Wildomar Group Says Latest Housing Project Poses Environmental Risks

Lennar home builders has applied to the City of Wildomar to subdivide land located at the southwest corner of Prielipp Road and Elizabeth Lane into 67 lots to ready the property for housing tract development.

A local citizens group calling itself Alliance for Intelligent Planning is urging that the city must first require an Environmental Impact Report be drafted to weigh the effects the project will have on the area.

Currently, a document known as a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed for the project. This document states that after initial study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

Under state law outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act, either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR must be filed on a development project. At the very least, the initial study and the MND are filed and citizens must be given the opportunity to weigh in. However, under CEQA, if a project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, then the more comprehensive study -- known as the EIR -- must be completed and the developer must detail in the document what mitigation measures will be taken to lessen environmental damage caused by construction. Citizens must also have the ability to weigh in on the EIR.

According to the June 21 letter below to the City of Wildomar from Temecula-based attorney Ray Johnson representing Alliance for Intelligent Planning, the Lennar project will have a significant impact on the environment and therefore the EIR is required. Pollution runoff, noise, traffic, health impacts, and damage to native species and their habitat are among the dozens of concerns on the project that should be studied before moving forward, the letter states.

The Lennar project is expected to come to the Wildomar Planning Commission next month and a public hearing will be held.
 
In the meantime, the city is currently grappling with a lawsuit on a large-scale development project located off Bundy Canyon Road. In that suit, the plaintiffs allege an EIR for the project was insufficient. Click here for that story.

The June 21, 2013 letter on behalf of Alliance for Intelligent Planning follows:

Greetings:
On behalf of concerned residents and Alliance for Intelligent Planning, I hereby submit these comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for, and in opposition to, the Lennar Residential Project.
General Comments:
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was adopted as a disclosure and transparency document. The theory is that by providing a document that adequately describes the environmental consequences of a project to decision makers and the public, the decision makers will make a rational decision based upon the true environmental consequences of the project and if they do not, the electorate can hold them accountable for their decisions. The core of this statutory structure is the adequacy of the document as an informational document.
The EIR requirement is the “heart of CEQA.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15003(a). An EIR is required for any proposed project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code § 21100 (a)) A lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a proposed project only when: (1) revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant project effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15070 (b))
The adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Lennar Residential Project, TTM 36497 (PA 12-0364) (the “Project”), is improper where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record of a fair argument of significant environmental impacts as a result of the project. For the reasons detailed below, an EIR must be prepared for this Project.
The project is likely to have significant impacts that were not adequately addressed in the MND. Specifically, there is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts to/from, at least, aesthetics, air quality/health risks, biological resources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous material, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts.
Furthermore, significant impacts are not shown to be mitigated below a level of significance. CEQA requires that, if mitigation is adopted for a project, all proposed mitigation measures be fully enforceable and certain to occur. This Project fails to ensure that mitigation will occur with this Project and instead provides vague, uncertain, and unenforceable mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are improperly deferred.
CEQA also requires that where feasible mitigation exists which can substantially lessen the environmental impacts of a project, all feasible mitigation must be adopted. In this way CEQA goes beyond its informational role to require that projects substantively lessen their negative effects on the environment. It is critical to proper drafting of an EIR that all feasible mitigation measures be required of a project. This has not been done with this Project.
Overall, the conclusions in the MND are not based on substantial evidence.
Lastly, the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were not circulated to the State Clearinghouse as required.
Aesthetics
The site is currently undeveloped and existing land uses include rural residential and vacant lands to the west, north, and south. Despite these existing rural or vacant uses, the MND finds a less than significant impact to views or the scenic/ visual quality of the site from rezoning the site from Rural-Residential to Medium High Density Residential and developing accordingly. This finding is unsupported by the Project’s existing zoning designation and lack of development, surrounding land uses and land use designations, and surrounding zoning designed to maintain a low-development density visual character on-site.
Air Quality
The conclusions that the Project will result in a less than significant impact to air quality are unsupported by evidence. All assumptions relied on for the air quality modeling are not provided. Discrepancies in the air quality modeling cannot be discerned from the CalEEMod outputs alone.
Without evidence that air quality emissions will be less than significant, such emissions should be treated as significant.
The following additional mitigation measures should be incorporated:
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
1. Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads.
2. Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect (eg. Install wheel shakers, wheel washers, and limit site access.)
3. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
4. Pave all construction roads.
5. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet on to the site from the main road.
6. Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity.
7. Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations.
8. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
9. All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers utilizing reclaimed water trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets.
10. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite.
11. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours.
12. Extend grading period sufficiently to reduce air quality impacts below a level of significance.
13. The simultaneous disturbance of the site shall be limited to five acres per day.
14. Any vegetative cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems required for these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain good ground cover and to minimize wind erosion of the soil.
15. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily.
16. Any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed.
17. A high wind response plan shall be formulated for enhanced dust control if winds are forecast to exceed 25 mph in any upcoming 24-hour period.
18. Implement activity management techniques including a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions; c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d) phasing of construction activities.*
19. Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 AVR for construction employees
20. Require high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment.*
21. Restrict truck operation to "clean" trucks, such as a 2007 or newer model year or 2010 compliant vehicles.*
22. Require the use of CARB certified particulate traps that meet level 3 requirements on all construction equipment.*
23. Utilize only CARB certified equipment for construction activities.*
24. The developer shall require all contractors to turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and/or idling in excess of 3 minutes.*
25. Restrict engine size of construction equipment to the minimum practical size.*
26. Use electric construction equipment where technically feasible.*
27. Substitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction equipment.*
28. Require use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel.*
29. Use methanol-fueled pile drivers.*
30. Install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment.*
31. Require the use of Alternative Diesel Fuels on diesel equipment used. Alternative diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 2001 as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63% reduction in PM10 compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities.
Operational experience indicates little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke.
32. Electrical powered equipment shall be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where technically feasible.*
33. All forklifts shall be electric or natural gas powered.*
34. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts.*
35. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.*
36. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site.*
37. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets and sensitive receptor areas.*
38. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.*
39. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements.*
40. Minimize construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and providing for lunch onsite. *
41. Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/commercial areas for the construction crew.*
42. Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers for the construction crew.*
43. Require the use of Zero-VOC paints, coatings, and solvents.
(* Would reduce impacts to GHGs as well)
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
1. All buildings shall be constructed to LEED Platinum standards.*
2. Buildings shall exceed Title 24 requirements by 30%.*
3. Orient 75 percent or more of homes and buildings to face either north or south (within 30 degrees of N/S) and plant trees and shrubs that shed their leaves in winter nearer to these structures to maximize shade to the building during the summer and allow sunlight to strike the building during the winter months.*
4. Design buildings for passive heating and cooling and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.*
5. Construct photovoltaic solar or alternative renewable energy sources sufficient to provide 100% of all electrical usage for the entire Project.*
6. Install an ozone destruction catalyst on all air conditioning systems.*
7. Construct renewable energy sources sufficient to offset the equivalent of 100% of all greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources (internal combustion engines) for the entire Project. *
8. Purchase only green/ renewable power from the electric company.*
9. Install solar water heating systems to generate all hot water requirements.*
10. Install solar water heating systems for the pool and wading pool.*
11. Utilize electrical equipment for landscape maintenance.*
12. Plant shade trees in parking areas to provide minimum 50% cover to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles.*
13. Plant at least 50 percent low-ozone forming potential (Low-OFP) trees and shrubs, preferably native, drought-resistant species, to meet city/county landscaping requirements.*
14. Plant Low-OFP, native, drought-resistant, tree and shrub species, 20% in excess of that already required by city or county ordinance. Consider roadside, sidewalk, and driveway shading.*
15. Provide grass paving, tree shading, or reflective surface for unshaded parking lot areas, driveways, or fire lanes that reduce standard black asphalt paving by 10% or more.*
16. Electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior walls of all residential and commercial buildings (and perhaps parking lots) to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment.*
17. Prohibit gas powered landscape maintenance equipment within the development. Require landscape maintenance companies to use battery powered or electric equipment or contract only with commercial landscapers who operate with equipment that complies with the most recent California Air Resources Board certification standards, or standards adopted no more than three years prior to date of use or any combination of these two themes.*
18. Provide a complimentary cordless electric lawnmower to each buyer if private lawns will exist in the development.
19. Create a light vehicle network, such as a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) system.*
20. Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development.*
21. Provide safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes.*
22. Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network.*
23. Provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to residents.
(* Would reduce impacts to GHGs as well)
HEALTH RISKS
The MND fails to adequately disclose and assess health risk impacts. The MND looks to CARB’s Land Use and Air Quality Handbook, as well as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s protocol, but fails to look to the protocols and guidance provided by SCAQMD. SCAQMD’s MATES studies monitored TACs for the basin including PM and diesel PM and expressed cancer risks in the SCAB. MATES III study found an existing estimated carcinogenic risk at the Project site of 320 per million. (<http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/> MATES Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk) The MND seems to completely ignore this risk, finding that the Project would not exceed a 276 per million threshold in the Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways. It plainly would based on SCAQMD modeling.
Additional SCAQMD guidance on siting of sensitive land uses includes <“AQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning,” <http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/doc/aq_guidance.pdf>, May 6, 2005, Section 2-1. At page 2-5, the document states SCAQMD/CARB data has shown a reduction of cancer risk from freeway diesel PM of 60% at 328 feet and 80% at 984 feet. This Project is 485 feet from the freeway so still subject to around 40% of highway-caused emissions in addition to ambient pollutant concentrations. (Id. at 2-5, 2-6.) The MND ignores the impact from Project siting plus ambient pollutant concentrations, which will likely be a significant risk requiring analysis in an EIR. Health risks from Project siting near I-15 could be reduced/mitigated by adopting an alternative which sites the Project farther from the highway.
Additional mitigation may be achieved through informing potential residents of the health risks posed by diesel PM. Diesel PM is known to cause immune system effects; reproductive, developmental, and endocrine effects; nervous system effects; and lung health problems, as recognized by the County in the General Plan. Immune system effects include increased allergic inflammatory responses and suppression of infection fighting ability. Diesel PM has also been associated with reproductive effects such as decreased sperm production, changes in fetal development, low birth weight and other impacts. Diesel PM exposure may also cause impairment to the central nervous system. (The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, Michael T. Kleinman, Ph.D, Fall 2000, <http://aqmd.gov/forstudents/health_effects_on_children.html#WhyChildren>; See also, Diesel and Health in America: the Lingering Threat, Clean Air Task Force, February 2005, <http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Diesel_Health_in_America.pdf>)
With regards to respiratory and cancer effects of diesel PM, SCAQMD has stated the following:
“Diesel particles consist mainly of elemental carbon and other carbon-containing compounds… Diesel particles are microscopic…Due to their minute size, diesel particles can penetrate deeply into the lung. There is evidence that once in the lung, diesel particles may stay there for a long time.
In addition to particles, diesel exhaust contains several gaseous compounds including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and organic vapors, for example formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. Formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene have been classified as toxic and hazardous air pollutants. Both have been shown to cause tumors in animal studies and there is evidence that exposure to high levels of 1,3-butadiene can cause cancer in humans…
Diesel emissions may also be a problem for asthmatics. Some studies suggest that children with asthma who live near roadways with high amounts of diesel truck traffic have more asthma attacks and use more asthma medication.
Some human volunteers, exposed to diesel exhaust in carefully controlled laboratory studies, reported symptoms such as eye and throat irritation, coughing, phlegm production, difficulty breathing, headache, lightheadedness, nausea and perception of unpleasant odors. Another laboratory study, in which volunteers were exposed to relatively high levels of diesel particles for about an hour, showed that such exposures could cause lung inflammation.” (The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, supra; See also, Mira Loma Commerce Center EIR No. 450, Air Quality, Section 4.)
Furthermore, infants, children, and the elderly are more susceptible to diesel PM and its associated health impacts. With regards to infants and children, increased susceptibility to TACs and diesel PM exists for a variety of reasons. Children are generally more active than adults, have higher respiration rates, and inhale more pollutants deeper into the lung. Children also have more lung surface area in proportion to their body size and inhale more air pound for pound when compared to adults, taking in 20 to 50 percent more air and associated air pollutants than adults. When compared to adults, children spend more active time outdoors in polluted air environments and exert themselves harder than adults when playing outside. Importantly, this exposure to high pollutant levels in children occurs while their lungs are still developing, and therefore has more severe impacts on this sensitive group. (The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, supra.)
This increased susceptibility to air pollutant emissions for children has resulted in the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) weighting cancer risk by a factor of 10 for exposures to carcinogens from birth to two years old, and by a factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years old to 15 years old. (Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adjustments to allow for early life stage exposures, California EPA OEHHA Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, April 2009, p. 3. <http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/TSDCPFApril_09.pdf.>) It is unclear that these increased risks were accounted for in the EIR. Additionally, recent studies conducted by SCAQMD’s Brain and Lung Tumor and Air Pollution Foundation have found a specific connection between exposure to diesel PM and brain cancer in children. (Annual Meeting of the Brain & Lung Tumor and Air Pollution Foundation, April 2, 2010, <http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2010/April/100425a.htm>)
In addition to an increased risk of cancer, the effects of diesel PM on children include slowed lung function and growth, increased emergency room visits, increased incidences of asthma and bronchitis, crib death, asthma respiratory infections, allergic symptoms, and asthma hospitalizations. (Diesel and Health in America: the Lingering Threat, supra.) Informing potential residents of these risks may mitigate these effects by residents choosing to remain indoors.
Additionally, the MND fails to evaluate potential health risks caused by the Project and increased traffic to off-site sensitive receptors. The Traffic Study conspicuously omits to evaluate impacts at Clinton Keith and I-15, to the roadway segments, on/off-ramps, and the highway itself. The Project’s contribution to this traffic may result in increased health risks to receptors near this interchange, which has already been forced to expand because of existing “explosive growth” and ever “increasing backups in the area for vehicles approaching the interstate.” (<http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/wildomar/wildomar-headlines/20120323-wildomar-clinton-...) Increasing traffic and idling in this area could result in significant health risks from the Project to sensitive receptors in excess of SCAQMD’s 10 cancer per million threshold. As the MND fails to consider this potential impact, it fails to show that no potential risks would occur.
Biological Impacts
The Project is likely to result in significant and unmitigated biological impacts to at least riparian habitat, wetlands, and burrowing owls. Preparation of an EIR and further study is essential.
BURROWING OWLS
The MSHCP requires the preparation of a habitat assessment, which does not appear to have occurred after review of the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis. Instead, the analysis merely states that a habitat assessment is required for the burrowing owl. “Suitable burrows were observed onsite, so a full protocol survey would be required.” Based on the findings of that survey, either relocation and/or a 30-day preconstruction survey would be required. (See, Habitat Assessment and MHSCP Consistency Analysis p. 37.) The mitigation in the MND thus either defers or completely omits the requirements for preparation of this survey.
While the MND appears to have relied on some preliminary surveying, there is no assessment detailing the areas surveyed, any potential burrows found, any burrowing owls observed onsite, or any other information that would allow the City to determine that impacts to the owls could be sufficiently mitigated below a level of significance. No methodology, mapping, etc. is provided in the MND, despite CEQA’s call for information disclosure and evidence in support of any determination. There is simply no evidence demonstrating that impacts to the owls were evaluated and, based on the findings of that evaluation, may be adequately mitigated.
Moreover, based on the evidence in the MND it is apparent that impacts to the owls may be significant and not mitigable. The MND/ Habitat Assessment found that several (at least 3) suitable burrows exist within the central portion of the Project site (it is not clear if suitable burrows were found in any surveys of the remainder of the site). It is not clear whether any burrowing owls were sought or discovered onsite, but they plainly may be impacted by the Project.
Mitigation is insufficient and will not clearly reduce impacts to the owls below a level of significance. A recent “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” by the Department of Fish and Game found that 1) passive relocation is ineffective and 2) construction must occur further from nesting sites to mitigate for impacts to the owls. The Staff Report provides updated guidance on the distance necessary from nesting sites based on construction disturbance, and new methods for passive relocation of burrowing owls. This guidance must be incorporated into any successful mitigation. (“Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,” State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game March 7, 2012, <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf>) It is clear from the mitigation measures below that further information and evaluation is needed before mitigation may be implemented or determined to be successfully implementable.
To ensure adequate mitigation of impacts to the owls, the following additional mitigation measures, in lieu of or in addition to of Bio-2 and Bio-3 must be incorporated into the Project:
1. Where habitat will be temporarily disturbed, restore the disturbed area to pre-project condition including decompacting soil and revegetating. Permanent habitat protection may be warranted if there is the potential that the temporary impacts may render a nesting site (nesting burrow and satellite burrows) unsustainable or unavailable depending on the time frame, resulting in reduced survival or abandonment.
2. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced based on site-specific analysis and accounting for natal area, home range, foraging area, and other factors influencing burrowing owls and burrowing owl population persistence in the project area.
3. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and burrowing owl habitat with (a) permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities (grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons) comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and (b) sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals.
4. Alternatively, where a burrowing owl population appears to be highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf courses, airports, athletic fields, and business complexes, permanently protecting the land, augmenting the site with artificial burrows, and enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance sustainability of the burrowing owl population onsite. Maintenance includes keeping lands grazed or mowed with weedeaters or push mowers, free from trees and shrubs, and preventing excessive human and human-related disturbance (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road activity, dog-walking) and loose and feral pets (chasing and, presumably, preying upon owls) that make the environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls
5. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement deeded to a nonprofit conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission, for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use. If the project is located within the service area of a Department approved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project proponent may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits.
6. Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.
A habitat assessment that complies with MSHCP criteria, and adequate mitigation based on that information, is absolutely essential and was not complied with here. As the MND fails to conduct a needed study for impacts to burrowing owls, impacts remain potentially significant and an EIR must be prepared. Regardless, an EIR must be prepared as impacts are not demonstrably reduced below a level of significance with mitigation incorporated.
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE HABITAT
Wetland habitat of moderate to high quality habitat exists onsite and may be significantly impacted by the Project. Six out of nine wetland indicator functions are present onsite.
Two drainage features occur onsite, including the “main drainage” feature on the western portion of the site, which includes a dense canopy of riparian vegetation (including cottonwoods and willow) and wetlands. The second feature is an “upland swale” that occurs in the eastern portion of the site and includes a dense stand of cottonwoods and willow. 3.72 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub and 2.01 acres of Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest exist onsite.
The MND and Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis only evaluate and disclose potential wetland habitat impacts from Project construction, not operation. There is no consideration of impacts to this habitat once the Project is developed and residents occupy the site. The MND does not consider impacts caused by Project noise, lighting, pollutants, invasive plants, resident intrusion, etc. to these important habitat areas.
Project characteristics and mitigation measures are insufficient to ensure that no operational biological impacts may occur; hence an EIR is required. Avoidance of these areas is asserted in the MND but not required or implemented. Will there be fencing or signage indicating that avoidance is necessary? Other requirements to reduce below significance impacts from noise, lighting, plants, etc.? Such potential impacts, or mitigation for those impacts to habitat, are simply not considered or mitigated in the MND. As the potential for significant effects exists, adoption of an MND in lieu of full EIR preparation is improper.
Likewise, indirect and cumulative Project impacts to wetland habitat and wildlife are ignored in the MND. Again, the MND fails to evaluate, mitigate and disclose Project effects, and any findings needed to adopt the MND are unsupported.
A DBESP will be required for this Project if the applicant cannot avoid the riparian/riverine habitats. First, the MND repeatedly states that the riparian/riverine habitat will be completely avoided; plainly this is not actually anticipated. Second, the DBESP should be included in the MND to disclose how habitat takes will be mitigated and/or avoided. Without this disclosure prior to Project approval and subject to review by the public and decision-makers, any determination that no significant impacts may occur with the Project is unsupported. Bio-4 and Bio-6 are vague absent this information prior to Project approval. The Project must demonstrably require and achieve off-site mitigation within the County in order to preserve similar type and amount of habitat.
The site also contains potential habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp. The only assessment for the fairy shrimp was conducted in the dry season, and found no evidence of fairy shrimp. Nevertheless the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis concluded that Protocol Surveys were required, and that survey concluded that, “Under the standard USFWS protocol, an additional wet season sample is required to complete a full fairy shrimp protocol survey. An additional wet season survey may be required if suitable habitat occurs within the Project site during the 2012/2013 rainy season….” No such survey has been conducted or required.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
Jurisdictional wetlands also occur onsite, which may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. The Project site contains 0.17 acres of USACE waters, 0.21 acres of RWQCB waters, and 0.90 acres of Streambed for CDFG purposes comprising 0.17 acres of unvegetated streambed plus 0.73 acres of adjacent riparian habitat.
Again, potential operational impacts to these wetlands are completely overlooked in the MND. Instead, only construction impacts are considered.
In addition, specific water discharge requirements are necessary to reduce Project impacts to jurisdictional waters according the recommendations of the Habitat Assessment, but are not disclosed in the MND or required of the Project as a mitigation measure.
MSHCP SPECIES
Surveys are required by the MSHCP but not undertaken for the 6 covered species which occur on site and may require surveys. Again, the MND fails to provide necessary information to the public and decisionmakers on which a finding of less than significant impacts may be made. Adoption of an MND absent this evidence is improper.
OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Additional biological resources exist onsite and will be impacted by this Project as the Project is inconsistent with the MSHCP requirements. The Project site contains marginally-suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, which, according to the Habitat Assessment, dictates a focused survey for least Bell’s vireo. No focused survey has been prepared and incorporated in the MND, and no focused survey has been required in any deferred study in the mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts to least Bell’s vireo may therefore occur, are not adequately evaluated, and are not reduced below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation.
In addition, one coastal California gnatcatcher was observed onsite, and the site contains suitable nesting habitat for a variety of species. It is apparent given the biologically significant resources onsite, the lack of analysis of Project impacts to those resources, and the lack of mitigation incorporated for potential impacts, that the Project may result in significant biological effects. Preparation of an EIR is required.
Geology/Soils
The MND indicates that “a branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone (Glen Ivy Segment)” may transect the Project site. It is not clear whether investigation into the existence of this branch was undertaken in the Geosoils review of the site, or whether Geosoils was informed of the mapping of this fault through the site. Regardless, the statement that “there is no evidence of a known fault on the project site” is false.
The recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Appendix 6, must be incorporated as mitigation measures to ensure that they are certain, enforceable, and fully incorporated into the Project. The requirement for post-tension foundations should also be incorporated, particularly where it is unclear whether a fault transects the site.
The Geotechnical Report finds that the soils are corrosive to moderately corrosive and that consultation with a corrosion engineer may be needed. Evaluation and determination by a corrosion engineer must be undertaken prior to Project consideration by decision-makers to determine whether significant impacts from corrosion may, in fact, occur.
Subdrain systems must be required in canyon areas to ensure that seepage does not occur.
Over-excavation of the Project site to a depth of 2-4 feet, up to 8 feet and deeper, is anticipated across the Project site. While some material may be reused, some may require exportation and importation of new soils. The MND provides no discussion of the potential amount of soils to be imported/exported, or potential construction air quality and traffic impacts of this soils work.
GHGs
The MND omits discussion of whether the Project will comply with state policies to reduce GHG emissions, and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Project will not. For instance, the Project does not comply with the million solar roofs initiative or other goals designed to reduce GHGs. The MND fails to show that the Project will have no significant impact to GHG absent detailing whether it complies with the goals of the state.
Hazards/HazMat
The Project is located 0.23 miles from a RCRA site reported as a “Large Quantity Generator,” at 24487 Prielipp Road. This impact was determined to be less than significant because no reported violations or released have occurred. However, the assessment concerning this impact ignores the fact that this Project’s utilities will connect at Prielipp Road, and any potential impacts from such connection.
Regarding fire hazards, the Project is located in a “Very High Fire Severity Zone” yet impacts are deemed less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. The proposed mitigation, however, is insufficient. Appendix 8a details what is necessary for adequate mitigation, which includes some defensible space and planting requirements and also radiant heat walls surrounding homes on the perimeter; however this needed mitigation is not required of the Project. The finding that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated is therefore unsupported by the Fire Behavior and Fuel Modification Report which mandates the incorporation of additional measures to reduce any potential fire risk below a level of significance.
There is also no consideration of impacts to people from fire hazards, as mandated for review by the threshold question: would the project “Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires…” [emphasis added] The MND only considers the risk to structures. Potential impacts from lack of adequate evacuation, smoke (versus only flames), etc. are not considered. Given that the Project is located in a Very High Fire Severity Zone, this omission may be injurious to the future residents. At the very least, this omission renders inadequate the MND and its findings of less than significant hazards impacts.
Hydrology/Water Quality
The Project contains riparian/riverine habitat and wetlands, and drains to the Santa Margarita watershed. Any polluted runoff may therefore have significant ramifications for the quality of those waterways.
The MND states that the fact that the City must comply with an MS4 permit from the San Diego RWQCB somehow will render this Project’s runoff impacts null and void, yet this is not shown by the MND’s reasoning. Likewise, while a preliminary WQMP apparently includes requirements to be followed by this Project, the WQMP is not disseminated with or incorporated into the MND. Without this information, the findings of the MND in reliance on that plan are unsupported by evidence. There is no evidence that operational water quality impacts will be less than significant or mitigable below a level of significance.
Noise
The evaluation of noise in the MND and noise study prepared for the MND omit consideration of increases in either construction noise or operational noise in ambient noise levels. The MND states that noise increases would be similar to those experienced elsewhere in the City but fails to quantify those increases. Noise increases may be particularly significant on this presently undeveloped site in an area with rural residences, as the existing noise levels are relatively low so that increases may be more markedly perceived.
Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of any noise increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receptors in order to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental effect. This is because noise impacts may be greater if substantial increases occur in a relatively quiet area, or if noise is added to an existing high noise level in a manner that increases noise to a problem/tipping point level. (See, e.g., Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1122-23.) Attachments to this document better detail the properties of noise and its potential effects on people. Preparation of an EIR is needed to quantify, disclose, and mitigate the noise impacts of this Project to the extent feasible.
The Noise Study fails to disclose actual noise levels likely experienced with Project construction and operation. Mitigation adopted for construction noise impacts will not demonstrably reduce such impacts below a level of significance. Limiting the hours of construction does nothing to reduce the noise levels experienced when construction is ongoing.
The following mitigation measures must be adopted:
1. Where technically feasible, utilize only electrical construction equipment
2. During construction, the developer shall require that all contractors turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and prohibit idling in excess of 3 minutes.
3. Provide upgraded windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 34 for all buildings, and/or require the installation of double-paned windows.
4. Keep new transportation facilities away from vibration sensitive areas.
5. Require the use of rubberized asphalt for construction of all roadways and parking areas.
6. Maintain quality pavement conditions that are free of bumps, pot holes, pavement cracks, differential settlement in bridge approaches or individual pavement slabs, etc.
7. Require resurfacing of roads.
8. Ban heavy trucks near the Project.
9. Use alternate construction methods and tools to reduce construction vibrations. Examples are predrilling of pile holes, avoiding cracking and seating methods for resurfacing concrete pavements near vibration sensitive areas, using rubber tired as opposed to tracked vehicles, placing haul roads away from vibration sensitive areas.
Traffic/ Transportation
As discussed above, the MND omits consideration of impacts along roadway segments, at Clinton Keith Rd. and I-15 on-/off-ramps, and along I-15, despite the fact that most Project trips will use Clinton Keith to access I-15. This omission renders the MND and its determination that the Project will have a less than significant impact utterly inadequate and unsupported.
An adequate cumulative impacts assessment, as discussed below, is especially important with respect to these potential traffic effects. The MND’s fractional discussion of impacts to I-15 is deceptive- while the Project may account for only .24 percent of daily vehicle counts on I-15 at Clinton Keith, it may cumulatively and significantly impact the traffic levels along the highway. Moreover, it will likely cumulatively and significantly impact traffic levels at Clinton Keith and local roadway segments, where the MND only considered intersection delays. An EIR is again needed to assess and disclose these potentially significant effects.
Construction traffic impacts are also not evaluated or mitigated. As construction traffic impacts may be significant, the following mitigation measures must be incorporated:
1. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.
2. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site.
3. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets and sensitive receptor areas.
4. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements.
6. Minimize construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and providing for lunch onsite.
7. Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/commercial areas for the construction crew.
8. Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers for the construction crew.
9. Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.
10. Work with Caltrans to ensure adequate LOS at impacted on- and off- ramps.
Mitigation for operation impacts may include several of the measures detailed within the air quality section of this letter, such as ride sharing programs. Other mitigation may include road improvement requirements; however, given the absence of needed information in the MND, the necessary requriements are uncertain.
Public Services and Utilities
The MND contains no “will-serve” letter or similar information from EVMWD stating it has sufficient resources to provide water to this Project. The MND fails to demonstrate that supplies are sufficient, stating only the supply of EVMWD but not the current demands of other projects on EVMWD’s limited supplies. Instead, the MND again makes the argument that this Project’s incremental increase/ fraction of the total supply is not significant. This fractional reasoning does not show that, in fact, EVMWD has available supplies to serve this Project.
It is a well-known fact that water supplies in California are scarce and subject to additional scarcity and risk from reduced supplies. Adding additional demand to this already short supply of water will either result in this project failing to receive water from EVMWD and/or unavailability of sufficient water supplies for other uses in the area. The lack of available water could also result in fire hazards due to low fire flow to either the project or neighbors reliant on water supplies, an impact also not considered with the project. This project is therefore likely to have a significant impact on water supply, and an EIR must be prepared.
Impacts to the water supply from landscaping are not detailed in the MND. There is no discussion about whether recycled water is available or required at the site for this purpose.
The following additional mitigation measures should also be implemented for this Project to reduce impacts to the water supply:
1. Use only recycled water for landscaping purposes. Require installation of a recycled water line to the Project.
2. Utilize low water intensive turf or artificial turf. Minimize the use of turf/ artificial turf to recreational areas.
3. Install only ultra-low-flow plumbing fixtures in all buildings.
4. Install only dual flush toilets, which allow users to choose a larger or smaller flush as needed.
5. Require drip irrigation for landscaping where technically feasible.
6. Require mulching or equivalent organic ground cover to reduce water needs for all landscaped areas.
7. Require that any pool be covered at night and when not in use to reduce water loss through evaporation.
8. Provide all residents with free shower timers to help reduce time spent showering.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact assessment for this Project is absolutely unacceptable and negligible. First, there is no discussion of what cumulative projects were considered. Was the 270-unit Oak Creek Canyon project considered, where it would result in a 2.7 percent increase in the population of Wildomar and a 2.5 percent increase in the number of homes within the City? Were other nearby projects considered? The conclusions in the MND regarding potential cumulative effects are utterly unsupported by evidence or reasoning.
The cumulative impact assessment also appears to miss the point of a cumulative assessment - that is, impacts may be individually insignificant but cumulatively considerable. Most of the MND’s “evaluation” of cumulative effects does nothing more than reiterate that individual impacts were deemed insignificant or mitigable. Again, the MND fails to show that no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur with this Project. In fact, if local projects are considered it’s likely that this Project would cumulatively effect noise, traffic, biological resources, aesthetics, GHGs, water quality, and other environmental resources. An EIR is essential to adequately consider such impacts.
Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and the attached material.
Sincerely,
Raymond W. Johnson
JOHNSON & SEDLACK