County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

4.9 - Land Use and Planning

4.9.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing setting for land use and planning and potential effects from project implementation on the sites and their surrounding areas. It also considers impacts likely to be incurred in the future if additional sites are proposed or if existing sites are modified.

4.9.2 - Existing Conditions General Plan The County of Riverside encompasses approximately 7,300 square miles of land area. Within that area lie approximately 25 incorporated cities and scores of unincorporated communities. Unless covered under some other arrangement, areas that are not a part of an incorporated city are typically under County jurisdiction and thus subject to the provisions of the County’s General Plan and/or Area Plans. Areas within incorporated cities typically operate under their own General Plans. The County, however, enjoys primacy and sovereign immunity over these local plans, to the extent allowed by State laws governing the relationships between the State, counties, and local jurisdictions.

The County’s General Plan is intended to provide overall guidance in regards to future development and growth within the County. It establishes goals and policies that serve to direct decisions related to land use and planning. Various General Plan policies provide direction in regards to public safety functions and the infrastructure that supports those functions. As a rule, those policies place public safety as a priority for governmental decisions and actions within the County. The Safety Element of the General Plan defines communication facilities as “Critical Facilities” and “Lifeline Facilities”, meaning that these services are critical to public safety and health, especially in times of emergency.

Habitat Conservation Plans and other Regional Plans The proposed tower locations and associated study areas are dispersed across a vast area and are subject to compliance with an array of resource management plans. Table 4.9-1 lists each of these plans and shows the number of proposed sites within each planning area. Following Table 4.9-1, a brief description of the various plans is provided. For more detailed information on these plans and their requirements, see Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this DEIR. Even more detailed information is provided in the project Biological Resources Assessment, provided as Appendix B of this DEIR.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.9-1 H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Land Use and Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report

Table 4.9-1: Proposed Locations within Regional Resource Management Plans

Number of Plan Name Sites* Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP) 25 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) 5 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP) 15 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coachella Valley Plan Amendment to the 1 California Desert Conservation Area Plan Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Plan 7 Amendment Bureau of Land Management (BLM) South Coast Resource Management Plan 3 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Yuma Resource Management Plan 1 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) San Bernardino National Forest Management Plan 2 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Cleveland National Forest Management Plan 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Designated Critical Habitat 8 Sites not within a regional plan area or designated critical habitat area 4 *Some sites may be included in more than one plan area

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCPs) Portions of the County are subject to the regulations of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCPs). In western Riverside County eastward, up to and including the City of Banning, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP) is the governing plan. From the easterly boundary of the City of Banning to the community of Desert Center east of the Coachella Valley, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) is the governing plan. Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this DEIR provides detailed information on the provisions of the plans and the sites to which they apply. These plans were established to direct the course of developmental actions that could impact sensitive species and habitats. The principal intention of the plans is to oversee compliance with both federal and state laws that govern endangered species. Signatories to the plans, of which the County is one, are required to abide by the terms and conditions of the plan whenever they propose a project that is covered by the plans. The PSEC radio tower project is a covered activity, and the County will be required to abide by the plan’s requirements, including project review by the Riverside Conservation Authority and the payment of applicable fees. Maps of the WRMSHCP and CVMSHCP are provided as Exhibit 4.9-1 and Exhibit 4.9-2, respectively.

4.9-2 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc GLEN AVON

SUNNYSLOPE TIMOTEO BOX SPRINGS BROOK SIDE

60 PARAD ISE ARLINGTON

GREEN RIVER CORON A

79 RANGER PEAK CAJALCO LAKE MATHEWS MEAD VALLEY

LEONA MARSHELL TEMESCAL

HOMEL AND WINCHESTER 74 SANTIA GO PEAK Legend 15 QUAIL VALLEY Tower Locations Within WRMSHCP Boundary

WRMSHCP Boundary LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE WRMSHCP Criteria Cells RED MOUNTAIN Existing Cores, Habitat Blocks and Linkages ELSINORE PEAK 79 Constrained Linkage

Existing Core RANCHO CARILLO Linkage

Non Contiguous Habitat Block

Existing Linkages

Proposed Cores, Habitat Blocks and Linkages LAKE R IVERSIDE VAQUERO Proposed C ore REDONDO MESA 79 Non Contiguous Habitat Block MARGARITA MWD Proposed Extension of Existing Core MARGARITA SDSU Proposed C onstrained Linkage

Proposed Linkage

Source: USGS NED, Riverside County MSHCP, Census 2000 data. Exhibit 4.9-1

8 4 0 8 Western Riverside County

NORTH Miles Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Map Michael Brandman Associates 27490003 • 05/2008 | 4.9-1_western_riv_mshcp.mxd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • PSEC PROJECT

Legend

Tower Locations within Coachella Valley MSHCP Boundary

Coachella Valley MSHCP Boundary

East Indio Hills Conservation Area Edom Hill Conservation Area

Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area

Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage Conservation Area MORONGO WHITEWATER Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Area Long Canyon Conservation Area

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area 10 Thousand Palms Conservation Area West Deception Canyon Conservation Area

Whitewater *Floodplain Thi s tower locati Conservation on is withi n a Areaconservation area.The conservation areas shown on this Exhibit are incomplete because the CVSMHCP has not yet been adopted Willow Holeand Conservation final boundary Area of these conservati on areas wi ll not be available until then.

111

COTTONWOOD 74

195

MECCA LANDFILL

74 SANTA ROSA PEAK

111

86 LINE

Source: CVAG. Exhibit 4.9-2 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat

NORTH Conservation Plan Map Michael Brandman Associates 27490003 • 05/2008 | 4.9-2_CVMSHCP_Conservation_Plan_Map.mxd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • PSEC PROJECT

County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP) The SKRHCP was adopted in 1996 to protect lands in the western portion of the County occupied by the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR). The plan authorized the incidental take of half of the occupied habitat remaining in the plan area, while using development fees to implement the plan, purchase private property, and create a reserve system. This reserve system sought to protect the largest contiguous fragments of remaining habitat on public and private land. Initially, the SKR reserves encompassed 41,000 acres, 12,460 acres of which contained occupied habitat. The plan also requires that the reserve system be expanded over time, until 15,000 acres of occupied habitat are conserved. A map of the SKRHCP plan area is provided as Exhibit 4.9-3.

Designated Critical Habitat Areas Critical Habitat is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in response to a species’ listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Critical habitat designations that impact the proposed project include designations for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, Coastal California gnatcatcher, desert tortoise, and Munz’s onion. A map of designated critical habitat areas is provided as Exhibit 4.9-4.

Federal Agency Management Plans Management plans adopted by the various federal agencies for federally owned lands in the County also contain their own habitat conservation requirements. These agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Future sites could include plans administered by the National Park Service (NPS). Any sites located on lands under the jurisdiction of these agencies will be required to comply with agency requirements as dictated by the applicable management plan. Sites on federal lands will also be required to undergo review under the terms of NEPA. A map of federally managed land plan areas is provided as Exhibit 4.9-5.

4.9.3 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, to determine whether hazards and hazardous materials are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

Michael Brandman Associates 4.9-7 H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Land Use and Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.9.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.

Divide Established Community

Impact LUP-1 Physically divide an established community? [CEQA Land Use and Planning 9(a)]

Impact Analysis As described in Section 3, Project Description, each tower site will be relatively small and will consist of an approximately 65-foot-by-65-foot area, or 4,225 square feet. This area roughly equates to half the size of a small subdivision residential building lot. The project areas are not linear in nature, nor do they possess the physical characteristics (size, shape or function) that could physically divide an established community. Therefore, the potential impact of any project site in regards to dividing an established community is less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations

Impact LUP-2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [CEQA Land Use and Planning 9(b)]

Impact Analysis Through its General Plan and other enabling documents, the County is authorized to undertake actions that provide for the general protection and welfare of the citizens of the County. The provision of a reliable emergency services communication network is an action that is consistent with this function. Many of the County’s cities contract with the County Sheriff and Fire Departments for protective services, and will thus indirectly use the facilities themselves.

In situations where the proposed action could conflict with adopted local ordinances, codes, or other regulations, the County enjoys primacy and sovereign immunity over these restrictions, so long as the purpose of the project is for direct county public use for the greater good of the community. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations, and the impact in this regard is less than significant.

4.9-8 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc ^Timoteo

·|}þ60 ^Arlin gton

·|}þ79 Cajalco Lake Mathews ^ ^ ^Mead Valley ^Leona ^Marshell

Homeland ^ Winchester ^ ·|}þ74

!"#$15 ^Quail Valley ^Lake Elsinore ^Menifee

·|}þ79

Legend Tower Locations within the 79 ^ Stephens' Kangaroo Rat HCP Boundary ^ Margarita MWD ·|}þ SKR Reserve Area ^Margarita SDSU SKR Mitigation Fee Area

Source: USGS NED, Riverside County MSHCP, Census 2000 data. Exhibit 4.9-3

8 4 0 8 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat

NORTH Miles Habitat Conservation Plan Map Michael Brandman Associates 27490003 • 03/2008 | 4.9-3_Skr_Habitat_Conservation_Plan_Map.mxd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • PSEC PROJECT

Legend Tower Locations San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Desert Tortoise Razorback Sucker Laguna Mountain Skipper Braunton's Milk Vetch California Red-Legged Frog Coastal California Gnatcatcher Riverside Fairy Shrimp Thread-Leaved Brodiaea Munz's Onion Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Southwestern Arroyo Toad Spreading Navarretia Sierra Madre Yellow Legged Frog Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Santa Ana Sucker Least Bell's Vireo Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

VIDAL JUNCTION IRON MOUNTAIN

RICE JOSHUA TREE

GLEN AVON BLUE MOUNTAIN

SUNNYSLOPE TIMOTEO BROOK SIDE BOX SPRINGS MORONGO PARAD ISE WHITEWATER ARLINGTON ROAD 177 GREEN BLACK EAGLE RIVER CORON A RANGER PEAK BLACK JACK CAJALCO LAKE MATHEWS MEAD VALLEY

BIG MARIA LEONA TEMESCAL MARSHELL HOMEL AND ESTELLE MOUNTAIN WINCHESTER SANTIA GO PEAK A & B CORN SPRINGS QUAIL VALLEY EL CARISO LAKE BLYTHE ELSINORE MENIFEE RED MOUNTAIN WILEY'S WELL BLACK ROCK

ELSINORE PEAK MECCA LANDFILL

SANTA ROSA PEAK RANCHO CARRILLO

SPRING HILL REDONDO MESA LAKE R IVERSIDE VAQUERO

MARGARITA MWD LINE

AVOCADO FLATS MARGARITA SDSU

Source: US Census data and Riverside County.

10 5 0 10 Exhibit 4.9-4

NORTH Miles United States Fish and Wildlife Service Designated Critical Habitat Map Michael Brandman Associates 27490003 • 05/2008 | 4.9-4_Critical_Habitat.mxd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE •PSEC PROJECT

Victorville Apple Valley

395 18 138 Hesperia

San Bernardino 95

247 County

15 Twentynine Palms Base VIDAL JUNCTION

Vidal Junction 38 Twentynine Palms Rancho Cucamonga Highland 62 San Dimas Rialto San Bernardino Yucca Valley 62 RICE Fontana

Ontario Colton 10 Redlands Yucaipa Chino Calimesa

Desert Hot Springs Riverside Banning Norco 60 Moreno Valley WHITEWATER ROAD 177 Yorba Linda Beaumont Cabazon 10 Woodcrest RANGER PEAK BLACK JACK Corona 79 Palm Springs Cathedral City 177 Nuevo San Jacinto BIG MARIA ESTELLA MOUNTAIN A & B Perris 111 Riverside Palm Desert SANTIAGO PEAK 74 Indio Hemet CORN SPRINGS County Desert Center 15 Winchester Coachella La Quinta Blythe El Toro RED MOUNTAIN 10 WILEY'S WELL EL CARISO ELSINORE PEAK LagunaOrange Hills Mecca Wildomar County RANCHO 74 Laguna Niguel CARRILLO Murrieta San Juan Capistrano SPRING HILL 111 78 Dana Point AVOCADO FLATS 79 San Clemente

86

Fallbrook Legend

Camp Pendleton North Tower Locations 76 Coachella Valley Desert Plan Amendment ( BLM)

Borrego Springs Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Plan Amendment ( BLM) Camp Pendleton South Oceanside 15 San Diego Cleveland National Forest Management Plan (USFS) Vista Imperial Pacific Ocean County San Bernardino National Forest Management Plan (USFS) San Marcos Escondido County Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (BLM) Carlsbad 78 * Avocado Flats is located on an isolated portion of BLM land and Julian managed under the South Coast Resource Management Plan. Encinitas Ramona

Solana Beach Source: US Census data and Riverside County. Poway Brawley

12 6 0 12 Exhibit 4.9-5

NORTH Miles Federally Managed Land Plan Areas Michael Brandman Associates 27490003 • 05/2008 | 4.9-5_Federally_Managed_Land_Plan_Area.mxd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • PSEC PROJECT

County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Conflict with Conservation Plans

Impact LUP-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? [CEQA Land Use and Planning 9(c)]

Impact Analysis The proposed tower locations and associated study areas are dispersed across a vast area and are subject to compliance with an array of resource management plans. See Table 4.9-1 for a list of these plans and the number of proposed sites within each planning area.

Some of the project sites are within the boundaries of a MSHCP. See Section 4.4, Biological Resources, for an overview of the MSHCP concept and its requirements. As a signatory to both the WRMSHCP and the CVMSHCP, any County action that falls under the requirements or within the confines of either MSHCP planning area requires compliance with the applicable plan. As such, the County and the proposed project will be required to abide by the conditions outlined in the plans. Where applicable, compliance with the MSHCP, including the payment of fees or purchase of mitigation land to replace lost habitat, will be undertaken as part of this project. Specific mitigation is included in this DEIR that will require the project to abide by these agreements before development in these areas can commence. See Section 4.4 for detailed information on specific requirements. Compliance with these requirements will result in an impact of less than significant.

Other sites are proposed in areas under the jurisdiction and ownership of federal land management agencies (BLM, USFS) or are in areas included within the SKRHCP or areas designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat. Sites located within any of these areas will be required to comply with the conditions prescribed in these agency’s land use plans. These conditions may include, among other requirements, development review by the applicable agency to ensure plan compliance, project review under NEPA, payment of fees, and consultation with the USFWS under the terms of the FESA. As required by existing laws and regulations, full compliance with these conditions will be required before any site under the jurisdiction of these plans can be developed. Compliance with these requirements will assure consistency with applicable conservation plans. Therefore, the project’s impacts in this regard will be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.9-15 H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Land Use and Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report

Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact.

4.9-16 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client PN-JN\2749-Riverside County-Communications\27490003_Communications Sites\DEIR_6-5-08\27490003_4.09_Land Use and Planning.doc