans for City Public Approval of restrictions of City noise ordinance. review and Works building plans - approval Department Standard COA Noise studies to support placement of block walls, or Developer Submit noise study City Planning Approval of other appropriate fencing such as glass walls, along along with precise Dept. tract map, North or South Loop Roads grading plan(s), precise tract map(s) and grading plan, Development Plans or development Ian 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES DEIR - Potential (1) Prior to issuance of a building permit in any Developer Provide City Fire Issuance of impacts to fire Planning Area other than 1, 2, or 3A, and completion of information to the Department building services a permanent onsite fire station, the Developer shall Fire Department permit for any demonstrate that the proposed unit is within a 5 -minute that units are units outside response time for the City Fire Department. within a 5 -minute of PAs IA, 2, response time or 3 (2) The developer shall provide, in fee title, a permanent Developer Provide Fire City Fire Prior to fire station site to the Temecula Fire Department Department with Department issuance of (Planning Area 32). The station shall be operational, permanent fire 250`' building including all permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the station pennit in PA 250" building permit within Planning Areas IA, 2, or 3. IA, 2, or 3 No additional building permits shall be granted until adequate onsite fire services are available, as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. 28 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification DEIR - Potential (3) Prior to the issuance of the 251' building permit for Developer Provide temporary City Fire Chief Prior to impacts to police the project, and if a permanent fire station is not yet fire station and issuance of services operational, the developer shall provide a site, fund its operation 251" building construct, and fund the operation of a temporary fire permit station. The location and other parameters of this station are up to the discretion of the City Fire Chief. (4) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer Pay DIF fee City Building Prior to developer shall pay the appropriate fire component of Official issuance of the Development Impact Fee (DIF), to the satisfaction occupancy of the City Building Official. permits 29 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification (5) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer Plans will be City Crime Issuance of developer shall incorporate the following crime submitted to the Prevention building prevention measures within the detailed design plans for City for review Officer penuits each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed design plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: (a) On-site street, walkways and bikeways shall be (a) Street (a) Street illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; Improvement Plan Improvement Plan (b) Doors and windows shall be visible from the street (b) Development (b) Devel. Plan and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries Plan and potential suspect hiding places; (c) Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended (c) Building permit (c) Building to discourage climbing; permit (d) The numbering identification system utilized on-site (d) Occupancy (d) Occupancy shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid permit permit emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and (e) Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti (e) Building permit (e) Building resistant materials in their construction. In addition, permit shrubs, vines, and espallers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to provide coverage thereby further discouraging affiti and climbing. 30 �■ r �■ � r� ■� �� r s��� r r r r r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 31 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure* Party Process Party Action For: Verification DEIR — Potential (6) The developer shall pay, applicable developer fees Developer Provide City with City Planning Prior to impacts to schools according to SB 50 and state law. Under current state proof of payment Department issuance of law (SB -50. 1998), developers are required to pay a of TVUSD fees or building Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building pennit FEIR — TVUSD equivalent permits issuance for each residential unit not covered by a asked for fee info developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation aweement to be added TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB -50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the state declared Level3 is allowed, at which tune TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re -calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB -50 provisions Ci Resolution 96-119 is no longer in effect. TVUSD (7) Priff to .,.,., ei'al Of.e..«,tiVe Maps c ...,... nl,..,.,:.,.. subsequently Area, the d.yelo.,e_ shall blain _ 1_..e_ a...n the determined it did not need any bus to senv the Plaiiiii,:g Alva. The dyelopef shall stops within gated areas steps as needed feF studefits 4em the pfeejet site, to the satisfaetien of the TVI sp TVUSD (9) o.:,._ to the is _ ,.e budding pe...nits in , aeh subsequeently Planning A_e. the d,.. a,,...._ shall onto - determined it did agFeenient with the TWUSE) se that TWUSD busses can not need any bus obtain aeeess dffeugh all staffed gates within the pf9jeat stops within gated Wheiraesessery- areas DEIR — Potential (9) Prior to the issuance of the fust building permit, the Developer Enter into Temecula Prior to impacts to parks, developer will demonstrate that a minimum of 2-94 28.7 agreement with Community issuance of the recreation, trails, or acres of park credit has or will be provided to the TCSD to provide Services 1" building open space satisfaction of the City Cotmmunity Services Director required park Department permit (See EIR Figure 3.11-4) credit 31 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.REPORT 32 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Par Process Par Action For: Verification City staff requested (10) Prior to tentative fraet approval of the private Developer Provide required City Planning Prior to PD changes recreational facility plans, all private recreational park parking Department approval of facility parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by facilities to City and the private the Planning Department and the Director of Director of recreational DCS Community Services, . to ensure that they are in Community facility plans accordance with the City of Temecula standards, Services including permanent utilities. (11) Prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit Developer Provide 5.1 -acre City Issuance of in the project, the 5.1 -acre park site (Planning Area 6) park to City Community 400'h building will be developed, including all permanent utilties and Services permit the 90 -day maintenance period, and the grant deed Department _accepted b the City Council. (12) Prior to issuance of the 100th building permit, the Developer Provide 0.3 -acre City Issuance of 0.3 -acre mini -park site (Planting Area IB) will be mini -park to City Community 100" building completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services permit Services Director, including permanent utilities. Department (13) Prior to issuance of the 250th building permit, the Developer Provide park City Issuance of park portion of the private recreation center in the portion of PA 5 Community 250" building Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the Services permit satisfaction of the Community Services Director. Director (14) Prior to issuance of the 350th building permit, the Developer Provide building City Issuance of building and pool portion of the private recreation and pool portion of Community 350" building center in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be PA 5 Services permit completed to the satisfaction of the Community Director Services Director. (15) Prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit Developer Provide 19.7 -acre City Issuance of in the project, the 19.8 -acre sports park site (Planning park to City Community 700" building Area 27) will be developed, including all permanent Services permit - utilties and the 90 -day maintenance period, and the Deparmtent ant deed acce ted by the City Council. (16) Prior to issuance of the 800th building permit, the Developer Provide park City Issuance of park portion of the private recreation center in the portion of PA 30 Community 800" building Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the Services permit satisfaction of the Community Services Director. Director 32 r s w M = = r = M r = = = M = = = = RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT tit] Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification (17) Prior to issuance of the 1150th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation Developer Provide building and pool portion of City Community Issuance of 1150" building center in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be PA 30 Services permit completed to the satisfaction of the Community Director Services Director. City staff requested (18) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer Pay DIF fee City Building Prior to changes developer shall pay the appropriate parks component of Official issuance of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) or enter into a DIF occupancy credit agreement, to the satisfaction of the City pennits Building Official. (19) All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance Developer Offer City Prior to easements shall be offered for dedication on the final slope/landscaping Community approval of maps. maintenance Services final maps easements for Department dedication (20) Prior to final map approval, the developer shall Developer Certify City Prior to final certify to the City that ownership and maintenance of all maintenance Community map approval open space areas shall be the responsibility of an responsibilities Services appropriate conservation organization. TCSD does not Department ens ace or habitat areas. assume maintenance of 0'2- (21) Prior to issuance of the 400' building permit, the Developer Construct traits as City Prior to Plateau trail in Planning Area 7A and the trail between indicated Community issuance of the Planning Areas 4B and 6 shall be completed to the Services 400"i building satisfaction o the Comnitanty Services Director. Director permit (22) Prior to A man recordation Developer Transmit copy of City. Prior to A map for the Valley portion or prior to B May tentative map letter from Community recordation for approval for the Valley portion, the developer shall RCFCWCD on Services the Valley provide written authorization from RCFCWCD that the trails Director portion or maintenance roads along both sides of Long Valley prior to B Map Wash can be used as trails. tentative map approval for the Valley portion tit] RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 34 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification (23) Prior to tentative map approval, if the Long Valley Develolper Plan and install City Prior to A map Wash trails cannot be constructed within the separate trails Cotmnunity recordation for maintenance roads, separate trails shall be designed and along Long Valley Services the Valley shown on the tentative map outside of the flood control Wash Director portion or right-of-way. prior to B Map tentative map approval for the Valley portion (24) Prior to issuance of the I" building permit in Phase Developer Provide required City Prior to 2, the Riverwalk multi -use trails within the maintenance easements to City Community issuance of the roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash shall be and construct trails Services l" building as designed completed to the satisfaction of the . Community Director permit in Services Director. Phase 2 (25) If the maintenance road along the north side of Developer Constuct alternate City Prior to Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi=use trail, a trail if needed Community issuance of the separate trail along the north side of Long Valley Wash Services 50" building shall be completed prior to issuance of the 50" building Director permit in PA permit in Planning Area 31, to the satisfaction of the 31' Community Services Director. (26) If the maintenance road along the south side of Developer Constuct alternate City Prior to Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi -use trail, a trail if needed Community issuance of the separate trail along the south side of Long Valley Wash Services 75" building shall be completed prior to issuance of the 75" building Director permit in PA permit in Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, to the 22, 23, or 24 satisfaction of the Community Services Director. (27) Prior to issuance of the 75' building permit for Developer Constuct bridge City Prior to Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, the developer shall Conummity issuance of the construct a pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash, Services 75`" building consistent with the guidelines in the Specific Plan, and Director permit in PA to the satisfaction of the Comuntiy Services Director. 1 22, 23, or 24 34 r M M M M� M = = M = M M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure's Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite. Action For: City/Agency Verification (28) Prior to the issuance of any building permits in Developer Construct trail and City Prior to TCSD Planning Areas 19, 20, or .21, the developer shall fuel modification Community issuance of construct a 15 -foot wide multi -use trail within a 30 -foot zone as indicated Services any building wide fuel modification zone along the south side of and approved by Director and permits for PA Planing Areas 20, 21, the south and west sides of the Fire Fire 19, 20, or 21 FD Planning Area 32, and the east sides of Planing Areas Department Department 19 and 20, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. The trail will be designated as an easement for public use on any tentative maps for these areas. FEIR (29) Prior to issuance of building permits the Developer Pay fee City Planning Prior to Developer shall pay the appropriate Library DIF fee City staff added and Building issuance of component. Departments building permits Standard COA 1. install fire sprinklers in structures adjacent to the Developer Obtain plan City Fire Dept. Prior to Fuel Modification Zones approval and show issuance of proof of building installation to permits battalion chief Standard COA 2. Install fire hydrants and test for compliance Developer Install hydrants City Fire Prior to and test according Department issuance of to state standards. building permits Standard COA 3. Prepare a Fuel Modification Zone for Hazardous Developer Submit plans for City Fire Prior to Fire Area review and Department issuance of a approval a ing penrut Standard COA 4. Prepare a Fire Fuel Modification Zone plan Developer Submit plans for City Fire Prior to review and Department issuance of a approval grading nernnit 3.12 UTILITIES llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll//lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR - Potential (1) Prior to the recordation of maps, the developer will Developer Provide City with City Public Prior to impacts to water demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of water service Works recordation of service adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy per agreement from EMWD and Department maps requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District RCWD and Rancho California Water District, as applicable. 35 = M M M W= r� M= M M M M M M= M M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 36 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification Included in FEIR (2) Prior to approval of the Specific Plan, the developer Developer Provide City with City Public Prior to shall provide the City with adequate documentation SB 221/SB 610 Works approval of the from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) service data from Department Specific Plan that they have adequate water supplies according to the EMWD and requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. RCWD DEIR - Potential (3) if available, the develapeF shall ebtain The Developer Install pipelines as City Public Prior to PW impacts to sewer Developer shall install reclaimed water is ping for indicated Works and recordation of service irrigating the two private recreational facilities, the Community final maps public park sites, and all coimnon andscaped areas en Services TCSD the prejeet-site, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Departments Community Services and Public Works Departments. DEIR - Potential (4) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer Provide City with City Public Prior to PW impacts to solid developers will inform all refuse generators within the proof that all local Works and issuance of waste service project site in writing about opportunities for recycling refuse generators Community occupancy and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside have been provided Services permits TCSD recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be with information Departments encouraged by the developer through information (e.g. on recycling and materials accepted, location, etc.) provided in sales waste reduction literature. (5) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer Provide areas for City Public Prior to PW developer will provide adequate areas for collecting and collecting and Works and issuance of loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the loading recyclable Community building commercial area. This will help the City comply with materials in PA I 1 Services permits the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Departments Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also TCSD demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and ro ams. (6) All commercial wastes shall be processed at the Developer Provide City with City Prior to Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Perris, or documentation Community issuance of similar recovery facility. Services building Department permits in PA Il 36 = W M r= M M M= M r M M= M M= M RORIPAIIGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 37 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification Added at the (7) The developer shall provide proof to TCSD that Developer Provide City with documentation City Community Services Prior to issuance of building request of TCSD construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler. Department permits Standard COA 1. Compliance with all uniform codes Developer Submit plans that City TCSD Prior to meet requirements issuance of a grading permit 3.13 AESTHETICS lllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR - Introducing (1) The developer will submit all architectural and Developer Submit City Planting Prior to urban structures landscape design plans, along with plant material architectural and and Public issuance of into a rural area palettes, to the City for review and approval prior to the landscape plans for Works building issuance of building permits in conformance. with the review and Departments permits _ap2roved Specific Plan, approval (2) Prior to approval of the tentative tract map or Developer Provide or City Planning Prior to Development Plan, whichever is applicable, for demonstrate Director approval of the Planning Area 31, a 25 -foot building setback consisting provision of tentative map of a landscaped buffer zone or an internal street or adequate buffering or driveway, shall be provided along the north and west for PA 31 development boundary of Planning Area 31. If one or both of the plan for PA 31 schools are built prior to approval of the tentative map or the Development Plan for Planning Area 31, and an equivalent buffer, as determined by the Gafwnunit5 Development Planning Director, is provided on the school sites, the develper may request the City to reduce or eliminate the buffering requirement. DEIR - Night (3) The Community Services Director shall review and Developer Submit lighting City Design lighting impacts on approve the sports field lighting during design plans for review Community approval for rural land uses development, and approval Services community Department park DEIR — Night (4) The City will evaluate the conrumercial center Developer Submit plans for City Planning Issuance of lighting impacts on lighting for - potential offsite impacts prior to the review and Director building Waalland uses issuance of building permits for Planning Area 11. The approval permits for PA lighting in these areas will be adequately shielded or it directed to minimize offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 37 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 38 Responsible Specific Monitoring Prerequisite City/Agency Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Party Process Party Action For: Verification (5) The developer shall submit plans for rural -oriented Developer Submit lighting City Prior to CD lighting for Planning Areas 14-26, 30, and 31. These plans for review Community approval of plans are subject to review and approval by the City and approval Development final maps PW Comrm miry Development and Public Works and Public Departments. No building penaits final maps will be Works issued approved until the lighting lan is approved. Departments (6) The Master developer shall provide prospective Developer Provide City with Planning Prior to homebuyers with notice drat the community sports park documentation that Director recordation of will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof residents have been the final map of the notification shall be provided to the Planning informed about Director prior to the recordation of the final map. community park night lighting DEIR - Potential (7) Prior to recordation of final maps or issuance of a Developer Submit plans to City Planning Prior to PD night lighting grading permit, the developer shall submit plans to the City for review and and Public recordation of impacts on Planning Department for Planning Areas 10, 12, and 14 approval Works final maps or biological habitat through 17 for those uses adjacent to the AD 161 SHCP Departments issuance of a areas open space areas of sufficient scale and detail for City grading permit staff to review potential lighting impacts on the open PW space areas. The developer shall make any changes to the plans, including reduction in the amount or placement of street lights, night lighting, fencing, etc. to preclude light spilling into the habitat areas. Review of plans for possible changes to street lighting shall be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. Standard COA Minimize impacts of sports lighting Developer Hire lighting City Prior to consultant to Community approval of the prepare a report on Services Dept. park lighting systems development plans 38 M W M M� M M M i M M M M M M M W M M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Miti anon Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification 3.14 SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES/ll/lll/llll/1/ll/I/lllllll/l/lllllllll/lllllll/Ill/lllll/Illlllll/1/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll11lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll DEIR— Potential (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer Submit City Planning Prior to impacts to developer shall retain an archaeological/paleontological documentation to Department issuance of a archaeological, monitor to observe onsite grading, including excavated City that a monitor grading permit paleontological, or soil stockpiles, especially in areas where Pauba or has or monitors for monitor historical resources unnamed Sandstone fonuations are disturbed, for have been retained retention. evidence of paleontological, archaeological, or — submit final historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils, bones, pottery, report from Final report charcoal deposits, arrowheads, etc.). If any artifacts are monitor within 30 must be discovered during grading, work will be halted and days after submitted qualified personnel will be retained to examine, completion of before evaluate, and determine the most appropriate grading issuance of the disposition of the resource(s). documenting first building findin s ennit 39 MMM M M IMM Mao M MMMMM M RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification DEIR - Potential (2) Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, the Developer Submit proof to City Planning Prior to impacts to Developer shall enter into a Pre -Excavation Agreement City of agreement Department issuance of a archaeological, with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to with local NA grading permit paleontological, or fund up to 2 NA representatives to have aseess-te the group historical resources site dtuang monitor all ground -breaking and grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor, to the satisfaction of the City FEIR — changes Planning Department. The "'A FepFesentatives mus made at request of Calif. Indian Legal Services of the , , A _.,.._....enta.:, e If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the Developer shall allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the Developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the Developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. 40 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Measure/Source Mitigation Measure" Responsible Party Specific Process Monitoring Party Prerequisite Action For: City/Agency Verification Cultural Measure 2 (continued) Developer Submit proof to City Planning Prior to City of agreement Department issuance of a All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods with local NA grading permit found on site, other than human remains, are to be group avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resumed. The Developer shall provide for tribal archaeological monitors to be present during any Phase II and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. NOTES • Underlined text has been added from DEIR — strikeout text has been deleted from DEIR N/A =Not Applicable PA = Planning Area COA = Condition of Approval 41 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT TABLE 1 PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 14B, 6, and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34"' building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access limited to right -turns only from Planning Areas 1 A, 2, or 4A to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108'' building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct half -width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full -width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 3. Butterfield Stage Road - Dedicate full -width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full -width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the MWD pipeline property. 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct half -width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Offer a dedication for a 110' right-of-way from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary. 7. Nicolas Road — Construct half -width from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct half -width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32). 42 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Prior to issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 9. "A" Street - Construct full -width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. 10. "B" Street - Construct full -width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road - Construct a full -width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12. Traffic Signals - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as warranted at: (a) Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Pourroy Road and (b) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Offsite Prior to the issuance of the 108" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. 2. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: a. If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. b. if Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing NicolasRoad / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane — Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. 43 r air � �■r � � w � w � � � r � a. � � I• s RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. c. if Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10,11,12,14 - 24,27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: Onsite Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half -width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct or bond for grading and full -width improvements from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 3. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct remaining half -width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 4, North Loop Road - Construct full -width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road, 5. South Loop Road - Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project boundary. Traffic signal —Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersections of a. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road, b. Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and c. Butterfield Stage Road at South Loop Road. 44 M M M r M M IM��� M M r s M M r M r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT Offsite 1. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half -width improvements from 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. 3. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. 4. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection — Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. 5. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. 45 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT TABLE 2 PHASE 1 (prior to issuance of 1" building permit in Planning Areas 14B, 6, and 32) 1. I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, seuthwestbound free right -turn lane, and eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right -turn lane 2. 1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right -tum lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right -turn lane 3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right -turn overlap 4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane 5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. 6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal 7. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. PHASE 2 (prior to issuance of I" building permit in Planning Areas 10 - 12, 14 - 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33A, and 33B) 1. I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left -tum lane, southbound right -turn lane, eastwestbound free right -turn lane, right -turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right -turn lane. 2. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 3. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left -turn lane, northbound free right -turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right -tum lane 4. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left -tum lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right -tum lanes. 5. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left -turn and right -turn lanes 46 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT 6. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn overlap, and eastbound left -turn lane 7. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left -tum lane, westbound right -turn lane, eastbound thFough lane— southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right -tum lane, and eastbound through lane 8. Margarita Road at Winchester Road - eastbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, westbound right -turn lane, and southbound right -turn overlap 9. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right -turn lane, eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound right -tum overlap, westbound left -turn lane, northbound right -turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap 10. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left -through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane 11. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left -turn lane, northbound free right turn overlaplane, westbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -tum lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right -turn overlap, and westbound left !urn lane 12. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane 13. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road -northbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left -tum lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left -turn lane, and westbound through lane 14. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left -turn lane, and westbound through lane 47 M = = = = M = RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 9/26/02 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN REPORT . These improvements shall be constructed and the developer shall provide appropriate fair share contributions to these improvements as shown below: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS N:131367\dm\EIR\2n°RevisedFE1RMMRP7.dm 48 September 26, 2002 Pro'ect Percent of New Traffic AM PM Roadway (N/S) Intersection (E/W) I-215 Freeway - SB Rams Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.4 5.8 I-215 Freeway - NB Rams Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7.3 6.8 I-15 Freeway - SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 I-15 Freeway - NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.4 12.4 Winchester Road 11.1 11.2 La Serena Way 6.6 7.4 Rancho California Road 5.6 6.4 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 9.3 Nicolas Road 10.1 12.3 N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 23.2 24.2 Nicolas Road 39.7 35.7 Calle Chapos 29.5 25.8 La Serena Way 20.8 19.0 Rancho California Road 21.3 19.1 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Drive Murrieta Hot Springs Road TBD TBD Ci of Murrieta TBD = to be determined based on fair share calculations Source: Table 6-I from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 as shown in Table 3.5-8 from 2"d Revised DEIR) N:131367\dm\EIR\2n°RevisedFE1RMMRP7.dm 48 September 26, 2002