The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFEIR Response to Comments 12.2.08 Environmental Impact Report /Response to Comments SCH # 2007041085 SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION Prepared for: November 26, 2008 City of Temecula Final 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 208485 SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION Prepared for: November 26, 2008 City of Temecula Final Environmental Impact Report /Response to Comments SCH # 2007041085 TABLE OF CONTENTS Santa Margarita Area Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report /Response to Comments Page 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Errata 2-1 3. Response to Comments 3-1 Comment Letters from Original Draft EIR Appendix A Comment Letters from Revised Draft EIR Appendix B City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation i ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-1 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This document constitutes the Response to Comments on the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received during the public review period. This response to comments document, in conjunction with the DEIR, constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The revised DEIR public review period ran from September 23, 2008 to November 5, 2008. As mentioned in the revised DEIR, the original DEIR was circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who wished to review and comment on the original DEIR. Publication of the original DEIR marked the beginning of a 45-day public review period which extended from February 22, 2008 until April 7, 2008. Subsequent to completion of the original DEIR public review period, the City of Temecula decided to prepare a revised DEIR, and issued a revised NOP. The revised DEIR was made available for review to the public and public agencies for 45 days to provide comments on the “sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (Section 15204 of the State CEQA Guidelines). The 45-day public review period for the revised DEIR extended from September 25, 2008 to November 5, 2008. Written comments were received on or before November 5, 2008. A total of 43 comment letters were received from agencies and the public. Copies of the comment letters submitted in response to the original DEIR can be found in Appendix A of this document. These comments were reviewed and incorporated into the revised DEIR where appropriate. Copies of the comment letters submitted in response to the revised DEIR can be found in Appendix B of this document. In accordance with the Section 15088.5 (f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated, the lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such cases, need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period. Although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the FEIR and new comments must be submitted to the revised EIR. Although the lead agency need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated revised EIR, this document constitutes a response by the City of Temecula to all comments submitted on both the original and revised DEIR to the extent there were any different issues raised by each commenting entity. Requirements for the preparation and disposition of the Response to Comments are provided for in PRC, Division 13, Section 21092.5 and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-2 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Section 15088 of the CEQA Guideline states: (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the DEIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. (c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the DEIR or may be a separate section in the FEIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the DEIR, the Lead Agency should either: (1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. This Response to Comments document has been organized as follows. • Chapter 1 (Introduction) includes a summary of the public circulation periods for the original and revised DEIR as well as a summary of relevant State CEQA Guidelines. • Chapter 2 (Errata) consists of a summary of revisions and edits in response to additional information that became known subsequent to publication of the revised DEIR. The minor modifications to the text detailed in Chapter 2 reflect clarifications that do not constitute significant new information and do not change any of the ultimate conclusions of the document. These minor modifications do not constitute changes to the project or environmental setting nor would they result in a new significant environmental impact. In addition, these minor modifications to the text, as described in Chapter 2, would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Rather, these changes merely clarify portions of the text. • Chapter 3 (Response to Comments) consists of direct responses to comments that have been received on both the original DEIR and revised DEIR. • Appendices -As previously mentioned, copies of the comment letters submitted in response to the original DEIR can be found in Appendix A of this document. These comments were reviewed and incorporated into the revised DEIR where appropriate. Copies of the comment letters submitted in response to the revised revised DEIR can be found in Appendix B of this document. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 CHAPTER 2 Errata This Errata has been prepared in response to additional information that became known subsequent to publication of the DEIR for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Project which was circulated for a 45 day public review period in compliance with Public Resources Code 21091 from September 25, 2008 to November 5, 2008. The minor modifications to the text of the DEIR detailed below reflect clarifications that do not constitute significant new information and do not change any of the ultimate conclusions of the DEIR. These minor modifications do not constitute changes to the project or environmental setting nor would they result in a new significant environmental impact. In addition, these minor modifications to the text, as described below, would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Rather, these changes merely clarify portions of the text: As a modification to Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary, the word “not” has been deleted from Impact 3.5-1 as indicated below. As a modification to Table 3.1-10, the estimate for the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions was misstated in the DEIR. Therefore, Table 3.1-10 has been replaced with the revised version as indicated below. Exhibit 1 (Proposed Project Plan) and Exhibit 2 (Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative), displaying existing crossing areas, has been added to Section 3.2 per the California State Commission’s October 21, 2008 comment letter. As detailed below, Measure Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-5 have been revised per the Pechanga Indian Reservation comment letter dated November 5, 2008. The second heading on page 3.5-12 has been revised as indicated below per comments from the County of Riverside. The second sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.5-20 has been revised as indicated below per comments from the County of Riverside. Exhibit 3 has been added to Section 3.2 per the BLME comment requesting a map to show the Federal lands. A map will be included in the Final EIR as Exhibit 3. GHG Emissions from the proposed alternatives to the project were calculated and are now presented in a new Table 5-21 as indicated below. As shown therein, the quantitative analyses support the qualitative impact analyses contained in the DEIR. Alternative 1 would result in no development, and therefore no net increase in GHG emissions as 2. Errata City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 compared to existing conditions. Alternative 2 would result in GHG emissions slightly lower than those resulting from the proposed project. Alternative 3, which would allow development of residential dwelling units and mining operations would result in more GHG emissions than those from the proposed project. Alternative 4, which would allow for 21 dwelling units and mining operations, would also result in more GHG emissions than the proposed project but less than Alternative 3. Revisions have been made to the last 2 paragraphs on page 5-79 as indicated below. Text being added is underlined; text that is being deleted is in strikeout. Summary The following describes additional changes to the Executive Summary. Page ES-26, Impact 3.5-1 has been revised as follows: Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value value to the region and the residents of the state. Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The following describes additional changes to Chapter 3. Page 3.1-37, the table at the top of the page has been revised as follows: TABLE 3.1-10 PROJECT-RELATED OPERATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons) Project Mobile Sourcesa 1,6052,428 Electricityb 182164 Natural Gasc 9686 Net Increase Total 1,8832,678 2004 Statewide Totald 479,740,000 Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventory 0.0003900056% a Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Water conveyance energy rates from California Energy Commission Staff Report: California's Water -Energy Relationship. 2005. Estimate includes the 10% reduction in electricity emissions beyond Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. b Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Estimate includes the 10% reduction in electricity emissions beyond Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. c Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: http://www.CARB.ca.gov/cc/ccei/emsinv/emsinv.htm. d All CO2e factors were derived using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 2.2, March 2007. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. Errata City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Section 3.2, includes the following addition: Exhibit 1 (Proposed Project Plan) and Exhibit 2 (Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative) displaying existing wildlife undercrossing areas per the California State Commission’s October 21, 2008 comment letter. Page 3.3-15, the mitigation measures have been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: All areas not previously assessed for cultural resources within the 718 acres to be designated as “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita”HR-SM must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside Development Plans, and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. (It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to its prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area). Should any future change in land use designation occur for areas designated by the current project as “Conservation” such areas must also be assessed for cultural resources prior to the approval of development plans and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: During ground-disturbing activities,construction should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will determine, and in consultation with local Native appropriate Tribes, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The project proponent (as applicable)If there is a dispute, the Lead Agency will make the final determination. Based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according relinquished the appropriate local Native Tribe for appropriate treatment. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation.to current professional standards. Pages 3.3-16 through 3.3-17, the mitigation measures have been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, P33-14894, and the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, and all sites concerning Pechanga’s creation and origin should be avoided and preserved. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation of these resources by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate local Native Tribe, will be required to determine the significance of these resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report evaluating each known cultural resource, noting the significance determination of the resource. The report will determine whether additional evaluation would be required 2. Errata City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 prior to the alteration or destructionmake recommendations for treatment of each resource. A Cultural Resource Treatment Plan should be developed for identified significant cultural resources, particularly the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District and sites concerning Pechanga’s creation and origin, in consultation with the appropriate local Native American Tribes and a qualified archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the current project area. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the Pechanga Tribe and other local appropriate Native American groups Tribe regarding any future development to occur within the project area. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of the project proponent and in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, as well as other appropriate local Native American groupsTribe. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If agreement with the Tribes cannot be reached, the project proponentLead Agency will determine the required treatment. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project proponent will contact the Native American Heritage CommissionNAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641) 2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The Most Likely Descendant is required tomost likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning for the treatment of the any human remains as provided in Public Resource Code 5097.98. Page 3.3-18, the mitigation measure has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The Errata City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 plan will be submitted to the project proponent for review and approval prior to implementation. Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) for the project, the project proponent shall retain Tribal monitor(s) from the appropriate local Tribe. The Tribal monitor(s) shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, including archaeological testing, and shall also have the authority to stoop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. Page 3.5-12, second heading has been revised as follows: 3.5.6 7 Impacts and Mitigation Page 3.5-20, second sentence of the last paragraph has been revised as follows: Changing the existing County of RiversideCity of Temecula’s General Plan land use designations of property from a land use designation RM and OS that is considered compatible with surrounding land uses to land uses designations that are similar uses which are also considered to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, will create potential impacts to mineral resources. Section 3.5.6, Impact 3.5.1 – The impact statement is revised to read as follows: Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The significance after mitigation conclusion remains the same. Chapter 5 Mandatory CEQA Topics The following describes the additional table that has been added to Chapter 5. TABLE 5-21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons) Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Operational Emissionsa 2,678 0 2,673 835 702 Quarry Activitiesb 0 0 0 71,687 71,687 Total 2,678 0 2,673 72,522 72,389 ___________________________________ a Operational GHG emissions include mobile source emissions and GHG emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use, as well as water conveyance. Mobile source values were derived using EMFAC2007 in addition to the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 3.0, April 2008. Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Water conveyance energy rates from California Energy Commission Staff Report: California's Water -Energy Relationship. 2005. Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. b Greenhouse Gas emission for quarry activities were taken from the “Final Draft Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Liberty Quarry, Riverside County, California,” produced by Kleinfelder West, Inc., dated August 23, 2007. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. 2. Errata City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Page 5-79, last two paragraphs is revised to read as follows: Implementation of the SMAA project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air, Noise, Mmineral Rresources, and Transportation and Traffic. The Land Use and Planning, Recreation, and, Public Services and Utilities , and Transportation and Traffic issue areas have less than significant adverse environmental effects and therefore do not require mitigation measures. Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources have potential environmental effects that can be mitigated to below the level of significance. Impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and population and housing were determined not to be significant in the NOP (Appendix A). This EIR concludes that project-specific impacts related to Air, Noise, Mineral Resources, and Transportation and Trafficmineral resources would be significant and unmitigable at the project level. These impacts would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Revisions to the FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the above changes to mitigation measures described above and will not be repeated. 1 Culvert -2 meters in width 4 Culverts -Ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 meters in width 2 Culverts -Ranging from 1.5 to 2 meters in width 1 Culvert LEGENDCity of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Parcels Residential -1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres Existing Crossing Areas 79 15 City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Exhibit 1 Proposed Project Land Plan SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale Riverside County San Diego County City of Temecula LEGEND City of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Parcels Mine Boundary Mine Impact Area 79 15 Residential -1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres Existing Crossing Areas City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Exhibit 2 Alternative 3 Existing County General Plan Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale 1 Culvert -2 meters in width 4 Culverts -Ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 meters in width 2 Culverts -Ranging from 1.5 to 2 meters in width 1 Culvert Exhibit 3 City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-1 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 CHAPTER 3 Response to Comments – Revised DEIR Chapter 3 includes responses to all comment letters received on the revised DEIR during the public review period. Comment letters were received from the following agencies and interested parties during the public review period for the revised DEIR: 1. Pala Band of Mission Indians – September 24, 2008 2. County of Riverside, Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health – October 3, 2008 3. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – October 7, 2008 4. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control – October 10, 2008 5. California State Lands Commission – October 21, 2008 6. Patricia Marsolino – October 24, 2008 7. Peter Gonzales – October 28, 2008 8. Linn Campbell – October 28, 2008 9. David Thompson – October 28, 2008 10. Gerry Fawcett – October 30, 2008 11. Enviromine Inc. – October 30, 2008 12. Grunder/Nieto – October 31, 2008 13. Southwest Trails – October 31, 2008 14. Hooper Land Company – October 31, 2008 15. Tons Per Hour October – 31, 2008 16. Zac Grant – November 1, 2008 17. Robert Behrmann – November 1, 2008 18. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P. – November 3, 2008 19. Kleinfelder – November 3, 2008 20. Senator Jim Battin – November 3, 2008 21. Vince Davis – November 3, 2008 22. Ernesto Ordonez – November 3, 2008 23. Lee Haven – November 3, 2008 24. Mike Villa – November 3, 2008 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-2 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 25. Jessica Beaver – November 3, 2008 26. Kishor Doshi – November 3, 2008 27. Marcella Bedoian – November 3, 2008 28. Angel Zarobinski – November 4, 2008 29. Keri Canning – November 4, 2008 30. Rick Kellogg – November 4, 2008 31. Diepenbrock Harrison on behalf of Granite Construction Company – November 4, 2008 32. San Diego State University – November 5, 2008 33. Granite Construction Company – November 5, 2008 34. Rainbow Planning Group – November 5, 2008 35. Pechanga Indian Reservation – November 5, 2008 36. County of Riverside – November 5, 2008 37. James Giantoni – October 22, 2008 38. Stephen MacDonald – October 28, 2008 39. Mark Bogh – October 28, 2008 40. Friends of Liberty – November 3, 2008 41. The Nature Conservancy – November 5, 2008 42. Gary Harrison – November 5, 2008 43. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit – November November 7, 2008 Comment letters were received from the following agencies and interested parties during the public review period for the original Draft Environmental Report (DEIR): 1. Native American Heritage Commission – March 7, 2008 2. Angel Zarobinski – March 19, 2008 3. Gary Harrison – March 19, 2008 4. Jason Zerobinski – March 19, 2008 5. Johnson & Sedlack – March 19, 2008 6. Gary Fawcett – March 25, 2008 7. Santa Margarita River Foundation – March 27, 2008 8. BIA – April 1, 2008 9. Bogh Construction – April 1, 2008 10. Grunder Nieto – April 1, 2008 11. City of Indio – April2, 2008 12. Temecula Valley Custom Pools – April 2, 2008 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-3 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 13. Cal CIMA – April 3, 2008 14. Carley Cechin – April 3, 2008 15. Friends of Liberty – April 3, 2008 16. A. Giantoni – April 3, 2008 17. James Marsolino – April 3, 2008 18. Kelsey Vasbinder – April 3, 2008 19. Kishor Sudha Doshi – April 3, 2008 20. Lee Haven – April 3, 2008 21. Peter Gonzales – April 3, 2008 22. R.A. Bennett – April 3, 2008 23. Superior Ready Mix Concrete – April 3, 2008 24. Senator Jim Battin – April 4, 2008 25. State Mining & Geology – April 4, 2008 26. California State Lands Commission – April 7, 2008 27. California Department of Transportation – April 7, 2008 28. Pechanga Indian Reservation – April 7, 2008 29. Governors Office of Planning and Research – April 8, 2008 30. KAR Construction Inc. – March 26, 2008 31. R.D. Remple Environmental Solutions – No Date 32. San Diego State University – April 7, 2008 33. Granite Construction – No Date 34. Executive Office, County of Riverside – April 3, 2008 35. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – March 18, 2008 36. TLMA Planning Department #1 – March 24, 2008 37. TLMA Planning Department #2 – April 3, 2008 38. TLMA Planning #3 – April 2, 2008 39. Riverside County Public Health – March 26, 2008 39.5 County of Riverside Transportation Department 40. County of Riverside – Environmental Programs Department 41. County of Riverside – James Fagelson 42. County of Riverside Environmental Health 43. Bureau of Land Management 44. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians – February 28, 2008 45. Diepenbrock Harrison on behalf of Granite Construction Company – April 4, 2008 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-4 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Individual comments are bracketed and numbered in the right margin of the comment letters and the responses to the individual comment follow the letter with a corresponding response number. All non-CEQA related comments are noted as such and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Pala Band of Mission Indians 1-1 This section includes introduction text acknowledging receipt of notification of project; as such, no response is required. 1-2 The comment states that the Pala Band of Mission Indians have consulted their maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. It is, however, within the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, it requested that the Pala Band of Mission Indians be kept in the information loop as the project progresses (project updates, reports of investigations, and/or any documentation that might be generated regarding previously reported or newly discovered sites). Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 states that consultation will occur with local appropriate Native American tribe regarding any future development to occur within the project area. 1.3 The comment restates that this annexation does not, as yet, include any formal development plans or proposals and that the Pala Band of Mission Indians point out that the presence of significant cultural resources in the area will require the use of Native American monitors on any future projects within the annexation. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, and 3.3-5 include provisions for tribal monitoring of potential significant cultural resources in the area. County of Riverside, Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health 2-1 Introduction text acknowledging receipt of DEIR. No response is required. 2-2 The comments state that the project is not presently sewered along the west side of the I-15 freeway and details requirements for development. The comment describes minimum specifications for lots to be served by septic tanks, and is noted. Because no specific development is proposed, no response is required. 2-3 The comment gives requirements for on site septic systems that would be appropriate for future residential development in the area. No further response is required. 2-4 The comment gives requirements for on site water wells that would be applicable to fture development in the area. No further response is required. 2-5 The comments state that the project is not presently sewered along the west side of the I-15 freeway and details requirements for development. The Santa Margarita Annexation 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-5 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 project area is largely an ecological reserve with no existing development. No specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future development proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula (City), specific environmental studies including assessments of appropriate water and septic systems will be conducted as required. 2-6 The comments state that SAN forms shall be required by the applicant. The Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development. No specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future development proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including assessments of appropriate water and septic systems will be conducted as required. Riverside Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3-1 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District indicated in their October 7, 2008 letter that they have no comments at this time. As such, no additional response is required. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control 4-1 The comment restates the project description. As such, no response is required. 4-2 The comment states that CEQA documents for any future site-specific plans should identify current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the propose project area. The Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. At present, however, there’s no indication of prior uses in the area that would have resulted in contamination. 4-3 The comment states that the EIR should identify the mechanisms and means to initiate investigation and/or remediation or any site that may be contaminated. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-6 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required, and coordination with the Department will occur as may be appropriate. 4-4 The comment states that all environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a “Workplan” approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. 4-5 The comments state that proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required, and any remediation necessary will be required. 4-6 The comment states that if buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself; as such, no demolition is planned. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. 4-7 The comment states that project construction may require soil excavation or filing in certain areas. Sampling may be required. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself; as such, no excavation is planned. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. 4-8 The comment states human health and environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. As previously stated, the Santa 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-7 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to impact sensitive receptors in the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself; as such, no demolition is planned. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials and/or impacts to sensitive receptors will be conducted as required. 4-9 The comment states that if it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. The contemplated pre-zoning would largely prohibit uses that generate hazardous wastes other than household hazardous waste (in the HR-SM zone). 4-10 The comment states that if the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, an NPDES permit may be required. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including water discharge and drainage plans will be required. All projects must comply with the applicable NPDES requirements. 4-11 The comment states that if during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself; as such, no demolition/construction is planned. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific environmental studies including hazardous materials will be conducted as required. Appropriate steps would be taken to address any future project’s discovery of contaminants. 4-12 The comment states that proper investigations should be conducted if the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. As previously stated, the Santa Margarita Annexation project area is primarily an ecological reserve with no existing development that would have the potential to contaminate the area. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-8 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 4-13 The comment states that the Department of Toxic Substances Control can provide guidance for cleanup. In the event such services become necessary, DTSC will be contacted. No further response is required. California State Lands Commission 5-1 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, no response is warranted. 5-2 The comment states that on page 3.5-4, the second paragraph has a sentence with a possible missing word. The missing word in this sentence is as follows: “This area contains over a thousand feet of sediment.” 5-3 The commenter notes there is an apparent contradiction on page 3.5-19, paragraph two which states that available supplies are insufficient to meet demand, that supplies from Mexico and Canada will continue and this contradicts the statement that the availability of a local source would not reduce the overall need to import the product. In response the City notes that the I-15 corridor in Riverside County has adequate aggregate resources to supply the current needs of the local area and nearby areas within Riverside County. We noted this in our studies that analyzed existing production and reserves that could potentially be developed at existing mines. When other new potential reserves in Riverside County are developed, such as the new 500-acre bedrock site near Perris, CA, then the amount of future reserves increases. While the State’s 50-year aggregate demand projection indicates a future aggregate shortage it does not account for the development of future aggregate supplies; it assumes new sources will NOT be added and this is not a reasonable assumption. One of the issues with future aggregate supply is that much of the locally produced aggregate is exported to Orange County and San Diego County. The proposed Liberty Quarry discusses its market as being just north of Escondido; if this is the case then the rationale to reduce truck traffic should be for Liberty Quarry to be physically located just north of Escondido, in San Diego County. In regard to imports, we consider Temecula to be geographically part of the Temescal Valley and Lake Elsinore production areas; as such, production from these areas is not an import. Regarding supplies from Mexico and Canada, supplies from both sources will continue to be imported and plans to expand supplies will continue to increase. The local area does not depend on imports from Canada and Mexico to meet its supply. Finally, it is not a valid assumption that opening a new mine will necessarily displace existing production. Production at operating mines will continue to supply the local area as existing business arrangements will continue. It has not been shown that aggregate from a new mine will be less expensive than the Lake Elsinore and Temescal aggregate. Production from alluvial sources is less expensive than a bedrock mine. Production from mature mines is less expensive than from a new facility. 5-4 Page 5-66: The comment asks to provide the study from Fehr and Peers that supports the statement made that a local source of aggregate would increase the vehicle miles traveled 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-9 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 in the region as opposed to reducing VMT. Appendix C of the DEIR includes the Fehr and Peers study that supports this statement and other traffic studies that have been conducted by Fehr and Peers in relation to the Santa Margarita Annexation, in addition to supporting traffic counts and calculations. The commenter has already received a copy of Appendix C. 5-5 The comment asks to provide a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis to support the statement that this Alternative 4 would not be consistent with state and AB 32 goals. The requested analyses can be located on the Liberty Quarry Facts Website (http://libertyquarryfacts. com/), as indicated below, and studies conducted by Fehr and Peers located in detail within Appendix D of the DEIR. As stated on pages 5-65 through 5-67 in the DEIR, due to the smaller area available for the excavation of mineral resources under Alternative 4, surface mining operations would exhaust available resources sooner and therefore would extend over a shorter overall period of time. Alternative 4 would increase the overall amount of earth moving and construction activities when compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction of this alternative would generate pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and haul trucks. Emissions from construction and operations of the surface mine were previously calculated in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for Liberty Quarry.1 Although t Alternative 4 would result in a smaller surface mine, the intensity of construction and operations of the surface mine would be similar to that of the Liberty Quarry AQIA. Emissions from construction and operations of Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the Liberty Quarry AQIA on a daily basis. Please refer to http://libertyquarryfacts.com/to access the details of this referenced analysis. A comparison of maximum daily construction emissions for Alternative 4 would increase criteria pollutants by a factor of two to four above the emissions possible under the proposed project. With such an increase, Alternative 4 would cause criteria pollutants to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, regional impacts for Alternative 4 are predicted to be significant and unavoidable for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. Operational emissions from surface mining were also calculated in the Liberty Quarry AQIA. The number of daily trips would be one to two orders of magnitude greater compared to the proposed project. The Liberty Quarry AQIA however, assumed a net reduction of operational truck trips due to the project providing an aggregate source closer to markets. As a result of locating the source closer to markets, the study claims a reduction of VMT in the region by approximately 26,000 miles per day2. A more recent study performed by Fehr and Peers demonstrates that a surface mining operation would 1 This EIR has utilized information available from Liberty Quarry for analytical purposes, but in so doing is not agreeing that the studies would be adequate for a quarry project. The information has been found useful in the context of the analysis of Alternatives, but full independent review of the information has not been completed. 2 Liberty Quarry Truck Traffic Miles Reduced Evaluation, April 12, 2006. Urban Cross Roads 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-10 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 not result in a reduction in trips, but would actually increase VMT in the region by approximately 45,000 miles per day which in turn would increase operational emissions. Please refer to studies conducted by Fehr and Peers located in detail within Appendix D of the DEIR. Therefore, total contributions to regional emissions under Alternative 4 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to regional emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. Localized operational impacts are determined mainly by the peak hour intersection traffic volumes. Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 4 is forecasted to generate more operational trips during the peak hour. Since the localized CO hotspot analysis for the Liberty Quarry AQIA did not result in any significant impacts, Alternative 4 would likewise not have any localized impacts due to a similar number of trips generated during the peak hour. With respect to potential air toxic impacts, a health risk assessment (HRA) was performed in the Liberty Quarry AQIA. Results of the HRA show that cancer, chronic, and acute health risk remain below their respective SCAQMD and ARB significance thresholds. Thus, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would result in a less than significant air quality impact related to air toxics. With regard to greenhouse gases, Riverside County does not have any green building standards applicable to residences that could be constructed. New construction without any green building design features would not represent any improvements above business as usual. Therefore, development under this Alternative 4 would not be consistent with the State’s goals and AB32, and could result in a significant impact to global climate, and in particular a significant cumulative impact. 5-6 The comment states that the GHG section of the project and the project alternatives lack any substantive information or numerical analysis related to the project and requests to include a quantitative analysis of all GHG’s that will be produced by the construction equipment, vehicle traffic and other activities generally associated with the projects of this type. Section 3.1 of the DEIR includes project-related operation GHG emissions data results, Table 3.1-10. Emissions of GHG’s were calculated for the existing and projected future uses with implementation of the proposed project. As stated on page 3.1-36, there are many uncertainties involved in the quantification of GHG emissions from any individual development project. Newer construction materials and practices, current energy efficiency requirements, and newer appliances tend to emit lower levels of air pollutant emissions, including GHG’s, as compared to those built years ago, but the net effect is difficult to quantify. Thus, the estimated net increase in emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project presented within Section 3.1 is a good faith reasoned estimate based on best available information regarding construction of 81 homes in an overall area of nearly 5,000 acres. While the DEIR did acknowledge aggregate resources could come from Canada and Mexico, these are alternative sources and the amount of import from Canada and Mexico necessary for development of 81 homes, and thus will not 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-11 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 change whether this project goes forward or not; as such, this project will not change this impact. Alternative 1 would result in no development, and therefore no net increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions would occur. Alternative 2 would result in GHG emissions slightly lower than those resulting from the proposed project because there are only 80 dwelling units, compared to the 81 dwelling units associated with the proposed project. So even though the project’s dwelling units would be more energy efficient, Alternative 2 has fewer VMT, which results in lower GHG emissions. Alternative 3, which would allow development of residential dwelling units and mining operations would result in more GHG emissions than those from the proposed project because of the drastic increase in emissions attributed to the mining activities. Alternative 4, which would allow for 21 dwelling units and mining operations, would also result in more GHG emissions than the proposed project but less than Alternative 3. It should be noted that the analysis of alternatives does not have to be to the same level of detail as the project analysis; there is no obligation to quantify alternatives [see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)]. 5-7 The comment states that the alternatives analysis lacks a comparison of GHG’s produced from importation of aggregate versus a local source and asks to provide a GHG analysis looking at a local aggregate source versus current importation of aggregate from Canada and Mexico that includes enumeration. A comparative GHG analysis looking at a local aggregate source versus current importation of aggregate from Canada and Mexico, as suggested, is too speculative given the distances of the alternative aggregate supply locations and variables involved with transportation. Speculation would be necessary not only with respect to aggregate sources, but also as to where the material would be put to use in the large Southern California market. Further, the analysis of the economics of fuel prices, extraction costs, distances between projects and various sources, and the role of competition between various aggregate suppliers, and the impact of those factors on aggregate distribution require speculation to such a degree that results would not be meaningful. This level of detail and speculation is not necessary for an alternatives analysis. Because the specific source of aggregate used locally can vary with demand and market conditions, and is undocumented and unverifiable, it would be highly speculative to assume that the most likely alternatives to locally-mined material are aggregate imported from Canada or Mexico. If aggregate were mined locally, it may just as likely be transported and used some distance outside of the immediate region. Quantitative analyses of GHG emissions from speculative worst-case scenarios are neither appropriate nor required. 5-8 The comment asks to provide a GHG analysis including quantitative numerical support for the statements made in the alternatives analysis related to vehicle trips. Supporting 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-12 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 data related to vehicles trips can be found in the Draft EIR (Section 5 – Alternative 3) and Appendix C (Table 8 on Page 846). Total ADT volumes associated with Alternative 3 are projected to be 3,934, as compared to 775 ADT associated with the proposed project. GHG emissions resulting from the alternatives have been calculated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this document. 5-9 The comment asks to provide a GHG analysis to show increased or decreased GHG’s associated with operations of the alternate sites and a map with the additional mileage associated with that source location. Alternate sites suggested for the source of aggregate were provided in the Summary Report on Local Production and Consumption of Aggregates along the I-15 Corridor and Related Areas of Southwestern Riverside County, California, prepared by Cato Geoscience, and included in Appendix D of the DEIR. As stated in the response to comment 5-7 above, the future source of aggregate used locally is a function of market forces and cannot be known with a high degree of certainty at this time. Therefore, quantitative analyses, such as emission calculations, for the transport of aggregate from these alternate sites would be speculative and is not required to be studied under CEQA. Finally, the project is not a quarry, but annexation of the property to the City. The comment suggests an alternative site for a quarry, but that is not part of the project. The comment at bottom is seeking analysis of an alternative site analysis for Alternatives 3 and 4, rather than for the project. CEQA does not require this. 5-10 First, the City’s project does not propose a quarry. Therefore, this response is framed in terms of the Alternatives that consider an alternative use with a quarry. The comment asks to provide a detailed description of the proposed quarry on the special linkage area that is currently bisected by I-15 as well well as a map showing the existing pathways that migratory animals currently use to move through this corridor and how the quarry will impact that movement and a similar analysis for the proposed project regarding residential impacts. Please refer to the attached Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 showing a more detailed description of the existing crossing points along the I-15 corridor. As previously stated on page 5-47 through 5-48 of the DEIR, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the development of an aggregate mine on 414 acres and 25 residential dwelling units directly within the area identified by the MSHCP as Special Linkage Area. Implementation of this alternative would bring a substantially higher level of human activity and associated impacts into the project area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise, blasting, grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. These indirect impacts would adversely affect existing and future research activities and the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Edge effects (noise, lighting, air quality, etc.) associated with industrial development are well documented throughout scientific literature. are Although development under Alternative 3 should be required to 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-13 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 implement all feasible mitigation measures, Alterative 3’s impacts upon biological resources would be greater than the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. As previously stated on page 3.2-39 of the DEIR, there are eight (8) existing culverts that traverse I-15 in the vicinity of the project site and the identified Special Linkage Area, that are large enough to support large mammal movement between the east and west sides of I-15. Large mammal wildlife movement has been documented by camera monitoring stations installed by the SDSU Field Station Program. Implementation of the proposed project could result in increased impacts to wildlife movement. The majority of the area proposed for annexation is preserved as part of the SMER and designated OS and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres which will be designated “Hillside Residential” is limited to one dwelling unit per 10 which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. Development within this area has the potential to impact wildlife corridors. The precise location of grading and dwelling units and driveways is speculative and therefore, the extent of the impact upon wildlife corridors cannot be determined at this time. However, compliance with the MSHCP and the conditions of the Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 3.2.6 and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (The HR-SM zone requires any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions.) will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. As such, a relatively small amount of development on each ten-acre lot in conformance with the development standards would still permit species movement through special linkage areas and movement corridors. Further, existing conditions within the project area would likely preclude major development or clearing. As previously stated on pages 2-9 through 2-10 in the DEIR, a total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. The proposed hillside hillside development standards would require specific setback, massing, landscaping and fuel modification requirements, and would prohibit mass grading and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. As such, individual dwelling units likely would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-14 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 5-11 The comment asks to provide a discussion of biological impacts associated with increasing the number of allowable residences as a result of rezoning from 20 acre minimum to a 10 acre minimum as indicated on page 5-67. The comment focuses not on the project, which would not increase the number of residential units allowed, but instead on Alternative 4. This increase in the number of allowable residences as a result of rezoning from 20 acre minimum to a 10 acre minimum is similar to what is allowed under the proposed project; however, the overall impacts related to allowable residential development alone would be less than those of the proposed project. Under Alternative 4, the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in the annexation of 554 acres into the City and the balance of the project site remaining in unincorporated Riverside County. The property annexed into the City would consist of approximately 236 acres of privatelyowned property designated HR and developed with 21 single-family dwelling units, and 318 acres designated as Open Space. Property remaining in unincorporated Riverside County would include approximately 232 acres developed with 27 new single-family dwelling units, 250 acres developed with a surface mining operation and 3,966 acres of open space. The proposed project would involve the ability of the underlying private landowners to potentially develop on a 718 acre area under the HR-SM zoning designation, which is limited to 1 DU/10 AC and which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. As such, the number of allowable residences under Alternative 4 and associated biological impacts from development of these residences (as described in Section 3.2 of the DEIR) is less than the proposed project. However, since Alternative 4 includes development a surface mining operation, the overall impacts to biological resources under Alternative 4 are greater than those compared to the proposed project. 5-12 The comment relates to the discussions on page ES-4 and 3.4-1 and asks to identify on a map all the parcels that are zoned 0.5 acre minimum, wither currently or proposed. Please note that the Rural Residential (R-R) designation (which allows a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres) is indicated on Figure ES-6 (yellow diagonal cross-hatching) and Figure 3.4-3 (yellow cross-hatching). Figure ES-6 and Figure 3.4-3, which identifies the area of the proposed project, and which has a current Riverside County zoning designation of Rural Residential with a minimum of 0.5 acres indicates the location of the R-R designation outside of a very small portion of the project boundary along the northeast corner that is designated Residential Agriculture (green grid cross-hatching). 5-13 The comment requests an explanation how changing the zoning from 20 acre minimum lots to 10 acre minimum lots preserves the goals stated in the EIR and the MSHCP. The referenced 118 acres, which has a Riverside County zoning designation of Residential Agriculture, with a 20 acre minimum lot size, also has a County General Plan land use designation of Conservation Habitat. The County zoning designation is inconsistent with the County land use designation. The City’s proposed land use and pre 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-15 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 zoning designations for this same area are Open Space (OS) and Open Space Conservation – Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) respectively, and as a result do not allow for residential units within this zoning designation. 5-14 The comment asks to justify the statement made on page 3.4-39 regarding no significant change to land use in light of Table 3.4-2. The current County zoning designation for the area in question is Rural Residential (RR), which allows for a number of uses as described; however, this zoning designation is inconsistent with the County General Plan designation of Conservation Habitat, which allows for limited development of ancillary structures or uses that further the intent of the designation and do not substantially alter the character of the area; this is specified in Table 3.4-1. As described in Chapter 3.4 of the DEIR, although there are inconsistencies between the County’s general plan designations and zoning, the City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning are generally consistent with the County’s general plan, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. Further, a contraction in the amount of allowed land uses would not necessarily create additional environmental impacts. In the General Plan Analysis, the County’s RM land use designation and the City’s HR land use designation define the same level of residential use intensity in an area expected to have steep slopes that impose development constraints and limit land use activities to 1 DU/10 AC with ancillary uses. However, the majority of the project area is zoned R-R with a small area zoned R-A-20 by Riverside County. The City’s proposed OS-C-SM zoning is comparable and consistent with the county’s OS-HC land use designation with the intent of conserving open space in a natural state for the betterment and enjoyment of the community through preservation with opportunities for limited recreational use. The City’s choice of HR-SM zoning permits single-family residential use which is consistent with the single-family residential use permitted in the county’s RM land use designation. Although, the City’s list of permitted uses may preclude a number of uses permitted or conditionally permitted under the County zoning, the City’s proposed zoning will permit the use of the subject property in a manner consistent with the current and proposed land use designations (some incompatible uses the County’s R-R zone currently allows include, laundries, machine shops, oil refineries, and radio broadcast studies). Those uses lost, such as surface mining, are uses that are likely to conflict with the existing and planned “rural residential” and “habitat conservation” uses identified for these properties. The City’s HR designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches, educational facilities, libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments). Although there are inconsistencies between the County’s general plan designations and zoning, the City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning are generally 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-16 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 consistent with the County’s general plan which must govern over inconsistent zoning provisions, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. Further, the project site’s existing land uses consist of natural open space over the vast majority of the area, most of which is in the SMER, and six single-family homes with some agricultural and equestrian activities. The City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning would generally preserve the existing land uses, and the introduction of low density residential development that might occur pursuant to the proposed land use regime would not constitute a significant change from the existing conditions. 5-15 The comment requests an explanation to the apparent contradiction of the conversion of the 5-acre parcel from “Open Space – Conservation Habitat” to Hillside Residential” in light of the stated objectives of the EIR. The 5-acre parcel in question was purchased by the San Diego State University (SDSU) during the preparation of the DEIR. The purchase of this property will further SDSU research programs of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The proposed designation of the 5-acre parcel in question as Hillside Residential was made as a result of the existing privately owned residential use; however, as mentioned previously, this property was purchased by SDSU and will be used to further their research programs. As a result, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) does not propose to designate this property as Hillside Residential (HR), rather the proposed land use designation is Open Space (OS) and the pre-zoning designation is Open Space-Conservation-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), which is consistent with the stated objectives of the EIR. 5-16 The comment requests to provide a hydrological evaluation to support the statements made that the quarry activities will potentially have a significant impact to groundwater and surface runoff, versus the development of a greater cumulative acreage in residential units, and the statement that this will be less than significant. As described in Chapter 3.4 of the DEIR, although there are inconsistencies between the County’s general plan designations and zoning, the City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning are generally consistent with the County’s general plan, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. As such, the land uses allowed in the proposed annexation are essentially those uses currently allowed in the County. If the project were adopted, any proposed residences would face development constraints in addition to those suggested in the comment question. As in any proposal, a site that is inaccessible, a site with undue steep slopes, or a site without groundwater may not be able to be developed. If for example, there is no groundwater at the site then a residence may not be able to be developed. If road grading could not be shown to be performed in regard to environmental, sediment runoff, and other regulations then that development would not be allowed. And it is possible that some sites would not achieve the necessary percolation rate. That is the nature of development on natural terrains and a proposed site within the SMAA is no different. The burden of proof whether a site could be developed would fall on the owner of the parcel. If the project is adopted it would allow 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-17 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 development up to this maximum density in the residential development area, but it would not condone such development nor would development be allowed to proceed if could not be shown to do so within regulatory constraints. Surface hydrology in the area of a mine is dependent on many factors including, but not limited to the design of the bedrock aspects of the pit, handling of spoil on the surface, design of plant facilities outside of the pit, access roads, surface drainage design, and location and design of other appurtenances. Impacts are highly sensitive to the design, and the design is unknown and would require undue speculation for an alternative analysis. Our comments regarding mine impacts to groundwater hydrology are limited by the same factors as discussed above. However, with groundwater the City can make limited preliminary comments based on the existence of a mine pit. A granitic bedrock aquifer is just one of many types of bedrock aquifers. And by using the term granite we are grouping several intrusive igneous rock bodies into one category. The following list contains some of the key factors regarding groundwater flow in a crystalline bedrock aquifer. The presence or absence of faults and their characteristics are also significant. • the number and distribution of fracture/joint sets • types of fractures/joints present or absent • the degree of fracture/joint development • fracture/joint intensity/density • fracture/joint connectivity • rock type As mentioned above flow and occurrence of groundwater in bedrock is controlled by several factors, discontinuities are mentioned several times in the above list. Hydrostructural domains are delineated from a combination of geologic mapping and fracture characterization data. Fracture density is commonly depth–limited and correlated with proximity to topographic lineaments. Within the crystalline bedrock are anomalous lower permeability intervals associated with ancient fault shear zones. However, brecciated rock adjacent to the shear zones, and the shear zones themselves, can be hydraulically conductive and serve as pathways for groundwater movement. Faults can create barriers to groundwater flow paths and also create pathways for water to flow parallel to the fault. This is not an apparent contradiction, but the circumstances that exist at a particular location dictate which, of these circumstances dominate groundwater flow characteristics. Groundwater barriers can be created by the fault plane itself. The effect of an excavation on the local groundwater regime can be extreme. Several southern California tunnels, that may be considered less intrusive than an open pit and that leave the overburden rock intact, have resulted in significant groundwater impacts. For example, the Arrowhead East tunnel in the San Bernardino Mountains produced groundwater impacts when it was approximately one to one and a half miles into the bore and with overburden depths on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 ft. A large opening in the rock 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-18 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 surface would cut off joints, fractures, and faults and disrupt the existing groundwater regime. While a bedrock aquifer may have low flow rates, this is not the same as having no groundwater and no flow. The City has concerns that the groundwater regime would be disrupted during the period of time that mining operates. The City has additional concerns regarding the reclamation of the mine pit. If the pit were to be even partiallyfilled with water then that would create another set of conditions and their impact would need to be evaluated. Analysis to the level of detail is not required for a project alternative. 5-17 The comment states that much the missing information noted and analysis omitted in the DEIR can be easily obtained. Please refer to Liberty Quarry Facts Website (http://libertyquarr yfacts.com/) to obtain further information about the County proposal. However, the Riverside County DEIR for the Liberty Quarry has not been released. While there has been some geologic study performed in the Quarry area the reports have not been submitted as part of the formal CEQA process. The City has several questions regarding these reports and until given an opportunity to receive answers to our questions regarding methodologies and conclusions in these reports, the City hesitates to rely on the data or conclusions contained in these reports. At present these studies cannot be considered to be part of the official record. Regarding an evaluation of alternatives, please see the response in regard to 5-16. Patricia Marsolino 6-1 The comment states that the amount of available construction aggregate in the County is diminishing and new resources must be developed to economically and environmentally address the demand. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic; commenter should consult the detailed analysis of aggregate demand that is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 6-2 The comment states that truck traffic will increase on Coachella Valley roads thus causing an increase in related air quality problems. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic, the detailed analysis of the transportation impacts associated with Santa Margarita Area Annexation and the Liberty Quarry Traffic Impact Analysis, provided in Appendix C of the DEIR and in a September 15th letter report from Fehr & Peers should be consulted. 6-3 The comment states that preventing the development of Liberty Quarry will prevent job creation in the area. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-19 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 6-4 The comment summarizes previous points reference in the letter; as such, a further response is not required. Peter Gonzales 7-1 The comment asserts that the City’s annexation violates personal rights. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 7-2 The comment states that the cost of providing fire protection along to the area seems like a good enough reason not to annex the land. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The DEIR determined adequate fire protection services can be provided to the area. If there is a wildland fire within one mile of any State or Federal property the State/Federal would consider this an eminent threat and respond accordingly; it is not up to the local jurisdiction to respond in this situation. As such, since the majority of the project area is either State or Federal property, from a wildfire standpoint, the economic impact to the City would be minimal with regard to this issue of wildland fires. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 7-3 The comment states that the City’s annexation would provide no tax revenue to the City. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Linn Campbell 8-1 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, a response is not required. 8-2 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will create needed jobs for the local economy. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 8-3 This is a conclusion paragraph, as such, a response is not required. David Thompson 9-1 The comment states that the City’s annexation is frivolously spending tax payer money in a current time of economic uncertainty. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 9-2 The comment states that the City should be focusing on the important difficulties currently affecting the local community. The comment is economic in nature, and does 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-20 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 9-3 The comment states that the City’s annexation will cost money while producing no revenue. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 9-4 The comment states that the City’s annexation is not an efficient use of tax payer dollars. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Gerry Fawcett 10-1 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, a response is not required. 10-2 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, a response is not required. 10-3 The comment states that the actions of the City are a blatant attempt to take private property without compensation. The project does not contemplate governmental acquisition of private property. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-4 The comment states that the DEIR is inadequate as it has not studied the potentially significant impacts of increased trucking of aggregate from the Banning Pass area and the Coachella Valley through Banning, Beaumont, San Jacinto and Hemet to Southwest Riverside County. In response, the City would note that the DEIR evaluated traffic impacts associated with the development of the Annexation only and also impacts associated with the development of the site with both residential and surface mining. This assessment of traffic impacts associated with surface mining is documented in Chapter 5, pages 5-56 to 5-62 of the DEIR. Additionally, the comment states that if the Liberty Quarry project is denied, then there will be an increase in trucks and emissions in the region. In response, this increase in traffic and emissions would only occur if there are no other sources for aggregate material needed in the Temecula area except for locations such as the Coachella Valley, which is not certain. The DEIR provides extensive documentation to support the alternative conclusion. For example, the DEIR documents numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County that could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-21 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 10-5 The comment states that the DEIR does not consider the significant economic impact the project will have. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-6 The comment states that the proposed annexation would result in a cost to the City. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-7 The comment states that the State and Federal government does need help from the City of Temecula to protect the habitat on their lands. The proposed land uses and zoning would further this protection. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-8 This paragraph includes concluding statements; as such, no response is required. Enviromine Inc. Regardless of the various comments received regarding mining, the DEIR acknowledges the potential for loss of access to the resource and concludes the impact can’t be mitigated. 11-1 Page 2, Paragraph 2, Line 12: Commenter implies that there are no producing aggregate quarries within 20 miles of Liberty Quarry. This comment is incorrect. There are two existing producing mines within 20 miles of the proposed Liberty Quarry and both are shown on the commenter’s figure. Granite’s own Rosemary Mountain quarry, located just south of the area near the I-15 and SR 76 intersection, is open and producing aggregate. National Quarries is an established and producing quarry in north San Diego County. In addition the County of Riverside has two producing road pits within this area (East Benton and Bundy Canyon). Based on the locations of these other sources, a quarry at the project site would not have a 20 mile advantage over all other sources. In the information provided by Enviromine, the California Department of Transportation notes that 99% of aggregate destinations in the State of California are located at least 40 miles from the producing site. They further state that the average one-way hauling distance could be as high as 50 miles. We note these distances to emphasize that the existing haul distances in the Temecula area are not atypical and are below the state average. For example, the Lake Elsinore, Temescal Valley, and Corona mines all fall within a 35-mile radius from Temecula. Page 1, Paragraph 2, Line 13: The comment states that “Murrieta and Temecula’s construction aggregate needs are being served by quarries located along I-15 north of Lake Elsinore” Refers to Figure. The figure in the October 30, 2008 commenter’s report shows that Liberty Quarry market area extends in a 20-mile radius around the quarry. To the north along I-15, the radius extends up to Lake Elsinore. If the Liberty Quarry serves 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-22 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 the same market as does the Temescal and Lake Elsinore areas, there will not be a reduction in truck traffic. The only difference is whether the trucks are loaded in a northbound direction (from Liberty Quarry) or in a southbound direction (from the Temescal and Lake Elsinore quarries), but there are trucks on I-15 nonetheless. We note a discrepancy in the reported market area for the proposed Liberty Quarry; when we compare the October 30, 2008 Enviromine report with the October 31, 2008 Kleinfelder report; the information about the target market area is inconsistent and would have an adverse effect on traffic impact. In the Kleinfelder Study, “Ship to Shore...Aggregate Imports” the market center for Liberty Quarry products is located along I-15 about 8 miles north of Escondido (15 miles south of Liberty). The Kleinfelder graphic (Figure 1) has a 20-mile radius, which from their market center only extends to the north side of Temecula. The Enviromine report shows the market area to be a 20 mile radius from the mine location and, thus, extends further north. If aggregate from Liberty Quarry serves this all-encompasing area from Lake Elsinore to south of Escondido there will be a net increase in traffic. The only area of I-15 that presently does not have significant traffic slow-downs – the segment between the south-side of Temecula and Escondido would be adversely affected by this increase truck taffic. To add traffic to a corridor used by the majority of Temecula commuters affords an impact unacceptable to the City. Page 1, Paragraph 2, Line 16: The comment states that the Urban Crossroads report concludes that there will be a reduction in truck traffic because production sites in Corona and Temescal Valley will be at a competitive disadvantage due to higher transportation costs. The City questions the assumptions used to show that Liberty Quarry could supply a more economical product to southwest Riverside County or the north San Diego County area. The commenter bases their argument solely on transportation costs being lower for Liberty Quarry. However, other costs that factor into the production of aggregate are ignored. For example, it is more costly to produce aggregate from bedrock than from an alluvial source. It is more costly to produce aggregate from a new mine with higher capitol cost and financing and start-up costs (such as building the mine and infrastructure) than a mature existing mine, whose lower capitol cost is significantly paid down. Thus, without any competitive advantage there will not be a reduction in traffic. Page 2, Paragraph 1, Line 2 and 3: The commenter states that existing quarries in the north San Diego County area are unable to meet the local demand, that the demand is being served by Temescal Valley quarries, and that the proposed Liberty Quarry could provide a more economical product than that from the San Diego area. However, the commenter offers no proof that any of these assumptions occurs. There are many population centers within the north San Diego County area. It is not accurate to say that the north San Diego County I-15 corridor is one of the fastest growing areas of San Diego County without qualifying this statement. The I-15 corridor 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-23 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 from the Riverside/San Diego County line to just north of San Diego is not the most densely populated area of San Diego County, say as compared to other corridors such as the SR 78 (east and west of I-15), SR-76 (west of I-15), or the Escondido areas. However, Enviromine repeatedly points to the north San Diego County I-15 corridor as the area that is needed to be served by Liberty Quarry. The comment assumes that this area is only supplied by aggregate being imported south from Riverside County. However, aggregate also moves northward into the north County area from other aggregate sources within San Diego. As additional sources of imported aggregate develop and flow into the San Diego area, the demand on mid-County producers to ship southward into the downtown area lessens and they are better able to supply the north County area. The commenter bases their argument solely on transportation costs being lower for the proposed Liberty Quarry. However, other costs that factor into the production of aggregate are ignored. For example, it is more costly to produce aggregate from bedrock than from an alluvial source. It is more costly to produce aggregate from a new mine with higher capitol cost and financing and start-up costs (such as building the mine and infrastructure) than a mature existing mine, whose lower capitol cost is significantly paid down. 11-2 This section of the comment letter summarizes the purpose of the letter; as such, no response is required. 11-3 The commenter states that Fehr & Peers do not believe there is evidence of the redistribution of truck traffic when a quarry opens or closes. In response, the statement by Fehr & Peers addresses the lack of empirical data, case studies, or “before and after” studies that would definitively indicate how truck traffic might reroute or redistribute with the opening of a new quarry. This lack of case studies is a key aspect of the data presented by Urban Crossroads since their estimates of truck traffic reductions and truck mile reductions are based on assumptions of where trucks might redistribute themselves or how traffic patterns might change. A case study or other empirical evidence would be more definitive evidence than the assumptions provided in the reports prepared by Urban Crossroads. The commenter does not provide any definitive case studies in their comment which specifically address the issue of truck traffic redistribution to refute or contradict this statement. The commenter also notes that the California Department of Transportation recently released a document noting the need for aggregate materials to facilitate the construction of transportation facilities. This letter addresses the need for aggregate material statewide and does not reference the Annexation Project or proposed transportation improvements within Riverside County or San Diego County that would be affected if the Annexation were to be approved. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-24 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Fehr & Peers does not believe there is evidence of truck traffic redistribution when a new quarry opens or closes. Fehr & Peers relies on two Cato Geoscience, Inc. reports (CGI, 2008a, and CGI, 2008b)3 as the basis of their conclusions. Fehr & Peers believes there are multiple factors that control traffic distribution rather than basing their arguments solely on transportation costs of aggregate. Fehr & Peers relied on many sources of information to make their conclusions. The commenter makes the assumption that because aggregate is a low unit-value mineral commodity that opening of a new mine, in this case Liberty, will cause the current south bound I-15 truck traffic from Lake Elsinore and Temescal Canyon to cease moving aggregate south of Liberty. The only factor being emphasized by the commenter and Urban Crossroads regarding the cost of aggregate is transportation cost. However as previously mentioned, there are many factors that influence the cost of aggregate. This argument also ignores the source aggregate from recycling and from non-mine sources such as residential developments and road widening. The commenter states that the increased miles driven to supply a given area will lead to an increase in the final cost. This has been going on for decades in San Diego metropolitan area and most of San Diego County. Explosive development occurred in spite of this, and haul distances have increased exceedingly. The market absorbed the higher transportation costs over the decades; this is continuing today and expected in the future as new development occurs or increases. The comment does not list specific information and/or data to support its claim regarding the nature of the location of where source material exists, or does not exist, in San Diego County, and does not justify the nature of where the transportation and market conditions are favorable, or much less favorable 11-3 Page 3, Paragraph 1, 2 and 3: Statement made that “If it can be assumed that the cost of production is equal from one production facility to the next” then the only difference in cost would be the cost of transportation. Thus, a local quarry would “capture” the local market. “It is widely accepted by the aggregates industry that consumers will purchase supplies from the closest quarry because materials can be provided at a lower transportation cost.” The City rejects this assumption. The cost of aggregate production at every facility varies. These costs include the purchase cost of the mine, the life of the mine, the difficulty in permitting, particular physical or environmental site issues, the amount of waste, the quality of the aggregate and other factors. There are business factors as well 3 CGI, 2008a:2008a, Cato Geoscience, Inc, Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and Surrounding Inland Empire Areas – Development Opportunities & Current Conditions: Prepared for the City of Temecula, January 25, 2008. CGI, 2008b: 2008b, Cato Geoscience, Inc., Summary Report on Local Production And Consumption of Aggregates Along the I-15 Corridor And Related Areas Of Southwestern Riverside County and San Diego County, California: Prepared for the City of Temecula, September 14, 2008. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-25 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 that include long term client relationships that are not erased only because a new production facility has opened. Cost to the consumer is a major factor, but all the above mentioned factors have a cost effect that cannot assume to be nil. Certainly transportation costs are a factor, but they should not be considered in a vacuum. Using the fundamental economic principle that the commenter suggests, would mean that a new mine to provide aggregate materials to San Diego County should be developed, in the center of the North County market area, a distance of almost 20 miles south of the proposed Liberty Quarry location. Rock material capable to be used for production of Portland cement grade aggregates exist throughout San Diego County. We note the following PCC sites have been documented by the California Geologic Survey: Sycamore Ridge Property (South of Gopher Springs Road and west of I-15) (CGS, OFR 88-16); Twin Oaks Valley Road Site east of Vista (CGS, SR-191). Other mining sites were noted in the Survey’s report on Western Riverside County (OFR 96-04) and we only mention a few of these: TTT Quarry (2 miles north of Lakeside) and San Vicente Creek (downstream of San Vicente Dam). The City further rejects the assumption that a local quarry would capture all the local market. Cost of the product to the consumer is probably a larger factor in determining who the consumer purchases from. It has not been shown that the Corona, Temescal Valley, and Lake Elsinore producers, that are older mines, with a known history of production, can not deliver their product in a cost-competitive manner as compared to a more local producer that must charge a higher price because their cost of production is greater. The commenter does not justify the assumption that aggregate supplied by the proposed Liberty Quarry would replace aggregate currently being supplied by quarries located greater distances into San Diego County markets; no information or data are presented. The argument presented that consumers will purchase supplies from the closest quarry refutes the alternative claim that consumers buy what is needed when they want it even if the product is available elsewhere at a slightly greater cost. This is what has occurred in San Diego County for decades. Page 3, Paragraph 4: The City does not dispute that new aggregate production facilities may be needed. The City also agrees with the stated Caltrans position that local needs, jurisdictions, and environmental laws should be considered in the decision whether to permit new facilities and where these facilities are located. This last idea is apparently overlooked by the commenter. The CGI, 2008a report notes that: rock similar to that at the proposed Liberty Quarry occurs throughout Southern California; most locations noted in the report are not located proximal to a large metropolitan area; and that none of the resource areas are juxtaposed to an an ecological reserve research facility. Thus, while the continued development of new aggregate production facilities may be needed, there are numerous alternate sources of rock that could be developed. The City believes this particular site is an inappropriate location for a large aggregate quarry. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-26 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 11-4 The commenter takes issue with the statement on Page 1 in the report (the City assumes the reference is to Fehr & Peer’s study) that Liberty proponents do not discuss new aggregate facilities that could serve north San Diego County. In response the City notes that Granite’s earlier studies ignored production from the Rosemary Mountain Quarry. Aggregate from the quarry is currently being used in a major construction project – the widening SR76 east of Interstate-15. Once road widening removes the transportation bottleneck and the mine production facilities have been installed, this mine can serve as a major source of aggregate in north San Diego County. Based on mine activities that can be observed today, the City believes full production of 1.1 MTY will be achieved sooner than 3-years estimate. Any future aggregate production coming from other sources, such as the planned Gregory Canyon landfill, has not been included in estimates. The expansion of SR76 can also be used to transport material mined at the landfill. 11-5 The commenter notes that the Hanson San Marcos Quarry closed in February 2008. The commenter states that with production from Rosemarys Quarry the cumulative north San Diego County production will be 1.61 MTY and less than 2007 production. In response, the City notes that Hanson San Marcos did close in 2008 and this was accounted in our earlier reports. The City notes that Rosemary Mountain is in production and believe it will be at full capacity shortly. The additional production that we account comes from increases in the National Quarry, production from the Wonderstone quarry, and lesser amounts of production from mid-county mines. The City notes that there could be production from the Gregory Canyon landfill, but do not use this in our assessment. 11-6 The commenter notes north County population trends and aggregate demands for 50 years. In response the the City notes the weakness in using the 50-year projection because most mines are permitted on shorter time frames. Rosemary Mountain is permitted on a 20-year time frame and the proposed Liberty Quarry is planned on a 20-year time frame. Thus, demand projections in excess of 20 years that assume no additional mines or expanded permitting of existing mines coming online are in error and unsupportable. In addition we note that San Diego County’s support of de-designating a mineral resources site does not support commenter’s argument that a shortage of mineral resources exists along the Interstate15 corridor. San Diego County is supporting the Merriam Mountain MRZ-2 designated site to be developed as a residential development instead of protecting it and developing it as an aggregate site. This action suggests that the County does not consider this potential sources of aggregate to be that necessary or they believe that additional sources of aggregate can be developed The City also takes issue with commenter’s use of north San Diego county population statistics without qualifying these numbers. There are multiple population concentrations in north San Diego County and many of these are distant to the Interstate 15 corridor (i.e., coast along I-5, SR 78 east and west of I-15, Escondido, SR 76 west of I15). Using these relatively distant population centers to argue that the relatively low-populated area along the Interstate 15 corridor has an aggregate shortage is a misuse of statistical date and we reject the argument as unsupportable 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-27 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 11-7 The commenter notes that National Quarries produced 600,000 tons in 2006 and not 1 MT as stated in Cato 2008b. In response the City notes that aggregate production from individual quarries varies over time and in response to demand. Production at National Quarries has historically varied and in the past has been greater. The quarry has the reserves and capability to produce 1MTY. 11-8 The comment states that the 355 MT of permitted reserves in the Lake Elsinore and Temescal Valley areas will not meet the 50-year demand and base this on Kohler, 2006. Further, the commenter states that opening the proposed Liberty Quarry would extend the life of the Temescal Valley reserves and reduce traffic in the Murrieta and Temecula area. In response the City notes that about 10% of the Temescal Valley reserves are transported southward along Interstate15. Even if it is assumed that that all the southerly markets ended, that does not mean that Temescal Valley production will slow down. These facilities will sell their product elsewhere. Thus, opening the proposed Liberty Quarry will not conserve aggregate resources. Second, using a 50-year projection in these discussions is not a useful exercise. Most aggregate mining operations seek permits based on a 20 year basis. For example Granite seeks a 20-year permit at the proposed Liberty Quarry and currently has a 20-year permit the Rosemary Mountain Quarry. Most mines are not permitted on a 50-year basis. Mines, like most businesses focus on the near future rather than focus business decisions on distant projections because there are too many unknown variables in distant projections. There is more focus on remaining in business during the next 5, 10, or 15 years. The 50-year production and demand estimate does not assume that new mine reserves will be developed. It is only based on the depletion of existing permitted reserves. The City believes this is not a realistic forecast of future production. Statistical arguments that use unrealistic values are not valid. It is reasonable to assume there will be aggregate production in 50 years. The market will continue to oscillate between being slightly under-producing to being slightly overproducing. It is unreasonable to assume the market will ever have significant overproduction because this would require producers to develop reserves for which they do not have the current cash reserves or know what or where the market will be in the distant future. The commenter suggests that truck traffic from Temescal Valley mine operations would be displaced; but a valid explanation is not provided, there are many potential reserves to replace existing reserves. The commenter does not take into account the expected use of nearby un-permitted reserves, which is the most frequent manner by which mines extend their lives. 11-9 The commenter states that CEQA guidelines require that reasonable alternatives be presented. In response, the City notes that reasonable alternatives were presented. The proposed project has a higher burden of proof than project alternatives. The City does not suggest that permitting a mine is simple, inexpensive, or fast. CEQA does not require that 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-28 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 presented alternatives vet out alternative sites for the alternate uses analyzed, and does not necessitate study of the potential mine sites. Nonetheless, the City has shown there are numerous areas where aggregate resources are similar to the resource at the proposed Liberty Quarry. The commenter does not dispute the quality of these resources. The City’s approach was similar to the approach used by the California State Mining and Geology Board (CA SMGB) in an anticipated approval of a 500-acre bedrock aggregate site near Perris, CA. The CA SMGB notes that their reclassification of this site will be made, “…on the basis solely on geologic factors, and without regard to existing land use and land ownership.”(PRC 2761 (b). (Executive Officer Report, November 20, 2008, CA SMGB; attached to published meeting Agenda). 11-10 The commenter states that Fehr & Peers and Cato Geoscience rely on alternate sites that are reasonable, but not feasible because only geologic considerations were uses and not other physical, economic, or administrative factors. In response the City notes that it fulfilled its CEQA requirements as they pertain to project alternatives. Further, the City notes that the commenter does not take issue with the geologic conclusions that significant potential aggregate resource exists throughout the regions studied. 11-11 The commenter notes that the City’s mineral resource report was a “description of geologic conditions in the region, not an evaluation of alternate aggregate supplies that are developable.” In response, the City notes that its report did identify numerous aggregate resource locations that could potentially be developed. The scope of work that formed the basis of CGI, 2008a was designed to view the geology in terms of its development for use in aggregate production. The report was not simply a description of the geology, as the comment states, but rather an identification of resource with a particular application in mind. The City notes that the commenter does not take issue with the conclusions regarding the geology or potential quality of aggregate that could be produced from the areas described in our report. The commenter states the work in identifying alternative sites does not go far enough and that the identification of alternative aggregate sites needs to: identify landowners willing to sell their land, to be able to be permitted; to be traffic studies; and many other factors. However, the City does not find that CEQA requires the entire process to be identified in order to the CEQA guidelines to be fulfilled. In addition the City notes that its process was similar to that used by the CA SMGB in its mineral resource classification process, “….on the basis solely on geologic factors, and without regard to existing land use and land ownership.”(PRC 2761 (b). 11-12 The commenter states that imported aggregate from Canada and Mexico are not viable alternatives to the development of Liberty Quarry. In response, the City notes that its reports did not discuss the transport of Canadian aggregate by truck from the Port of San Diego to the north San Diego County area. The City cannot project where the specific markets for this resource will be. However, the City would anticipate that it would be used primarily in the downtown area and areas 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-29 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 proximal to the downtown area. This would minimize truck transport. If the market is concentrated in the downtown area, then the historic suppliers of aggregate for the downtown area, namely markets north and east of the City, would be able to focus on other markets. In addition, to the commenter’s statements, the City notes that Granite commissioned a study by Kleinfelder (October 31, 2008) regarding the feasibility of transporting aggregate by truck from the San Diego port. CGI, 2008a discusses Canadian imports as a regional study of the market that exists and trends for the near future. These trends and developments are not part of an alternative to the annexation. These are actions that will occur whether or not the proposed Liberty Quarry is or is not developed or whether the annexation occurs or does not occur. Imports may continue to be proposed if it makes good business sense for Polaris and other companies to develop these markets. 11-13 The commenter states that only minimal aggregate shipments occurred during 2003 and none since that time. In response, the City notes that trial shipments of aggregate have no bearing on the draft negative declaration and discussion of future plans to increase aggregate imports from Canada. 11-14 The commenter states that aggregate imports from Mexico are not a viable alternative to a local quarry. In response, the City notes that the commenter misconstrues the point that importing aggregate into southern San Diego County reduces need to truck aggregate south from northern San Diego County. The City never assumed or stated that aggregate is trucked to north San Diego County. These materials may displace supplies in San Diego, freeing other materials for delivery northward. Like materials are transported through Riverside County from San Bernardino to San Diego County, Shipments from Yuma, Arizona and Mexico, through Imperial County to to San Diego County have been and will likely continue to be pursued in the reasonably foreseeable future. 11-15 The commenter claims that CGI, 2008a erred because there are no rail deliveries by rail anywhere in San Diego due to lack of rail sidings and track load limitations. In response, the City notes that the CGI, 2008a report stated that rail and conveyor system moves aggregate into the United States. The rail system is in Mexico. The report did not discuss deliveries by rail within San Diego County. 11-16 The commenter states that Cato, 2008b erred in reporting that the Port of San Diego adopted a Negative Declaration for Polaris to import Canadian aggregate up to 7 MT/Y and further noted that this statement is false. The commenter states that the negative declaration discusses import amounts of 600,000 T/Y, that the negative declaration does not discuss Polaris, and that the Port has not received an official complete proposal from Polaris. In response, the City notes that the following situation regarding aggregate imports exists at the Port of San Diego. Polaris plans to transport aggregate by ship into San Diego harbor. The company that plans to develop unloading facilities for aggregate in the Port 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-30 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 of San Diego is being represented by PBS&J, the author of the draft negative declaration. The aggregate import volumes discussed range from 624,000 to 1,248,000 T/Y. The 7 MTY refers to the amount of aggregate that the Port of San Diego was believed to be able to annually import, not what Polaris actually plans to import annually. It should be noted that in the Port import study commissioned by Granite (Oct, 31, 2008), Kleinfelder assumes 5MTY imported at the Port as the basis for their study. Thus, it would appear the potential volume of aggregate that could be transported into the Port is at a minimum in the range of 5 to 7 MTY. 11-17 The commenter states that if aggregate imported at the Port of San Diego is transported by truck to northern San Diego as replacements for local aggregates then the DEIR has failed to consider these impacts. In response, the City notes that the DEIR has no part of the project described in the draft negative declaration regarding aggregate imported at the Port. CGI, 2008a analyzed the context of the existing regional market and near future trends. CEQA does not require analysis of impacts that are outside of proposed projects, and import of aggregate from Canada or elsewhere is not an alternative to the projectwhich is annexation. There is no need to study the GHG of alternate aggregate sources. Similar to imports from Calexico, imports into downtown San Diego could be consumed by the downtown aggregate market and areas proximal to the downtown area. This new source would likely offset aggregate supplies that have historically been transported by truck south from mid-and northern San Diego County. The City did not imply that Port imports will be transported by truck into northern San Diego County. 11-18 The commenter states CGI, 2008a suggested that deep sea and off-shore resources are possible supplies of construction aggregates. The comment goes on to state they found no current proposals to develop these resources, and that there are technological and permitting difficulties to developing these resources. In response the City suggests that these deposits are a possible supply of aggregate. The report did not suggest there were active proposals. While the City does not deny there are challenges in attempting to develop new sources such as this, the City points out that the quality of these materials make them suitable to be considered. The commenter does not take issue with this point. Further, the sand dredging operations that have historically operated in the San Diego area and in other coastal areas of Southern California for the purposes of beach replenishment. It is conceivable that these same sources could be utilized for construction aggregate. The Corps of Engineers would not be the permitting Agency, as the Minerals mined within three miles of the shore belong under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission. Beyond that, the United States Department of the Interior (U.S. Minerals Management Service) would be the point of contact for proposals. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be involved in coastal harbors and sea lanes near shore). 11-19 The commenter takes issue with definition of the word “significant” because temporary Caltrans and County operated borrow pits represent 0.5% of the total amount of the regional aggregate production. The commenter discounts mines, pits, and resources that 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-31 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 are not active producers of aggregate and then claims there is a shortage of potential resource. The City notes that a large of amount of developable aggregate resource exists in the region-that was the focus of the resource study (CGI, 2008a). Riverside County, San Diego County, and Caltrans all operate borrow pits. Some are temporary, some are periodic in that they do not operate all the time. The word “significant” can imply many things. The commenter only uses it regarding aggregate production volume. The argument made in CGI, 2008a regards where the resource can be developed. By showing that these temporary sites exist pervasively around the region, the City shows there are numerous areas containing quality rock for aggregate production. The production number is only a snapshot in time. There are many types of pits and small mines through the region and they operate on on an “as-needed” basis demonstrating that resources are present. If volumes are needed by the Counties or by Caltrans then the potential that could be produced from these areas would increase dramatically. In addition, Cal Trans projects themselves consume very large quantities of mineral material used for sub-grade and aggregate in large and medium construction projects produced by contractors in the Right-of-Ways for highway widening, etc. This production displaces material from nearby mines. 11-20 The commenter states that Fehr & Peers does not analyze the hypothetical truck impact that would occur if other potential sources of aggregate were developed. In response the City notes that the discussion of alternatives does not require the same level of analysis that is required in the analysis of the proposed product. 11-21 The commenter presents their analysis of aggregate cost from various locations based solely on differences in transportation cost. In response the City notes that as discussed in 11-1 and 11-3 above, the commenter assumes that the product cost at each site does not vary. While the cost of production is a major factor in the end product cost, failure to account for production costs calls into question the values shown in this table. As discussed in 11-17, the more distant production sites would unlikely transport aggregate to the north San Diego County area. Instead, increased production in one area will offset production in another area, this frees up the aggregate to be used elsewhere. This information does not change the conclusion that the project (annexation) would have a potentially significant and unmitigable impact. 11-22 The commenter states that “much of the” aggregate used in the Escondido area comes from Temescal Valley mines and that the development of the proposed Liberty Quarry would displace the Temescal Valley traffic that comes through Temecula. In response the City notes the commenter offers no data to support their claim that “most” aggregate consumed in the Escondido areas comes from the Temescal Valley mines. It would be conceivable that some aggregate comes from Temescal, but other mid-County sources that also supply the Escondido area. The City disputes the assumption that the proposed Liberty Quarry, solely on the basis of its location will displace all Temescal Valley traffic that flows south. This argument assumes that the only factor controlling aggregate cost is transportation and it is only one cost. Production costs, long term business relationships 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-32 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 are other factors that the commenter ignores. This information does not change the conclusion that the project (annexation) would have a potentially significant and unmitigable impact. 11-23 The commenter presents data showing the increased transportation costs for Temescal and Canadian imports. In response, the City notes this argument is based solely on transportation costs and ignores all costs of production. The numbers are not valid. The claim that the proposed Liberty Quarry can deliver a product at a lower price than competitors is an argument that Granite can pursue with the aggregate consumer. However, cost arguments are not a basis for the City to consider in the annexation study. This information does not change the conclusion that the project (annexation) would have a potentially significant and unmitigable impact. 11-24 The commenter notes that CGI, 2008a states there is 270 MT permitted and 325 MT of unpermitted available and states that CGI needs to detail methods used to develop the unpermitted estimates, that are used as an alternative to the proposed Liberty Quarry, or that estimates are not supportable. The comment states that even if all the reported reserves are accepted that this amount is inadequate to satisfy the 50 year demand. In response, the City notes the unpermitted estimates were developed using a combination of available permit data, site data, and discussions with mine operators. The numbers for non-permitted reserves and potential resources were listed as descriptive because in cases assumptions were used or from a lack of data. The estimates represent an accurate attempt to portray what could realistically be produced in a mine production area, and the adjacent lands or properties, not yet permitted. As stated, the assumptions used to develop these reserve estimates were based on extending actual numbers from review of mining permits and the related case files on file at the County office. The adjacent reserves would be in similar ground conditions for the most part as to depth of production, slopes would be similar except in a few situations moving into bedrock mining. Therefore the numbers of acres would be comparable to the individual expansion options available at each site. The City has previously stated that use of the 50-year projection is unrealistic. The commenter quotes out of context production numbers from San Bernardino County, Orange County, and Western Riverside County and uses these numbers interchangeably. The City discussed the more specific aggregate production along the I-15 corridor, as a part of the production in Southwestern Riverside County. 11-25 Please refer to responses 11-26 through 11-27. 11-26 The commenter notes that recycled aggregate is predominately used in road base and fill, but not in concrete or asphalt. Commenter quotes national statistics regarding the amount of recycled aggregate used and percentages of total construction aggregate that recycled aggregate comprises. Commenter states that recycled materials have to be hauled and do not result in a reduction of vehicle miles. In response, the City notes that construction 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-33 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 aggregate is used by Caltrans and that there are programs in place to expand the use of this product. Even if the City accepts the commenter’s argument that 10% is utilized, we believe it closer to 15%, this is a substantial reduction in the amount of aggregate that must come from mines. There is indeed vehicle mile savings because many recycling plants are on-site facilities and therefore transportation is limited. Amounts of recycled aggregate and asphalt are expected to increase. 11-27 The commenter claims that the presence of alternative aggregate sites are unsupported. If they did exist then in-depth analysis would need to be performed to see if they are economically viable, and that these sites would be subject to a lengthy permitting process. As a concluding statement the commenter states that there are other sites where aggregate resources could be developed, but these are not available. The commenter notes that Rosemary’s Quarry took 20 years to gain approvals. The commenter’s final paragraph states that production in close proximity to market is required to provide an economic and environmentally acceptable aggregate solution. In response, the City notes that its studies showed prospective sites and existing mine sites in numerous areas across the region. The underlying granitic bedrock in the Pennisular Ranges province creates a bedrock source that can be mined from hard rock sites and from deposits created from the erosional detritus from these sources. As these are alternatives to the proposed project, CEQA does not require the same level of analysis for alternatives. To state that none of these alternatives can be developed is ignoring the vast amount of granitic outcrops that exists in Riverside and San Diego Counties. Certainly, any of these alternative sites that are selected would have to be permitted – just as would any facility on the project site. The City City questions the implication that it took Granite 20 years to develop the Rosemary Mountain Quarry. There have been several owners of the property, several mining proposals, and several permitting attempts under different management. One would have to analyze when the proposal for the current mine plan began in order to substantiate this claim. Grunder/Nieto 12-1 The comment states opposition to the project and refers to an agreement with Granite Construction Co. The comment raises an economic issues that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 12-2 The comment states the City’s annexation has no value to the City. The comment raises an economic issues that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-34 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 12-3 The comment states the City should be spending money on other needs. The comment raises an economic issues that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Southwest Trails 13-1 The comment states opposition to the project, but raises no environmental issues; as such, no response is required. 13-2 The comment states that without a local source of aggregate, construction costs will be higher and that the industry will be faced with shipping aggregate from long distances. The comment raises an economic issues that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 13-3 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, such, no response is required. Hooper Land Company 14-1 The comment states that the annexation is a misguided attempt to gain control of the Santa Margarita properties from the County in order for the City to control a potential gravel quarry. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 14-2 The comment raises question as to where the City believes a better site for material is located. The project does not propose a quarry, but studies a quarry use on the site as an alternative. There is no CEQA obligation to study an alternative site for a use analyzed as an alternative to the project. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 14-3 The comment states that hauling uses resources and creates additional pollution but provides no basis for this assertion. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Tons Per Hour 15-1 The comment states opposition to the project, but raises no environmental issues; as such, no response is required. 15-2 The comment states that without a local source of aggregate, construction costs will be higher and the construction industry will be faced with shipping aggregate long distances, which will have adverse environmental and economic consequences. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-35 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment raises an economic issues that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 15-3 This is a concluding paragraph that does not require a response. Zac Grant 16-1 The comment states that the annexation is a waste of taxpayer money. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 16-2 The comment states that the current situation of aggregate shipping creates additional air pollution. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Nonetheless, discussion of shifts in sources and other potential sources are discussed in DEIR Appendix D. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 16-3 The comment states that more business means more jobs. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 16-4 The comment states that the annexation is primarily public land and has no tax benefit to the City. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Robert Behrmann 17-1 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, no response is required. 17-2 This is an introduction paragraph confirming opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. 17-3 The comment states that the proposed annexation is unfair to taxpayers and expresses support for Liberty Quarry. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 17-4 The comment states that a local source of aggregate will remove hundreds of gravel trucks from highways across Riverside and create jobs. Aggregate materials would have to be transported by truck regardless of whether the extraction facility was located 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-36 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 proximate to Temecula or at some distance away from the area. However, a local source of aggregate could potentially reduce the distance trucks have to travel to deliver aggregate if there are no other local sources of aggregate available and it is necessary to bring aggregate material from outside of the Temecula area. As noted in the DEIR, there are numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 17-5 This is a concluding paragraph confirming opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P. 18-1 This is an introduction paragraph confirming opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. 18-2 The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 18-3 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will result in less environmental impacts but provides no support for this. The DEIR shows a quarry would have greater impacts on the environment than would annexation. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 18-4 The comment states that the additional air pollution added cost and traffic congestion from hauling aggregate long distances are major impacts. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The DEIR presented information about alternative sources of aggregate material both in Riverside County and San Diego County from existing surface mining operations (documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR) that could provide needed aggregate material. Additionally, the DEIR notes the extensive deposits of aggregate material on Figure 3.5-1 in Riverside County which could also serve the need for aggregate material in the Temecula Area. Therefore, there are numerous other local sources for aggregate material besides the Liberty Quarry Project. Additionally, the DEIR did evaluated two alternatives with quarry activity. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-37 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 18-5 This is a concluding paragraph confirming opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. Kleinfelder 19-1 This is an introduction paragraph; as such, no response is required. 19-2 The site is located in the southeastern part of the annexation area. Geologic conditions are site specific and can substantially change over short distances. While the City understands Kleinfelder has considerable data in one area of the annexation area, this does not necessarily transfer that this same data is applicable across the annexation site. 19-3 As described in Chapter 3.4 of the DEIR, although there are inconsistencies between the County’s general plan designations and zoning, the City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning are generally consistent with the County’s general plan, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. As such, the land uses allowed in the proposed annexation are essentially those uses currently allowed in the present jurisdiction. If the project is approved, any proposed residences would face development constraints in addition to those suggested in the comment question. As in any proposal, a site that is inaccessible, a site with undue steep slopes, or a site without groundwater may not be able to be developed. If for example, there is no groundwater at the site then a proposed residence would have to demonstrate availability of water from some other source. If road grading could not be performed in regard to environmental, sediment runoff, and other regulations then that development would not be allowed. And it is possible that some sites would not achieve the necessary percolation rate. That is the nature of development on natural terrains and a proposed site within the SMAA is no different. The burden of proof whether a site could be developed would fall on the owner of the parcel. If the project is adopted it would allow development up to this maximum density in the residential development area, but it would not authorize such development nor would development be allowed to proceed if could not be shown to do so within regulatory constraints. Kleinfelder states “that there is no aquifer beneath this portion of the SMAA”. The definition of an aquifer can vary by application and by the medium. In this case this is a bedrock aquifer as compared to a saturated media aquifer that would be found in a sand body. The Glossary of Geology defines an aquifer as “a body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs”. For a large mine that needs industrial amounts of water, a flow rate of a few gallons a minute is inadequate. For a single residence, the same flow could be an adequate supply. Thus, different criteria must be applied. Many residences are developed on bedrock terrain in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and San Gabriel Mountains and are able to function on small amounts of water. For these homes, fracture flow constitutes 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-38 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 the only aquifer that is available. Exploration for this type of aquifer is challenging and can be costly, but under certain conditions water can be found. 19-4 The comment states that the natural geologic conditions at the reference portion of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area would typically not be satisfactory to support leach line septic systems for the 41 potential single family home sites referenced in the DEIR and that extensive percolation testing would be required for each lot and locations of leach fields could be limited, with the possibility of some sites having little or no available locations. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. As such, individual dwelling units likely would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific assessments will be conducted as required regarding septic systems. Again, these issues need to be addressed as development occurs within the project area. If the project is approved, just as with the current restrictions, residential development would still be constrained by natural conditions, and the burden of proof whether a site could be developed would fall on the owner of the parcel. 19-5 This is a concluding paragraph, as such, no response is required. Senator Jim Battin 20-1 This is an introduction paragraph that does not require a response. 20-2 The comment urges the City to have a project available that provides the goods needed to build roads at a lower cost, helps curb carbon emissions from importing such aggregate, and provides local jobs. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The DEIR addresses the topics of carbon emissions. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-3 The comment urges to include needs of the state and needs of community in project. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-4 The commenter states that having a local source of aggregate reduces the need to have it shipped in from other areas, reducing the amount of trucks traveling on our freeways. The City would note in response that the Liberty Quarry Project is not the only available local 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-39 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 sources for aggregate material in near Temecula. For example, the DEIR documents numerous existing quarries currently in operation located in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 20-5 The commenter states that the Liberty Quarry Project is supportive of the Goals in the State of California Goods Movement Action Plan and the City’s attempted annexation is inconsistent with this policy effort. In response, the City would note that the Goods Movement Action Plan referenced above does not specifically reference or discuss the Liberty Quarry Project. The only connection between the proposed Liberty Quarry Project and the Goods Movement Action Plan is the assumed reduction in truck vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled that could potentially occur if the Quarry is approved. The City would note, as discussed in the DEIR, that there is no empirical evidence to support the contention that the construction of Liberty Quarry would reduce regional truck traffic and VMT other than assumed changes in travel patterns. For example, Liberty Quarry proponent does not provide case studies of similar facilities, survey data of aggregate consumers indicating how their aggregate sources would change with the construction of the Liberty Quarry project, or other similar items in the various traffic studies available for review. Absent this empirical data, the City finds it difficult to conclude that the assumed truck trip and VMT reduction would occur. In fact, the traffic studies prepared for the Liberty Quarry Project provide traffic information for both a scenario where this truck trip reduction occurs and also a second scenario where this truck trip reduction does not occur. Additionally, pages.5-13 and3.5-16 of the DEIR provide the locations of other existing quarries within Riverside and Northern San Diego County which already provide the same material as Liberty Quarry would. Finally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. Given the information above, the City would conclude that the Annexation is not inconsistent with the State’s Goods Movement Action Plan. 20-6 The comment asserts that aggregate is in short supply across California. The DEIR and various responses discuss availability of materials at other sites. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-7 The comment states that a local aggregate source will help curb construction coasts throughout the region and bring higher-paying jobs. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-8 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-40 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Vince Davis 21-1 This is an introduction paragraph that does not require a response. 21-2 The comment states that City services will be spread even further. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-3 The comment states that the proposed annexation serves a purpose other than to impede private development rights. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-4 The comment states that the annexation is being promoted as a method to protect open space but seems to place a huge burden on City services. The comment asserts impacts to public services. The DEIR determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less than significant impact upon fire services, sheriff services, school services, library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity, natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. The commenter is directed to refer to the detailed analysis and conclusions located in Section 3.6 of the DEIR. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. In addition, a fiscal impact assessment has been completed for the proposed project and indicates that the proposed project would not create a fiscal burden for the city of Temecula. 21-5 The comment states that if the City impedes the development of a local source, citizens will be paying the price of higher construction costs and possibly higher taxes due to the expense of importing these materials from further away. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-6 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. Ernesto Ordonez 22-1 This is an introduction paragraph that does not require a response. 22-2 The comment states that the Liberty Quarry Project will provide needed tax revenue and fees for the City. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-3 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will provide badly needed jobs for the region. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-41 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-4 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will provide a long-term source of aggregate for the region. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-5 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will mean less truck trips of aggregate trucks driving through the region. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Traffic issues have been discussed in the DEIR and elsewhere in this Response to Comments document. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Lee Haven 23-1 This is an introduction paragraph that does not require a response. 23-2 The comment states that truck traffic continues to supply much needed aggregate to the Southwest Riverside County from the Coachella Valley and creates associated impacts. The comment also states that tax payers want to see their transportation dollars used as efficiently as possible. As the DEIR states, surface mining in the Santa Margarita Annexation area would not lessen traffic impacts by reducing the need to import aggregate material into the Temecula and Lake Elsinore area instead of more remote areas in the remaining areas of Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Thus, the air quality analysis reflects these facts, and relies on the Traffic Impact Study performed by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, dated September 2008 for mobile source emissions assumptions. Therefore, additional analyses are not warranted. 23-3 The comment states that this is not the best time to be placing more burden on freeways and local roads with concerns over environmental impacts. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. It should be noted that other sources of aggregate exist. Traffic and GHG issues have been considered in the DEIR. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 23-4 The comment states that blocking the development of Liberty Quarry creates more problems for the citizens and deprives them of the economic and environmental benefits of a local aggregate source. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-42 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Mike Villa 24-1 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 24-2 The comment states that four of the occupied structures could not bear the cost alone of City services in this area. The DEIR determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less than significant impact upon fire services, sheriff services, school services, library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity, natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. The commenter is directed to refer to the detailed analysis and conclusions located in Section 3.6 of the DEIR. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 24-3 The comment provides an overview of fire protection costs and payment responsibilities. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. If there is a wildland fire within one mile of any State or Federal property the State/Federal would consider this an eminent threat and respond accordingly; it is not up to the local jurisdiction to respond in this situation. As such, since the majority of the project area is either State or Federal property, from a wildfire standpoint, the economic impact to the City would be minimal with regard to this issue of wildland fires. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 24-4 The comment compares the cost of the annexation to funding of school-related programs. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 24-5 The comment reiterates the misappropriation of taxpayer money. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Jessica Beaver 25-1 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 25-2 The comment states that the state is faced with a severe aggregate shortage, and the City is doing an injustice by laying siege to a much-needed aggregate source. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. 25-3 The comment states that without a local source for aggregate materials the City will be forced to continue transport aggregate from outside regions, adding to air pollution and traffic congestion. There are a number of alternative sources of aggregate material 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-43 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 including existing surface mining operations (as documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16) in Riverside County and Northern San Diego County besides the proposed Liberty Quarry site. Additionally, there are extensive deposits of aggregate material in Riverside County as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the DEIR. Additionally, the DEIR did evaluate two alternatives that contemplate mining activity and compares the traffic impacts resulting to the proposed Annexation. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62. 25-4 The comment states that the Liberty Quarry would help bring in tax revenue and jobs into the area. The comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 25-5 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. Kishor Doshi, Ph.D. 26-1 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 26-2 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 26-3 The comment states that the property owned by this individual has only one access point and would require getting a second access into Fallbrook through SMER. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, residential development is constrained by environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. As such, individual dwelling units would likely be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 26-4 The comment states that there is no electric power on or near the site and an extension would be needed. Although that may be the case at present, power would be needed to develop the property for any purpose. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 26-5 The comment states that the site has no water service and is in itself an unlikely source of underground water. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, development is constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; landlocked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-44 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 requirements. As such, individual dwelling units likely would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Without a site specific analysis, it is unclear whether groundwater for residential use is or is not available. Please also refer to the response for 19-3. 26-6 The comment states that building an access road less than 15% grade into the site would be very expensive and difficult to justify for 10-acre sized lots. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, development is constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. As such, individual dwelling units would likely be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. 26-7 The comment states that the terrain on the 211+ acre site is highly undulating and makes it difficult to carve out home pads. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, development of is constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. As such, individual dwelling units would likely be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. 26-8 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. Marcella Bedoian 27-1 The comment states that the City’s annexation will impact communities far beyond its borders. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 27-2 The comment states that preventing Liberty Quarry will require aggregate materials to be brought in from areas outside Riverside County. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, and was only evaluated as an alternative to the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-45 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 project. There are numerous aggregate mines located within Riverside County and locally within the Temescal Valley. 27-3 The commenter states that the Liberty Quarry Project would reduce congestion on local freeways by reducing 16 million truck miles traveled per year. The commenter also states that trucks travel through the Banning Pass from the desert areas of the County to provide aggregate for Temecula and North San Diego County, which result in associated impacts related to air, traffic, road maintenance, and global warming emissions. In response to the statements about the truck mile reduction, the City would note that the Liberty Quarry proponent does not provide case studies of similar facilities, survey data of aggregate consumers indicating how their aggregate sources would change with the construction of the Liberty Quarry project, or other similar items in the various traffic studies available for review. Because this empirical data was not provided or is not available, it is only speculative to assume that this truck mile reduction would occur. Additionally, the City would note that even if the assumed truck trip reduction were to occur, the regional benefits would be negligible. Compared to Riverside County and the Region, the VMT reduction is less than 1 percent on a daily basis. In response to the second comment regarding impacts within the Banning Pass and other areas outside of Temecula, the City would note that there are other potential sources for aggregate materials besides Liberty Quarry. For example, the DEIR documents numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 27-4 This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. Angel Zarobinski 28-1 The comment states opposition to the City’s annexation; as such, no response is required. 28-2 The comment states that we are in a state of economic crisis and that Liberty Quarry will aid this situation. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 28-3 The comment states that the Liberty Quarry project would reduce truck traffic by over 2,700 daily truck trips. In response, the City would note that this estimate of truck trip reduction is based on studies prepared by the Liberty Quarry proponents and there is no empirical data provided to support this contention. For example, there are no case studies of similar facilities, survey data of aggregate consumers indicating how their aggregate sources would change with the construction of the Liberty Quarry project, or other 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-46 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 similar items in the various traffic studies available for review. Absent this empirical data, the City finds it difficult to conclude that the assumed truck trip and VMT reduction would occur. 28-4 Additionally, the City would note that there are numerous other sources for aggregate material in the area besides Liberty Quarry in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. This is a concluding paragraph; as such, no response is required. Keri Canning 29-1 The comment states opposition to the City’s annexation; as such, no response is required. 29-2 The comment states that the annexation is an attempt to appease a group of individuals who don’t want the proposed Liberty Quarry. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 29-3 The comment defines what an annexation is according to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 29-4 The comment states that the annexation is in direct contrast to what is listed in the City’s general plan and will not avoid duplication of services, but instead force Temecula taxpayers to provide public safety services to an area that provides no revenue in return. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Rick Kellogg 30-1 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 30-2 This is an introduction paragraph which does not require a direct response. 30-3 The commenter states that the Liberty Quarry project would provide 5 million tons of sand, gravel, and other material that would have to be shipped through Riverside County if the Quarry is not constructed. In response, the City would note that there are numerous other sources for aggregate material in the area besides Liberty Quarry in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-47 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. The Liberty Quarry project is not the only source of this material in the area. 30-4 The commenter states that the Liberty Quarry Project would reduce truck trips on I-15. In response, the City would note that this anticipated truck trip reduction is based on studies prepared by the Liberty Quarry proponents and there is no empirical data provided to support this contention. For example, there are no case studies of similar facilities, survey data of aggregate consumers indicating how their aggregate sources would change with the construction of the Liberty Quarry project, or other similar items in the various traffic studies available for review. Absent this empirical data, the City finds it difficult to conclude that the assumed truck trip and VMT reduction would occur. Additionally, there are other sources for aggregate material in the area besides the proposed Liberty Quarry project. Please see Response 30-3 for information related to that topic. 30-5 This is a concluding paragraph and states opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. Diepenbrock Harrison on behalf of Granite Construction Company 31-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 31-2 The comment summarizes the proposed Liberty Quarry project that is currently under review by the Riverside County Transportation and Land management Agency (TLMA), Planning Department and presents the commenters version of the chronology of the proposed City of Temecula annexation project and associated CEQA processing. 31-3 The proposed project has been evaluated by and in two separate Notice of Preparation (NOP) /Initial Study (IS) processes, which includes the consideration of all comments received on the original NOP and DEIR. This process is summarized in Section 1.3 of the DEIR. As outlined in Section 1.6 of the DEIR, potential project related impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public facilities and utilities, transportation and traffic , noise and recreation are evaluated in the DEIR. In addition, four (4) alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in the DEIR. Comments received on the original DEIR have been incorporated into the revised DEIR where appropriate. The DEIR acknowledges impacts to minimal resources, and concludes that the impacts are significant and unmitigable. (see, e.g., DEIR pages 5-28 to 5-29). Further, the project does not result in actual impacts because it would serve to maintain, in general, the current natural condition of the property, but for residential development that could be proposed. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-48 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-4 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the case law on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 31-5 The comment is directed at, and summarizes case law on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 31-6 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) guidelines, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 31-7 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process; however, the DEIR determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less than significant impact upon fire services, sheriff services, school services, library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity, natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. The commenter is directed to refer to the detailed analysis and conclusions located in Section 3.6 of the DEIR. 31-8 Table 3.4-3 (City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Policies) summarizes the reasons why the proposed project is consistent with individual City of Temecula General Plan policies. Table 3.4-2 summarizes existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula zoning for the proposed project area. The existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula General Plan and zoning designations allow for substantially similar land uses. As discussed throughout the DEIR, the proposed project requires the approval of a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation. With amendment of the sphere, and application of land use designations and pre-zoning the project will be fully consistent with the General Plan of the City. 31-9 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process, but does not raise any specific environmental issues required a response under CEQA. 31-10 The proposed project would allow for the ultimate development of 81 residential dwelling units on minimum 10-acre lots, similar to the development that is currently allowed under the Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations. This portion of the proposed project is thoroughly evaluated in the DEIR, and would represent suburban development not urban sprawl. 31-11 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process, but does not raise any specific environmental issues required a response under CEQA. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-49 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-12 The comment is an economic concern and directed at the cost of preparation of the DEIR and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process. The comment is primarily economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required by CEQA. Further these policy decisions fall within the purview of the City Council. 31-13 The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project as presented in the Section 2.0 of the DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the DEIR. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA)into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricultural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological reserve (SMER) by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. Further, CEQA requires assessment of impacts by comparing the proposed project to the existing baseline conditions as they exist at the time of the Notice of Preparation. In this case, there is no mining activities, therefore this project will not result in any increases in impacts above the existing conditions. 31-14 The comment restates information contained within the California Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR has fulfilled these requirements. 31-15 The comment restates information contained within CEQA case law, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR has been drafted to fully disclose the potential impacts of the project, and does not minimize impacts. 31-16 The comment restates information contained within CEQA case law, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. No response is required. The EIR has been drafted with these requirements in mind. 31-17 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant air quality impacts remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related air quality impacts is included in the DEIR. The Liberty Quarry study by Urban Crossroads only assumes that truck traffic will be reduced, but makes the assumption that opening of a new mine, will cause the current south bound I-15 truck traffic from Lake Elsinore and Temescal Canyon to cease moving aggregate south of Temecula. The only factor being emphasized regarding the cost of aggregate is transportation cost. However, there are many factors that influence the cost of aggregate: alluvial or bedrock source material, age of the mine, specific conditions at the mine, and production facility costs. The City further questions the assumption that a local quarry would capture 100% of the local market. Cost of the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-50 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 product to the consumer is a larger factor in determining who the consumer purchases from. It has not been shown that the Corona, Temescal Valley, and Lake Elsinore producers, that are older mines, with a known history of production, would not deliver product in a cost-competitive manner as compared to a more local producer that must charge a higher price because their cost of production is greater. 31-18 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant traffic impacts remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related traffic impacts is contained in the DEIR. The City questions the assumption that Liberty Quarry, solely on the basis of its location will displace all Temescal Valley traffic that flows south. This argument assumes that the only factor controlling aggregate cost is transportation, however that is only one part of the cost. Production costs and existing long term business relationships are just some of the other factors that the argument assumption ignores. If the Liberty Quarry serves the same market as does the Temescal and Lake Elsinore areas, the City contends there will not be a reduction in truck traffic. The only difference is whether the trucks are loaded in a northbound direction (from Liberty Quarry) or in a southbound direction (from the Temescal and Lake Elsinore quarries), but there are trucks on I-15 nonetheless. 31-19 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly, remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related impacts is contained in the DEIR. The DEIR contains an in-depth analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The conclusions of the traffic impact analysis are presented in Section 3.7 of the DEIR and concludes that project related traffic impacts to the Interstate 15 southbound ramps/Rainbow Valley Road and Rainbow Valley Road segments would be significant and unavoidable. The commenter restates comments which had been provided to the City previously regarding a previous DEIR for the Annexation. Additionally, the commenter restates the conclusions of two studies prepared by Urban Crossroads which concluded that the construction of the quarry would result in a reduction of truck trips and truck miles traveled. Finally, the commenter alleges that there are several specific deficiencies in the traffic study including the omission of Cumulative Projects from San Diego County and conclusions by Fehr & Peers related to traffic reductions resulting from Liberty Quarry. In response, the comments on the previous DEIR are not germane to this DEIR as the more recent DEIR for the Annexation was redone with new analysis and conclusions. In response to the specific concerns related to the traffic study, the Cumulative Project list reflects projects in the City of Temecula and the traffic study accounted for development in areas outside of the City (including that which may occur in northern San 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-51 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Diego County) through the inclusion of a growth rate. Additionally, a majority of the roadway facilities and intersections are projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of projects from the City of San Diego. For example, in the Cumulative Scenario 5 of the study intersections would operate at LOS F with the Temecula Projects included. All of the study area roadway segments are projected operate at LOS F during this same period. Therefore, the City can conclude that the addition of any Cumulative Projects would not result in additional significant impacts as a majority of the facilities are projected to operate at LOS F already. Fehr & Peers conducted an extensive review of the technical studies cited by the commenter which estimated the truck trip reduction and truck mile reduction that is projected to occur with the opening of Liberty Quarry. These studies were prepared by Urban Crossroads. This review concluded the following: • Urban Crossroads did not provide any case studies, “before and after” studies, or other types of locally collected empirical data to support their contention that Liberty Quarry would result in a reduction of regional truck trips and truck VMT. • There are numerous other surface mines operating in Riverside County or northern San Diego County which can provide the need for aggregate material in the Temecula area. Many of these existing mines are potential candidates for expansion. • There are extensive aggregate deposits within Riverside County that are not currently being mined, and which could satisfy the demand of Temecula. • There are other potential sources of aggregate material including other resources in the Riverside San Diego County area, bulk import of aggregate to offset inland supplies, increased recycling, and other options to provide aggregate for the larger Southern California region. The Fehr & Peers study also concluded that if there if there a redistribution of truck traffic resulting as predicted by Urban Crossroads, the benefit to the regional transportation system would be minimal. As documented on Page 5-62 of the DEIR, the estimated reduction for Liberty Quarry is less than 1% of the total VMT generated within Riverside County and less than 1/10 of a percent of the Southern California Region. Further, any purported benefits derived from such VMT reduction would likely be offset by other environmental impacts of a quarry at the project site. Finally, the proposed project would maintain the status quo-no quarry at the site-and thus would not result in any change in current aggregate transportation activity. 31-20 This is an introduction paragraph for this section; as such, no response is required. 31-21 The SCAQMD operates a limited number of meteorological data stations in the Basin, and the data used to generate the wind rose presented in the DEIR is from the station nearest to the project site, from the last year the SCAQMD made processed data available. The wind rose data was not used to assess potential impacts. The wind rose was included in the Draft EIR to give the reader a general overview of existing regional wind patterns. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-52 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-22 The SCAQMD operates a limited number of pollutant monitoring stations throughout the Basin, and the data presented in the DEIR are from the nearest stations with available data in accordance with SCAQMD recommendations. The description of the existing conditions presented in the DEIR is generally representative, in that it relies on monitored levels and official attainment designations. 31-23 The emission summaries presented in the Air Quality Technical Report and the Revised DEIR includes entrained dust emissions. Although the URBEMIS 2007 model incorporates EMFAC2007 data, the URBEMIS model also calculates entrained road dust emissions. The use of the CALINE4 model to analyze CO hotspots is consistent with SCAQMD methodology. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) requires the use of either the US EPA Cal3QHC or CALINE4 model to estimate CO concentrations in the CO “Hot Spots” analysis. The handbook does not mention a preferred CO hotspots model. The commenter is correct in stating that Cal3QHC takes into account vehicle queuing. However, the CO Hot Spots analysis performed for this project is consistent with the Caltrans CO Protocol (Protocol) which takes into account vehicle queuing as well as departure from the intersection. The Protocol also recommends use of CALINE4 to perform the CO Hot Spots analysis. For these reasons, the CO Hot Spot analysis is not understated in the EIR. 31-24 The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project s presented in the Section 2.0 of the DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the DEIR. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA) into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricultural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological reserve (SMER) by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. There are many sources that contribute to ambient concentrations of particulate matter. The description of the existing conditions presented in the DEIR is accurate, in that it relies on monitored levels and official attainment designations, regardless of the pollutant’s source. 31-25 CEQA mandates that an EIR mitigate those impacts which are significant to the extent feasible. Operational impacts were found to be less than significant for all criteria pollutants, and therefore no mitigation measures for for operational emissions of these pollutants are required. Mitigation Measure 3.1-3a addresses potential impacts related to the construction of new residential dwelling units near to existing sources of TACs, and reduces the impact to less than significant. See e.g. DEIR at page 31-30. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-53 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-26 Impact 3.1-3 correctly addresses the potential impact of siting new sensitive land uses within close proximity to a major source of TAC emissions. Household usage of TACcontaining products (paint, lighter fluid, etc.) does not meet the SCAQMD’s definition of potentially significant sources of TACs, and was therefore screened out in accordance with the methodology presented on page 3.1-20. 31-27 The air impact assessment accounted for standard industry practices, such as using the minimal amount of explosives needed. Project related blasting impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable in the Draft EIR. No further mitigation is feasible. 31-28 The project design features listed in the DEIR are part of the proposed project and will be used by the city as conditions of approval for issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 31-29 The DEIR contains a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the Riverside County MSHCP in Section 3.3, pages 3.2-32 to 3.2-53. As documented in the DEIR, the project area is not located within an MSHCP criteria area and is on conformance with MSHCP criteria for; 1) protection of species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools, 2) protection of narrow endemic plant species, 3) urban /wildland interface guidelines and 4) additional survey needs and procedures. In addition a special linkage area is identified in the south eastern portion of the site and potential wildlife movement impacts associated with the proposed project are documented in the DEIR. With zoning criteria, species will be able to pass between structures if ultimately developed. 31-30 Potential project related impacts to the Special Linkage Area and to the Santa Ana – Palomar Mountains linkage as a whole, are evaluated in Section 3.2 of the DEIR, pages 3.2-38 to 3.2-40. The proposed project does not include any land uses that would substantially reduce traffic on Interstate 15, and in fact, Interstate 15 traffic would slightly increase with implementation of the proposed project. Wildlife movement through the special linkage area is expected to be limited to small mammals utilizing the existing drainage conduit under-crossings, with the exception of avifauna, which would be expected to fly over Interstate 15 to connect from one side of the freeway to the other. At grade wildlife crossing of Interstate 15 is not expected to occur and as such, any increase or decrease in traffic volumes is not a limiting factor. 31-31 The proposed project is not inconsistent with Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations, as the project is proposing a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to accommodate the proposed annexation. Table 3.4-1 in the DEIR presents a comparison of County of Riverside and City of Temecula General Plan land use designations, with Table 3.4-2 summarizing Riverside County and City of Temecula zoning classifications. 31-32 The comment restates information contained within the California Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. No response is required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-54 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-33 The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project as presented in the Section 2.0 of the DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the DEIR. The consistency of the proposed project with regional plans is documented throughout Section 4 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project us consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of all identified regional plans. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA)into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricultural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological reserve (SMER) by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The DEIR does evaluate the consistency between the proposed project and the Riverside County and City of Temecula General Plan and zoning designations. The proposed project is not inconsistent with Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations, as the project is proposing a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to accommodate the proposed annexation. Table 3.4-1 in the DEIR presents a comparison of County of Riverside and City of Temecula General Plan land use designations, with Table 3.4-2 summarizing Riverside County and City of Temecula zoning classifications. Even if the City’s proposal were deemed inconsistent with the County General Plan, the project is consistent with the applicable general plan-the City’s. If the project is approved, it is the City’s General Plan that would govern, and there is no argument that the general plan and zoning are inconsistent. Any aggregate quarry proposed in the County of Riverside would require a conditional use permit and is not permitted by right. 31-34 The DEIR, on pages 2-13 through 2-14 documents the physical constraints to development of the 81 residential units allowed by the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations, including water supply for domestic and firefighting purposes. Although the requisite water supply for the allowed 81 residential units is expected be supplied through individual or group wells, it has not been determined that domestic water requirements could not be supplied by the local water district via a pipeline or tank. Individual land owners within the project area will be required to demonstrate compliance with domestic and firefighting water supply supply requirements at the time of building permit request. Further, the proposed project would only allow up to 81 homes, it would not moderate 81 homes or 81 wells as the comment suggests. Also, multiple homes could possibly be served by a single well. 31-35 The DEIR documents the existing high fire hazard condition within the proposed project area throughout Section 3.6, and indicates that the project area is located within a high wildfire susceptibility area. The DEIR also documents the requirements for compliance with California Public Resources Code sections 4291-4299, the Uniform Fire Code and 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-55 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 the Riverside County Master Fire Protection Plan. The annexation would not change this as no development is proposed at this time. 31-36 The comment contends that the DEIR mischaracterizes noise in several ways. No response is required as the comment is not specific. See also responses to Comments 31-37 through 31-39. 31-37 Noise measurements conducted to document existing noise levels within the project area for the DEIR were completed in accordance with standard accepted methodology for areas with uneven terrain and mixed land cover. The project area has some of the lowest noise levels in the region due to its location substantially removed from developed areas, roadways and other sources of stationary and mobile noise sources. The existing conditions noise data contained in the DEIR is accurate and with accepted tolerances. The exchange rate used for this study was 3dB, which is the correct exchange rate for environmental noise. The 5 dB exchange rate (appropriate for federal occupation noise measurement) was not used. A Type II microphone was used and has a specified range of 40 to 140 dB. For this project a more sensitive microphone was not necessary. The Leq’s measured in the area averaged 48 dBA and never dropped to 42 dBA or lower. The ¼ inch diameter microphone is covered with a 1 inch diameter by 2 ¼ inch foam shield that functions as a windscreen. The Figure Noise-1 of the Noise Analysis Report located in Appendix E is a long-term installation that was not used for this project so any concerns regarding free-field measurements do not apply to the noise measurements for this project, which used a tripod installation similar to the set-up shown in Figure Noise-2 of the Noise Analysis Report located in Appendix E. 31-38 Noise measurements conducted to document existing noise levels within the project area for the DEIR were completed in accordance with standard accepted accepted methodology for areas with uneven terrain and mixed land cover. The project area has some of the lowest noise levels in the region due to its location substantially removed from developed areas, roadways and other sources of stationary and mobile noise sources. The existing conditions noise data contained in the DEIR is accurate and with accepted tolerances. The location of the noise measurement locations was determined based on the surrounding areas most that are most likely to be affected by project related noise and reflect areas with existing residential development. The area’s noise environment was found to be quiet and constant and therefore did not require a measurement period longer than 5 minutes. Based on the topography of the land and the location of area noise sources, the measurements are considered representative of the adjacent annexation property. As noted in several locations in the DEIR Noise chapter, “Data based on weekday peak hour Leq is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998)”. 31-39 Based on responses to comments 31-37 and 31-39 we believe the measurements to be an appropriate analysis of the proposed project. The main purpose of the measurements was 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-56 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 for the noise analyst to have first-hand experience of the project site and to measure the noise environments in the project area, which turned out to be very insightful. The site is shielded from major traffic sources and represents a quiet location very appropriate for residential development, which is considered to be appropriate, without conditions, when average noise levels are less than 60 dB, CNEL. Notably, the commenter has not provided any technical studies showing that the noise levels are not accurate, and no other monitoring information to contract the DEIR information. 31-40 The comment indicates that the alternatives analysis contained in the DEIR is inadequate and contains inaccurate analysis. No specific comment was presented and a response is not required. 31-41 The comment restates information contained within CEQA case law, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. No response is required. 31-42 The comment restates information contained in the DEIR and alleges that the alternatives fail to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126. Section 15126 (Consideration and Discussion on Environmental Impacts) of the CEQA guidelines requires a discussion of project impacts, growth inducing impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project. The DEIR contains an evaluation of the requirements contained in Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines. 31-43 The comment is unclear, as it mixes the concept of eliminating the private property component of the project area and formulating a new alternative, and then goes on to state that this would result in an annual reduction in 16,500,000 truck miles and the sustainable utilization of mineral resources. The intensity of residential units included within each identified alternative is based upon the existing general plan and zoning designations and associated residual area not devoted to another land use in the alternative. A reasonable range of alternatives has been included in the DEIR and evaluated. It is not reasonable to assume that private land owners with existing and proposed general plan and zoning designations and adequate lot sizes would convert their property to open space without just compensation, and as such, this concept was not included in the alternatives analysis. Whether under the existing Riverside County General plan and zoning designations or the proposed City of Temecula General Plan and zoning designations, the number and location of existing lots with the potential for development does not change. With respect to annexation of the publically owned parcels, the boundary configuration would have an island of County area which is discouraged under annexation principles and annexing only part of the area would not fulfill project objectives, contrary to commenter’s assertions. See previous responses regarding public services for residences. Finally, the objective of open space preservation would be furthered by the proposed H-R-SM zoning regulations so both housing and open space can be accommodated. 31-44 The feasibility and basis for rejection of an alternative site alternative is discussed on page 5-34 of the DEIR. As stated, the project consists of annexation of specific 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-57 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 contiguous property into the City of Temecula to achieve a set of specific project objectives including: 1) integration of the SMAA area into the city’s general plan, 2) preserving public lands within the SMAA in natural open space while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owner lands and 3) protection of existing and future research values at the SMER through prohibition of incompatible land uses. Although alternative sites are available to be potentially annexed from unincorporated Riverside County into the City of Temecula (including the area east of Interstate 15), none of the alternative sites would meet the basic objectives of the proposed project, as outlined above and in the DEIR. For this reason, an alternative site alternative was not evaluated in the DEIR. 31-45 The traffic impact analysis prepared for Alternative 3 indicates that local and regional traffic levels would increase under this alternative. A total of 1,939 average daily trips would result under this alternative, 1,700 of which are associated with the mine portion of the alternative land use plan. Please refer to Tables 5-11 through 5-18 in Section 5 of the DEIR for the results of the Alternative 3 traffic impact analysis. As shown, both local and regional traffic/trips will increase under Alternative 3. The City finds the analysis by its consultants more credible. 31-46 The title of Alternative 1 is No Project – No Development Alternative, which is described as continuing the existing land uses within the project area into the indefinite future. The future land uses that could be reasonably expected to occur under the auspices of existing ownership and general plan land use and zoning designations have been captured in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. These potential future land uses which are reasonably expected to occur include: 1) build-out of the existing residentially zoned parcels, 2) an aggregate mine (based upon applications currently on file) and 3) preservation of natural open space. All of these potential future land uses are evaluated in one or more of the other identified alternatives to the proposed project, which represent a reasonable range of alternatives. Further, there are no entitlements for a quarry in the annexation area at present and such entitlements may or may not be obtained. 31-47 The comment restates information contained within CEQA case law, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR in Section 5.0 devotes over 27 pages of analysis to project-related cumulative impacts, including impacts to operational and GHG emissions, biological resources, water supply and noise. In addition, the individual DEIR topical impact analysis sections devote a substantial amount of analysis and discussion of cumulative impacts. The DEIR evaluated cumulative impact based on a countywide general plan build-out (regional) and project specific (local) local) approach. Thirty one (31) individual local Temecula, Riverside and San Diego County projects were included in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. Where specific project related cumulative impacts were identified, specific mitigation measures were identified for each cumulative impact to reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. As documented in the DEIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse cumulative impacts to the local and regional circulation system. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-58 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 31-48 The comment does not contain a specific CEQA related issue or concern. A response is not required. San Diego State University 32-1 The comments provide support for the City’s annexation of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The comment does not raise environmental issues related to the DEIR, and no response is required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Granite Construction Company 33-1 This is an introduction to the comment letter and does not require a response. 33-2 This section of the letter summarizes specific points that will be addressed in the letter; as such, no specific response is required. 33-3 The comment alleges that not allowing development of Liberty would deprive the region, with an undersupply of aggregate, of 7 MTY and quotes aggregate supply percentages based on 50 year projected needs. The comment does not quote the source for the figure of 7 MTY; we note that previous Granite reports have used 3 or 5 MTY as the basis of production from Liberty Quarry. Use of the 50-year projection is not a meaningful number because most mining operations only seek permits based on a 20 year basis; for example Granite’s proposal for Liberty Quarry seeks a 20-year permit and Granite’s Rosemary Mountain just opened with a 20-year permit. Most mines are simply not permitted on a 50-year basis. Of all the mines studied by the City, only one had permitted reserves out to 50-years. Mines, like most businesses focus on the near future rather than focus business decisions on distant projections because there are too many unknown variables in distant projections. There is more focus on remaining in business during the next 5, 10, or 15 years. It is reasonable to assume there will be aggregate production in 50 years. The market will continue to oscillate between being slightly under-producing to being slightly overproducing. It is unreasonable to assume the market will ever have significant overproduction because this would require producers to develop reserves for which they do not have the current cash reserves or know what or where the market will be in the future. 33-4 The comment lists several bullet items: a) states that even if Liberty Quarry produces at 5 MTY there will still be a 7 MTY shortage, b) permitting resources near the demand reduces traffic and associated effects; c) notes that Hanson-San Marcos shut down in February 2008; d) notes that the San Diego and Western Riverside County has only 25% of reserves for the 50 year projection; e) notes the that cost of shipping aggregate from the Ports of Long Beach or San Diego is expensive. In response, the City makes the comments that are listed below: 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-59 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 a) The City notes discrepancies in the commenter’s reported production figures and further notes that sources for the origin of these numbers are not cited. The comment states that with an additional 5 MTY, there will be a 7 MTY shortage. The commenter’s preceding statement (discussed as Comment 33-3) noted that the region currently needs an aggregate supply of 7 MTY. b) The City notes that Liberty Quarry would be located almost as far north of its target market (just north of Escondido) as are the Lake Elsinore and Temescal Valley Mines north of Temecula. Other sites could be explored to hit the target market. More feasible options are available. The Rosemary Mountain Quarry is located five miles closer to the market area and has recently begun aggregate production. CGI, 2008a noted several areas in north San Diego County that could be pursued and these include: sources along the San Luis Rey river valley both alluvial and alluvial fan, areas in the San Marcos Mountains north of San Marcos, and areas around Lakeside. c) The City notes that mining operations begin and end periodically. Previous studies have taken the Hanson-San Marcos operations into account. The City also notes that at its upcoming State Mining and Geology Board meeting the agency is scheduled to authorize a MRZ classification study of a 500 acre bedrock mine site near Perris, CA. This new source of aggregate was not included in previous studies because this news just became public. At present the volume of production that could be produced from this site is unknown, but a site of this size could conceivably equal or exceed production that is planned at the proposed Liberty Quarry (~170 acres). The service area of the proposed Perris quarry is also unknown, but its likely service would be the nearby areas of Riverside, Menifee, and Hemet areas; in addition, the new quarry could also serve the Temecula-Murrieta area. We note that the road distance from Perris to Temecula is approximately 20 miles. d) In a similar response to 33-3, the City notes that the use of the 50-year projection is not meaningful. Most mining operations only seek permits based on a 20 year basis. e) The increase in aggregate supply in the Port areas of San Diego and Long Beach/Los Angeles will have the most direct impact in these local areas. It is unlikely that aggregate from these sources will be transported by truck to the Temecula area. The offset effect of having lower demand in the downtown San Diego area, for example should free up resources that once flowed into the downtown area from mid-County sources. 33-5 The comment notes that the City DEIR identifies alternative aggregate resources in the region that could be developed, but implies alternative resources are unlikely to be developed because of the following reasons: landowners are unlikely to sell, resources are located outside of the Liberty Quarry market range (and therefore would not reduce 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-60 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 traffic); there is no guarantee that the resources could be developed or the existing mines can be expanded; and that the quality of rock may not be the same quality as at proposed Liberty Quarry site. It is not the responsibility of the City to develop a mine or develop the background information to vet a site. Further, the same constraints apply to the Liberty Quarry site. CEQA places the primary responsibility on the lead agency to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project and; comment notes that landowners may be unwilling to sell, this is not an environmental issue requiring a response under CEQA. City’s reports note that the bedrock geology in much of Southern California is comprised of a similar rock type – that being granitic plutonic igneous rock; in fact this rock type is the most extensive bedrock in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province that includes western Riverside County and San Diego County. The rationale that similar rock is only located distant from the I-15 corridor is simply not true. 33-6 The comment states that the proposed annexation would increase the amount of miles generated by trucks transporting aggregate material. However, the project would merely maintain the status quo-it does not increase travel distances, but could preclude reductions from existing conditions. The comment cites several studies prepared by Urban Crossroads which estimated the reduction in Truck Trips and Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) if the Liberty Quarry Project is constructed. The comment further states that the proposed annexation would have a significant transportation impact on freeways in Riverside County. Again, annexation would not change existing conclusions. Fehr & Peers reviewed the studies prepared by Urban Crossroads and concluded that this reduction in truck trips and truck vehicle miles traveled claimed to occur if a quarry was permitted, permitted, may not occur for the following reasons: • Urban Crossroads did not provide any case studies, “before and after” studies, or other types of locally collected empirical data to support their contention that Liberty Quarry would result in a reduction of regional truck trips and truck VMT. • There are numerous other surface mines operating in Riverside County or northern San Diego County which can provide the need for aggregate material in the Temecula area. Many of these existing mines are potential candidates for expansion. • There are extensive aggregate deposits within Riverside County which are not currently being mined which could satisfy the demand of Temecula. • There are other potential sources of aggregate material including , bulk import of aggregate to offset inland supplies, increased recycling, and other options to provide aggregate for the larger Southern California region. Additionally, the DEIR did identify significant and unavoidable impacts on I-15 related to the Annexation under Impact 3.7-4. It was determined that there were no potential mitigation measures for this impact, which was why the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-61 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 33-7 As the DEIR states, surface mining in the Santa Margarita Annexation area would not lessen traffic impacts by reducing the need to import aggregate material into the Temecula and Lake Elsinore area instead of more remote areas in the remaining areas of Riverside County and San Bernardino County. The air quality analysis reflects these facts, and relies on the Traffic Impact Study performed by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, dated September 2008 for mobile source emissions assumptions. Therefore, additional analyses are not warranted. The annexation maintains the status quo as to aggregate truck traffic. It is speculative to assume that other sources developed would be as far removed as the commenter suggests, when resources are available in the general area which Liberty or others could seek to permit and exploit. 33-8 Because the specific source of aggregate used locally can vary with demand and market conditions, and is undocumented and unverifiable, it would be highly speculative to assume that the most likely alternatives to locally-mined material are aggregate imported from Canada or Mexico. CEQA does not require that impacts be studied that are highly speculative. If aggregate were mined locally, then it may just as likely be transported and used some distance outside of the immediate region. In addition, as Table 3.1-10 in the Errata/Additions section shows, GHG emissions from quarrying activities would be substantially higher than those generated from the proposed project. Quantitative analyses of GHG emissions from speculative worst-case scenarios are neither appropriate nor required. Further, the comment deals with transportation based GHG and not mining activity GHG releases, which would be substantially greater than the project. 33-9 The comment states that the proposed annexation would mean an export of jobs from the region as Liberty Quarry would generate almost 100 jobs and many indirect jobs in the area. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required as CEQA does not require a response to economic impacts. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 33-10 The comment states that the proposed annexation would cost the taxpayers of the City of Temecula to provide fire service and police service with only 14% of the land being subject to generating property taxes and that the City should provide a realistic economic benefit analysis that shows the true cost of the annexation attempt and the true annual coast of the annexation to the City. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. The DEIR determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less than significant impact upon fire services, sheriff services, school services, library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity, natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. The commenter is directed to refer to the detailed analysis and conclusions located in Section 3.6 of the DEIR. While the cost of annexation is not related to the environmental impacts of the project, and is not a requirement of CEQA, the City consulted with Stanley Hoffman Associates, Inc. to conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed project, dated June 22, 2007. The 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-62 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 analysis concluded that there would be an annual surplus of approximately $185.5 thousand for the total annexation area after buildout. 33-11 The environmental analysis evaluated the most intensive use of the project based on the underlying land use and zoning designations to determine the greatest potential environmental impacts of the project and fully disclose potential impacts. The environmental and physical constraints within the project area, and the cost associated with providing access, sewer, water, and electrical services to individual properties could potentially render the construction of single family homes infeasible in some areas within the proposed project; however, these constraints exist under current circumstances and the proposed annexation does not change these circumstances. In regards to the environmental, physical, visual impacts of the proposed project, the City is proposing Hillside Development Standards, which are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare; protect and preserve natural and biological resources for long-term benefit of the community by carefully considering the size, type, location, density, and intensity of development based on available infrastructure, the geographic steepness of terrain, presence of unique geographic conditions and constraints, presence of environmentally sensitive areas, and optimizing the use of sensitive site design, grading, landscape architecture, and architecture. The EIR does not suggest that the majority of land in question could be developed as residential housing tract. In fact, page 2-9 specifically states: “A total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including topography; domestic water supply, wastewater disposal, dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120.000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements.” On page 2-13 of the EIR, it further states: “It is not possible to forecast when all 81 units would be constructed, as it is dependent on the intentions of each underlying landowner, market conditions and the economic feasibility of complying with the above-outlined environmental, physical and design constraints... However, in order to implement a worst case scenario to be analyzed in this document, it will be assumed that all 81 singlefamily dwelling units will be developed by 2015, and all impact analyses in this document will be based on the residential units being construct by this year.” 33-12 The comment states that the proposed project would cause the permanent loss of habitat due to the development of up to 81 homes and associated streets and utilities and that it is infeasible to suggest that a majority of the private land in question could be developed as residential tracts making the DEIR deficient. As previously stated on pages 2-9 through 2-10 in the DEIR, a total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-63 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; landlocked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. As analyzed Under Alternative 3 in Chapter 5, surface mining within the project area would bring a higher level of human activity into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. These indirect impacts would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Although development under this alternative should be required to implement all feasible mitigation, this alternative’s impacts upon biological resources would be greater than the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. The quarry excavation would also disrupt the natural groundwater pathways (fractures) and general groundwater flow in the area. Spring supplies could be adversely affected and most likely stop flowing during the life of mining operations and likely for much longer. Once the bedrock is removed, water pathways along joint fractures and weathered zones will be gone. Although the proposed lake, as the proposed pit mitigation, may provide a source for water in the distant future, springs fed from higher topographic sources will permanently stop flowing due to the missing void spaces that existed within the quarried rock mass. Biological and botanical species dependent on these spring-fed water sources will be permanently affected. The City does not plan to purchase and develop any of the lots within the proposed project area. Lastly, a 2-acre disturbance (as mentioned by the commenter) is not reasonable under the proposed zoning; therefore, the assumptions are not based on facts. 33-13 The comment states that the DEIR has not identified a reliable source of water for the development of the 81 homes. As previously stated on pages 2-9 through 2-10 in the DEIR, a total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. Individual dwelling units likely would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. The comment incorrectly states that the City has the burden of demonstrating that water is available. No development is proposed as part of the project. If and when development is proposed, applicants will be required to demonstrate availability of water. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-64 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 33-14 This is a concluding paragraph and states opposition to the project; as such, no response is required. Rainbow Planning Group 34-1 The letter expresses support of the City’s annexation project. The comment focuses on potential impacts that could occur from a quarry as explained by Alternatives 3 and 4. The comment letter will be forwarded to the decision makers. Pechanga Indian Reservation 35-1 This is the introduction section of the letter; as such, no response is required. 35-2 The comment states that it has been the intent of the Federal Government and the State of California that Indian tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as other governmental concerns. This is general background information. As described in Mitigation 3.3-3 in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, consultation regarding any future development to occur within the project area is required. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of any future project proponent and in consultation with local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. 35-3 The comment states that in order to comply with CEQA and other Federal and California law, it is imperative that the County and the Project Applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as well as generating adequate mitigation measures. This is general background information. As described in Mitigation 3.3-3 in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, consultation regarding any future development to occur within the project area is required. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of any future project proponent and in consultation with local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. 35-4 The comment states that the Lead Agency is required to consult with the Pechanga Tribe pursuant to a State law entitled Traditional Tribal Cultural Places and that any information conveyed in terms of the specific identity, location, character and use of those places and associated features and objects remain confidential. Consultations with the local appropriate tribes has been in included in Section 3.3 of the DEIR as described in Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b, Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-65 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 and Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, consultation regarding any future development to occur within the project area is required. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of any future project proponent and in consultation with local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. 35-5 The comment states that the project area encompasses the geographic area which is the site of the Pechanga Tribe’s creation and origin which is further described in detail. This section of the letter is informative and augments the information in the EIR about the cultural aspects and resources of the project area. 35-6 The comment requests that the FEIR for this project, as well as subsequent development projects processed by the City for this geographical area, specifically commit to the inclusion of the Pechanga Tribe as a partner in creating the mitigation and conditions for the project and require Pechanga Tribal monitors for all ground-disturbing activities, avoidance and preservation of all sacred areas, and a Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe for all cultural resources and Native American human remains, including inadvertent discoveries. As described in Mitigation 3.3-3 in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, consultation regarding any future development to occur within the project area is required. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of any future project proponent and in consultation with local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. 35-7 The comment states that the project area contains numerous known cultural resources and village sites that are significant. This is informative and augments the information in the DEIR. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 35-8 The comment states that the Tribe is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed for the project have changed from those in the 2/15/08 DEIR and requests specific changes to the proposed mitigation measures for the 9/2208 DEIR. The deletions and edits as described in this November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter have been incorporated into the FEIR. 35-9 Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-66 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 35-10 Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 35-11 Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 35-12 Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 35-13 Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 35-14 Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 has been revised in the FEIR as indicated in the November 5, 2008 Pechanga Indian Reservation letter. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. 35-15 This is a concluding paragraph requesting continued consultation with the Pechanga Tribe; as such, no response is required. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for further details. County of Riverside 36-1 The comment summarizes the project description and the existing and proposed general plan and zoning designations. The comment states that the DEIR references the OS-C zoning interchangeably with Open Space (OS) zoning, which is inconsistent and misleading as the OS zone permits a greater range of development. The referenced 118 acres, which has a Riverside County zoning designation of Residential Agriculture, with a 20 acre minimum lot size, also has a County General Plan land use designation of Conservation Habitat. The County zoning designation is inconsistent with the the County land use designation. The City’s proposed land use and pre-zoning designations for this same area are Open Space (OS) and Open Space Conservation – Santa Margarita (OS-CSM) respectively, and as a result do not allow for residential units within this zoning designation. 36-2 The DEIR does evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, as outlined in 5.5. The comment restates the four (4) alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the DEIR. The project description in Section 2.0 of the DEIR and Section 3.4, land use, does document what could reasonably be developed on the project site under the existing general plan and zoning designations if the project were not to proceed forward. The feasibility and basis for rejection of an alternative site alternative is discussed on page 5-34 of the DEIR. As stated, the project consists of annexation of specific contiguous 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-67 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 property into the City of Temecula to achieve a set of specific project objectives including: 1) integration of the SMAA area into the city’s general plan, 2) preserving public lands within the SMAA in natural open space while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owner lands and 3) protection of existing and future research values at the SMER through prohibition of incompatible land uses. Although alternative sites are available to be potentially annexed from unincorporated Riverside County into the City of Temecula, none of the alternative sites would meet the basic objectives of the proposed project, as outlined above and in the DEIR. For this reason, an alternative site alternative was not evaluated in the DEIR. 36-3 Please refer to response number 36-2. Further, as noted, in comment 36-49, the County suggested that the entire annexation area might have appropriately been designated OS, which would have been akin to the No Project Alternative analysis. The Alternatives adequately consider build-out under County General Plan, as discussed in the analysis. So both types of “No Project” analyses have, in effect, been considered. 36-4 Alternative 2 is a component of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, and evaluates the impact of 80 single-family units (proposed project evaluates 81 singlefamily homes) on the existing Riverside County General Plan land use RM designation and open space on the OS-CH designated portion of the project area. Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the proposed project. 36-5 Technical information and data in support of Alternative 3 is found throughout Section 5.5 of the DEIR and in Appendices B-E (air quality analysis, traffic impact study, aggregate resource evaluation and acoustical analysis) of the DEIR. 36-6 Alternative 4 is a reasonable alternative to the proposed project in that it evaluates an annexation of only the area currently within the existing City of Temecula sphere of influence. This is a potential outcome of any LAFCO annexation process and is a feasible alternative to the proposed project. 36-7 The comment suggests an alternative that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The comment is confusing in that it states the suggested alternative should include a more limited range of development or even open space land uses and then states that it would reduce impacts to mineral resources to less than significant levels. A more limited range of development or open space uses would result in increased or equivalent impacts to mineral resources, as they would be left in place. 36-8 The comment confuses the potential land use components of the proposed project and Alternative 3. The DEIR does not assume that the quarry and mining activities would occur if the proposed project is not approved, rather, it acknowledges the current application that is on file at the county of Riverside Planning Department for a mining operation. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-68 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 36-9 The DEIR, on pages 2-13 through 2-14 documents the physical constraints to development of the 81 residential units allowed by the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations, including access, water supply for domestic and firefighting purposes and extension of requisite infrastructure. Although site specific build out information for each parcel contained within the annexation area would require undue speculation, several assumptions were made to allow for a worst case impact assessment. These assumptions included operations and activities that would be required for the development of requisite supporting infrastructure and grading operations to prepare parcels for single family home development and access roads. The findings contained in the DEIR are accurate and reflect a worst case development scenario. 36-10 The comment notes that the project area is located in a seismically active area, but that impacts resulting from seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, and landslides were determined not to have an impact or to be less than significant. The site area is located outside of the closest Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Study Zone, the zonation that designates fault rupture hazards. That zone, the northwest trending Elsinore Fault AP-zone comes within about ¾ of a mile to the northeast corner of the project area. The site has not been mapped for the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act that identifies potential liquefaction hazard zones and for potential seismically induced landslide hazards. However, most of the proposed annexation area is bedrock that would not be expected to liquefy during a seismic event. The County hazard maps do not show seismic hazards in the area where residences could be allowed; the City notes that steep slopes are mapped in other areas of the planned annexation. Similar to other proposed developments within the Temecula City Limits, dwelling units that are proposed in the project area would be required to use the hazard maps prepared by Riverside County to guide future development. 36-11 The comment notes that the Santa Margarita River is currently under an investigative order by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board which cites the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Riverside County as contributors to the degraded water quality. A major reason for the Board’s concern is from the historic nitrate levels released from the water quality plant that is located along Murrieta Creek. The City is not aware of concerns by the Water Quality Board regarding degraded water quality produced by residences of this low density (1 dwelling unit per 10 acres). Further, the City points out that the location of the potential residences is located over 3 stream miles from the main stem of the river; this distance affords considerable protection from any type of pollution. However, the City will not allow dwelling development unless unless it can be shown that development can occur within the constraints of environmental regulations. If the project were adopted, any proposed residences would face development constraints in addition to those suggested in the comment question. It is possible that some sites would not achieve the necessary percolation rate. That is the nature of development on natural terrains and a proposed site within the SMAA is no different. The burden of proof 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-69 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 whether a site could be developed would fall on the owner of the parcel. If the project is adopted the City would allow development up to this maximum density in the residential development area, but it would not permit such development nor would development be allowed to proceed if could not be shown to do so within regulatory constraints. 36-12 The analysis presented in the DEIR considers two scenarios for construction, with and without blasting events which may be required for development of some hillside residential land uses and is not based n the assumption that quarry activities will be permitted. The DEIR clearly states that impacts from construction without blasting would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Daily emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) during construction with blasting are predicted to exceed the thresholds, and result in a significant impact. Even with the proposed mitigation measures, NOX emissions would exceed the threshold and result in a significant, immitigable impact, as presented in the DEIR. 36-13 The DEIR contains a comprehensive evaluation of biological resources, including conformance with the policies contained in the MSHCP and the potential impacts to the special linkage area. The DEIR contains a variety of mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed project. Each future individual lot residential development is required to demonstrate conformance with the MSHCP and all City of Temecula resource preservation policies and mandates. 36-14 The comment refers to an attached comment letter. The identified comment letter was considered during preparation of the revised Draft EIR and incorporated into the analysis where applicable. 36-15 The DEIR evaluates and documents the potential land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Specific mitigation measures are proposed for land use and related impacts and air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, public services and utilities, transportation and traffic, noise and recreation. 36-16 Impacts to public services and utilities are documented in the DEIR in section 2.0, project description and Section 3.6, public services and utilities. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to public services and utilities to less than significant levels. 36-17 The comment states that specific comments related to traffic would be provided as a separate letter. Those comments are addressed in responses 36-19 to 36-21. 36-18 The comment indicates that the DEIR has not evaluated the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project and does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. These comments have been addressed in Responses 36-1 through 36-17. No additional response is required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-70 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 36-19 The comment states that they generally concur with the findings of the study. No response is necessary. 36-20 The comment indicates that the DEIR concluded that there was a significant and unavoidable impact along Rainbow Canyon Road and a finding of overriding considerations would be needed. If and when the City certifies the FEIR, it will adopt a statement of overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable impacts. As this comment is generally consistent with the conclusions of the DEIR, and if the City approves the project, it will adopt a statement of overriding considerations as required by CEQA. 36-21 The comment indicates that the DEIR concluded that there was a significant and unavoidable impact at the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley Boulevard and a finding of overriding considerations would be needed. If and when the City certifies the FEIR, it will adopt a statement of overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable impacts. This comment is generally consistent with the conclusions of the DEIR, and if the City approves the project, it will adopt a statement of overriding considerations as required by CEQA. 36-22 The comment indicates that the comment letter focuses on the EIR section pertaining to mineral resources. A response it not required. 36-23 First, the City’s project maintains the status quo as to sources of aggregate and supplies. Nonetheless, the City notes that its mine production report did relate to San Bernardino County and to Los Angeles County. The production and consumption of those Counties are reported in the reference documents cited. The City primarily reported on the production in those counties that was shipped southward into Riverside and San Diego Counties. The City reported on exports from Riverside County that went into Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. The City did not evaluate the production and demand (consumption) of aggregate material for Nevada and Arizona, and Mexico. The City was unable to determine that any aggregate in the study area along the I-15 corridor is transported to those areas and any such study would have been speculative and is not required by CEQA. Further the City does not believe that areas shipping aggregate into the I-15 corridor transport any of their aggregate product that far to the west. Overall the City found no data that indicates aggregate is shipped from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, or San Bernardino Counties into Nevada, Arizona, or Mexico. 36-24 The comment states that DEIR should analyze associated impacts (e.g. traffic, road wear, air pollution, fuel consumption, local economy, etc.) resulting from need to import aggregate from other regions (U.S./California regions, Mexico, Canada, etc.) if the project is approved. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is only required to analyze the impacts of the proposed Annexation project. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-71 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Nonetheless, aggregate imports from Mexico and Canada are: 1) not part of this project and 2) will continue to increase whether or not the project is approved or Liberty Quarry is approved. The City’s analysis simply documented market trends. In this regard, the increase in aggregate supply in the Port areas of San Diego and Long Beach will have the most direct impact in these local areas. It is unlikely that aggregate from these sources will be transported by truck to the Temecula area. The offset effect of having lower demand in the downtown San Diego area, for example will free up resources that flowed into the downtown area form mid-County sources. The City believes the net affect will increase the available local aggregate supply for the north San Diego County area. Further, the City’s reports document that there are other local areas that have aggregate that could be considered for permitting, so if mining is not allowed on-site, materials could still come from the general area, not from distant locations. 36-25 The comment states that given the data rendered, in Table 5.4-E of the DEIR, the aggregate demand for the Riverside County area could be as much as 25% higher than indicated by CA CGS Map Sheet 52. This should be considered as a potential project impact. Table 5.4-E was contained in the initial DEIR; that same information is contained in the current DEIR as Table 3.5-5 – Estimated Aggregate Demand. Based on the current population, the DEIR table provides an estimate of the current annual aggregate consumption in the following areas based on a range in per capita consumption that ranges from 5.1 to 6.5 tons/person. • Riverside County (entire County): 10,344,020 to 13,174,220 (tons/year) • San Diego County (entire County): 14,707,270 to 19,119,451 (tons/year) • Temecula: 384,180 to 499,434 (tons/year) Map Sheet 52, and the accompanying text, calculates a 50-year demand for aggregate for specific production and consumption areas. These PC areas within Riverside and San Diego Counties are listed below. For each area a 50-year demand of aggregate needed was calculated and this is shown as well. • Riverside County: – Temescal Valley – Orange County: 1,122 MT – Palm Springs: 295 MT • San Diego County: – Western San Diego County: 1,164 MT The two aggregate projections are not directly comparable because one is for current annual use and the other projects what will be needed in 50 years. The 50-year projection apparently uses a population increase factor, but this is not specified. Thus, a direct comparison is not appropriate. In addition the City fails to see how a percent calculation 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-72 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 of current aggregate needs can be calculated from the Map 52 data; thus, the City cannot determine if the current use is higher or lower than Map sheet 52 projects based on the given data. In addition, Map Sheet 52 uses a 50-year projection of aggregate on which to base its projections. This projection is not meaningful to actual conditions that mines use to base business decisions. Most mining operations only seek permits based on a 20 year basis; for example, Granite’s proposal for Liberty Quarry seeks a 20-year permit and Granite’s Rosemary Mountain just opened with a 20-year permit. Most mines are simply not permitted on a 50-year basis. Of all the mines studied by the City, only one had permitted reserves out to 50-years. Mines, like most businesses focus on the near future rather than focus business decisions on distant projections because there are too many unknown variables in distant projections. There is more focus on remaining in business during the next 5, 10, or 15 years. The market will continue to oscillate between being slightly under-producing to being slightly overproducing. It is unreasonable to assume the market will ever have significant overproduction because this would require producers to develop reserves for which they do not have the current cash reserves or know what or where the market will be in the distant future. 36-26 The comment states that the DEIR should address/explain the formulas used, including assumptions mad for the projection (e.g., population, development rate, etc.) relative to the rates of production and aggregate demand analysis. The resource analysis and the mining analysis reports cite data sources throughout their narratives. A complete citation list is contained in the references section of each report. Production estimates were obtained using a variety of methods. The City reviewed official records at the appropriate county or or city office (lead agency). The City conducted interviews with: county and city officials involved in regulatory work; California Geologic Survey personnel, county officials involved with road work, mine owners and operators, and others professionals that could provide useful data. The City reviewed production reports published by the US Geological Survey and by the California Geologic Survey. In cases, site specific information was used. As stated in 36-25 above, the demand calculation shown in the Table 3.5-5 was based on multiplying the annual per capita aggregate usage by the estimated population. Population figures were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates and sources of annual per capita aggregate usages (T/person or tons/person) ranged as follows: 5.1 to 6.5 T/person Local industry estimates, California Geologic Survey 5.4 T/person Enviromine 8.7 T/person U.S. Geological Survey 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-73 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 The 5.1 to 6.5 T/person range was used in calculations because it appeared to be used by a wider range of professionals in California. The USGS number was reportedly more accurate when used in nation-wide calculations, but the numbers seemed out of line with recommendations in Southern California. 36-27 The comment inquires how the Palm Springs reserves were calculated and/or how were the 3 billion tons of additional reserves measured. In response, two primary sources of published information were used in reporting aggregate reserves in the Palm Springs area. These consist of multiple reports by the U.S. Geological Survey usually in the form of some type of an annual survey. There are also several Production/Consumption reports by the California Geologic Survey. The 3 billion ton estimate was made in the 1988 CDMG report by Miller and this reference is cited in the paragraph in question. 36-28 The comment notes that the last paragraph of the Mineral Resource section (pg. 4.5-22) of the DEIR refers to changing County of Riverside General Plan land use designations. This sentence should be modified to clarify that the change is from the County’s to the City’s General plan land use designation. The City will make this change in the FEIR. The proper section of the DEIR referred to in the comment letter is actually located at the bottom of page 3.5-20. Please refer to the errata sheet in Chapter 2 of this document for details. 36-29 The comment notes that the project site is a State designated mineral resource zone. SMARA recognizes that “…the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the State and to the needs of society.” The proposed SMAA and associated land use designation changes would preclude mining and create an inconsistency with SMARA. In regard to the identification of potential alternative aggregate sites that could be developed as an alternative to the one at the SMAA location, the focus was on the geologic conditions. This approach was similar to that currently being taken by the California State Mining and Geology Board (CA SMGB) in an anticipated approval of a 500-acre bedrock aggregate site in Perris, CA; this action is for a mineral zone reclassification. The CA SMGB notes that their reclassification of this site was made, “…on the basis solely on geologic factors, and without regard to existing land use and land ownership.”(PRC 2761 (b). (Executive Officer Report, November 20, 2008, CA SMGB; attached to published meeting Agenda). 36-30 The comment notes the requirements of a lead agency under SMARA as specified by Sections 2762, 2763, and 2764. In response, the City recognizes its possible future SMARA responsibilities in regard to these Sections. At present, these responsibilities fall to Riverside County as the lead agency under SMARA. If the project is approved and the City becomes the lead agency, then the City will work with the State Geologist and 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-74 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 SMGB in regard to SMARA compliance. Further, on October 24, 2008, the City published a notice of loss of mineral resource as specified by Public Resources Code 2761, 2762. Although not required, the City has provided a statement of mineral loss to provide information to the public. 36-31 Paragraphs 1-4: The comment states that the project approval will preclude aggregate mine activities and therefore import of aggregate will occur. “Considering the proposed project’s close proximity to San Diego, it can be anticipated that the mineral within the proposed project area (the proposed Liberty Quarry project site) could serve the (sic) Sand Diego region”. Aggregate has historically been supplied to the Temecula area by nearby sources, namely from the Lake Elsinore and Temescal Valley areas. Some of this product makes it into north San Diego County, but probably on the order of about 10 percent. To suggest that Liberty Quarry would supply the San Diego region would appear to place more truck traffic on the highways. If the need is in mid-county and downtown San Diego, then it would follow that development of an aggregate source more local to this demand would reduce truck traffic. Advocating that the Liberty Quarry could serve all the San Diego region would seem to increase truck traffic. Paragraph 5: The comment states that offshore mining will not be an alternative to surface mines due to technical, economic, and environmental issues and that shipping and trucking of materials from offshore mining should be evaluated in the DEIR. The City’s studies did not rely on aggregate from offshore mining to provide any offsets or alternatives to surface mining of aggregate. The purpose of the aggregate resource study was to survey the regional sources of aggregate. As such the study noted that there are no current proposals to mine offshore materials for an aggregate source. However, the study did indicate that that source has been considered. In times when resources become in short supply, it is often time to reconsider what was once viewed as unfeasible. Further, and in regard to the suggestion that truck traffic from offshore mining should be evaluated in the DEIR, the import of offshore materials would follow a similar path as other barge imports and probably come in at the Port of Long Beach or Port of San Diego. In these cases the impact would predominately serve markets local to the Ports and in turn historic inland supplies would be freed up to serve the local inland areas. Paragraph 6: The comment states that while recycling asphalt and concrete can reduce the need for new aggregate, the demand for new aggregate rises above the current reserves. Analysis of this recycle potential should be expanded in the DEIR. The City agrees with the comment that recycling reduces the demand for new aggregate. Recycled construction aggregate is currently used by Caltrans and there are programs in place to expand the use of this product. Even if 10 to 15% is recycled, this is a substantial reduction in the amount of aggregate that must come from mines. This produces vehicle mile savings because many recycling plants are on-site facilities and therefore 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-75 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 transportation is limited. Amounts of recycled aggregate and asphalt are expected to increase. Analysis is not required because this is an observation of current market trends and not part of the proposed project or alternatives. 36-32 The comment notes that there are two 3.5.6 headings in the text. In addition, the comment states that because Liberty Quarry has a known aggregate resource and received the MRZ classification of MRZ-2a then the project approval will result in a loss of this valuable mineral resource to the state. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document for the corrected formatting issue. The City’s DEIR shows additional aggregate resources in the region that are possible to develop. The underlying granitic bedrock in the Pennisular Ranges province creates a bedrock source that can be mined from hard rock sites and from deposits created created from the erosional detritus from these sources. In addition, the City notes the dynamic nature of MRZ classifications and changing land use. New MRZ classifications are routine – for example, at their upcoming meeting the State Mining and Geology Board is planning to authorize a classification study of a 500-acre bedrock mine site near Perris, CA. This area is currently classified as MRZ 3 and the plans are to upgrade this to MRZ-2. As another example, land with MRZ classifications can be used for applications other than mining – in San Diego County, approvals are in process to allow a residential subdivision at the Merriam Mountain project that had a MRZ-2 designation. (This site is located near the center of the planned Liberty Quarry market area; an area claimed to have some of the largest aggregate demand in north San Diego County.). As another example, we note that MRZ classified areas are dedesignated – for example, during the last year the CA-SMGB has declassified areas within the Palm Springs Production-Consumption (PC) area due to changing land uses. 36-33 The comment states that it may be necessary to analyze how population increases affect aggregate demand in order to accurately analyze future aggregate demand projections. This was not part of the proposed project and as such is not a CEQA related question. 36-34 The comment states that discussion of geology and geologic hazards in the DEIR should be supported by references to studies or individuals consulted to compile the reported information and opinions. The City did reference studies and sources used to support these reports. These are cited throughout the documents and lists of references are provided. 36-35 The comment states that in Table 1.0 Comparison of Alternative Matrix states under “Geology and Soils” that Alternatives 3 and 4 would “result in potentially significant impacts even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.” The DEIR should 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-76 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 provide the appropriate reference to and analysis of the data utilized to reach this conclusion. The City believes the comment refers to Table ES-2 – Comparison of Alternatives on page ES-39. This is a summary table and is based on work contained in other sections of the report. None of the other items have references listed and to do so would make the table more cumbersome. In regard to the commenter’s specific request for a reference the City references to section 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project. 36-36 The comment states that the DEIR should consider the potential impacts to and from the development of the residential parcels that could be created under the proposed project (opportunity to grade, develop and occupy the resultant 81 dwelling units and associated access roads that could be allowed under the proposed project. The land use allowed in the proposed annexation is essentially that currently allowed in the present jurisdiction. The adoption of the project described in the DEIR would allow development densities of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres on approximately 10% of the area; open space would be preserved on the remaining approximate 80%. These are almost identical land use designations currently allowed by Riverside County’s current General Plan on most of the area being considered for annexation. If the project is adopted, any proposed residences would face development constraints in addition to those suggested in the comment question. As in any proposal, a site that is inaccessible, a site with undue steep slopes, or a site without groundwater may not be able to be developed. If for example, there is no groundwater at the site then a residence may not be able to be developed. If road grading could not be shown to be performed in regard to environmental, sediment runoff, and other regulations then that development would not be allowed. And it is possible that some sites would not achieve the necessary percolation rate. That is the nature of development on natural terrains and a proposed site within the SMAA is no different. The burden of proof whether a site could be developed would fall on the owner of the parcel. If the project is adopted it would allow development up to this maximum density in the residential development area, but it would not authorize such development nor would development be allowed to proceed if could not be shown to do so within regulatory constraints. 36-37 The comment notes that the project area is located in a seismically active area, and that impacts resulting from seismic ground shaking, landslides, and other hazards should be considered in the DEIR. In response, the site has not been mapped for the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act that identifies potential liquefaction hazard zones and for potential seismically induced landslide hazards. However, most of the proposed annexation area is bedrock that would not be expected to liquefy during a seismic event. Some slopes on the site are steep and thus slope stability issues are anticipated. The site area is located outside of the closest Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Study Zone; the zonation that designates fault rupture hazards. That zone, the northwest trending Elsinore Fault APzone comes within about ¾ of a mile to the northeast corner of the project area. The 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-77 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 County hazard maps do not show seismic hazards in the area where residences could be allowed; we note that steep slopes are mapped in other areas of the planned annexation. Similar to other proposed developments within the Temecula City Limits, dwelling units that are proposed in the project area would be required to use the hazard maps prepared by Riverside County to guide future development. 36-38 The DEIR (section 3.2) contains a comprehensive analysis of the MSHCP and the conformance of the proposed project to Section 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2 and the special linkage area. Further, the proposed zoning requires compliance with the MSHCP. 36-39 The DEIR (section 3.2) contains a comprehensive analysis of the MSHCP and the conformance of the proposed project to Section 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2 and the special linkage area. Please refer to pages 3.2-38 and 3.2-42 of the DEIR. 36-40 The DEIR (section 3.2) contains a comprehensive analysis of the MSHCP and the conformance of the proposed project to Section 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2 and the special linkage area. Please refer to pages 3.2-38 and 3.2-42 of the DEIR. Specific mitigation measures have been proposed to address potential impacts to the special linkage area. 36-41 The proposed annexation area would continue to be located within the MSHCP. The comment is supportive of the proposed annexation. 36-42 The comment refers to potential increases to the City of Temecula’s cost shares through the two existing NPDES Implementation Agreements the City has with the County and the Bureau of Reclamation for regional NPDES programs, such as wet-weather sampling and the TMDL Order. The City’s IA costs are based on population and benefit assessment units (rooftops). As such, the annexation will likely cause small increases to the City’s existing IA costs. The other comment items mentioned (WQMP, NOI, SWPPP, LID, TMDL) are already a part of Temecula’s NPDES program and should not have any significant effects on the City. 36-43 Please refer to previous response 36-42. 36-44 The proposed development is not industrial in nature. 36-45 The comment is not CEQA related and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 36-46 The comment indicates that the Riverside County Environmental Health Department has not comments at this time. A response is not required. 36-47 An acoustical and vibration analysis is included in the DEIR in Section 3.8. 36-48 The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific CEQA issue. A response is not required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-78 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 36-49 The comment indicates that proposed project’s general plan amendment and change of zone would allow for development of residential units in the middle of the SMER. Potential residential development could only occur on privately owned parcels under either the existing County general plan land use and zoning designations or the proposed city general plan land use and zoning designations. The DEIR does evaluate the impacts associated with development of the allowed residential units on light, noise, invasive plant species and biological resources. All lands controlled by the SMER are expected to remain in undisturbed open space, in support of their mission to maintain habitat and conduct research. A visual simulation of the build-out of the residential units allowed under the proposed project was not included in the EIR as it would be speculative and premature, as no site planning or architectural plans have been submitted to the city. The requirement for second access to the project area to support any residential development is documented throughout the DEIR. The fact that the County designation might have been more appropriate in open space is noted. 36-50 The DEIR evaluates the potential impact of the proposed project on wildlife movement through the special linkage area, and concludes that with the application of mitigation measures, the impact to wildlife movement would be less than significant. 36-51 The Project Description and Transportation and Traffic sections of the DEIR document the project access constraints and requirements. Second access to the project area is required to allow development of any residential units, but undue speculation would be required to try to define where access would be, and what impacts might result. 36-52 An alternative that would make the entire project area an open space designation does not meet the basic objectives of the proposed proposed project and would ignore long term existing general plan land use and zoning designations and associated land use expectations. James Giantoni 37-1 The comment expresses opposition to the annexation project and states that it would have a negative impact on nearly all Riverside County residents. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. However, the City’s proposed annexation contemplates some limited development in an environmentally sensitive way. 37-2 The comment states that developing a small amount of private land in the annexation area does not fit with the City’s goal of protecting open space. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 37-3 The commenter states that if the Liberty Quarry Project is not developed then aggregate material would have to be brought from the Coachella Valley to Southwestern Riverside County and others. The City would note in response that the Liberty Quarry Project is not the only available local sources for aggregate material near Temecula. For example, the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-79 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 DEIR documents numerous existing quarries currently in operation located in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 37-4 The comment states that Liberty Quarry will provide badly needed jobs and tax benefits. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Stephen MacDonald 38-1 The comment is in support of the City’s annexation project; as such, no response is required. Mark Bogh 39-1 This is an introduction paragraph that does not require a direct response. 39-2 The comment states that it is imperative that a local source of aggregate be available to meet the current and growing demands. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 39-3 The comment states that the absence of a local source for aggregate materials forces the continued transport of aggregate from outside regions and will result in related environmental impacts. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 39-4 The comment states that the proposed annexation would be a disservice to Inland Empire taxpayers because of the adverse effect in would have on infrastructure projects. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 39-5 The comment states that there is an added benefit of possibly reducing the existing truck traffic if a local source were permitted in closer proximity of the target market. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIR for this analysis. 39-6 The comment states that the Inland Empire is in desperate need of additional aggregate resources and Liberty Quarry would be able to meet 40% of this demand over the next 75 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-80 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 years. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIR for this analysis. Furthermore, the comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Friends of Liberty 40-1 The comment states that incorporating land into the city that produces zero financial benefit adds to growing debt and is a disservice to the region. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 40-2 The comment states that the re-circulated EIR does not take into consideration the overall loss to the region and the indisputable need for a local aggregate source. An analysis of mineral resources was provided in Section 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 40-3 The comment states that the citizens of Temecula should not be used to fund an annexation and will only cost additional money in the future. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 40-4 The comment states that preventing local aggregate sources costs the City in more harmful air, increased traffic, and higher cost of construction materials due to the simple fact that transporting aggregate into the City is the only way to grow and thrive. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIR for this analysis. Furthermore, the comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. The Nature Conservancy 41-1 The comment is in support of the City’s annexation project; and raises no environmental issues warranting a response. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. Gary Harrison 42-1 The comment states that annexation allows citizens and businesses to take advantage of the City’s police and fire protection as well as garbage hauling services. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-81 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 42-2 The comment states that four of the occupied structures could not bear the cost alone of City services in this area. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 42-3 The comment provides an overview of fire protection costs and payment responsibilities. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. If there is a wildland fire within one mile of any State or Federal property the State/Federal would consider this an eminent threat and respond accordingly; it is not up to the local jurisdiction to respond in this situation. As such, since the majority of the project area is either State or Federal property, from a wildfire standpoint, the economic impact impact to the City would be minimal with regard to this issue of wildland fires. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 42-4 The comment compares the cost of the annexation to funding of school-related programs. The comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 43-1 This is an introduction paragraph acknowledging receipt of the DEIR; as such, no direct response is required. 43-2 The comment contains a statement regarding Section 21104 c of the Resources Code. No response is required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 43-3 This is a concluding paragraph that does not require a direct response. Response to Comments – Original DEIR The original DEIR was circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who wished to review and comment on the original DEIR. Publication of the original DEIR marked the beginning of a 45-day public review period which extended from February 22, 2008 until April 7, 2008. Subsequent to completion of the original DEIR public review period, the City of Temecula decided to prepare a revised DEIR, and issued a revised NOP. The comments for the original DEIR were reviewed and incorporated into the revised DEIR where appropriate. The original DEIR generated 43 comment letters from agencies 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-82 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 and the public including approximately 200 organized comments or petitions generated by local community support groups received after the end of the comment period. In accordance with the Section 15088.5 (f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated, the lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such cases, need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period. Although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the FEIR and new comments must be submitted to the revised EIR. Although the lead agency need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated revised EIR, this section constitutes a response by the City of Temecula to all comments submitted on the original DEIR to the extent extent there were any different issues raised by each commenting entity. Where comments were specific to the text of the original DEIR the intent of the comment was honored in the response. Further, because the project is analyzed under the revised DEIR the responses will by necessity reference this document and not the original EIR in the response. 1 Native American Heritage Commission 1-1 In consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes (It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to its prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area), Cultural Resources mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that all future areas of development within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation comply with CEQA and adequately assess and mitigate impacts to any potential cultural resources, including historical, archaeological and Native American. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, and 3.3-5 (outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) provide mitigation in accordance with CEQA which address potential Cultural Resources impacts and include provisions for Tribal monitors, archaeological reporting, and the appropriate disposition of artifacts and human remains. Furthermore, when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of development, appropriate avoidance measures are required and all sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation. 2 Angel Zerobinski 2-1 The comment states the City is in opposition to the proposed Liberty Quarry. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-83 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 2-2 The comment relates to the current economy at the State and local level. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 2-3. The comment states relates to the housing market and the benefit of the proposed Liberty Quarry. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 2-4. This is a concluding paragraph, as such, no response is necessary.Note: The commenter is also directed to the responses to his comments for the revised DEIR located at 28-1 through 28-4. 3 Gary Harrison 3-1 Please see response to comments on the revised DEIR located at 42-1 through 42-4 4 Jason Zerobinski 4-1 The comment states the City is in opposition to the proposed Liberty Quarry. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 4-2 The comment states relates to the current economy at the State and local level. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 4-3 The comment states relates to the housing market and the benefit of the proposed Liberty Quarry. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 4-4 This is a concluding paragraph, as such, no response is necessary. 5 Johnson and Sedlack The comment letter contains page-specific comments that do correlate to the revised DEIR circulated on September 25, 2008. The comments of the writer were reviewed and incorporated into the revised DEIR where applicable. While the commenter was on the notification list for the revised DEIR he did not submit comments. However, in general, the comments centered on 1) biology 2) County General Plan inconsistency 3) Air Quality 4) worse case build out impacts of 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-84 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 the County verses the City 5) mineral resources 6) truck trips 7) land use 8) project alternatives and 9) public services and utilities. These impacts and comments were considered in the relevant chapters in the revised DEIR as follows: 5-1 Comment addressed in the Revised DEIR, page ES-12. 5-2 Please see response to comments on the revised DEIR (Comment No. 31-29). 5-3 Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to mitigate potential Noise impacts. Furthermore, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program incorporates Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 to address the potential impact that future development could interfere with wildlife movement. 5-4 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program incorporates Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 to address that proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 5-5 The Land Use and Planning section of the revised DEIR (pages 3.4-3, 3.4-11, 3.4-12 and 3.4-39) include discussion of the General Plan and the inability to exploit mineral resources. 5-6 A revised Air Quality Report was utilized for the revised DEIR. Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis is discussed within the revised DEIR, Air Quality Section, pages 3.1-32 and 3.1-33. 5-7 While the revised DEIR discusses the worst case analysis of construction of 81 houses, it is noted that the annexation itself does not construct a development. 5-8 Potential for odor impacts is discussed in the revised DEIR, pages 3.1-40 and 3.1-45. 5-9 While the revised DEIR discusses the worst case analysis of construction of 81 houses, it is noted that the annexation itself does not construct a development. 5-10 While the revised DEIR discusses the worst case analysis of construction of 81 houses, it is noted that the annexation itself does not construct a development. 5-11 The revised DEIR precludes the extraction of mineral resources. 5-12 While the revised DEIR discusses the worst case analysis of construction of 81 houses, it is noted that the annexation itself does not construct a development. 5-13 As stated on page 5-24 of the revised DEIR, the proposed project will not create limitations or prohibitions that would prevent the extraction of mineral resources in other 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-85 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 locations of Riverside County. Therefore, although the proposed project has direct impacts upon mineral resources, there will be no significant cumulative impacts upon mineral resources. In addition, the project is an annexation only and mining is discussed for purposes of CEQA. 5-14 As stated on page 5-24 of the revised DEIR, alternatives with higher intensities of residential uses or commercial and/or industrial uses would clearly result in more traffic, and therefore, poorer air quality than the proposed project, and were not considered further. Please see comment 5-13 (above) to the First Draft DEIR regarding cumulative impacts to mineral resources. 5-15 No project-No Development is addressed in the revised DEIR (see Executive Summary and Mandatory CEQA topics sections). 5-16 A revised Air Quality Report was prepared and utilized for the revised DEIR. Toxic Air Contaminants is discussed within the revised DEIR. In particular, page 3.1-41, states that the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identifies diesel particulate matter (DPM) as both a carcinogen and long-term chronic TAC. 5-17 The revised DEIR identifies blasting as a significant and unavoidable impact. 5-18 The project is an annexation only and mining is discussed for purposes of CEQA. 5-19 The revised DEIR acknowledges that TUMF offsets a project’s contribution to transportation and traffic impacts. 5-20 Please see response to comment 5-16 (above) for the First Draft DEIR regarding Toxic Air Contaminants. 5-21 Please see comment 5-17 (above) for the First Draft DEIR regarding blasting impacts. 5-22 The project is an annexation only and mining is discussed for purposes of CEQA. However, Hydrology and Water Quality is discussed within the revised Draft DEIR alternatives, including Alternative 3 (which includes Surface Mining Alternative and Surface Mining Reclamation Plan). 5-23 Air Quality Impacts for Alternative 4 (Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence) as shown Table 5-20 (Comparison of Alternatives Matrix) within the revised DEIR are further explained within the revised DEIR (on pages 5-65 through 5-67) which provides additional clarification of Air Quality impacts for Alternative 4. 5-24 Columns 5 and 6 of page 5-73 of the revised DEIR addresses the Special Linkage Area for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. This is further discussed within the narrative of the Mandatory CEQA Topics section of the revised DEIR for these alternatives. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-86 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 5-25 Columns 5 and 6 of page 5-76 of the revised DEIR address noise impacts for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. Noise impacts is further discussed within narrative of the Mandatory CEQA Topics section of the revised DEIR for these alternatives. 5-26 Columns 5 and 6 of page 5-77 of the revised DEIR address traffic impacts for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. Traffic impacts is s further discussed within narrative of the Mandatory CEQA Topics section of the revised DEIR for these alternatives. 5-27 Commenter inquiry is for Page 6.0-59 of the first DEIR; however, staff believes there was a typo on the referenced page number. Page 6.0-60 of the first DEiR encompasses “the last paragraph of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives”. Traffic Impacts are addressed in the Errata for the revised DEIR, which revises the second to last paragraph of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives Subsection of the revised DEIR (page 5-79). The new sentence, as modified in the Errata for the revised DEIR, states that this alternative would still have significant unavoidable impacts to transportation and traffic. 5-28 Traffic Impacts are addressed in the Errata for the revised DEIR, which revises the paragraphs of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives Subsection of the revised DEIR (page 5-79). The new sentence, as modified in the Errata for the revised DEIR, states that this alternative would still have significant unavoidable impacts to transportation and traffic. 5-29 Traffic Impacts are addressed in the Errata for the revised DEIR, which revises the paragraphs of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives Subsection of the revised DEIR (page 5-79). The new sentence, as modified in the Errata for the revised DEIR, states that this alternative would still have significant unavoidable impacts to transportation and traffic. 6 Gary Fawcett Please see responses 10-1 through 10-8 for the revised DEIR. 7 Santa Margarita River Foundation The writer is in support of the proposed project. Therefore no response is required. 8 BIA 8-1 The comment sates opposition to the annexation. Further, this comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 8-2 The comment is informational and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-87 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 8-3 The comment notes the cost of aggregate and the proposed project could increase the cost. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Further discussion related to this topic, a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. Further, this comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 8-4 The comment notes the nature of the aggregate supply in the region. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Further discussion related to this topic, a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. This comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 8-5 This comment suggests that the City’s annexation efforts could lead to a loss of the local quality of life because of aggregate costs. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Further discussion related to this topic, a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. This comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 8-6 The comment is informational and a response is not necessary. 8-7 This comment is a concluding remark and no response is necessary. 9 Bogh Construction Please see response 39 -1 through 39-6 for the revised DEIR 10 Grunder/Nieto 10-1 The comment states that the annexation violates personal property rights. This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-2 The comment states that City services will be spread thin after the annexation is approved and that the property will not generate sufficient revenue to pay for essential services. This comment raises an economic issue that is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-88 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 10-3 The comment notes the cost of construction aggregate and the effects on the local economy. The comment states that the amount of available construction aggregate in the County is diminishing and new resources must be developed to economically and environmentally address the demand. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 10-4 The comment references comments on the costly annexation process and that it had affected City services. This comment is economic in nature, and does not raise an environmental issue thus a response is not required. The revised DEIR determined adequate fire prevention servies can be provided to the area. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 10-5 Please see response to comments 12-1 through 12-3 for the revised DEIR 11 City of Indio (Lupe Ramos Watson) 11-1 The comment notes that the proposed annexation could interfere with the Proposes Liberty Quarry that has been submitted to the County of Riverside for processing. . This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 11-2 The comment states that there is a shortage of aggregate in the Coachella Valley. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 11-3 The comment notes the increased production of the Coachella Valley aggregate mines and increased truck traffic. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. For a further discussion related to the topic of truck traffic please refer to the detailed analysis of the transportation impacts associated with the Santa Margarita Annexation and the Liberty Quarry traffic Impact Analysis provided in Appendix C of the DEIR in a September 15th letter report from Fehr and Peers. 11-4 The fourth paragraph is a concluding paragraph, and as such, no response is necessary. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-89 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 12 Temecula Valley Custom Pools 12-1 The comment is an introductory paragraph expressing general states opposition to the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 12-2 The comment notes that there is a statewide shortage of aggregate . The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 12-3 The comment notes the increased production in other aggregate mines and increased truck traffic. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. For a further discussion related to the topic of truck traffic please refer to the detailed analysis of the transportation impacts associated with the Santa Margarita Annexation and the Liberty Quarry traffic Impact Analysis provided in Appendix C of the DEIR in a September 15th letter report from Fehr and Peers. 12-4 The comment states that the Liberty Quarry will create needed jobs for the local economy. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 12-5 The comment notes that the proposed Liberty Quarry would be hidden from view. The comment does not address the current project, which is an annexation without any development proposals and is beyond the scope of what CEQA requires to be analyzed. This comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 12-6 The last comment is a concluding statement in opposition to the annexation. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 13 Cal CIMA 13-1 This is an introductory paragraph and no comment is necessary 13-2 This comment states general opposition to the project. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-90 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 13-3 The comment states that portions of the proposed annexation area have documented aggregate materials. . As stated on page 3.5-19 of the revised DEIR, there are undeveloped aggregate resources that exist throughout Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial counties. Many of these materials are of sufficient quality to be used for Portland cement concrete materials. The paragraph referred to by the comment discusses both the current aggregate needs in Riverside County, San Diego County, and the City of Temecula and it contains statements regarding future supply and demand as well. The statement contained data from CGI, 2008a that used County-wide aggregate volumes. The following clarification uses data primarily from CGI, 2008b that contains more detail about the aggregate production along the I-15 corridor: Aggregate use along the I-15 corridor in southwestern Riverside County County and northern San Diego County has risen as population and housing has grown. It is estimated that Riverside County has an aggregate demand of 10 to 13 million tons per year. Current aggregate production in along the I-15 corridor in Riverside County is adequate to fulfill the current aggregate needs. San Diego County is estimated to have an aggregate demand of 15 to 19 million tons per year. Projections have estimated that future demands exceed the current volume of permitted resources (Kohler, 2006). This projection assumes no additional mines will be brought into production and that current mines will not extend their lives by expansion and permitting new reserves. If this is the case then failure to allow a facility such as Liberty Quarry would be a significant impact to future resources. However, we do not believe this assumption to be realistic and believe that existing mines will permit new resources and that new mines will be brought on line. If this occurs then not allowing Liberty Quarry to develop will be less than significant to the volume of future potential aggregate production. There are significant existing producing aggregate mines in nearby Lake Elsinore and the Temescal Valley, these mines have historically supplied the City and are considered to be part of the area. The addition of a new producing site would add to the current supply. 13-4 The comment is informational, therefore, a reply is not necessary. 13-5 The comment notes that there is a statewide shortage of aggregate. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. 13-6 The comment speaks to the use of recycled material to help build sustainable communities and is informational in nature therefore a response is not necessary. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 13-7 The comment notes the cost of transporting aggregate. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Aggregate materials would have to be transportedby truck regardless of whether the extraction facility was located proximate to Temecula or at some distance away from the area. However, a local source of aggregate could potentially reduce the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-91 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 distance trucks have to travel to deliver aggregate if there are no other local sources of aggregate available and it is necessary to bring aggregate material from outside of the Temecula area. As noted in the DEIR, there are numerous existing quarries located close to Temecula in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 13-8 The comment suggests that the proposed Liberty Quarry will provide badly needed jobs for the region. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 13-9 The comment is informational and does not raise an environmental issue thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 13-10 Paragraph ten is a summary of the previous paragraphs and a response is not necessary. 14 Carley Cechin 14-1 The first paragraph is introductory and no comment is necessary. 14-2 The comment states that the amount of available construction aggregate in the County is diminishing and new resources must be developed to economically and environmentally address the demand. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. 14-3 The comment states that the proposed Liberty Quarry would supply local demand. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Aggregate materials would have to be transported by truck regardless of whether the extraction facility was located proximate to Temecula or at some distance away from the area. However, a local source of aggregate could potentially reduce the distance trucks have to travel to deliver aggregate if there are no other local sources of aggregate available and it is necessary to bring aggregate material from outside of the Temecula area. As noted in the DEIR, there are numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 1-4 The comment is a concluding statement and not comment is necessary. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-92 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 15 Friends of Liberty 15-1 The comment states that the proposed annexation will add to the growing debt of the City. The comment is economic in nature and is not CEQA related and thus no comment is necessary. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 15-2 The comment states the proposed annexation does not provide any benefit to the City. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus is not CEQA related and no comment is necessary. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 15-3 The comment suggests that the proposed Liberty Quarry will provide badly needed jobs for the region. The comment is economic in nature and thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration 15-4 The comment is a concluding statement and a response is not necessary. 16 James Giantoni 16-1 The comment discuses the need for aggregate as the County is running out of locallypermitted aggregate reserves. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 16-2 The comment states the Coachella Valley tries to support the growth of the Temecula valley with its local supply of aggregate. Thus the comment does not raise an environmental issue specific to the annexation project. Nevertheless, aggregate materials would have to be transportation by truck regardless of whether the extraction facility was located proximate to Temecula or at some distance away from the area. However, a local source of aggregate could potentially reduce the distance trucks have to travel to deliver aggregate if there are no other local sources of aggregate available and it is necessary to bring aggregate material from outside of the Temecula area. As noted in the DEIR, there are numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 16-3 The comment notes that the need for construction material can not be sustained by the Coachella Valley alone. This comment does not raise an environmental issue specific to 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-93 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 the annexation project. Nevertheless, there are a number of alternative sources of aggregate material including existing surface mining operations (as documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR) in Riverside County and Northern San Diego County besides the proposed Liberty Quarry site. Additionally, there are extensive deposits of aggregate material in Riverside County as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the DEIR. 16-4 The comment notes that the issue is regional in nature and shouldn’t be passed along to other communities. The revised DEIR addresses the issue of the proposed project consistency with regional plans. A more detailed discussion regarding consistency with regional plans is further explained Chapter 4 and Table 4-4 of the revised DEIR.17 17 James Marsolino 17-1 The comment states general opposition to the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 17-2 The comment notes the export of materials from the Coachella Valley and affects to that locale. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. The comment does not raise an environmental issue of the proposed project and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 17-3 The comment notes the proximity to aggregate sources and it’s effect to traffic and global warming. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. The writer is further directed to the revised DEIR Chapters 3.1 and 3.7 of the revised DEIR that discuss Air Quality and Traffic and Circulation impacts. 18 Kelsey Vasbinder 18-1 The comment states general opposition to the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue, thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 18-2 The comment notes the export of materials from the Coachella Valley and affects to that locale. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. . The comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-94 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 project and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 18-3 The comment states that the blocking of the proposed Liberty Quarry will cause higher living costs and lower air quality due to the transport of aggregate. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. Further, the comment does not raise an environmental issue of the proposed project and a response is not required. Nevertheless, nn response, this increase in traffic and emissions would only occur if there are no other sources for aggregate material needed in the Temecula area except for locations such as the Coachella Valley. The DEIR provides extensive documentation to support the alternative conclusion. For example, the DEIR documents numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. 18-4 The comment is a concluding paragraph, and as such, no response is necessary. 19 Koshor Sudha Doshi 19-1 The comment notes that the commenter owns property in the annexation area and is in opposition to the annexation. This comment does not raise an environmental issue , thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 19-2 The comment is a restatement of the second objective of the proposed project. The comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. The comment states that the annexation area description as “rural residential/agricultural” is incorrect and that annexing public lands to offer protection is “ironic”. The DEIR page ES-4 describes the annexation area as “…publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land, most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders…” The comment on the purpose of the annexation does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 19-3 The comment notes the annexation boundaries and finds fault by not including territory east of Interstate 15 within the annexation. The comment on the purpose of the annexation does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-95 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 19-4 The comment states that the annexation violates personal property rights. This comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 19-5 The comment states that the annexation will burden the City’s ability to provide services. This comment is economic in nature, and is not CEQA related, and thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. See also response to comments 26-1 through 26-8 of the revised DEIR. 20 Lee Haven 20-1 The comment states the proposed Liberty Quarry comes at a bad time. The mining and transportation of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-2 The comment notes that the export of materials from the Coachella Valley and affects on that locale. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. The comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 20-3 The comment notes that the Coachella Valley can not sustain the regions need for aggregate. The mining of aggregate aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. There are a number of alternative sources of aggregate material including existing surface mining operations (as documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the revised DEIR) in Riverside County and Northern San Diego County besides the proposed Liberty Quarry site. Additionally, there are extensive deposits of aggregate material in Riverside County as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the revised DEIR. Additionally, the revised DEIR did evaluate the proposed Liberty Quarry and compares the traffic impacts resulting from the Liberty Quarry project to the proposed Annexation. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62. 20-4 The comment is a concluding paragraph, and as such, no response is necessary. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-96 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 21 Peter Gonzales 21-1 The comment states general opposition to the annexation, but also notes economic issues and traffic impacts of projects other than the proposed project. This comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project. Nevertheless, the Public Services and Utilities, including fire protection services were evaluated as part of the proposed project. Further discussion related to this fire protection services is located in Chapter 3.6 of the DEIR. Traffic impacts of the proposed project were also evaluated, including mitigation measures for those impacts identified. The transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed project are located in Chapter 3.7 and Appendix C of the DEIR. 21-2 The comment states that the annexation violates personal rights. This comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project and thus, a response is is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-3 The comment discusses the proposed sale of the commenter’s land to Granite Construction and numerous constraints to developing his property. The proposed sale of the property does not raise an environmental issue of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-4 The comment discusses the numerous constraints to developing his property. As stated in Chapter 2 of the DEIR, actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; on-site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. It should be noted that it is considered highly unlikely that any residential parcel could meet these development requirements on an individual basis. As such, individual dwelling units would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. In addition, no specific project is currently proposed other than the annexation project itself. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 21-5 The comment speaks to the need for more aggregate in the region, the impacts associated with trucking aggregate long distances, and proposed alternatives The comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Nonetheless, the mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-97 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. Additionally, please refer to response to comments 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-7, 5-9, 10-4, 11-4, of the revised DEIR. 21-6 The comment is a concluding paragraph and relates to annexation as an impractical environmental preservation of the land. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, and thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. Nonetheless, the revised DEIR indicates that the majority of the project area is undisturbed and in pristine condition and the ecology is within one of the last free flowing rivers in the coastal southern California region. The proposed project supports species rich and high value ecological areas for native plant and wildlife species. The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve has also been designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 21-7 The City’s purpose in annexing the 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Annexation project area is founded upon a number of goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the City of Temecula General Plan which clearly indicate that the annexation of this area has been anticipated since the City’s inception. Further discussion related to the environmental conservation value and open space protection policies as outlined in the City of Temecula General Plan is located in Chapters 2.5, 3.2, and 3.4 of the revised DEIR. 21-8 The comment is a concluding paragraph relates to the local economy and the impact of the annexation to the City. The comment is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, and thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. See also responses 7-1 through 7-3 of the revised DEIR 22 R. A. Bennett 22-1 The comment states general opposition to the project. This comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-2 The comment notes the unfairness of annexation process. This comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-3 The comment notes the unfairness of annexation process. This comment does not raise environmental issues of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 22-4 The comment is a concluding paragraph, and is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue and thus no response is required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-98 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 23 Superior Ready Mix Concrete 23-1 The comment states general opposition to the project. This comment does not raise an environmental impact of the proposed project and thus, a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 23-2 The comment states that without a local source for aggregate materials the City will be forced to continue transport aggregate from outside regions, adding to air pollution and traffic congestion. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. There are a number of alternative sources of aggregate material including existing surface mining operations (as documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16) in Riverside County and Northern San Diego County besides the proposed Liberty Quarry site. Additionally, there are extensive deposits of aggregate material in Riverside County as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the revised DEIR. Additionally, the revised DEIR did evaluate the proposed Liberty Quarry and compares the traffic impacts resulting from the Liberty Quarry project to the proposed Annexation. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62 of the revised DEIR. 23-3 The comment states that the additional air pollution added cost and traffic congestion from hauling aggregate long distances are major impacts. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. The DEIR presented information about alternative sources of aggregate material both in Riverside County and San Diego County from existing surface mining operations (documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the revised DEIR) that could provide needed aggregate material. Additionally, the DEIR notes the extensive deposits of aggregate material on Figure 3.5-1 in Riverside County which could also serve the need for aggregate material in the Temecula Area. Therefore, there are numerous other local sources for aggregate material besides the Liberty Quarry Project. Additionally, the DEIR did evaluate the proposed Liberty Quarry and compares the traffic impacts resulting from the Liberty Quarry project to the proposed Annexation. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62 of the revised DEIR. 23-4 The comment states the proposed Liberty Quarry project should be allowed to continue processing and the importance of the resource. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the revised DEIR. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. consideration. 23-5 The comment is a concluding paragraph and no response is necessary. See also response 18-1 and 18-3 of the revised DEIR. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-99 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 24 Senator Jim Batton 24-1 See response 20-1 of the revised DEIR. 24-2 The second paragraph discusses benefits of local production of aggregate The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the revised DEIR. The comment is not CEQA related and a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 24-3 See comment 20-5 of the revised DEIR. 24-4 See comment 20-6 of the revised DEIR. 24-5 See comment 20-7 of the revised DEIR. 24-6 The comment is a concluding remark and a response is not necessary. 25 State Mining and Geology Board 25-1 The comment is introductory in nature and as such, a response is necessary. 25-2 The comment is a reiteration of the project description and a response is not necessary. 25-3 The comment is informational regarding the mineral zones within the proposed project. A discussion regarding mineral classification within the proposed project area is located in Chapter 3.5 of the revised DEIR. A discussion regarding the reclassification of the minerals resources from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for PCC aggregate is located in Chapter 3.5.3 of the revised DEIR. 25-4 The comment states that a portion of the project site was reclassified as a MRZ-2a zone. A discussion regarding mineral classification within the proposed project area is located in Chapter 3.5 of the revised DEIR. A discussion regarding the reclassification of the minerals resources from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for PCC aggregate is located in Chapter 3.5.3 of the revised DEIR. 25-5 The comment offers guidance to the City regarding Public Resources Code Section 2762a if the area is annexed. This is informational and a response is not necessary. 25-6 The comment states that the first DEIR did not offer any justification for the potential loss of mineral resources and urges the City to offer justification for the loss of mineral resources as required under the Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2762 and 2763. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-100 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 The revised DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project presented in the Section 2.0 of the revised DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the revised DEIR. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA) into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricul tural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. With regard to the justification under the PRC Section 2762 and 2763, this is the responsibility of the “lead agency” which is currently the County of Riverside. Please also, see the letter from the County’s Chief Engineering Geologist dated November 13, 2008 that comments on this very same subject. 25-7 The comment discusses the potential loss of aggregate if the Liberty Quarry is not permitted and the effect on western San Diego County. The DEIR presented information about alternative sources of aggregate material both in Riverside County and San Diego County from existing surface mining operations (documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the revised DEIR) that could provide needed aggregate material. Additionally, the DEIR notes the extensive deposits of aggregate material on Figure 3.5-1 in Riverside County which could also serve the need for aggregate material in the Temecula Area. Therefore, there are numerous other local sources for aggregate material besides the Liberty Quarry Project. The comment has been forward to the decision makers for their review and consideration 25-8 The comment relates to the status of the City of Temecula’s Draft Surface Mining Ordinance that was submitted in 1999. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, and thus a response is not required. 25-9 The comment is conclusionary and a response is not necessary. 26 California State Lands Commission 26-1 The comment is introductory in nature and a response is not warranted. 26-2 The comment is informational noting the reserved mineral interest in a portion of the annexation area. We note that the majority of the land identified by the State Lands Commission (SLC) falls within the current boundaries of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and is not subject to mineral extraction. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-101 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 26-3 The comment notes the SLC has claim to additional mineral interest within the proposed Liberty Quarry project area. This comment does not raise an environmental issue and no response in required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 26-4 The comment states that the SLC was not aware of the first DEIR and their comments were necessarily brief to accommodate a response. They further note that a statement of overriding findings would be required prior to project approval. The commenter is directed to the revised DEIR Chapter 3.5 for the discussion of Mineral Resources. 26-5 The comment states that the annexation could interrupt the proposed Liberty Quarry project currently being processed through the County of Riverside, create an obstacle to the production of mineral resources in the local region, and could cause a loss of revenues to the State Teachers Retirement System. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the revised DEIR. The comment does not raise an environmental issue, and thus a response is not required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. With regard to the potential loss of mineral resources, the DEIR presented information about alternative sources of aggregate material both in Riverside County and San Diego County from existing surface mining operations (documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the revised DEIR) that could provide needed aggregate material. Additionally, the DEIR notes the extensive deposits of aggregate material on Figure 3.5-1 in Riverside County which could also serve the need for aggregate material in the Temecula Area. Therefore, there are numerous other local sources for aggregate material besides the Liberty Quarry Project. 26-6 The comment regarding the potential loss of income to the State Teachers Retirement System is economic in nature, does not raise an environmental issue, and a response is not necessary. The comments noted above will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 26-7 The comment notes the potential loss of $100 million to the State Teachers Retirement System if the annexation is successful and requests additional time to comment on the first DEIR. The potential loss of $100 million is economic in nature, does not raise an environmental issue, and a response is not necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. The request for additional time to comment is moot since this was directed at the first DEIR and a revised DEIR was transmitted to the SLC for comment. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-102 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 27 Department of Transportation 27-1 The comment is introductory in nature and a response is not necessary 27-2 The comment states that the project will have an impact on the I-15 In the vicinity of the Temecula Parkway Interchange. The commenter is directed to Table 3.7-15 of the revised DEIR for the analysis of roadway segment operations. Table 3.7-15 concludes no volume to capacity changes for the I-15 segment in the vicinity of the Temecula Parkway as a result of the proposed project. 27-3 Transportation received copies of both DEIR’s as part of the distribution process. The Traffic Impact Study can be found in Appendix C of the revised DEIR. 27-4 The comment notes that cumulative impacts of other projects may have considerable impacts on the regional transportation system. The commenter is directed to the updated traffic analysis that was distributed with the revised DEIR. The Department of Transportation received copy of the revised DEIR as part of the distribution process. 28 Pechanga Indian Reservation 28-1 The comment requests consultation under the Government Code Sections 65352 and 65352.3. The request was granted and consultation has been on going between the City and the Pechanga Tribe. 28-2 The comment requests to be notified of all hearings and notices, and documents prepared by the City. No response is necessary. 28-3 The comment relates to the history of the Pechanga Tribe and is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue, thus, no response is necessary. 28-4 The comment reiterates the request for consultation. No response is necessary. 28-5 The comment states that there are numerous cultural resources in the proposed annexation area. The commenter is directed to Chapter 3.3 of the revised DEIR for a discussion of cultural resources. 28-6 The comment acknowledges that the annexation does not include a development component, requests a copy of the Final EIR, and to participate in creating mitigation. A response is not necessary. 28-7 The comment acknowledges agreement of the proposed mitigation measures for the annexation. Please refer to the Cultural Resources Mitigation proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. No response is necessary. 28-8 The comment is conclusionary and no response is necessary. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-103 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 29 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 29-1. This is an introduction paragraph acknowledging receipt of the DEIR; as such, no direct response is required. 29-2. The comment contains a statement regarding Section 21104 c of the Resources Code. No response is required. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 29-3. This is a concluding paragraph that does not require a direct response. 30 KAR Construction Company 30-1 The comment states opposition to the project due to alleged economic impacts but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring a response under CEQA. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 30-2 The comment notes the depletion of aggregate materials based on State reports. The DEIR presented information about alternative sources of aggregate material both in Riverside County and San Diego County from existing surface mining operations (documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the revised DEIR) that could provide needed aggregate material. Additionally, the DEIR notes the extensive deposits of aggregate material on Figure 3.5-1 in Riverside County which could also serve the need for aggregate material in the Temecula Area. Therefore, there are numerous other local sources for aggregate material besides the Liberty Quarry Project. 30-3 The comment notes the cost of aggregate relative to haul distances. There are a number of alternative sources of aggregate material including existing surface mining operations (as documented on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16) in Riverside County and Northern San Diego County besides the proposed Liberty Quarry site. Additionally, there are extensive deposits of aggregate material in Riverside County as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the revised DEIR. Additionally, the revised DEIR did evaluate the proposed Liberty Quarry and compares the traffic impacts resulting from the Liberty Quarry project to the proposed Annexation. This comparison is provided on Pages 5-56 to 5-62 of the revised DEIR. 30-4 The comment notes alleged environmental and economic benefits of the proposed Liberty Quarry. Aggregate materials would have to be transported by truck regardless of whether the extraction facility was located proximate to Temecula or at some distance away from the area. However, a local source of aggregate could potentially reduce the distance trucks have to travel to deliver aggregate if there are no other local sources of aggregate available and it is necessary to bring aggregate material from outside of the Temecula area. As noted in the DEIR, there are numerous existing quarries located closer to Temecula than the Coachella Valley in Southern Riverside and Northern San Diego County. The locations of these facilities are provided on Pages 3.5-13 and 3.5-16 of the DEIR 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-104 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 respectively. Additionally, the DEIR notes that there are extensive areas of Riverside County which could be used for aggregate materials as shown on Figure 3.5-1. The truck trip estimates are a point of disagreement among experts. 30-5 The comment notes that Riverside County is currently preparing an EIR for the proposed Liberty Quarry and that the process should be allowed to continue. The mining of aggregate material is not proposed as part of the annexation project, but was only evaluated as an alternative to the project. For further discussions related to this topic a detailed analysis of aggregate demand is located in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix D of the DEIR. The comment does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring a response under CEQA. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 31 R.D. Remple 31-1 This is an introduction paragraph acknowledging receipt of the DEIR; as such, no direct response is required. 31-2 The comment notes the first DEIR did not adequately address Covered Species specifically the rainbow manzanita which would trigger a mandatory finding of significance under. See Chapter 3.2 of the revised DEIR for a detailed discussion regarding this issue. 31-3 The comment notes a lack of discussion regarding the Special Linkage Area between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Santa Ana – Palomar Mountains linkage. See pages 3.2-38 to 3.2-40 of Chapter 3.2 of the revised DEIR for a detailed discussion regarding this issue. 31-4 The comment requests that the EIR should acknowledge, State mineral rights, extent of state ownership, and the potential value of the lease. These comments do not raise any environmental issues requiring a response under CEQA. These comments have been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 32 San Diego State University The comments provide support for the City’s annexation of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 33 Granite Construction Company 33-1 The comment is introductory and a response is not warranted. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-105 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 33-2 The comment questions the City of Temecula’s right to seek annexation of approximately 4,997 acres of land. These comments are economic in nature and do not raise environmental issues. Thus these comments have been forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. 33-3 These comments state that the annexation is not appropriate and is not in the best interest of the citizens of Temecula. These comments are economic in nature and do not raise any environmental issues. 33-4 These comment state that the proposed annexation is not consistent with the purpose and requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission process. Most of the comment are not CEQA related and a response is not required. However, two environmental issues were raised and indicate that the Liberty Quarry project will reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce air pollution. The revised EIR addresses both of these impacts. Please refer to the Transportation and Traffic Section of the revised EIR and in the Air Quality Section of the revised EIR. The comment has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration. 33-5 These comments allege that the first DEIR fails to adequately analyze impacts to mineral resources. The proposed project has been evaluated by and two separate Notice of Preparation (NOP) /Initial Study (IS) processes, which includes the consideration of all comments received on the original NOP and DEIR. This process is summarized in Section 1.3 of the revised DEIR. As outlined in Section 1.6 of the revised DEIR, potential project related impacts to mineral resources are evaluated in the DEIR. In addition, four (4) alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in the DEIR. Comments received on the original DEIR have been incorporated into the revised DEIR where appropriate. The original and revised DEIR acknowledges impacts to mineral resources and concludes that are significant and (see revised DEIR page 5-28 to 5-29) unmitigable. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the revised EIR where the impacts to mineral resources are discussed in greater detail. 33-6 The comment is a summary and a response is not necessary. 33-7 The comment is a concluding remark and a response is not necessary. 34 County of Riverside – Executive Office Please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-41 through 36-45 35 County of Riverside – Flood Control 35-1 The first paragraph relates to the project description, as such no response is required. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-106 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 35-2 The second paragraph discusses the 100 year flood plain and that the DEIR should address any indirect impacts. The annexation does not include a development component therefore any analysis will be performed by any future developer. Nonetheless, the revised DEIR discusses the development potential of the proposed project area, as a result of the pre zoning. Additionally, the revised DEIR discusses the development constraints of the proposed project area as a result of numerous environmental and physical constraints within the proposed project area. See pages 2-9 and 2-13 of Chapter 2 of the revised DEIR for detailed discussion regarding this issue. 35-3 The comment notes that the use of septic systems for potential development within the proposed project may impact nutrient impaired water bodies located within the proposed project area. As in the previous response, the annexation does not include a development component therefore any analysis will be performed by any future developer. If and when future proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula, specific assessments will be conducted as required regarding septic systems. See also response comment 19-4 of the revised DEIR. 36 County of Riverside – Planning Department # 1 County Archaeologist 36-1 The comments of the writer were taken into account, resulting in the complete revision of the Cultural Resources section (Chapterof3.3) of the Revised DEIR that was circulated for comment on September 25, 2008. Also, it needs to be noted that the proposed project is an annexation and no specific development is proposed as part of the project. The following responses address additionally issues raised in this letter. Discussion regarding paleontological resources has been separated within the revised DEIR. The area within the proposed project that could potentially be developed with 81 homes is predominately bed rock and has a low potential for paleontological resources. If future development proposals are submitted for consideration by the City of Temecula (City), specific environmental studies including cultural resources assessments will be conducted as required by the proposed Hillside Development Standards. Pursuant to provisions of SB18, on September 12, 2007, the City Planning Department invited other local tribes from a list provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission to participate in consultation regarding the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of SB 18. See page 3.3-5 through 3.3-7 of the revised DEIR for a detailed discussion regarding this issue. 36-2 The mitigation measures for archaeological monitoring have been revised within the revised DEIR. Additional comments were received from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on November 5, 2008, following the preparation and distribution of the revised DEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which will become part of of the Final EIR, 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-107 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 requires a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the appropriate local Native Tribe, to determine the significance of resources that are recovered. 36-3 For non-Native American artifacts that are recovered, page 3.3-15 of the revised DEIR requires that all significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to profession al museum curation. 36-4 A discussion regarding the regulatory framework of Federal, State, and local regulations affecting cultural resources is found Chapter 3.3.5 of the revise DEIR. 36-5 The potential Native American village recently discovered is outside the proposed project area. Nonetheless, consultation with tribes will continue throughout the process and, if future development proposals are submitted for consideration by the City, specific environmental studies including cultural resources assessments will be conducted as required by the proposed Hillside Development Standards, as previously discussed. 37 County of Riverside – Planning Department # 2 County Geologist Please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-22 through 36-37 38 County of Riverside – Planning Department Please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-1 through 36-18 39 County of Riverside – Public Health Please see comment 36-47 for the revised DEIR. 39.5 County of Riverside – Transportation Department 39.5-1 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-2 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-3 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-108 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-4 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-5 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-6 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-7 The comments in this transmittal letter address the concerns in the first DEIR. The Traffic Section of the revised DEIR was rewritten taking the writers comments in to account. Please see comment letter for the revised DEIR section 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 39.5-8 In response to letter from F. Khorashadi to Kathleen Browne dated March 27, 2008 we provide the following comment: The comments in this transmittal attachment were addressed in the revised traffic analysis and traffic section completed for the DEIR. Furthermore, a letter dated November 3, 2008 from Farah Khorashadi, Engineering Division Manager for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, indicates that the Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the revised traffic impact analysis and generally concurs with the findings of the revised study; however, please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-19 through 36-21 as well as Appendix C of the revised EIR. 40 County of Riverside – Environmental Programs Department Please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-38 through 36-40. 41 County of Riverside – James Fagelson Please see response to comments for the revised DEIR 36-48 through 36-52 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-109 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 42 County of Riverside – Environmental Health 43 Bureau of Land Management 43-1 This is an introduction and does not raise an environmental issue, no response is necessary. 43-2 The comment states that there was no map to distinguish federal public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. The letter further notes that the Bureau’s land within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) are administered by the San Diego State University. The project description on page 2-1 describes the project as “publicly and privately held land”. The revised DEIR further states on page 2.5 that the SMER is key part of preserving the Santa Margarita River. 43-3 The comment requests a map to show the federal lands. A map will be included in the Final EIR as Exhibit 3. 43-4 The comment is a concluding remark and does not raise an environmental issue, no response is necessary. 44 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 44-1 The comment is an introduction and does not raise an environmental issue 44-2 The comment is a request for consultation under Government Code Section 65352.3. Consultation requests were mailed to all tribes referenced by the Native American Heritage Commission on September 12, 2007 and again on September 4, 2008. 44-3 The comment is for cultural resources documentation. The request does not raise an environmental issue so no response is necessary. 44-4 This is a concluding statement and does not raise and environment issue so no response is necessary. 45 Diepenbrock Harrison on behalf of Granite Construction Company 45-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 45-2 The comment summarizes the proposed Liberty Quarry project that is currently under review by the Riverside County Transportation and Land management Agency (TLMA), Planning Department and presents the commenters version of the chronology of the proposed City of Temecula annexation project and associated CEQA processing. 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-110 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 45-3 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the case law on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 45-4 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) guidelines and factors for reviewing proposals, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 45-5 The comment is directed at, and summarizes the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) guidelines, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 45-6 Table 3.4-3 (City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Policies) summarizes the reasons why the proposed project is consistent with individual City of Temecula General Plan policies. Table 3.4-2 summarizes existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula zoning for the proposed project area. The existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula General Plan and zoning designations allow for substantially similar land uses. As discussed throughout the DEIR, the proposed project requires the approval of a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation. With amendment of the sphere and application of land use designations and pre-zoning the project will be fully consistent with the General Plan of the City. 45-7 The proposed project would allow for the ultimate development of 81 residential dwelling units on minimum 10-acre lots, similar to the development that is currently allowed under the Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations. This portion of the proposed project is thoroughly evaluated in the DEIR, and would represent suburban development not urban sprawl. 45-8 The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project as presented in the Section 2.0 of the DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the DEIR. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA)into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricultural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological reserve (SMER) by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. Further, CEQA requires assessment of impacts by comparing the proposed project to the existing baseline conditions as they exist at the time of the Notice of Preparation. In this case, there are no mining activities; 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-111 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 therefore, this project will not result in any increases in impacts above the existing conditions. 45-9 The comment restates information contained within CEQA case law, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR has been drafted to fully disclose the potential impacts of the project, and does not minimize impacts. A further comment states that the DEIR fails to analyze impacts related to prohibiting surface mining. Please refer to response 31-13 for the revised DEIR. In addition, the revised DEIR analyzes the impacts associated with restricting development within the SMAA to only 81 residential units, which precludes/prohibits a Quarry. Furthermore, the revised DEIR provides alternative analyses which include Alternative 1 (No-Project /No Development) and Alternative 2 (County General Plan Residential Only) both of which also prohibit a Quarry project. 45-10 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant air quality impacts remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related air quality impacts is included in the DEIR. The Liberty Quarry study by Urban Crossroads only assumes that truck traffic will be reduced, but makes the assumption that opening of a new mine, will cause the current south bound I-15 truck traffic from Lake Elsinore and Temescal Canyon to cease moving aggregate south of Temecula. The only factor being emphasized regarding the cost of aggregate is transportation cost. However, there are many factors that influence the cost of aggregate: alluvial or bedrock source material, age of the mine, specific conditions at the mine, and production facility costs. The City further questions the assumption that a local quarry would capture 100% of the local market. Cost of the product to the consumer is a larger factor in determining who the consumer purchases from. It has not been shown that the Corona, Temescal Valley, and Lake Elsinore producers, that are older mines, with a known history of production, would not deliver product in a cost-competitive manner as compared to a more local producer that must charge a higher price because their cost of production is greater. 45-11 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant traffic impacts remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related traffic impacts is contained in the DEIR. The City questions the assumption that Liberty Quarry, solely on the basis of its location will displace all Temescal Valley traffic that flows south. This argument assumes that the only factor controlling aggregate cost is transportation; however, that is only one part of the cost. Production costs and existing long term business relationships are just some of the other factors that the argument assumption ignores. If the Liberty Quarry serves the same market as does the Temescal and Lake Elsinore areas, the City contends there will not be a reduction in truck traffic. The only difference is whether the trucks are loaded in a northbound direction (from Liberty Quarry) or in a 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-112 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 southbound direction (from the Temescal and Lake Elsinore quarries), but there are trucks on I-15 nonetheless. 45-12 The comment restates information contained in the original City of Temecula Initial Study. The statement regarding potentially significant impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly remains accurate. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related impacts is contained in the DEIR. The DEIR contains an in-depth analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The conclusions of the traffic impact analysis are presented in Section 3.7 of the DEIR. The DEIR conclusion states that project related traffic impacts to the Interstate 15 southbound ramps/Rainbow Valley Road and Rainbow Valley Road segments would be significant and unavoidable. The commenter restates comments which had been provided to the the City previously regarding a previous DEIR for the Annexation. Additionally, the commenter restates the conclusions of two studies prepared by Urban Crossroads which concluded that the construction of the quarry would result in a reduction of truck trips and truck miles traveled. Finally, the commenter alleges that there are several specific deficiencies in the traffic study including the omission of Cumulative Projects from San Diego County and conclusions by Fehr & Peers related to traffic reductions resulting from Liberty Quarry. In response, the comments on the previous DEIR are not germane to this DEIR as the more recent DEIR for the Annexation was redone with new analysis and conclusions. In response to the specific concerns related to the traffic study, the Cumulative Project list reflects projects in the City of Temecula and the traffic study accounted for development in areas outside of the City (including that which may occur in northern San Diego County) through the inclusion of a growth rate. rate. Additionally, a majority of the roadway facilities and intersections are projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of projects from the City of San Diego. For example, in the Cumulative Scenario 5 of the study intersections would operate at LOS F with the Temecula Projects included. All of the study area roadway segments are projected operate at LOS F during this same period. Therefore, the City can conclude that the addition of any Cumulative Projects would not result in additional significant impacts as a majority of the facilities are projected to operate at LOS F already. Fehr & Peers conducted an extensive review of the technical studies cited by the commenter which estimated the truck trip reduction and truck mile reduction that is projected to occur with the opening of Liberty Quarry. These studies were prepared by Urban Crossroads. This review concluded the following: • Urban Crossroads did not provide any case studies, “before and after” studies, or other types of locally collected empirical data to support their contention that Liberty Quarry would result in a reduction of regional truck trips and truck VMT. • There are numerous other surface mines operating in Riverside County or northern San Diego County which can provide the need for aggregate material in the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-113 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 Temecula area. Many of these existing mines are potential candidates for expansion. • There are extensive aggregate deposits within Riverside County that are not currently being mined, and which could satisfy the demand of Temecula. • There are other potential sources of aggregate material including other resources in the Riverside San Diego County area, bulk import of aggregate to offset inland supplies, increased recycling, and other options to provide aggregate for the larger Southern California region. The Fehr & Peers study also concluded that if there if there a redistribution of truck traffic resulting as predicted by Urban Crossroads, the benefit to the regional transportation system would be minimal. As documented on Page 5-62 of the DEIR, the estimated reduction for Liberty Quarry is less than 1% of the total VMT generated within Riverside County and less than 1/10 of a percent of the Southern California Region. Further, any purported benefits derived from such VMT reduction would likely be offset by other environmental impacts of a quarry at the project site. Finally, the proposed project would maintain the status quo-no quarry at the site-and thus would not result in any change in current aggregate transportation activity. 45-13 Please refer to the revised Air Quality report which was prepared and incorporated into the revised DEIR, Section 3.1. Please also refer to responses 31-20 through 3-28 for the revised DEIR. 45-14 The proposed project is not inconsistent with Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations, as the project is proposing a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to accommodate the proposed annexation. Table 3.4-1 in the DEIR presents a comparison of County of Riverside and City of Temecula General Plan land use designations, with Table 3.4-2 summarizing Riverside County and City of Temecula zoning classifications. 45-15 The comment acknowledges that significant resources have been committed towards securing a mining permit within the annexation area, but does not raise a specific environmental issue requiring response under CEQA. 45-16 The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project as presented in the Section 2.0 of the DEIR. Specific project objectives are documented on page ES-12 and 2-13 of the DEIR. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use and zoning designations would not allow for a mining/quarry project, just as they would not allow for a variety of other high intensity land uses that would be incompatible with the project objectives to: 1) integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA)into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments to establish the framework for ultimate development within the study area, 2) to preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural opens space, while retaining the rural residential/agricultural character of the privately owned lands, and 3) to protect the research value of the of the Santa Margarita Ecological reserve (SMER) by prohibiting 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-114 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. Further, CEQA requires assessment of impacts by comparing the proposed project to the existing baseline conditions as they exist at the time of the Notice of Preparation. In this case, there is no mining activities, therefore this project will not result in any increases in impacts above the existing conditions. 45-17 (City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Policies) summarizes the reasons why the proposed project is consistent with individual City of Temecula General Plan policies. Table 3.4-2 of the revised DEIR summarizes existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula zoning for the proposed project area. The existing Riverside County and proposed City of Temecula General Plan and zoning designations allow for substantially similar land uses. As discussed throughout the DEIR, the proposed project requires the approval of a City of Temecula General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation. With amendment of the Sphere, and application of land use densities and pre zoning the project will be fully consistent with the General Plan of the City. CEQA Requires that assessment of impacts by comparing the proposed project to the existing baseline conditions as they exist at the time of the Notice of Preparation. In this case, there are no mining activities; therefore, this project will not result in any increases in impacts above the existing conditions. A comprehensive analysis of potential project related traffic impacts is contained in the revised DEIR. The City questions the assumption that Liberty Quarry, solely on the basis of its location will displace all Temescal Valley traffic that flows south. This argument assumes that the only factor controlling aggregate cost is transportation, however that is only one part of the cost. Production costs and existing long term business relationships are just some of the other factors that the argument assumption ignores. A more recent DEIR for the Annexation was redone with new analysis and conclusions. If the Liberty Quarry serves the same market as does the Temescal and Lake Elsinore areas, the City contends there will not be a reduction in truck traffic. The only difference is whether the trucks are loaded in a northbound direction (from Liberty Quarry) or in a southbound direction (from the Temescal and Lake Elsinore quarries), but there are trucks on I-15 nonetheless. The DEIR contains an in-depth analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The conclusions of the traffic impact analysis are presented in Section 3.7 of the DEIR and conclude that project related traffic impacts to the Interstate 15 southbound ramps/Rainbow Valley Road and Rainbow Valley Road segments would be significant and unavoidable. Fehr & Peers conducted an extensive review of the technical studies cited by the commenter which estimated the truck trip reduction and truck mile reduction that is projected to occur with the opening of Liberty Quarry. These studies were prepared by Urban Crossroads. This review concluded the following: 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-115 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 • Urban Crossroads did not provide any case studies, “before and after” studies, or other types of locally collected empirical data to support their contention that Liberty Quarry would result in a reduction of regional truck trips and truck VMT. • There are numerous other surface mines operating in Riverside County or northern San Diego County which can provide the need for aggregate material in the Temecula area. Many of these existing mines are potential candidates for expansion. • There are extensive aggregate deposits within Riverside County that are not currently being mined, and which could satisfy the demand of Temecula. • There are other potential sources of aggregate material including other resources in the Riverside San Diego County area, bulk import of aggregate to offset inland supplies, increased recycling, and other options to provide aggregate for the larger Southern California region. The Fehr & Peers study also concluded that if there if there a redistribution of truck traffic resulting as predicted by Urban Crossroads, the benefit to the regional transportation system would be minimal. As documented on Page 5-62 of the DEIR, the estimated reduction for Liberty Quarry is less than 1% of the total VMT generated within Riverside County and less than 1/10 of a percent of the Southern California Region. Further, any purported benefits derived from such VMT reduction would likely be offset by other environmental impacts of a quarry at the project site. Finally, the proposed project would maintain the status quo-no quarry at the site-and thus would not result in any change in current aggregate transportation activity. 45-18 The comment suggests the annexation is inconsistent with applicable regional plans. The commenter is directed to Section 3.1 of the revised DEIR (Air Quality) for a discussion of the Air Quality Plan and to Section 4.1 for the discussion on consistency with regional plans, specifically page 4-6 and Table 4-4 Consistency with Regional Plans. Furthermore, the commenter is directed to Response to Comment to the Original DEIR No. 44-17 (above) related to truck trips. 45-19 The commenter has made the statement that impacts to the Special linkage Area were not analyzed in the first EIR. Potential project related impacts to the Special Linkage Area and to the Santa Ana – Palomar Mountains linkage as a whole, are evaluated in Section 3.2 of the draft EIR, pages 3.2-38 to 3.2-40. Further, the revised DEIR contains a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the Riverside County MSHCP in Section 3.3, pages 3.2-32 to 3.2-53. As documented in the revised DEIR, the project area is not located within an MSHCP criteria area and is in conformance with MSHCP criteria for; 1) protection of species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools, 2) protection of narrow endemic plant species, 3) urban /wildland interface guidelines and 4) additional survey needs and procedures. In addition a special linkage area is identified in the south eastern portion of the site and potential wildlife movement impacts associated with the proposed project are documented in the revised DEIR. Also, development constraints exist and any development (residential) will be environmentally reviewed. Further, wildlife will be 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-116 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 able to move between structures within the proposed HR-SM zone due to development limitations imposed on the properties. 45-20 Potential project related impacts to the Special Linkage Area and to the Santa Ana – Palomar Mountains linkage as a whole, are evaluated in Section 3.2 of the DEIR, pages 3.2-38 to 3.2-40. The proposed project does not include any land uses that would substantially reduce traffic on Interstate 15, and in fact, Interstate 15 traffic would slightly increase with implementation of the proposed project. Wildlife movement through the special linkage area is expected to be limited to small mammals utilizing the existing drainage conduit under-crossings, with the exception of avifauna, which would be expected to fly over Interstate 15 to connect from one side of the freeway to the other. At grade wildlife crossing of Interstate 15 is not expected to occur occur and as such, any increase or decrease in traffic volumes is not a limiting factor. 45-21 The comment states the DEIR fails to analyze impacts for water and fire services. See response 44-22 and 44-23 below. 45-22 The revised DEIR, on pages 2-13 through 2-14 documents the physical constraints to development of the 81 residential units allowed by the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations, including water supply for domestic and firefighting purposes. Although the requisite water supply for the allowed 81 residential units is expected be supplied through individual or group wells, it has not been determined that domestic water requirements could not be supplied by the local water district via a pipeline and tank. Individual land owners within the project area will be required to demonstrate compliance with domestic and firefighting water supply requirements at the time of building permit request. Further, Impacts to public services and utilities are documented in the DEIR in in section 2.0, project description and Section 3.6, public services and utilities. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to public services and utilities to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts will not result once mitigation is imposed. 45-23 Impacts to public services and utilities are documented in the DEIR in section 2.0, project description and Section 3.6, public services and utilities. The project area is not currently served by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) due to topography and limited service needs in the area. Development in the annexation are will have to rely on private wells as a source of potable water and therefore will not increase the demand on RCWD., nor require the construction of new water treatment facilities. Mitigation measures are proposed for police and fire service to reduce the impacts of the annexation on these public services to a less than significant level. 45-24 The revised DEIR, on pages 2-13 through 2-14 documents the physical constraints to development of the 81 residential units allowed by the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations, including water supply for domestic and firefighting purposes. Although the requisite water supply for the allowed 81 residential units is expected be supplied through individual or group wells, it has not been 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-117 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 determined that domestic water requirements could not be supplied by the local water district via a pipeline and tank. Individual land owners within the project area will be required to demonstrate compliance with domestic and firefighting water supply requirements at the time of building permit request. Further, the proposed project would only allow up to 81 homes, it would not mandate 81 homes or 81 wells as the comment suggests. 45-25 The commenter states that the DEIR incorrectly concludes that the annexation will have no growth inducing impacts. See responses 44-7 above. 45-26 The comment restates information contained within the California Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. The revised DEIR addresses Growth Inducing Impacts as required by CEQA in Section 5.3. This section indicates that future development will be limited to 81 single family dwelling units units as the worst case scenario and would be developed in accordance with the HR land use designation and zoning. This section also indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on public services or utilities. Please refer to this section in the DEIR. 45-27 The comment incorrectly states that the purpose of the annexation is to replace a proposed surface mine with 81 residences. The DEIR, on pages 2-13 through 2-14 documents the physical constraints to development of the 81 residential units allowed by the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations, including access, water supply for domestic and firefighting purposes and extension of requisite infrastructure. Although specific site specific build out information is not available for each parcel contained within the annexation area, several assumptions were made to allow for a worst case impact assessment. These assumptions included operations and activities that would be required for the development of requisite supporting infrastructure and grading operations to prepare parcels for single family home development and access roads. The findings contained in the DEIR are accurate and reflect a worst case development scenario. 45-28 The DEIR analyzes the worst case scenario of development of 81 residential lots, and the environmental impacts associated with the build out. The impacts to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve are discussed within the revised DEIR. Please note within the Biological Resources (Section 3 of the revised DEIR), the mitigation measures will reduce the biological impacts. 45-29 This is an introductory paragraph and statement regarding impacts to mineral resources. See response. See response 44-37 below. 45-30 This comment is informational in nature, does not raise an environmental issue thus, a response is not necessary. 45-31 The title of Alternative 1 is No Project – No Development Alternative, which is described as continuing the existing land uses within the project area into the indefinite future. The 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-118 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 future land uses that could be reasonably expected to occur under the auspices of existing ownership and general plan land use and zoning designations have been captured in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. These potential future land uses which are reasonably expected to occur include: 1) build-out of the existing residentially zoned parcels, 2) an aggregate mine (based upon applications currently on file) and 3) preservation of natural open space. All of these potential future land uses are evaluated in one or more of the other identified alternatives to the proposed project, which represent a reasonable range of alternatives. Further, there are no entitlements for a quarry in the annexation area at present and such entitlements may or may not be obtained. 45-32 This is an introductory statement. See responses 44-39 through 44-44 below. 45-33 The comment is informational in nature, does not raise an environmental issue of the project, and as such, a response is not necessary. 45-34 The DEIR does evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, as outlined in Chapter 5.5 of the revised DEIR. The revised DEIR complies with CEQA Guideline 15126.6 and provides a no project alternative. The project description in Section 2.0 of the DEIR and Section 3.4, Land Use, does document what could reasonably be developed on the project site under the existing general plan and zoning designations if the project were not to proceed forward. The feasibility and basis for rejection of an alternative site alternative is discussed on page 5-34 of the DEIR. As stated, the project consists of annexation of specific contiguous property into the City of Temecula to achieve a set of specific project objectives including: 1) integration of the SMAA area into the city’s general plan, 2) preserving public lands within the SMAA in natural open space while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands and 3) protection of existing and future research values at the SMER through prohibition of incompatible land uses. Further, private lands east of Interstate 15 would not meet project objectives, specifically, objective 3 above. Although alternative sites are available to be potentially annexed from unincorporated Riverside County into the City of Temecula, none of the alternative sites would meet the basic objectives of the proposed project, as outlined above and in the revised DEIR. For this reason, an alternative site alternative was not evaluated in the revised DEIR. 45-35 The comment states that the project alternatives fails to include the potential for annexing areas east of Interstate 15. As stated, the project consists of annexation of specific contiguous property into the City of Temecula to achieve a set of specific project objectives including: 1) integration of the SMAA area into the city’s general plan, 2) preserving public lands within the SMAA in natural open space space while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands and 3) protection of existing and future research values at the SMER through prohibition of incompatible land uses. Although alternative sites are available to be potentially annexed from unincorporated Riverside County into the City of Temecula, none of the alternative sites would meet the basic objectives of the proposed project, as outlined above and in the 3. Response to Comments City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-119 ESA /208485 Final EIR /Response to Comments November 2008 revised DEIR. For this reason, an alternative site alternative was not evaluated in the revised DEIR. 45-36 The comment states omission of alternatives violates CEQA. The revised DEIR analysis of alternatives fully complies with CEQA and CEQA Sections 15126.6 as documented in responses 45-37 The comment states that the first DEIR is inaccurate in that it does not account for the VMT reduction associated with surface mining. A more recent study in the revised DEIR (Chapter 3.7 and Appendix D) performed by Fehr and Peers demonstrates that a surface mining operation would not result in a reduction in trips, but would actually increase VMT in the region by approximately 45,000 miles per day which in turn would increase operational emissions. Please refer to studies conducted by Fehr and Peers located within Appendix D of the revised DEIR. Further, a disagreement among experts is not a violation of CEQA. Therefore, total contributions to regional emissions under this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to regional emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. 45-38 The comment states that the alternatives 3 and 4 fail to summarize impacts associated with traffic, Air Quality, ground water impacts, and public services and utility impacts. With regard to traffic, a more recent study in the revised DEIR (Chapter 3.7 and Appendix D) A study performed by Fehr and Peers demonstrates that a surface mining operation would not result in a reduction in trips, but would actually increase VMT in the region by approximately 45,000 miles per day which in turn would increase operational emissions. Please refer to studies conducted by Fehr and Peers located within Appendix D of the revised DEIR. Further, a disagreement among experts is not a violation of CEQA. Therefore, total contributions to regional emissions under this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to regional emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. With regard to the comment on air quality as a result of surface mining, the revised DEIR beginning on page 5-39 through page 5-71 and Table 15-20 discussed the alternatives based on the revised Air Quality Analysis. With regard to the comment on groundwater impacts, the revised DEIR alternatives section discusses Hydrology and Water Quality on pages 5-50 and 5-51. The revised DEIR concludes that the alternative number 3 (surface mining) would have the potential for significant impacts. With regard to the comment on public services and utility impacts, page 5-55 Alternative number three Existing County General Plan-Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative and Surface Mining Reclamation Plan concludes that under this alterative impacts would be “substantially greater” than the proposed project. 45-39 These are concluding statements and a response is not necessary. Appendix A Comment Letters from Original Draft EIR Appendix B Comment Letters from Revised Draft EIR