Category Archives: DEVELOPMENT

What’s next for Alberhill?

The orange line depicts the path of the Valley-IvyGlen transmission lines. The lines will run above ground and cross the freeway north of Glen Eden, continue north to about Indian Truck Trail where they will be placed underground. The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation is pictured on the right.

Here’s what next for SCE’s Alberhill substation project

(Published Dec. 14, 2018)
In its quest to prove to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the need for another substation in the area, Southern California Edison last month asked for public comments suggesting alternatives to the Alberhill substation it plans to build in Temescal Valley. A Nov. 30 deadline was set for receipt of comments.

The We Are Temescal Valley Development Committee has taken a stand against the 34-acre Alberhill substation and its two 500-kV transmission lines and towers being located here. The committee urged residents to suggest an alternative location in the vicinity of Walker Canyon Road and Hill Top Drive, north of the I-15 in an unincorporated county area. The committee also recommended the use of battery storage technology.

Many residents complied with the request and sent comments to Edison. So, what are the next steps?

  • January-February 2019: Public invited to participate in an online “webinar.”
  • March-June 2019: SCE will present its assessment of new alternatives at an open house.
  • June-September 2019: Another public webinar planned. SCE will present its final data items submitted to the CPUC.
  • Fourth quarter 2019: The public can participate in any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), process led by the CPUC.

Alberhill alternative comments to Edison are due Nov. 30

(Published Nov. 21, 2018)
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has sent Southern California Edison back to the drawing board in the utility’s quest to get approval for its proposed Alberhill substation.

At the Aug. 23 CPUC meeting, SCE’s 115-kV Valley-IvyGlen subtransmission lines were approved, but no decision was rendered on the Alberhill substation proposal. Both projects are in Temescal Valley.

Commissioners left the Alberhill project open, instructing SCE to provide new evidence indicating a need for the substation based on more reliable projections of electrical demand.

SCE held two workshops earlier this month to update ratepayers in the affected communities. In the CPUC’s final decision, there are nine areas identified for additional analyses by the utility. One of the areas is a cost/benefit analysis of several alternatives and SCE is asking the public’s assistance in identifying alternatives.

At the workshops, SCE representatives said that system alternatives must enhance the reliability of the Valley South System that has no tie-in to another system for backup and provide additional capacity – both being the intent of the Alberhill project. Suggested alternatives should evaluate energy storage, distributed energy resources, demand response and smart grid solutions.

The We Are Temescal Valley Development Committee has taken a stand against the Alberhill substation and its 500-kV transmission lines and towers being located here. The committee is suggesting an alternative location in the vicinity of Walker Canyon Road and Hill Top Drive, north of the I-15 in an unincorporated county area. The committee also recommends the use of battery storage technology.

SCE has set a Friday, Nov. 30 deadline for suggested alternatives. It’s important that Temescal Valley residents respond. If you don’t want to compose an email in your own words, there’s a “cheat sheet” below. Just follow the instructions – copy and paste into an email program and send it to ASP@sce.com.

Here’s the CPUC Decision
Here’s the SCE Workshop Presentation

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

SUGGESTED PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEND TO SCE

COPY TEXT BELOW AND PASTE INTO AN EMAIL WINDOW
SUBJECT LINE: ALBERHILL SYSTEM PROJECT
DON’T FORGET TO ADD YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM

EMAIL TO ASP@sce.com
DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, NOV. 30

Re: New Alternatives to Alberhill System Project following public workshop

As a resident of the Temescal Valley, I support the need for a substation that would provide power resources for future development.  While the Alberhill Substation fell short of meeting the Temescal Valley needs, the following recommendations to the Alberhill System Project would be supported by many Temescal Valley residents.

The site for the formerly proposed Alberhill System Project substation should be relocated to a location at Walker Canyon Road and Hill Top Drive, north of the Interstate 15 Freeway in unincorporated Riverside County. The rationale for this location is as follows.

1.  This substation location would not negatively impact current and future residential and commercial property development and their property values.

2.  This substation location would be easily accessible by Southern California Edison during severe weather conditions.

3.  This substation location would allow for connection to the Valley-Serrano 500 kV transmission line.

4.  The design of the substation should incorporate maximum screening elements including an aesthetic building façade and landscaping to mitigate any negative aesthetic impacts to future residential, commercial and industrial development.

5.  The substation could be developed in two phases. In phase I the substation would be developed to meet peak energy needs with the installation of batteries. In phase II the substation would be fully developed per the original Alberhill Substation design to meet the needs of new residential, commercial and industrial development.

It is believed that locating the substation at Walker Canyon Road and Hill Top Drive, north of the Interstate 15 Freeway in unincorporated Riverside County would have community support. The community (residential, commercial & industrial) needs safe and reliable power resources to facilitate the future growth within the Valley South System.

It is imperative that the approval of new substation location identified above be fast-tracked and development undertaken to meet the increased power resource needs in the next five years.

Thank you, 

Temescal Valley, CA 92883
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

VALLEY-IVYGLEN 115-kV SUBTRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT: The route of the line is depicted in dark blue. It starts at the Valley substation in Menifee, runs through Perris and Lake Elsinore, and continues into Temescal Valley, ending at the IvyGlen substation on Temescal Canyon Road. The light blue outline depicts the area to be serviced by the subtransmission line.

CPUC rules on Edison projects

(Published Sept. 14, 2018)
After five postponements dating back to May, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), on Aug. 23 approved Southern California Edison’s 115-kV Valley-IvyGlen subtransmission lines but denied the utility’s Alberhill substation proposal.

The decision followed closely the recommendation of Hallie Yacknin, CPUC administrative law judge, who after reviewing the final environmental impact report for the two projects, issued a proposed decision to approve the Valley-IvyGlen lines and to deny the Alberhill substation.

Yacknin, in the 104-page decision released in April, ruled the need for the Valley-IvyGlen lines as a backup power source outweighed the environmental impacts on noise and air quality the project will have during construction, as well as “its significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality and biological resources.”

Yacknin’s decision for the Alberhill project was based on her belief that SCE had overstated the need for the substation based on the utility’s forecast of increased electric demand in the area. Yacknin reasoned that because it was unlikely the $464 million project will be needed, “at all or in any case by 2021, we do not find overriding considerations that merit approval.” The cost of the project would have been passed onto ratepayers.

In rendering the final decision, the CPUC ordered SCE to provide new evidence indicating a need for the substation based on more reliable projections of electrical demand. The project was left open so if new evidence is presented and found acceptable by the CPUC, the substation could be built.

Edison has spent 11 years working on the two projects – both located in Temescal Valley.

Valley-IvyGlen calls for 27 miles of single-circuit 115-kV subtransmission lines to run from the Valley substation in Menifee, through Perris and Lake Elsinore, and continue into Temescal Valley, running north along De Palma Road adjacent to Horsethief Canyon Ranch and Glen Eden Sun Club.

The above-ground lines will cross to the east side of the 1-15 north of Glen Eden and continue along Temescal Canyon Road. They will be placed underground at about Indian Truck Trail, where they will continue to the IvyGlen substation on Temescal Canyon Road near Maitri Road. Temescal Valley residents opposing the project wanted all the lines underground.

The 34-acre Alberhill substation would have been constructed on 124 acres of land owned by Edison at the corner of Temescal Canyon and Concordia Ranch roads east of the 1-15 and across the freeway from the 1,900-home Horsethief Canyon Ranch neighborhood.

Edison projects slated for Aug. 23 CPUC meeting

(Published Aug. 17, 2018)
The California Public Utilities Commission could render its final decision on the 115-kV Valley-IvyGlen subtransmission lines and the Alberhill substation at a 9:30 a.m. meeting, Thursday, Aug. 23 at CPUC headquarters in San Francisco.

The Edison projects appeared on CPUC agendas for meetings to be held May 10, and 31, June 21,  July 12 and Aug. 9 but were postponed for additional review.

CPUC judge says ‘yes’ to SCE line; ‘no’ to substation

(Published April 12, 2018 and updated May 5, 2018)
Hallie Yacknin, an administrative law judge with the California Public Utilities Commission, has reviewed the final environmental impact report for two Southern California Edison projects and issued a proposed decision to approve the 115-kV Valley-IvyGlen subtransmission lines and to deny the Alberhill substation.

With the proposed decision announced, the CPUC could render a final decision at a 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 10 meeting to be held at Fontana City Hall, 8353 Sierra Ave. General comments from the public will be allowed during the meeting. Comments also can be emailed to: Public.Advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. Reference agenda item No. 14 and Proceeding 07-01-031.

Yacknin, in the 104-page decision dated April 4, ruled the need for the Valley-IvyGlen lines as a backup power source outweighs the environmental impacts on noise and air quality the project will have during construction, as well as “its significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality and biological resources.”

Yacknin’s decision regarding the Alberhill project was based on her belief that Edison had overstated the need for the substation based on the utility’s forecast of increased electric demand in the area. Yacknin reasoned that because it was unlikely the $464 million project will be needed, “at all or in any case by 2021, we do not find overriding considerations that merit approval.”

Edison is expected to appeal the decision’s Alberhill ruling.

The decision also noted the project would have “significant and unavoidable” impacts on aesthetics during and after construction because the structure and its transmission lines would be visible from the I-15, a scenic highway corridor, “substantially degrading the natural and rural visual character, vividness, intactness, and visual unity in the area.”

Edison has spent almost 11 years working on the two projects.

Valley-IvyGlen calls for 27 miles of single-circuit 115-kV subtransmission lines to run from the Valley substation in Menifee, through Perris and Lake Elsinore, and continue into Temescal Valley, running north along De Palma Road adjacent to Horsethief Canyon Ranch and Glen Eden Sun Club.

The lines would cross to the east side of the 1-15 north of Glen Eden and continue along Temescal Canyon Road. They would be placed underground at about Indian Truck Trail, where they will continue to the IvyGlen substation on Temescal Canyon Road near Maitri Road. Temescal Valley residents opposing the project want all the lines underground.

The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation would be constructed on 124 acres of land owned by Edison at the corner of Temescal Canyon and Concordia Ranch roads east of the 1-15 and close to the 1,900-home Horsethief Canyon Ranch neighborhood.

The project calls for two 500-kV transmission lines to join the existing 500-kV Serrano-Valley line near the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain Reserve in Temescal Valley.

Read the decision:
https://www.wearetv.org/blog/docs/decision.pdf

Final EIR for Edison projects released

(Updated April 12, 2017)
The final environmental impact report for the proposed Edison powerlines and susbstation projects has been released by the California Public Utilities Commission.

It now is being reviewed or will be reviewed by an appointed Administrative Law Judge who will provide his/her proposed decision on the projects.

After the proposed decision is announced, a date and place will be set for a hearing to determine the final decision by the CPUC. This hearing will be the final opportunity for the public to offer comments on the projects.

Edison has spent more than 10 years working on the Valley-IvyGlen powerlines and the proposed Alberhill substation projects.

Valley-IvyGlen calls for 27 miles of single-circuit 115-kV subtransmission lines to run from the Valley substation in Menifee through Perris and Lake Elsinore, and continue into Temescal Valley, ending at the IvyGlen substation on Temescal Canyon Road. People protesting the project want all the lines underground.

The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation would be constructed on 124 acres of land owned by Edison at the corner of Temescal Canyon and Concordia Ranch roads east of the 1-15 and close to the 1,900-home Horsethief Canyon Ranch neighborhood. HCR residents want the substation located elsewhere.

A significant finding in the final EIR was that none of the alternatives listed in the Draft EIR are considered environmentally superior to the proposed projects.

FINAL EIR: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/ene/alberhill/Alberhill.html
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Updated July 17, 2016)
Thank you to everyone who signed petitions and sent emails to the California Public Utilities Commission  regarding the draft environmental impact report for the Valley-IvyGlen subtransmission line  and the Alberhill substation.

Comments on the Draft EIR will be addressed in a Response to Comments document that, together with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR. The Final EIR will likely be completed by late September or early October. The CPUC will issue separate proposed decisions on SCE’s applications for the proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project and the proposed Alberhill Project.

(Updated July 10, 2016)
Send your email now to: VIG.ASP@ene.com
Deadline is Friday, July 15

(Suggested wording — include your name and address)

In regards to the Valley-IvyGlen 115-kV transmission line, I SUPPORT VIG Alternative M to underground the line along the entire proposed project alignment.

In regards to the location of a substation in Temescal Valley, I OPPOSE both the Serrano and Alberhill locations. Additional research must be undertaken to find a location suitable to the majority of Temescal Valley residents, land owners and businesses.

The orange line depicts the path of the Valley-IvyGlen transmission lines. The lines will run above ground and cross the freeway north of Glen Eden, continue north to about Indian Truck Trail where they will be placed underground. The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation is pictured on the right.

The orange line depicts the path of the Valley-IvyGlen transmission lines. The lines will run above ground and cross the freeway north of Glen Eden, continue north to about Indian Truck Trail where they will be placed underground. The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation is pictured on the right.

Public Utilities Commission extends deadline to July 15

(Updated May 31, 2016)
The California Public Utilities Commission has extended the deadline for the public comments period to July 15. Comments on the draft environmental impact report for Southern California Edison’s Valley-IvyGlen project and the proposed Alberhill substation can be emailed to:  VIG.ASP@ene.com 

Related Press-Enterprise report:
More time granted for power project comments

Draft EIR sets forth alternatives for the project

(Updated May, 11, 2016)
Alternative proposals in the draft environmental impact report were included based on public concerns during the scoping period last year. The CPUC then analyzed the alternatives to determine if they reduced at least one environmental impact of the proposed project.

For a better understanding of the alternatives, view the Draft Environmental Impact Report at:  http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/ene/ivyglen/ IvyglenDraftEIR.html

Click on 3.0 Description of Alternatives and 5.0 Comparison of Alternatives

Viable alternatives to the Valley-IvyGlen (VIG), transmission line include VIG Alternative M that would require the entire proposed project line to be undergrounded.

VIG alternative AVIG Alternative A would alleviate the necessity for the line to cross the I-15 by extending it north from Glen Eden for another 2,000 feet. The line would be undergrounded at the south end of the Vons Shopping Center, continue down Campbell Ranch Road to Temescal Canyon Road to the IvyGlen substation. Two other alternatives – B1 and B2, running above and below ground through Sycamore Creek along Santiago Canyon Road to Maitri Road, do not reduce the proposed project’s impacts.

VIG alternative CInstead of crossing to the west side of the I-15 from the proposed Alberhill substation, VIG Alternative C would keep the line on the east side of the freeway running underground along Temescal Canyon Road to Horsethief Canyon Road, turning west under the I-15 and rising above ground at De Palma Road.

SUBSTATION ALTERNATIVES

There are two alternatives for the proposed Alberhill substation. ASP Alternative B would add all gas-insulated switchgear at the substation reducing several environmental impacts.

ASP alternative DDASP Alternative DD relocates the substation to property within the Serrano Specific Plan. Approved by the county in 2010, the 489-acre Serrano Commerce Center is zoned for light industrial, commercial retail and open space. The property is on the east side of the I-15 and stretches from Temescal Canyon Road on the north to Temescal Canyon Road on the south adjacent to the freeway underpass. Development of the property never began and was further waylaid by the recession.

ASP Alternative DD would place the substation in the northern portion of the property adjacent to the former Rincor pipe plant.

The CPUC determined this alternative is aesthetically superior to the Alberhill proposal because it is not visible from the 1-15. It will be visible to Dawson Canyon, Spanish Hills and future Terramor residents. The CPUC notes that the substation’s location next to the Temescal Wash could be detrimental to this alternative, but views Serrano as being less impactful overall than Alberhill.

Unknown are the impacts the substation would have on requirements of the Serrano Specific Plan which call for hiking trails, a Temescal Valley Town Center in the plan’s commercial retail-zoned acreage and a secondary road to redirect truck traffic from the west side to the east side of the freeway.

SCE plans substation, power lines here

(Updated May 3, 2016)
The California Public Utilities Commission is now receiving comments on the final draft environmental impact report for Southern California Edison’s Valley-IvyGlen project and the proposed Alberhill substation.

The projects and their impacts will be explained at a meeting to be held in Lake Elsinore from 6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday, May 11 at the city’s Cultural Arts Center, 183 N. Main St. People attending the meeting will be able to comment on the projects.

VIEW THE DRAFT EIR

A simulated view of the transmission lines looking north on Lake Street near Temescal Canyon Road.

A simulated view of the transmission lines looking north on Lake Street near Temescal Canyon Road.

Deadline for all comments is May 31.

Comments can be emailed to: VIG.ASP@ene.com 

Or mailed to:
California Public Utilities Commission
RE: VIG/ASP
c/o Ecology and Environment, Inc.
505 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111

Fax: (415) 398-5326

The Valley-IvyGlen project, which Edison began nine years ago, will span 27 miles and bring a backup power source to Temescal Valley – currently only one line serves local consumers. The project calls for above-ground, single-circuit 115-kV subtransmission lines to run from the Valley substation in Menifee through Perris and Lake Elsinore, and continue into Temescal Valley, running north along De Palma Road adjacent to Horsethief Canyon Ranch and Glen Eden Sun Club.

Current view from the northbound 1-15 looking toward Concordia Ranch Road.

Current view from the northbound 1-15 looking toward Concordia Ranch Road.

The lines will cross to the east side of the 1-15 north of Glen Eden and continue along Temescal Canyon Road. They will be placed underground at about Indian Truck Trail, where they will continue to the IvyGlen substation on Temescal Canyon Road near Maitri Road.

The current 30- to 80-foot tall wooden poles will be replaced with 115-foot steel poles, plus  additional steel poles will be added to the landscape.

Simulated view after construction of the Alberhill substation.

Simulated view after construction of the Alberhill substation.

The proposed 34-acre Alberhill substation will be constructed on 124 acres of land owned by Edison at the corner of Temescal Canyon and Concordia Ranch roads east of the 1-15.

The project calls for two 500-kV transmission lines to join the existing 500-kV Serrano-Valley transmission line near the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain Reserve in Temescal Valley.

Last May the CPUC held a scoping meeting to answer questions about the two projects and invite public comments for the draft EIR. There were a couple dozen people in attendance – 10 from Temescal Valley, the rest Lake Elsinore residents, and they voiced concerns about the projects’ significant impacts which had been noted by the CPUC. Most all said they wanted underground lines.

The draft EIR also includes possible alternatives to what is being proposed. The alternatives, in part, came from public comments the CPUC received last year during the scoping period. One alternative to the Valley-IvyGlen lines is VIG Alternative M that calls for the entire subtransmission line to be installed underground.
VIEW OTHER ALTERNATIVES  HERE

Here are the significant impacts addressed in the draft EIR:

Significant Effects of the Alberhill Project

Resource Area Potential Effects
Aesthetics A permanent effect on aesthetics along Interstate 15 (I-15), an eligible State Scenic Highway, could result from operation of the proposed Alberhill Project because the proposed Alberhill Substation, new 500-kV transmission lines, and new and upgraded 115-kV subtransmission lines (115-kV Segments ASP1, ASP3, ASP4, and ASP5) would be visible to motorists. Permanent effects may result because of visual contrast, alterations to existing scenic integrity, blocked or partially blocked views, and the introduction of industrial-like facilities to a relatively undeveloped rural area. The following components, among others, would be viewable from I-15:

  • Two 37-foot-tall transformers
  • 49-foot-tall steel-enclosed 500-kV gas-insulated switchrack
  • Control building (7,000 square feet)
  • Parking area (7,600 square feet) and driveways (156,000 square feet)
  • 8-foot-tall concrete or decorative-block substation perimeter wall
  • 500-kV transmission lines and lattice steel towers (95 to 190 feet tall)
  • 115-kV subtransmission lines (upgraded from 65–90 feet tall to 70–100 feet tall)
Permanent effects on the visual character or quality of a site or its surrounding area could result from operation of the proposed Alberhill Project at the proposed Alberhill Substation site, along the 500-kV transmission line routes, along 115-kV Segments ASP1 and ASP6, and along the northern section of the proposed 115-kV Segment ASP2 route near the proposed Alberhill Substation site that may reduce the intactness, unity, or vividness of existing views.
Air Quality Temporary violations of maximum daily on-site emission levels of fugitive dust (particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less [PM10] and 2.5 micrometers or less [PM2.5]) would occur during construction of the proposed Alberhill Substation due to grading, excavation, and asphalting. Temporary violations for maximum daily on-site emission levels of PM10 would occur during construction of the proposed 115-kV subtransmission lines from roadwork, site preparation, structure installation, and wire stringing.
The temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would occur during construction of the proposed Alberhill Substation, 500-kV transmission lines, and 115-kV subtransmission lines.
Biological Resources Temporary, permanent, direct, and indirect effects on Stephens’ kangaroo rat would likely result from the construction and operation of the proposed Alberhill Substation, 500-kV lines, and several of the 115-kV segments.
Temporary, permanent, direct, and indirect effects on riparian areas and federally protected wetlands (e.g., Temescal Wash or its tributaries) as defined by Clean Water Act Section 404 could result from construction and operation activities along the proposed 500-kV and 115-kV routes and at proposed Alberhill Substation site.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Each of the 560-MVA 500/115-kV transformers would contain approximately 33,550 gallons of transformer oil. In California, all used oil is managed as hazardous waste until tested to show it is not hazardous (Section 25250.4 of the California Health and Safety Code). Direct and indirect effects from the accidental release of hazardous materials could result during construction and operation of the proposed Alberhill Substation.
Temporary and permanent effects from fire could result from construction and operation of the proposed Alberhill Project along the proposed 500-kV and 115-kV lines and at the proposed Alberhill Substation site, which would be located within or adjacent to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Hydrology and Water Quality Temporary, direct, and indirect effects on water quality and existing drainage patterns could result from construction of the proposed Alberhill Substation, access road to 500-kV Tower SA-5, and along sections of the proposed 115-kV segments due to project-related activities such as the placement of fill, earth moving activities, and the potential for spill of hazardous materials near jurisdictional (e.g., Temescal Wash ) and potentially jurisdictional waterways/drainages.
Cumulative Effects Aesthetics. A permanent effect on aesthetics along an eligible State Scenic Highway (I-15) could result from operation of the proposed Alberhill Project in addition to the proposed Talega–Escondido/Valley–Serrano (TE/VS) Project, and proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project. The proposed Alberhill Substation, 500-kV transmission lines, and 115-kV Segments ASP1 through ASP5, as well as the proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project 115-kV Segments VIG3 through VIG7 and proposed TE/VS switchyard and associated 500-kV transmission lines, would be visible from I-15.
Air Quality. A temporary violation of maximum daily on-site emission levels of PM10 and PM2.5 (fugitive dust) would occur during the construction of the proposed Alberhill System Project, proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project, and proposed TE/VS Project. Construction activities that overlap (e.g., earth-moving activities) may result in cumulative effects on air quality.
Air Quality. Construction of the proposed Alberhill System Project, proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project, and proposed TE/VS Project could result in a temporary, cumulatively considerable net increase of VOC, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter of PM10, and PM2.5 due to diesel- and gasoline-fueled engine exhaust from vehicles and equipment.
Biological Resources. Construction of the proposed Alberhill System Project, proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project, and proposed TE/VS Project could result in cumulatively considerable effects on riparian areas and federally protected wetlands.

Potentially Significant Effects of the Valley–-Ivyglen Project

Resource Area Potential Effects
Aesthetics Temporary and permanent effects on aesthetic resources along Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 74 (SR-74), both eligible State Scenic Highways, could result from construction and operation of the proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project. Construction would occur over a 24-month period, and construction activities along 115-kV Segments VIG1 through 115-kV VIG8 would be noticeable to area residents and motorists along I-15 and SR-74. Construction activities that would temporarily affect scenic resources include:

  • Use of vehicles and equipment for excavation and grading activities, transporting and lifting, watering to control dust, transporting workers, and other construction activities;
  • Soil and vegetation removal;
  • Removal of existing power poles;
  • Temporary construction site fencing and signage;
  • Spraying of embankment slopes with an erosion control mixture, which may be vivid in color; and
  • Temporary outdoor storage of materials, stockpiling of spoils from excavation.

A permanent effect on aesthetics along I-15 and SR-74 could result from the replacement of existing wood distribution line poles (30 to 80 feet tall) with new steel poles (up to 115 feet tall) and the introduction of new steel poles. The new poles would result in permanent visual contrast, alterations to existing scenic integrity, blocked or partially blocked views, and the introduction of industrial-like facilities to a relatively undeveloped rural area. The new and upgraded 115-kV subtransmission structures along 115-kV Segments VIG1 through 115-kV VIG8 would be intermittently noticeable to area residents and motorists along I-15 and SR-74.
Air Quality Temporary violations for maximum daily on-site emission levels of PM10 would occur during construction of the proposed 115-kV subtransmission lines from roadwork, site preparation, structure installation, and wire stringing.
The temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and fugitive dust (particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less and particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less) would occur during construction of the proposed 115-kV subtransmission lines.
Biological Resources Temporary, permanent, direct, and indirect effects on Stephens’ kangaroo rat would likely result from construction of several of the proposed 115-kV segments.
Temporary, permanent, direct, and indirect effects on riparian areas and federally protected wetlands (e.g., Temescal Wash or its tributaries or the San Jacinto River) as defined by Clean Water Act Section 404 could result from construction and operation of a number of the proposed 115-kV segments. Among the areas likely to be affected are the proposed access roads and new structures along 115-kV Segment VIG6, trenched areas to install 115-kV Segment VIG8 underground, and the area where two tubular steel poles (4765121E and 4765120E) would be installed along 115-kV Segment VIG1 adjacent to the San Jacinto River.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Temporary effects from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products could result in upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials and petroleum products during construction.
Temporary and permanent effects from wildfire could result during construction and operation of the proposed Valley–Ivyglen Project along proposed 115-kV segments that would be located within or adjacent to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Hydrology and Water Quality Temporary and long-term effects on water quality and existing drainage patterns could result from 1) foundation excavation for 115-kV structure installations; 2) vegetation removal and earthmoving activities at construction sites and for access roads; 3) culvert construction across aquatic features; and 4) blasting. Erosion or siltation on or off site could result from the grading and vegetation clearing along a number of the proposed 115-kV Segments including along 115-kV Segment 8 where trenching would be required to install the proposed 115-kV line underground near Temescal Wash, a jurisdictional waterway.
Land Use Potential conflict with Riverside County and City of Lake Elsinore land use policies, zoning ordinances, and requirements within specific plan areas could result (e.g., Alberhill Ridge Specific Plan in Lake Elsinore) because of the installation of new structures within 50 feet of eligible State Scenic Highways (Riverside County General Plan Policy 13.4), installation of structures along visually significant ridgelines and hilltops (Riverside County General Plan Policy 11.1(d)), or within an adopted road realignment for Lake Street (City of Lake Elsinore Vesting Tentative Tract No. 35001).
Noise Temporary effects on nearby sensitive receptors could result from construction equipment and activities, including helicopter use and blasting that would exceed local noise standards, substantially increase temporary ambient noise levels, and generate substantial ground-borne vibrations during construction.
Traffic Temporary effects on air traffic patterns could result from the use of helicopters during construction that increase safety risks.
Cumulative Effects Cumulatively considerable effects may occur on aesthetics, air quality, and biological resources

 

 

Land-use changes pave way for Lakeside community

SITE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: Lakeside Temescal Valley, if approved, would be a 370-home housing development built on 67 acres between Lee Lake and Temescal Canyon Road. Photo: John Lewison

Action taken by the county’s Board of Supervisors at the Jan. 31 meeting could allow a housing development to built next to Lee Lake on Temescal Canyon Road, south of Indian Truck Trail.

The 548-acre, 13-parcel property that surrounds the lake and extends into the Temescal Mountains, was owned for three decades by a business that specializes in recreational fishing. The company stocked the lake with trout and catfish, and charged a fee to allow fishing there. The property was a sold a few years ago to Summit Land Partners. Lee Lake, called “Corona Lake” by the fishing concessionaire, is owned by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.

Summit wants to build a gated HOA community – Lakeside Temescal Valley — on property located between the lake and Temescal Canyon Road. The about 370 homes would be clustered on land already disturbed by the fishing concession. Summit would purchase reclaimed water from EVMWD to keep the lake filled, which would be for the private use of Lakeside residents.

The general plan foundation and land-use changes approved by the supervisors would allow the homes to be built, but would permanently conserve the mountains above the lake against future development. Of the 548 acres, 12.3 percent or about 67 acres would be developed.

While the land-use changes were approved, the development plans must still be reviewed by the county Planning Commission and then approved by the Board of Supervisors at a date yet-to-be determined. Both meetings would involve public hearings, giving people the opportunity to comment either for against the project.

Only 258 apartments plus more shops and services

CHANGES MADE: The Planning Commission will recommend to the Board of Supervisors to remove Neighborhood 1 (Lee Lake North) from the project and to change the zoning on Neighborhood 2 (Lee Lake South) to a Mixed Use Area (MUA), allowing for commercial retail and services with only 30 percent of the neighborhood slated for apartments.

CHANGES MADE: The Planning Commission will recommend to the Board of Supervisors to remove Neighborhood 1 (Lee Lake North) from the project and to change the zoning on Neighborhood 2 (Lee Lake South) to a Mixed Use Area (MUA), allowing for commercial retail and services with only 30 percent of the neighborhood slated for apartments.

Following a lengthy Oct. 5 county Planning Commission public hearing, the five commissioners voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to place only 258 apartments in Temescal Valley instead of the 1,200 that were proposed.

Led by District 1 Commissioner Charissa Leach, who also is the commission’s chairwoman, the recommendation is to remove the smaller Lee Lake North neighborhood from the project that was planned for 340 apartments, and change the proposed zoning on the larger Lee Lake South neighborhood to MUA (mixed use area), with only 258 apartments instead of the 860 that were proposed. (See the story below for background information on the projects.)

The MUA zoning calls for commercial retail uses with a predetermined percentage of the total acreage devoted to HHDR (highest density residential) zoning. Throughout the county where MUAs have been proposed, the HHDR percentage has been set at 50 percent. The Lee Lake South neighborhood will be only 30 percent HHDR.

The decision was made after the commission received 212 comments from Temescal Valley residents largely citing the lack of infrastructure to support 1,200 apartments. Additionally, 18 Temescal Valley residents attended the hearing to voice their comments in person. A representative of the owner of the Lee Lake North property also spoke in opposition to the new zoning.

After the public hearing was closed, commissioners discussed the issue and Leach said she agreed with residents’ concerns about inadequate infrastructure. She asked Deputy Planning Director Kristi Lovelady if possibly there was another location where the HHDR zoning proposed for Temescal Valley could be placed. It was determined that the Good Hope unincorporated community, also in county District 1, would be a more suitable location for additional dwelling units than Temescal Valley.

With the Planning Commission’s recommendations, it was noted that the final decision to be made on the Housing Element’s General Plan Amendment 1122 will be by the Board of Supervisors possibly at its Dec. 6 meeting.

People from Temescal Valley who spoke at the hearing were Larissa Adrian, Carol Martinez, Pamela Giandalia, Lisa Welter, Chiku Patel, Gemma Carpio and David Cook – all from Sycamore Creek; Terry Morairty and Brien Clingman – Weirick Road neighborhood; Tracy Davis and Jannlee Watson – Wildrose Ranch; Kelli Noss – Horsethief Canyon Ranch, and Michael Brazeau – Montecito Ranch. Attending but not speaking were Penny and Greg Tucker – Sycamore Creek; Aime Kinne – Dawson Canyon; Roberta Tandy – Trilogy, and John Watson, Wildrose Ranch.

Glen Nelson, Wildrose Ranch resident, authored the We Are Temescal Valley comments sent to the Planning Commission on behalf of the group and signed by Jerry Sincich, Development Committee chairman and Jannlee Watson, Communications Committee chairwoman. That three-page correspondence can be read HERE.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Published Sept. 25, 2016)

HOW TO VOICE YOUR OPINION

Send your email now to: Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy at pnanthav@rctlma.org

  • CLICK HERE for a form letter that can be copied and pasted into an email

EMAILS AND LETTERS SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY TUESDAY, OCT. 4

Or snail-mail comments to:
Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Att: Planning Department (12th Floor)
Riverside County Administration Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501

  • CLICK HERE to print a hard copy that can be mailed

NOTE: If you can, please consider attending the Planning Commission public hearing at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 5. It is always more effective if comments are made at the public hearing. The meeting will be at the county’s Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________MORE INFORMATION:

  • CLICK HERE for the county’s PowerPoint presentation at the Sept. 14 MAC meeting
  • CLICK HERE to view the county’s 13-point criteria used in selecting locations
  • Read the story below
  • Read comments from Temescal Valley resident Kelli Noss below the story

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Published Sept. 6, 2016; updated Sept. 25, 2016)

Temescal Valley is one of 23 unincorporated areas tagged for affordable housing as county updates its General Plan

Temescal Valley might be getting a zone change that would allow construction of 1,200 affordable apartments.

Riverside County is updating its General Plan Housing Element to rezone areas throughout the unincorporated communities to accommodate the state’s mandate for more affordable housing.

For this Housing Element cycle, an estimated 23,794 dwelling units are needed for people in the “Extremely Low and Very Low” and “Low” income categories, including entry-level job seekers, seniors and veterans.

The proposed Temescal Valley area is on the east side of the I-15, immediately south of Indian Truck Trail, west of Temescal Canyon Road and across from Lee Lake. The parcels within the area total about 40 net acres.

To answer the state mandate, the county is creating two new land-use designations – HHDR (highest density residential, R-7 zoning), and MUA (mixed use area, MU zoning).

HHDR would allow between 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre, but the county is using a default density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The R-7 zoning would allow structures taller than three stories, but not to exceed 75 feet in height.

The rezoned areas throughout the county are being referred to as “neighborhoods.” The 40 acres in Temescal Valley have been divided into two neighborhoods which have been labeled “Lee Lake North” and “Lee Lake South.”

While neighborhoods designated HHDR are geared to residential use with amenities such as parks, pathways and recreational facilities, MUAs allow the HHDR use to be combined with a wide-ranging mix of commercial and job-producing services. The proposed land use within Temescal Valley is solely HHDR.

(NOTE: Since the Aug. 3 public hearing when the affordable housing plan was presented to the county Planning Commission, the Lee Lake North community is now being recommended by county staff as a MUA development. The 12.85 gross acres would call for a multi-storied development with the housing built above the commercial shops and services constructed on the ground floor. The 33 gross acres in the Lee Lake South community will remain 100 percent HHDR.)

The neighborhoods are within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and students would attend Luiseno and Temescal Canyon High schools.

In choosing the affordable housing locations, the county identified sites located in 10 area plans which include 23 unincorporated communities. The county devised a 13-point support factor criteria within each community for the locations of the neighborhoods.

The key to the criteria was the “walkability” factor. The county has defined “walkable” as “A continuous network of sidewalks, paths, and street crossings that encourages pedestrian travel between origins and destinations free of obstructions and in a safe and comfortable environment.”

The proximity factors considered were jobs, retail commercial, schools, community centers, child care centers, places of worship, and hospitals, medical centers and clinics. Other factors were proximity to bicycle trails, parks and recreation, pedestrian paths and trails, freeway interchanges, bus transit and commuter rail stations.

The county recognizes that no site is ideal based on all the support factors. According the proposed Housing Element, “Some sites with only a few ideal characteristics available have been included, due to limited site availability options in some communities.”

The affordable housing plan was presented to the county Planning Commission at an Aug. 3 public hearing. The issue was continued to the Wednesday, Oct. 5 meeting to give staff the opportunity to respond to questions asked by commissioners. Public comments also will continue to be heard at the Oct. 5 meeting.

It is expected that the Planning Commission will finalize its review at the October meeting and vote to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the Housing Element and land-use designations, plus the associated environmental impact reports. Another public hearing will be held prior to the supervisors’ approval.

 

Sample comment to copy and paste into email

Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Att: Planning Department (12th Floor)
Riverside County Administration Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501

Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 1122, Change of Zone No. 7902 and Ordinance No. 348.4840

Dear Ms. Nanthavongdouangsy

I am writing to you in regards to the Elsinore Area Plan – Lee Lake Community Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 1122, Change of Zone No. 7902 and Ordinance No. 348.4840.

The highest density residential (HHDR) land-use designation in the Elsinore Area Plan – Lee Lake Community will adversely impact current Temescal Valley residents as well as future residents of the proposed housing developments.

  • The Walk Score and Transit Score at this location are both under 10 on a scale of 0 to 100. These extremely poor scores would require the new residents (seniors, veterans, disabled, etc.), to be “car-dependent.”
  • The already gridlocked Interstate 15 freeway and Temescal Canyon Road at this location would further impede the new residents from traveling to and from work or accessing necessary services and amenities. Currently, there is no timeline for expansion of the I-15 and improvements to Temescal Canyon Road.
  • Temescal Valley lacks jobs. The proposed location would not provide sufficient jobs within walking distance for the large majority of the new residents.
  • The new residents would need vehicles to transport their children to and from schools in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. This would create more gridlock on the primary (I-15) and secondary (Temescal Canyon Road) transportation corridors. Currently, Sycamore Creek residents living adjacent to this proposed development can spend up to 45 minutes to one hour each way in transporting their children to the nearest high school 9 miles away.
  • This location has: 1) no child care centers within 1 mile; 2) no churches within 1 mile; and 3) hospitals, medical care centers and clinics greatly exceed 5 miles in distance. There is no public community center in Temescal Valley and no RTA fixed-route bus service. Because there is no bus service, Dial-A-Ride is unavailable to Temescal Valley residents. Currently, there is no timeline for the future development of these amenities and services.
  • Upon approval of General Plan Amendment No. 1122, landowners would be able to fast track and complete a development that would place more than 1,000 dwelling units in an area with limited amenities, services and “walkability.”

Until the infrastructure, amenities and services are in place, I urge the Riverside County Planning Commission to carefully review and identify a more suitable location for the highest density residential (HHDR) land-use designation and remove the Lee Lake Communities from the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 1122.

Sincerely,

Fate of Alberhill Villages could be decided by voters

ALBERHILL VILLAGES: The Lake Elsinore City Council approved the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan at its June 14 meeting.

ALBERHILL VILLAGES: The Lake Elsinore City Council approved the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan at its June 14 meeting. Developer Castle & Cooke has said it will pursue placing the project on the ballot for voter approval.

(Published July 8, 2016)

Lake Elsinore resident Dana Mark Coon has received approval to begin the initiative process in an attempt to have the massive Alberhill Villages project placed on the November ballot, 

The 8,244-home Alberhill Villages Specific Plan, approved by the City Council in June, had several city-imposed conditions that developer Castle & Cooke opposes and would prefer that the project’s future be decided by city voters.

Coon in March had approached the city seeking the necessary paperwork to begin the signature-gathering process to place the initiative on the ballot. After reviewing the 263-page initiative, Coon’s request was denied by City Attorney Barbara Liebold.

Coon approached the city again on June 10, submitting a revised initiative that addressed the concerns of constitutionality raised earlier by Liebold.

Liebold on June 27 issued the necessary paperwork that allows Coon to begin gathering signatures in an attempt to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.

If the required number of signatures is obtained and voters approve the project, Liebold has said the vote would probably supersede the city’s approval.

RELATED PRESS-ENTERPRISE REPORT:
June 28, 2016: Alberhill supporters cleared to gather signatures

 

Mega project OK’d with mega conditions

(Published June 15, 2016)

The Lake Elsinore City Council, against the wishes of developer Castle & Cooke, has approved the 8,244-home Alberhill Villages Specific Plan.

Castle & Cooke attorney Stephen Miles told City Council members, “This is not the developer’s specific plan. This is the city’s specific plan,” referring to the city-imposed conditions placed on the plan after it was presented to the city’s Planning Commission in February.

Since then, Castle & Cooke is seeking an initiative that would allow voter approval of the project, circumventing the city conditions which the developer has said would make the plan “unbuildable.” (Read more about the initiative below.)

The main areas of disagreement include:

  • The almost 46-acre, multi-million-dollar sports park – The developer will give the city the land but wants the city to construct it; the city wants the developer to build it.
  • Mining setbacks – Current M-3 (mining), zoning on the property allows for homes to be built 300 feet from mining operations. The city changed it to 1,000 feet and at the meeting changed it again to 1,500 feet.
  • M-3 zoning – Because of this zoning, if the developer wasn’t able to entice the retail/commercial businesses nor the hospital or university to the development, the M-3 zoning would allow for heavy industrial uses.
  • Traffic studies – A traffic impact analysis will be required for each of the phases as they are developed. Six phases are anticipated over 30 years. Riverside County submitted a letter supporting this requirement because of possible impact to Temescal Valley along Temescal Canyon Road. The county requested that the traffic studies include all of Temescal Canyon Road north to Indian Truck Trail.
  • Public safety – The city wants a community facility district (CFD), created to cover the cost of police and fire services. Alberhill Villages home and property owners would pay the tax annually on their property tax bills. The developer maintains that the CFD isn’t necessary because of the several million dollars in sales tax they say will be generated by the project.

Additionally, the city wants the 1,400-acre project reduced to 1,375 acres to create open space buffer areas. The acreage of the wildlife corridor near the Temescal Wash and Temescal Canyon Road would be increased. Also, 220 homes have been removed from the project to provide more open space between Horsethief Canyon Ranch and the Alberhill Villages boundary.

Castle & Cooke can accept the approval of the plan as conditioned by the city or continue its attempt to place an initiative on the ballot for voter approval.

RELATED PRESS-ENTERPRISE REPORT:
June 15, 2016: Plan for 8,000-home project wins council nod, despite developer’s objections

City, developer battle over how project is to be approved

(Published June 10, 2016)

Much has transpired since the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission in February voted to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan.

In addition to the proposed 8,244 homes, the 1,400-acre project includes plans for a four-year university, medical facilities, a new public school, shopping, dining and entertainment, plus parks, trails and two lakes encompassing about 50 acres. It is estimated that the project will be built in six phases over 30 years, serving as the reclamation process for the Pacific Clay mining operation as it is phased out.

Alberhill Villages would be built adjacent to Horsethief Canyon Ranch between the Temescal Valley border and Lake Street.

Apparently, project developer Castle & Cooke doesn’t agree with the conditions the city has imposed on the project and, instead, wants city voters to decide its fate. After endorsement by the Planning Commission, Castle & Cooke asked the city to take no further action on the Specific Plan and its Environmental Impact Report.

Acting on behalf of Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore resident Dana Mark Coon in March approached the city seeking the necessary paperwork to begin the initiative process to launch a petition drive to have the project placed on the November ballot.

After reviewing the 263-page initiative, Coon’s request was denied by City Attorney Barbara Liebold, who then filed a complaint asking a Riverside County judge to stop the initiative process from going forward.

Liebold claims that the proposed Alberhill Villages initiative differs greatly from the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission in February. She views the initiative as unconstitutional and that it “unfairly benefits Castle & Cooke and shifts the costs of the proposed development to the Lake Elsinore taxpayers.” Additionally, if voters were to approve the ballot measure, the City Council would have little say on how the project is developed over the next 30 years.

A series of court actions has ensued since the city filed the complaint – lawsuits, appeals, counter lawsuits – with a California Supreme Court ruling on April 28 that denied Coon’s emergency request that the city prepare the necessary paperwork to begin the petition process of gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for a ballot vote.

The initial complaint filed by Liebold to determine the constitutionality of the initiative is yet to be decided, with the next court date scheduled July 27.

In the meantime, the city has ignored the request by Castle & Cooke to take no further action on the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan and scheduled a Tuesday, June 14 City Council public hearing on the project.

This latest action was addressed by Castle & Cooke attorney Stephen Miles in a letter delivered to the city on Friday, June 10. The letter cites unresolved issues that Castle & Cooke says were not addressed in the Specific Plan approved by the Planning Commission, including consideration of the Pacific Clay Development Agreement which was omitted from the plan. Also noted were the conditions added to the plan by city staff that Castle & Cooke finds “onerous.”

The correspondence by Miles concludes that Castle & Cooke and proponent Coon “remain fully committed to seeking voter support for Alberhill Villages.” The letter also “demands” that the city remove the project from the June 14 agenda or reschedule it for the July 26 City Council meeting.

Coon also approached the city again on June 10 re-seeking the necessary paperwork to begin the initiative petition process to put the project on the ballot and submitted a revised initiative that addresses the concerns of constitutionality raised by City Attorney Liebold.

As of June 12, the project remains on the City Council agenda for June 14. If the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan is approved by the council and Castle & Cooke is successful in the initiative process and Lake Elsinore voters approve the project, Liebold has said the vote would probably supersede the city’s approval.

RELATED PRESS-ENTERPRISE REPORTS:
March 9, 2016: Petition seeks vote on Alberhill Villages proposal
April 1, 2016: City sues to block petition
April 15, 2016: Judge says initiative petition can proceed
April 19, 2016: City appeals to stop Alberhill Villages petition
April 29, 2016: Justices deny initiative backers’ plea
June 8, 2016: Massive development plan gets hearing
June 10, 2016: New initiative filed on huge project

CITY PRESS RELEASES:
April 22, 2016: Why the city attorney challenged the Alberhill villages initiative
April 28, 2016: Supreme Court denies request by Alberhill Villages Proponent
June 3, 2016: City announces public hearing regarding Alberhill Villages

City planners support Alberhill Villages

(Published Feb. 19, 2016)

The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission voted Feb. 16 to recommend the approval of the 8,244-home Alberhill Villages development to its City Council.

City planners were told the 1,400-acre project, in addition to the homes, will feature a four-year university, medical facilities, a new public school, shopping, dining and entertainment, plus parks, trails and two lakes encompassing about 50 acres. Several Lake Elsinore residents spoke in favor of the project, citing the 5,500 new jobs and several million in sales tax dollars they say it will bring to the city and the increased opportunity to “shop local.”

It is estimated that the project will be built in six phases over 30 years, serving as the reclamation process for the Pacific Clay mining operation as it is phased out.

Twenty-four Temescal Valley residents submitted emailed comments opposing the project because of its location between Lake Street and the city’s boundary adjacent to Horsethief Canyon Ranch. The opposition was based on no foreseeable solutions to ease traffic on the I-15 and the findings of the project’s environmental impact report that states traffic and transportation impacts caused by the project cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The 24 emails were entered into the public record and will be given to the City Council.

The project’s plans indicate that Lake Street will be widened to eight lanes at the freeway and Temescal Canyon Road within the city’s boundaries will be widened to six lanes.

Russell Williams, a development review manager with the Riverside County Transportation Department, spoke at the meeting asking that the city and applicant Castle & Cooke work with the county on a road improvement phasing plan that would provide appropriate improvements to Temescal Canyon Road. He said the improvements to Temescal Canyon Road, both within and outside of the project area, would be tied to individual phases of the project as it is constructed.

It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to pass on the county’s request to the City Council.

The first phase of the project would include 1,300-plus dwelling units, the university – possibly a teaching hospital, retail and commercial, and a sports park. The next step in the approval process will be a public hearing before the Lake Elsinore City Council at a date yet to be determined.

RELATED PRESS-ENTERPRISE REPORT:
Feb. 17, 2016: Massive project wins panel’s support

Public comments due on mega-project

(Published on Feb. 13, 2016)

8,244 HOMES: The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission at its Feb. 16 meeting could approve plans for Alberhill Villages, outlined in yellow.

8,244 HOMES: The Lake Elsinore Planning Commission at its Feb. 16 meeting could approve plans for Alberhill Villages, outlined in yellow.

Report finds impacts on traffic and transportation to be unavoidable

Comments either for or against the 1,400-acre Alberhill Villages development are now being accepted by the city of Lake Elsinore prior to a public hearing for the project at the city’s Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, Feb. 16.

The project is located at the city’s northern boundary, north of Lake Street, and will be built just south of Horsethief Canyon Ranch.

Land owner Castle & Cooke wants to build 8,244 homes and devote an additional 4 million square feet to non-residential uses including a 6,000-student university. While many say it will take 20 to 30 years for build out, the project’s specific plan and draft environmental impact report (DEIR), could be approved by the city’s Planning Commission on Feb. 16, and ultimately receive final approval by the City Council.

With no timeline in place for improvements to the 1-15 south of Cajalco Road, Temescal Valley residents have voiced concern about the project’s impact on transportation and traffic.

The environmental impact report found that the development will have significant impacts that cannot be corrected. The DEIR “ … determined that, even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Transportation, Traffic, and project-level impacts related to Noise, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.”

Comments should be emailed before Feb. 16 to Roy Stephenson, land use engineer, at rstephenson@hrgreen.com. For those wishing to comment at the public hearing, the meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 N. Main St.

MORE INFORMATION:
About the project
Specific Plan, EIR and related documents

RELATED PRESS-ENTERPRISE REPORTS:
Dec. 11, 2015: Developer drops lawsuit against city
 Nov. 25, 2015: As planned, new community is largest in city 

Planners give nod to 54 homes

54 HOMES PLANNED: The applicant for a housing development that was approved by the county in 2009 has had to make revisions to the original plan.

54 HOMES PLANNED: The applicant for a housing development that was approved by the county in 2009 has had to make revisions to the original plan.

VIEW COUNTY STAFF REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

UPDATE: April 20, 2017

The Riverside County Planning Commission, following an April 19 public hearing, voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of a 54-home development in the Hunt/Lawson neighborhood.

According to Project Planner Russell Brady, seven letters of opposition and a petition with more than 130 signatures were received prior to the hearing. Five Temescal Valley residents spoke at the hearing, citing unsafe road conditions on Hunt and Lawson roads, which are narrow, winding and unlighted, and subject to flooding during heavy rains.

The Planning Commissioners, in voting to recommend approval of the development, imposed two additional conditions on the applicant — James Rapp and Ron Waleki. Drainage concerns of the two property owners closest to the main entrance to the project on Lawson Road must be addressed, possisbly with the addition of basins.  The applicants also must pay $325,000 toward signage and/or a blinking light at the intersection of Hunt and Lawson, and toward a traffic signal at the intersection of Lawson and Temescal Canyon Roads, if the signal is deemed necessary by the county’s Transportation Department. It is estimated that the 54 homes will generate an additional 500 daily vehicle trips in the area.

Speakers requested a stop sign at the intersection of Hunt and Lawson, but Transportation Department staff said it would impede the flow of traffic.

(Published on April, 14, 2017)

Comments either for or against the changes can be emailed to:
Project Planner Russell Brady: rbrady@rivco.org
Comments must be received prior to April 19

A Temescal Valley housing development approved by the county in 2009 will again be reviewed by the county Planning Commission at a Wednesday, April 19 public hearing because of changes to the original approval.

Now planned for 54 houses, the development’s 48.7 acres are primarily in the Hunt/Lawson neighborhood, are adjacent to California Meadows and close to Wildrose Ranch, Montecito Ranch and Trilogy.

For public safety considerations, all county-approved projects require two roads for ingress and egress in case of an emergency.

The primary entrance to the gated community would be from a private section of Lawson Road, northeast of Hunt Road. In the original approval, the homes would have been accessed by a second street constructed from Knabe Road to the project.

The property for that road required an easement from the California Meadows Homeowners’ Association, which the HOA chose not to grant. The revamped plan would construct the second road from a driveway off Hunt Road.

If the changes are approved, the applicant would widen the private portion of Lawson Road from 12 feet to 36 feet and dedicate the road to the county. No other widening or improvements are planned for Hunt or Lawson roads. The county does not require traffic counts for projects under 100 homes.

According to David Jeffers, project consultant, one- and two-storied homes are planned with the maximum height of 35 feet. The average lot size is 19,191 square feet with the minimum lot size set at 12,000 square feet. The homes will be built by Lafferty Communities.

Residents wishing to comment on the changes to the project can do so at the April 19 public hearing. The Planning Commission meets at 9 a.m. at the county’s Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Comments either for or against the changes also can be emailed to Project Planner Russell Brady: mailto:rbrady@rivco.org, but must be received prior to April 19.

Here is the mine’s permit application

VIEW THE APPLICATION HERE

Olsen Canyon Properties filed an application for a surface-mining permit in early November. Many of the application’s pages are marked “draft,” indicating that changes can be expected.

In obtaining a copy of the 52-page application and reading through it, some of what was presented on behalf of Olsen at November’s Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council meeting needs additional explanation:

  1. The MAC audience was told the mine would operate for 70 years. The application seeks a 100-year permit.
  2. We were told Olsen Canyon had no source for the massive amount of recycled water it will need in controlling dust. The application states Temescal Valley Water District will furnish the water. A group of residents attending the October and November water board meetings were told by district officials that they have refused Olsen’s request because the district does not have a sufficient amount of recycled water to sell to the mine.
  3. The mine will reach a depth of 450 feet; not the 400 feet earlier stated.
  4. While the audience was told residents would be warned prior to blasting, the application describes the blasting as being used “on a weekly basis … conducted on weekdays between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.”
  5. Hours for the mining and rock crushing operations will be 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday — from Oct. 2 to June 1 of each year. BUT – from June 1 to Oct. 1, to avoid peak-time electrical use, the hours will be midnight to 11 a.m. Monday through Saturday.
  6. Clarification on truck trips – the mine will generate 301 loads a day for a total of 602 trips.
  7. The ready-mix concrete and asphalt batch plants will contain 60-foot tall silos. The number of silos is unclear.

After you read the application, please share your observations in the “Comment” section below.

Olsen Canyon — Will the valley get a new mine?

The 422-acre Olsen Canyon Project is on the east side of the I-15 and stretches from the Dos Lagos Golf Course on the north to the El Sobrante Landfill on the south. If approved, mining operations could begin in 2017.

The 422-acre Olsen Canyon Project is on the east side of the I-15 and stretches from the Dos Lagos Golf Course on the north to the El Sobrante Landfill on the south. If approved, mining operations could begin in 2017.

Olsen Canyon Mine update …

(Published Oct. 12, 2017)

Since the November 2015 introduction of plans to put a new mine in Temescal Valley, many residents who spoke out against the project are asking, “What’s happening with the Olsen Canyon Mine?”

The mine would span 422 acres east of the I-15 between the Dos Lagos Golf Course and the El Sobrante Landfill in the hills above the Wildrose Business Park. The project currently is going through the county’s permit process.

Because of the environmentally-sensitive nature of the property, the mining permit application must first be reviewed under the county’s Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. According to Ken Baez, a county planner who deals with MSHCP issues, “This project is currently under review for the HANS process (Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy), and finalizing the Criteria Refinement Review by the wildlife agencies.”

Baez said Olsen Canyon Properties, LLC, and its consultants are working on comments from the wildlife agencies, which should be completed this month. Once the HANS process and the Criteria Refinement Review is completed, the planning process for the application will move forward.

That next step will be overseen by planner John Hildebrand, who said the county will need to conduct the environmental review process and analyze any associated technical studies. This usually is a lengthy process.

Once completed, all documentation and the staff report with recommendations will be available for public review and comment. A Planning Commission public hearing will be scheduled and, ultimately, a public hearing before the county’s Board of Supervisors to either deny or approve the mining permit.

Residents say ‘No new mines in Temescal Valley’

(Published Nov. 15, 2015)

Residents and business owners at the November 20015 Municipal Advisory Council meeting cited dust, light and noise pollution, health issues, a gridlocked transportation infrastructure, and scenic and environmental concerns in speaking out against Olsen Canyon Project.

Read Press-Enterprise story  HERE

APPLICATION FOR THE MINING PERMIT

Website:  OlsenCanyon.com

What we know …

Olsen Canyon Property Background

  • 1992 permitted for mining – Standard Concrete did not mine the property; permit expired
  • Property purchased in 2006 by developer as a site for residential use
  • Olsen Canyon Properties LLC bought out developer in 2110
  • Olsen Canyon Properties LLC also owns Lakeshore Plaza office building at Dos Lagos
  • Residential use of land not compatible with proximity to El Sobrante Landfill
  • Core samples showed significant aggregate reserves
  • Olsen Canyon Properties LLC filed application with county for mining permit Nov. 6, 2015
  • If permit is approved, Olsen Canyon Properties LLC will either lease or sell the property to a mining company
  • Olsen Canyon Properties LLC, due to agreements, cannot divulge mining operations that have shown interest
  • If permit is approved, mining operations could begin in 2017
  • Mining operations would be overseen by Riverside County, subject to state and national regulations

    Brief Industry Background

  • Construction aggregate cost an average of $10 a ton
  • Construction aggregate is costly to transport
  • Temescal Valley is high in aggregate resources
  • Fifty percent of the aggregate mined in the Temescal Valley Production Area (an 810-square-mile area), is transported to Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties.
  • State Mining and Geology Board identifies areas that contain high-quality aggregate resources to ensure supplies will meet future demands.

    Olsen Canyon Project Area

  • 422 gross acres
  • 219 acres to be disturbed
  • 203 onsite acres devoted to open space conservation
  • 195 acres purchased in Lake Elsinore for additional open space conservation
  • Quarry area approximately 135 acres on north end of property
  • Primary crusher on two-acre parcel for placement on elevated conveyor belt
  • Elevated conveyor belt slightly less than one mile in length
  • Processing pad area 44 acres with slopes 22 acres, terraced on the east side and eight-foot berm on the west side
  • Eight-foot berm in front of processing pad to mitigate view from Wildrose Business Park
  • All landscaping will be native plants and trees
  • Recycled water will be used to suppress dust and dirt from operations and blasting
  • Water supplier not yet identified

    Annual Production and Reserves

  • 2 million tons per year
  • Products being produced: aggregate, ready mix, hot mix asphalt, sand cement and asphalt oil, demolition recycleMining operations would take place over 70 years
  • Mining operations would include blasting
  • Mining to a depth of 400 feet

    Transportation / Truck Route

  • 301 loads each day; 602 roundtrips
  • Truck weight 25 tons
  • Trucks will travel along Dawson Canyon Road to Temescal Canyon Road to the Interstate 15 freeway
  • Majority of truck traffic is to the north
  • No road expansions planned
  • Mining and rock crushing from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday-Friday; 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday; closed Sunday
  • 20 truck loads during peak traffic hours 6 to 8 p.m.
  • 30 percent of truck traffic after 6:30 p.m.

Benefits

  • Operation will result in over 145 jobs
  • Average wage for the Industry is $70,000
  • Sales tax revenue in the development phase of project is estimated to be $3.6 million, with about $1.1 million remaining in Riverside County
  • After project reaches full capacity, annual sales tax on aggregate, concrete and asphalt will be $2.4 million, with almost $800,000 remaining in Riverside County
  • With improvements to the property and increased value from entitlements, the annual property tax to Riverside County is estimated to be $750,000

Forest Boundary to get 50 homes

TDAC plot plan

Pictured above is the plot plan for the 53-home community TDAC Development is seeking to build on Forest Boundary Road adjacent to the The Retreat and Wildrose Ranch communities. Pictured below is the placement of the development on the property.

Pictured above is the plot plan for the 53-home community TDAC Development is seeking to build on Forest Boundary Road adjacent to the The Retreat and Wildrose Ranch communities. Pictured below is the placement of the development on the property.

 

The Board of Supervisors on May 12 approved 50 homes to be built on Forest Boundary Road adjacent to The Retreat and Wildrose Ranch.

In granting the zone change, the county conditioned the developer to put in curbs and sidewalks on the Wildrose Ranch side of the street and to create an RV parking area for the development’s residents.

It’s unknow when construction will begin.

Supervisors delay decision on 51 homes

(Published May 7, 2015)

The Board of Supervisors at a public hearing on April 28 continued to its May 12 meeting the request from a developer for a zone change that would allow 51 houses to be built on Forest Boundary Road.

In all likelihood, the project will be approved, but with conditions including that the developer will construct sidewalks on the east side of Forest Boundary Road from the project north to the corner of Knabe Road. On-street parking also was a concern for Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who asked the applicant to relinquish two of the 51 lots to create a storage area for vehicles. Hesitation to this request by the developer gave rise to the supervisor suggesting a continuance until May 12.

Jeffries made it clear that he felt residential usage was the best zoning for the two parcels. Jeffries wrote in a prepared statement he emailed to all constituents prior to the hearing who had sent him comments on the project:

“Thank you for your email regarding the proposed zone change and residential development on Forest Boundary Road. I’m sharing this same response to several residents who have contacted me in support or opposition.

“When I was elected to office a little over 2 years ago, I made it clear to the development community (residential, retail, industrial) that I would be requiring that new proposed projects look and feel like their neighbors (e.g. build homes next to homes and commercial next to commercial). This standard had not been followed in the past and homeowners found themselves with commercial projects in their backyards. This caused problems with heavy truck and car traffic, truck noise early in the mornings, light pollution into backyards and impacts to nearby land values.

“I have driven Forest Boundary Road and reviewed the aerial photos and found that the proposed development has single family housing on three of the four sides. At first blush, it seems that it would be much more intrusive and incompatible to the nearby homeowners and families to place commercial development adjacent to them.

“I will of course listen to all the concerned parties and attempt to find solutions that enhance the community, protect the adjacent families, and respect all of our private property rights.”

Twelve Temescal Valley residents attended the hearing — five spoke in opposition to the homes; only the property owner spoke in favor. Those opposing the project all said they were not against development but felt that commercial retail development was what the valley now needed. Other concerns were about traffic congestion, the size of the house lots, property values, use of Wildrose Ranch’s Evonvale Park and the safety of the development’s children when walking to school.

The county received correspondence from 24 residents opposing the project with emails received from two people favoring it. A petition signed by more than 300 residents opposing the homes was also presented to the supervisors.

April 28 hearing set for Forest Boundary homes

(Published April, 20 205)

A public hearing to determine whether or not a zone change will be granted to a developer seeking to build 51 homes on Forest Boundary Road has been scheduled before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, April 28.

The 10:30 a.m. hearing will be held at the county’s Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Many residents living in the nearby communities of The Retreat and Wildrose Ranch have voiced opposition to the project, primarily citing residential lots that are too small and the need to retain the Manufacturing – Service Commercial (M-SC), zoning in the area along Knabe and Forest Boundary roads. (Read earlier stories below.)

The public hearing will allow people to comment either in favor of or opposed to the zone change. Speakers will be allotted three minutes . If people cannot attend the meeting, comments can be emailed to the county’s Clerk of the Board, cob@rcbos.org.

In the email, state your name and that you reside in the county’s First District community of Temescal Valley. State that you are opposed to (or in favor of), the proposed Forest Boundary Road home development that has been scheduled as a public hearing on the Tuesday, April 28  agenda. State the reasons for your position.

All comments received prior to the public hearing will be given to the Board of Supervisors.

51 homes conditionally OK’d

(Published March 4, 2015)

The Riverside County Planning Commission at its Feb. 18 meeting granted a zone change to allow a housing development to be built on about 12 acres of land on Forest Boundary Road  across the street from homes in Wildrose Ranch and below homes located in The Retreat. The 3-0 vote was unanimous; two planning commissioners were absent.

The project, although approved by the Planning Commission, now must go before the county’s Board of Supervisors for a public hearing which could happen as soon as this month. A date has not yet been determined.

Planning Commission approval was given based on two contingencies: 1. The developer would decrease the number of homes constructed from 53 to 51 to enlarge the size of the community’s park, and 2. Verification of a security gate easement through The Retreat in case of emergency evacuation.

In its recommendations to the Planning Commission, county staff had requested the easement because of the project’s location. If a natural disaster or other emergency shut down the intersection at Forest Boundary and Knabe roads, residents would only be able to evacuate the area southerly on Forest Boundary which is blocked by The Retreat’s electronic security gates.

Staff wrote in its recommendation that the applicant was required to provide “… a written agreement with The Retreat residential development which grants the project access to its gates and permission to utilize The Retreat Parkway in the event of an emergency evacuation in perpetuity.”

The recommendation continued, “It is staff’s understanding that the subject of the secure secondary access agreement will be considered with The Retreat Homeowners Association at their Feb. 12, 2015 meeting. According to the applicant there is a high level of certainty this agreement will be acceptable to the HOA.” County planner Paul Rull told commissioners he had received the easement agreement.

A Retreat resident, who spoke against the project, questioned how the easement was obtained because the issue had never appeared on the HOA agenda and was never voted on at the HOA board meeting, posing the question of a Davis-Stirling violation. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, adopted by the State of California in 1985, dictates how homeowners association must conduct business.

The county attorney attending the meeting said she wasn’t familiar with HOA law and suggested that the validity of the easement agreement be verified as a contingency of the Planning Commission approval.

Rull told commissioners that he had received communication from three residents in favor of the project and from three residents opposing it.

At the meeting the county was given petitions signed by 56 residents opposed to the project and comments were heard from six residents who also voiced opposition. No one spoke in favor.

Opponents cited the 4,000-square-foot lots as being too small, and traffic congestion on Knabe Road and at the Weirick Road freeway ramps. Others said the development’s residents and children would cross the street to use the private Wildrose Ranch Community Association park and dog park.  Other opposition noted that Temescal Valley residents needed commercial services, which the property is currently zoned for — not more homes.

The county’s current Manufacturing – Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning allows many service-oriented businesses such as a senior-care facility, day-care center, medical offices and restaurants.

Planning Commissioner Aaron Hake, who visted the site,  said he had concerns with vehicles driving too fast when exiting The Retreat and not being able to see children crossing the street because of a curve in the road. He said Forest Boundary has no sidewalks and questioned the safety of children when walking to school.

Commissioner Charissa Leach, who also visited the location, said she felt that the change to residential zoning would be the best use of the property. She asked how current residents would react if a high-use commercial business such as a fitness center were to be built there.

With approval by the Planning Commission, Temescal Valley residents Tracy Davis and Katherine Clingman are now walking door-to-door to get petitions signed opposing the project. They hope to show the Board of Supervisors that the majority of residents living adjacent to the proposed development do not want it in the neighborhood.

Zone change would allow 53 new homes

(Published Jan. 28, 2015)

At its February meeting the Riverside County Planning Commission will consider a zone change for property located on Forest Boundary Road across the street from homes in Wildrose Ranch and below homes located in The Retreat.

If approved, the zone change will allow TDAC Development to build 53 homes on about 12 acres of land currently zoned M-SC for manufacturing service commercial use. The zone change request is for medium density residential with a proposed density of 4.75 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes will be about 4,000 square feet, and home sizes will range between 2,100 and 2,400 square feet.

Wildrose Ranch and Retreat residents living within 600 feet of the proposed project were last week mailed notification of the Planning Commission public meeting to be held 9 a.m., Wednesday, Feb. 18 at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Doug Woodward, president and owner of TDAC, months ago appeared at a meeting of the Wildrose Ranch Community Association to explain the project to the HOA board. Woodward said the residential community would be better for neighboring homeowners than the current vacant property zoned for manufacturing service commercial use. He also said the homes would provide an opportunity for young families and first-time home buyers to live in the Temescal Valley community. It is unknown what the sales price of the proposed homes will be. A TDAC representative made a similar presentation to The Retreat HOA board.

Retreat resident Rob Mucha disagrees. “There are several uses for the property within the current zoning that would be an acceptable use of the land and provide needed services to residents here.”

Mucha said his largest concern is that the density of the lots could decrease property values in The Retreat and Wildrose. He added, “There just isn’t enough park space and amenities planned to keep unsupervised children from wanting to wander up to our (The Retreat) park and surrounding areas.”

Members of the Wildrose Ranch HOA board also voiced concern that TDAC did not designate sufficient space for parks. The Wildrose HOA-owned Evonvale Park, also on Forest Boundary Road, contains a baseball field, walking paths, picnic areas and a dog park.

Tracy Davis, who lives in Wildrose, said, “Our HOA does not contract for security, so it would be next to impossible to keep the TDAC kids out of Evonvale Park. And it isn’t fair that outsiders use a park where the cost to maintain it is paid by Wildrose residents. And, I imagine there are liability insurance issues, as well.” Wildrose is not a gated community.

Davis also cited the increased traffic the TDAC community will create on Knabe Road and the Weirick Road on and off ramps to the I-15. “Corona is building so many apartments at Dos Lagos and those tenants will be using the same access to the freeway.”

Woodward, making the TDAC presentation at the June meeting of the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council, said he had addressed concerns regarding park space. He said the original plan was to construct 56 homes on the property, but the number had been reduced to 53 to increase the size of the project’s parks, from 0.3 acre to 1 acre, and a half-court basketball pad had been added to the plan.

Residents attending the MAC meeting reiterated concerns over property values, traffic and drainage issues on the property.

The public hearing at the Planning Commission’s February meeting allows people to voice opinions either in favor of or opposed to the zone change. Speakers are allotted three minutes to comment. If people cannot attend the meeting, written comments can be submitted to Paul Rull, project planner, Riverside County Planning Department, P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502-1409. All comments received prior to the public hearing will be given to the Planning Commission.

For information about this project, contact Rull at 951-955-0972 or prull@rctlma.org.

This photo was taken on the slope below The Retreat, looking east. Wildrose Ranch homes are shown in the background.

This photo was taken on the slope below The Retreat, looking east. Wildrose Ranch homes are shown in the background.