LAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Web viewLAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ... LAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ... water and

June 2013

LAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Noemi Avila & Gabriel NuñezEcoCentral Consulting Inc.

Table of Contents1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................2

2. Areas of Controversy and Concern...................................................................................................6

2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................................6

2.2 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................................6

2.3 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................................6

2.4 Population, Housing and Employment..............................................................................................7

3. Summary.............................................................................................................................................7

4. Project Description.............................................................................................................................8

4.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................................................10

5. Description of Alternatives..............................................................................................................12

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................12

5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project...............................................................................................13

No Project Alternative.......................................................................................................................13

Reduced Density Alternative.............................................................................................................13

Reduced Size Alternative...................................................................................................................14

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.................................................................................14

Review of this Draft EIR.....................................................................................................................14

Exhibit 4-2..........................................................................................................................................16

Exhibit 4-2..........................................................................................................................................17

6. Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures...................................18

6.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................18

6.2 Summary of Project Objectives.......................................................................................................18

6.3 Land Use..........................................................................................................................................19

6.3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................19

6.4 Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................................................21

6.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................................23

6.4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................23

6.4 Population, Housing, and Employment...........................................................................................26

2.4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................26

2.4.2 Population trends......................................................................................................................26

7. Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................................28

8. Major Conclusions...............................................................................................................................29

1Lake Edge District Project Environmental Impact Report June 2013

9. Report Preparation..............................................................................................................................30

10. Glossary..............................................................................................................................................31


1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed Lake Town Center in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. The DEIR was prepared by EcoCentral Consulting Inc., in cooperation with City of Lake Elsinore staff. The proposed project comprises the development. The Lake Edge District encompasses 876.2 acres, a range of uses with an emphasis towards recreation, custom homes with lake access, commercial mixed uses, open space, and several miles of shoreline. A variety of both public and private recreational facilities are located along the northwestern, northeastern, and eastern portions of the lake’s shore. Most of the remaining areas along or within close proximity of the shoreline within the Lake Edge District contain open space uses with a limited amount of residential uses and commercial uses. Several of the residential uses in the northern and northeastern areas contain aging single-family homes that provide rehabilitation opportunities. Uses at the westernmost edge of the Lake Edge District, in the higher elevations, primarily contain open space and residential uses with a limited amount of commercial uses.

1.2 Purpose of Legal Authority

This DEIR was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (Title 14, California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the City of Lake Elsinore’s procedures for implementing CEQA. Per Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15367 and 15050 through 15053 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore is the Lead Agency under whose authority this document has been prepared. It is intended to provide information to public agencies, decision-makers, and the general public regarding the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed projects. Under the provisions of CEQA, “the purpose of the environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (Public Resources Code 21002.1[a]).

The environmental review process was established to enable public agencies to evaluate a project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and implement mitigation measures for eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project. While CEQA Section 150201(a) requires that major consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance


adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including social and economic goals, in determining whether and in what manner a project should be approved.

1.3 Public Review and Comments

As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine if any aspect of the proposed projects, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment and, based on that determination, to narrow the focus (or scope) of the subsequent environmental analysis. For the proposed hotel projects, the IS (Appendix A) found that this DEIR should focus on all environmental issue areas required by CEQA with the exception of Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems. The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR through a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was distributed to Federal, State, County, and City agencies, citizens’ groups, and local libraries with a comment period that ran from April 30 to May 30, 2012 (Appendix A). Comments made during the NOP comment period were considered during EIR preparation and are included in Appendix B.

The Draft EIR is being distributed to federal, State, County, and City agencies, citizens’ groups, and local libraries with a 45-day public comment period from December 13, 2012 to January 28, 2013. Comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period will be addressed in the Final EIR.

1.4 Project Background

In December 2011, the Santa Monica Planning Commission recommended that the City Council initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review process for potential construction of two hotels at 1554 5th Street and 501 Colorado Avenue by OTO Development as the applicant and property owners. In April 2012, the City Council concurred with this recommendation and initiated the Development Agreement negotiation and review process. The City Landmarks Commission met considered the historic merit of the structures at 1554 5th Street in June 2012, finding that the Midas Building should not be designated as a City landmark, in whole or in part


1.5 Scope of the EIR

This EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts of developing two hotels on two separate sites, each approximately 22,500-sf in area, in downtown Santa Monica. The scope of the EIR includes assessment and evaluation of potentially significant environmental issues identified in the IS, comments in response to the NOP, and scoping discussions among consulting staff and the City of Santa Monica. The IS, NOP, and comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix A and Appendix B. The IS determined that construction and/or operation of the proposed hotels may result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the following issue areas, which are addressed in detail in this EIR:

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Land Use and Planning

• Neighborhood Effects

• Biological Resources

This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies environmental impacts, including project-specific and cumulative effects of the proposed projects, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects

1.6 CEQA Compliance

DEFINITION OF “PROJECT” PURSUANT TO CEQA: Section 21065 of CEQA defines a “project” as an activity which “may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:

1. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency.

2. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.

3. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.”


Additionally, Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines further defines an activity undertaken by any public agency as including “the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 65100 – 65700.

2. Areas of Controversy and Concern

2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality

Water quality, fish stocks, and boating in Lake

Ground- and surface water quality issues including increased impermeable surfaces, impaired water bodies as defined by Clean Water Act Section 303d, best management practices, compliance with state mandated programs, runoff flow rates, constructed wetlands, and preservation of native vegetation and naturalized drainage systems.

Project impacts to both groundwater supply and quality Potential development within floodplains has the potential to impact water quality and

General Plan goals aimed at protecting natural waterways. Development is known to create hydrologic conditions of concern and degradation of

water courses water courses and their receiving waters. Cumulative hydrologic effects of storm water runoff discharges on receiving waters from existing and planned developments.

The total maximum daily loads regarding nutrients and organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen impairments of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake can potentially be exceeded.

2.2 Land Use and Planning

Proposed project can potentially have impacts of incompatible land uses adjacent to near the Lake.

Construction on Floodplains will have negative impacts. Reduction of Open Space. Disruption and Removal of natural vegetation.

2.3 Biological Resources


The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive species directly or through habitat modification.

The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native, resident, or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

The proposed Project would not conflict with any City of San Carlos policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.

The proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

The proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts on biological resources.

2.4 Population, Housing and Employment

The proposed Project would not induce substantial unexpected population growth, or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people, and thus would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to population, housing and employment.


3. Summary

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR), having California State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2006051034 was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, § 15120 to § 15132, toevaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Surface Mining Permit No. 2015-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006-01 (hereafter, the “Project” or“proposed Project”). This EIR does not recommend approval, approval with modification, or denial of the proposed Project; rather, this EIR is a source of factual information regarding potential impacts that the Project may cause to the physical environment.

The Draft EIR will be available for public review for a minimum period of 45 days. After consideration of public comment, the City of Lake Elsinore will consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting required findings in conjunction with Project approval. In the case that there are any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, the City of Lake Elsinore must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, stating why the City is taking action to approve the Project with or without modification despite its unavoidable impacts.

This Executive Summary complies with CEQA Guidelines § 15123, “Summary.” This EIR document includes a description of the proposed Project and evaluates the physical environmental effects that could result from Project implementation. The City of Lake Elsinore determined that the scope of this EIR should cover 10 subject areas. The scope was determined through the completion of an Initial Study accepted by the City of Lake Elsinore’s independent judgment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15063, and in consideration of public comment received by the City in response to this EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP). The Initial Study, NOP, and written comments received by the City in response to the NOP, are attached to this EIR as Technical Appendix A. As determined by the Initial Study and in consideration of public comment on the NOP, the 10 environmental subject areas that could be reasonably and significantly affected by planning, constructing, and/or operating the proposed Project are analyzed herein, including

1. Land Use 3. Biological Resources

2. Hydrology and Water Quality 4. Population and Housing

References:

City of Lake Elsinore. (2015). Surface Mining Permit No. 2015-01/Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006-01A1. Retrieved From: file:///C:/Users/Gabriel/Desktop/Section%20ES.0%20Executive%20Summary%20(2016-01-04).pdf


4. Project Description

Mebo Property Development wants to build a hotel, pier, shops, restaurants and apartments on 25 acres on the northeastern shore a short walk from the city’s 13-decades-old downtown. the proposal, which tentatively calls for 101,230 square feet of hotel space accommodating about 130 rooms, 33,900 square feet of retail space and 17,443 square feet of residential space divided among about 100 units. The space would be contained in three buildings east of Spring Street between Lakeshore Drive and the shoreline. A promenade would convey people to a pier several hundred feet long. Mebo Project Manager Alan Braavedt said that would be difficult to avoid because buildings are not allowed in the floodplain by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Also, the city is hoping that the south end of Main Street can be straightened to follow along the path of Line Street, as called for in the downtown master plan. In that scenario, Main Street would lead directly to the resort and waterfront, rather than intersecting with Lakeshore to the east. The city’s planning staff also is working with the applicant to minimize the visual effects of the building’s walls as seen from the lake.


4.1 Project Location

This project will be located along Lake Elsinore's northeastern shore on the west side of Lakeshore Drive south of Spring Street and east of Main Street-Lakeshore Drive intersection.


4.2 Project Objectives

CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The objectives assist in developing the range of proposed project alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The objectives of the proposed project include the following:

1. Encourage the development of a recreational destination that will bring local residents and visitors to the various recreational and entertainment facilities around the lake.

2. Enhance the accessibility of the recreational designated uses along the lake’s shores.

3. Preserve a view corridor along Lakeshore Drive between Chaney and Iowa Street.

4. Support a destination that provides a consistent and rich design motif and accessibility with a strong recreation oriented character and emphasis for recreational, residential, residential-mixed use, and commercial uses along or within close proximity to Lake Edge District’s shorelines.

5. Support and promote the historical significance of the lake as development occurs, along with preserving and maintaining the integrity of the Adobe Machado House and the Elsinore Naval Academy Building as locally recognized historic resources.

6. Encourage the enhancement of primary circulation routes, points of entry, key intersections, and the Lake Edge Parkway by improving public access opportunities to the lake and Lake Edge.

7. Through the development review process create recreational opportunities for the City’s residents that maximize access to and use of the lake.


5. Description of Alternatives

5.1 IntroductionThis section addresses alternatives to the proposed project, describes the rationale for their evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative, and compares the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the proposed project. In addition, this section analyzes the extent to which each alternative meets the project’s objectives identified in Chapter 3, Project Description.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a)). According to the State CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6). The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)).

CEQA also requires the feasibility of alternatives be considered. Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and (when evaluating alternative project locations) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or that would not achieve the basic project objectives.

The alternatives addressed in this EIR were identified in consideration of the following factors:

• The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project

• The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project The feasibility of the alternative

• The requirement of the State CEQA Guidelines to consider a “no project” alternative.

Pursuant to CEQA, the no project alternative evaluation assumes that the proposed project is not approved and that the existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation was published


remain, which could reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(c)).

5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed ProjectThis Draft EIR reviews project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). Three alternatives are evaluated:

(1) No Project City of Lake Elsinore - Lakeshore Town Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary EcoCentral Consulting Inc.

(2) Reduced Density Alternative

(3) Reduced Size Alternative.

No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would avoid all environmental impacts without the need for mitigation measures that would be required under the project. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2, the Reduced Density Alternative, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. No Project Alternative the No Project Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the project and the environmental impacts that could result from not approving, or denying, the project. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would retain its Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) General Plan designation and its Industrial Park (I-P) Zoning designation. The existing buildings onsite (residence and garage) would continue to exist in their current state. The only traffic associated with the site would be from the existing structures on-site, which are currently vacant. The No Project Alternative would further reduce and/or avoid all of the potential impacts that would occur under the proposed project, which are all less than significant with the exception of one that can be mitigated to less than significant. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives.

Reduced Density Alternative Under this alternative, fewer but larger dwelling units are proposed, and the building configurations would remain the same as the proposed project. The number of dwelling units would be reduced by 34 units from 170 to 136, for a 20 percent reduction in density. This would result in roughly the same lot coverage, but with a lower density and less required parking. As such, additional landscaped/open space area would be provided under this alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in equal or slightly reduced impacts compared with the project in all areas. The Reduced Density Alternative would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the project. Specifically, the Reduced Density Alternative would not fully meet Objective 4, which is to develop a very high-density residential development. In addition, Objectives 1, 3, and 5 would not be as fully met, thereby providing fewer housing opportunities


to Lake Elsinore residents, and a corresponding reduction in economic return on the investment in the project, due to the removal of 34 dwelling units. Reduced Size Alternative Under this alternative, the same number of dwelling units would be contained in fewer buildings, resulting in less lot coverage compared with the proposed project. Therefore, the buildings under City of Lake Elsinore - Villa Siena Residential Project Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-4 EcoCentral Consulting H:\Client (PN-JN)\4266\42660005\EIR\4 - DEIR\42660005 Sec 00-ES Executive Summary.doc this alternative would be 4-5 stories in height, and additional landscaped/open space area would be provided under this alternative.

Reduced Size AlternativeThe Reduced Size Alternative would result in equal or slightly reduced impacts compared with the project in all areas. This alternative would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project. Specifically, because the same number of dwelling units would be contained in fewer, taller buildings, building heights of four to five stories under this Alternative would not meet Objective 4, which is to provide a residential development that is in keeping with the character of adjacent residences the south and east of the project site.

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program CEQA requires public agencies to establish a monitoring report program for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts identified in an EIR. A mitigation and monitoring report program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of the Final EIR.

Review of this Draft EIR Upon completion of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion (NOC) will be filed with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding Cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR, in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department, located at 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 201. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties not previously contacted, or who did not respond to the NOP, currently have the op

port unity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public review period on the Draft EIR. Written comments


Exhibit 4-1


Exhibit 4-2


Exhibit 4-2


6. Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

6.1 Introduction In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, areas of potential controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public shall be identified in the EIR. Areas of Potential Controversy, below, briefly summarizes the issues raised regarding the Initial study for the proposed project of the Lake Edge District.

For each potential impact addressed a brief explanation will be provided as well as the significance without mitigation, mitigation measures, and significance with mitigation. Impact significance will be indicated with the following abbreviations:

S = Significant

LTS = Less than Significant

SU = Significant and Unavoidable

LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation

N/A = Not Applicable

6.2 Summary of Project Objectives

In summary of the project objectives, The Lake Shore Town Center is a project that is intended to make more entertainment opportunities accessible to the lake edge district, expand on the transportation access to the lake edge, and promote the preservation and appreciation of the historical district bordering the north eastern edge of the project.


6.3 Land Use

6.3.1 Introduction Although the Lake Edge District contains a variety of unique recreational amenities, there are several opportunities for additional facilities. Most of the lake’s shores within the Lake Edge District, which include the southwestern corner, northwestern, northern, and the southeastern edge have been designated for recreational uses. A long strip of the northeastern edge along Lakeshore Drive between Cowell Street and intersecting with the City’s Lake Point Park and fishing area allows for the development of custom homes. Although located within the City’s Sphere and outside of the Lake Edge District, the Lakeland Village Sphere includes additional recreational designated areas to the southwest. Submerged Trees in Lake Elsinore during a Wet Year View of Western Shores of Lake Elsinore from Seaport Boat Launch.

Access to all recreational designated areas along the lake is limited. There is currently no pedestrian route that interconnects the recreational designated areas along the lake’s shore. A multi-purpose trail has been proposed along Lakeshore Drive which would link to the campground along Riverside Drive. In order to connect this southern recreational designated area to the northwestern recreational designated shores of the lake, an alternate pedestrian route should be designed along Grand Avenue, which would complete the pedestrian circulation route around the entire Lake. It is important to emphasize that Lakeland Village is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and as such, the City currently does not have control over the Lakeland Village District unless or until the district is annexed into the City.

A new pier is proposed south of the Historic District. The pier will serve as an interesting new attraction for residents and visitors alike. The pier will be designed to replicate the original pier that is considered a historical element of the City.

A variety of housing and commercial designations have been assigned to the northwest to help provide further stimulus to the adjacent emerging commercial neighborhood within the Lake View District, which forms the northwest border of the Lake Edge District. The western most portion of the Lake Edge District, southwest of Grand Avenue, will include open space, housing, commercial mixed-uses, and general commercial uses. As development continues, it will be increasingly important to ensure and manage the water quality and level of the lake.

Proposed development within the Lake Edge District will be limited by the 100-year floodplain. A boundary line has been established around the perimeter of the lake at an elevation of 1,260 above mean sea level that will restrict future land uses to locate outside of the established boundary.


Table LU-T1. Distribution of Land Uses- Lake Edge District

General Plan Land Use Designation

No. of Acres Percentage of Total Land Area

Commercial Mixed Use 118.9 13.57%Residential Mixed Use 9.9 1.13%

Floodway 3.3 0.38%General Commercial 14.4 1.64%Hillside Residential 125 1.43%Lakeside Residential 101.4 11.57%

Low-Medium Residential 124.3 14.19%Medium Density Residential 34.8 3.97%

High Density Residential 33 3.77%Open Space 57.7 6.59%Recreational 365.7 41.74%

Tourist Commercial 0.2 0.02%Total 876.2 100%

LU-1 Proposed project can potentially have impacts of incompatible land uses adjacent to or near the Lake.

Significance without Mitigation: S Mitigation Measures:

o Mitigation Measure LU-1: The project would have to decrease the land use space designated near the incompatible land uses adjacent to or near the lake to provide a buffer from the incompatible land uses to the project space.

Significance with Mitigation: LTS

LU-2 Construction on Floodplains will have negative impacts.


o Mitigation Measure LU-2: Proposed development within the Lake Edge District will be limited by the 100-year floodplain. A boundary line has been established around the perimeter of the lake at an elevation of 1,260 above mean sea level that will restrict future land uses to locate outside of the established boundary.



LU-3 Reduction of Open Space.


o Mitigation Measure LU-3: In order to prevent the significant impact of the reduction of Open Space the project would have to follow the No Project Alternative.

Significance with Mitigation: N/A

LU-4 Disruption and Removal of natural vegetation.


o Mitigation Measure LU-4: Follow Mitigation Measure LU-3 Significance with Mitigation: N/A

6.4 Hydrology and Water Quality

WQ-1: Water quality, fish stocks, and boating in Lake

Significance without mitigation: S Mitigation Measures

o Mitigation Measure WQ-1: No motorized boats will be allowed by the Lake Edge District Management. Non-motorized boats will be encouraged for non-residents of the Lake Edge District.

o Mitigation Measure WQ-1.1: Money obtained from renting recreational equipment that will be used in the lake will go into a fund that will help better the quality of the water and research the causes of the already dyeing fish.


WQ-2: Ground and surface water quality issues including increased impermeable surfaces, impaired water bodies as defined by Clean Water Act Section 303d, best management practices, compliance with state mandated programs, runoff flow rates, constructed wetlands, and preservation of native vegetation and naturalized drainage systems.

Significance without Mitigation: S Mitigation Measure:


o Mitigation Measure WQ-2: The runoff from the site of the project will be directed to a filter that will remove all possible harmful substance in the water to be introduced into the lake.

o Mitigation Measure WQ-2.1: Water quality sampling will be done constantly to secure water quality in the lake and prevent any health concerns for the users of Lake Elsinore.

o Mitigation Measure WQ-2.2: The proper amount for the disruption of vegetation and natural land space will be donated to the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

o Mitigation Measure WQ-2.3: PREFERED MITIGATION MEASURE. In order to prevent the destruction of vegetation and naturalized drainage system, Mitigation Measure LU-3 must be followed.

Significance with Mitigation: LTS under Mitigations WQ-2, WQ-2.1, WQ-2.2 N/A under Mitigation WQ-2.3

WQ-3: Development is known to create hydrologic conditions of concern and degradation of water courses and their receiving waters. Cumulative hydrologic effects of storm water runoff discharges on receiving waters from existing and planned developments.


o Mitigation Measure WQ-3: In order to prevent degradation to water courses and their receiving waters, Mitigation Measure LU-3 must be followed.

Significance with Mitigation: N/A

WQ-4 The total maximum daily loads regarding nutrients and organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen impairments of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake can potentially be exceeded.


o Mitigation Measure WQ-4: In order to prevent exceeding the maximum daily loads of nutrients and organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen in Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, Mitigation MeasuresWQ-2 and WQ-2.1 must be followed.

o Mitigation Measure WQ-4.1: Mitigation Measure LU-3 must be followed in order to prevent any loads of nutrients and organic and low dissolved oxygen in Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake.

Significance with Mitigation: LTS under Mitigation Measure WQ-4 N/A under Mitigation Measure WQ-4.1

References


City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. General Plan Update Draft Program EIR. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BTwxvF_uIosJ:www.lake-elsinore.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D7241+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

City of lake Elsinore. 2015. Lake Elsinore Walmart SuperCenter Final Environmental Impact Report. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UqSa9JEzde8J:www.lake-elsinore.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D14941+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

6.5 Biological Resources

6.5.1 Introduction This section describes the existing biological resources, including special-status species and sensitive habitat known to occur and/or have the potential to occur in the project study area (PSA). The PSA is defined as the on- and off-site areas of the project. In addition, the section includes a summary of the regulations and programs that provide protective measures to special-status species, an analysis of impacts to biological resources that could result from project implementation, and a discussion of mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, where feasible. A NOP comment letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was received on February 10, 2015. The letter made recommendations on content that the City should include in the DEIR. These comments were taken into consideration during the preparation of this EIR section.

Lake Elsinore is the largest natural freshwater lake in Southern California. Eutrophic lakes, like Lake Elsinore, are typically shallow and nutrient enriched. Add sunshine, and these types of lakes produce more pounds of fish per acre than any other type of lake on earth. Lake Elsinore is classified as a Warmwater Fishery, which includes the black basses and various panfish. Representative members found in this Lake are Largemouth Bass, White Crappie, Black Crappie and Bluegill. Channel Catfish are quickly becoming a staple dinner menu for many Americans. The waters of Lake Elsinore are highly suitable for Catfish. Over the last few years Lake Elsinore has seen improvements in the Channel-Cat catch and excellent fishing is anticipated in the future.

BIO - 1 The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive species directly or through habitat modification.

o Significance without Mitigation: LTSo Mitigation Measures: N/Ao Significance with Mitigation: N/A


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UqSa9JEzde8J:www.lake-elsinore.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D14941+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BTwxvF_uIosJ:www.lake-elsinore.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D7241+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



BIO‐2: The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

o Significance without Mitigation: So Mitigation Measures:

○ Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: Adequate measures should be taken to avoid any inadvertent taking of raptor nests and other nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when in active use. This should be accomplished by taking the following steps. If vegetation removal and initial construction is proposed during the nesting season (February through August), a focused survey for nesting raptors and other migratory birds should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the onset of vegetation removal or construction, in order to identify any active nests on the Project site and in the vicinity of proposed construction. If no active nests are identified during the construction survey period, or if development is initiated during the non‐breeding season (September through February), vegetation removal and construction may proceed with no restrictions. If protected bird nests are found, an adequate setback should be established around the nest location and vegetation removal and construction activities restricted within this no‐ disturbance zone until the qualified biologist has confirmed that any young birds have fledged and are able to function outside the nest location. Required setback distances for the no‐disturbance zone should be based on input received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and may vary depending on species and sensitivity to disturbance. As necessary, the no‐disturbance zone should be fenced with

o Significance with Mitigation: LTS/M

BIO‐3: The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

o Significance without Mitigation: No Impacto Mitigation Measures: N/Ao Significance with Mitigation: N/A


BIO‐4: The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native, resident, or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.


BIO‐5: The proposed Project would not conflict with any City of San Carlos policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.


BIO‐6: The proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.


BIO‐7: The proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts on biological resources.

o Significance without Mitigation: S o Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measure BIO-2o Significance with Mitigation: LTS/M

References

City of San Carlos. (2015). Landmark Hotel Project EIR for the City of San Carlos. Retrieved from http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=11994


City of Wildomar. (2015) DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Villa Siena Residential Project. Retrieved from http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/minutes/2015-09-16-PC-Agenda-Packet/Agenda%20Item%202.1%20-%20Attachment%20A-Ex%201%20-%20Draft%20EIR.pdf

6.6 Population, Housing, and Employment

6.6.1 Introduction This section of the EIR describes the socioeconomic conditions within the City of Lake Elsinore that were utilized in the preparation of the proposed project and analyzes potential impacts to population, housing and employment resulting from implementation of the proposed project’s construction and development.

6.6.2 Population trendsThe City of Lake Elsinore has experienced rapid population growth over the past two decades, as has most of Riverside County. Between 1990 and 2000, the population of the City grew approximately 58 percent, from 18,285 to 28,930 residents. The 58 percent increase is substantial, but is similar to other cities in Riverside County that have experienced increases in population due to the relative affordability of the area in comparison with Los Angeles and Orange Counties (see Table 3.13-1, Population Growth: Lake Elsinore and Surrounding Cities - 1990- 2007). Since 2000, the cities of Murrieta and Temecula have experienced greater increases in population than Lake Elsinore, and Norco, Riverside, Corona, and Hemet have experienced less growth than Lake Elsinore. State Department of Finance population estimates made since the 2000 Census report growth of approximately nine percent per year between 2000 and 2007. The Department of Finance’s January 2007 population estimate for Lake Elsinore is 47,634 persons.

The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) periodically publishes growth forecasts for the fourteen member jurisdictions, as well as unincorporated Riverside County within the sub-region. The most recent growth forecast (from 2006) projects a 2010 population in the City of 51,138, growing to 69,558 persons by 2020 and 85,376 by 2030 (see Table 3.13-2, Projected Population in Lake Elsinore).

POP – 1 The proposed Project would not induce substantial unexpected population growth, or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).



POP‐2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people, and thus would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.


POP‐3: The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.


POP‐4: The proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to population, housing and employment.



7. Comparison of Alternatives

The three alternatives explained in Chapter 5 are as follows:

(1) No Project.

(2) Reduced Density Alternative

(3) Reduced Size Alternative.

The No Project Alternative (1) would mitigate all possible significant impacts of the project, but would accomplish none of the project’s objectives. The Reduced Density Alternative (2) would not complete all of the project objectives but would reduce some of the impacts. The Reduced Size Alternative (3) would result in some impacts being mitigated, but other impacts being created by changes in the construction. Between all of these alternatives and the project itself the Lake Center Project accomplishes the most of the project goals and does not contain any significant impacts without proper mitigations outlined in Chapter 2 Areas of Controversy.


8. Major Conclusions

Findings from this Draft Environmental Impact Report Include:

No Significant impacts on Water Quality with mitigation No Significant Impacts on Land Use with mitigation No Significant Impacts on Biological Resources with mitigation No Significant Impacts on Population, Housing , and Employment with mitigation The Project when compared to the alternatives is recommended as is


9. Report Preparation

EcoCentral AssociatesPrincipal-in-Charge ................................................................................Noemi Avila BA

Project Manager .................................................................................................Gabriel Nunez BA

Water Quality and Land Use Analysis.....................................................Noemi Avila, BA

Environmental Analysis ..............Margaret F. Partridge, MURP, AICP, LEED Green Associate

Senior Editor...............................................................................................Tommy L. Sarda

Graphics...........................................................................................................Kailey McDonald

Reprographics ......................................................................................Juan Morenos, Clyde Funk

Administration....................................................................................Warner D’Loach

Technical SubconsultantsFin Engineering .........................................................................................Patrick Star, PE

Ventus Environmental.................................................................................Greg Tonkovich, INCE, AICP

Keeding Law & Greenspan................................................................................Kyle Malbrook, PE

Mount Maren Associates...............................................................Michael Maren, MUP, MLA

WinstonPartners Architects............................................................................... Greg Winston, AIA Associate

Organizations and Persons ConsultedElfend & Associates, Inc. ......................................................Franklyn Elfend, Chief Executive Officer

Law Offices of Carmen A. Morinello ..........................................................Carmen A. Morinello, Esq.


10. Glossary

CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act

DEIR – Draft Environmental Impact Report

EIR – Environmental Impact Report

Mitigation -The Action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something.

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NOP – Notice of Preparation


Documents

LAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Web viewLAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ... LAKESHORE TOWN CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ... water and