The URL can be used to link to this page

PC15-198RESOLUTION NO. PC 15-198 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MENIFEE LAKES PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER Whereas, on November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission approved a plot plan (Plot Plan No. 2009-052) and conditional use permits (CUP03487, CUP 2009-084 and CUP 2009-085) for the construction and operation of the Menifee Lakes Plaza Shopping Center and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA40567) for the project; and Whereas, on August 20, 2012, the applicant, Muirfield Properties, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2012-115 (the "Project") to incorporate the associated change to the Specific Plan zoning ordinance text; and Whereas, on October 8, 2013 the Planning Commission approved the second and third extensions of time for Plot Plan No. 2009-052 and approved Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2012-187, 2012-188, and 2012-189 to re -approve the expired previous Conditional Use Permits; and Whereas, on May 1, 2014, the applicant, MDMG Inc., filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for Plot Plan No. 2014-113 for the revision to Plot Plan No. 2009-052 for the Menifee Lakes Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Newport and Antelope Road in the City of Menifee; and Whereas, on May 1, 2014, the applicant, MDMG Inc., filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for Change of Zone No. 2014-206 (the "Project") to modify the zoning ordinance text for Specific Plan (Menifee Village) Planning Area 1-1; and Whereas, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study ("IS") and Addendum have been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and Whereas, between September 28, 2014 and October 8, 2014, the ten (10)-day public review period for the draft IS/Addendum took effect, which was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper of general circulation, notice to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries, related agencies and government agencies; and Whereas, no comments on the IS/Addendum have been received during the public review period; and Whereas, on October 8, 2014, November 12, 2014, December 10, 2014, and January 14, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee held public hearings on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2012-115, Change of Zone No. 2014-206, and Plot Plan No. 2014-113, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and Whereas, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/Addendum is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and Resolution No PC 15-198 IS/Addendum for the Menifee Lakes Plaza January 14, 2015 represents the independent judgment of the City; and Whereas, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the draft IS/Addendum which would require re -circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee resolves as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the draft Addendum, and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, will assure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. 3. The Planning Commission further finds that the adoption of the MIND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. 4. The IS/Addendum, all documents referenced in the IS/Addendum, and the record of proceedings on which the Planning Commission's decision is based are located at City of Menifee City Hall at 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 and the custodian of record of proceedings is the City of Menifee City Clerk. 5. The City of Menifee Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopts an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project including but not limited to the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan as attached to the IS/Addendum. Resolution No PC 15-198 IS/Addendum for the Menifee Lakes Plaza January 14, 2015 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 1411 day of Januay 2015. Chairman Attest: Kathy Bennett, City Clerk Approved as to form: At�hG ind, Assistant Attorney Chris Thomas, Scott A. Mann Mayor John V. Denver Mayor Pro Tern Wallace W. Edgerton Councilmember Greg August Councilmember Matthew Liesemeyer Councilmember 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Phone 951.672.6777 Fax 951.6793843 w .dtyofinenifee.us STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) I, Jennifer Allen, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC15-198 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 14'" day of January, 2015 by the following vote: Ayes: Folsom, Phillips, Sobek, Thomas Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Karwin Kathy Bennett, City Clerk CITY OF MENIFEE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number: Addendum to 40567 Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): Plot Plan No. 2009-052 as revised by Plot Plan No. 2014- 113, Specific Plan Amendment No. 2012-115, Change of Zone No. 2014-206 Lead Agency Name: City of Menifee Planning Department Address: 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 Contact Person: Russell Brady, Contract Planner Telephone Number: (951) 672-6777 Applicant's Name: Larry Markham Applicant's Address: 41635 Enterprise Circle North #B, Temecula, CA 92590 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description: Plot Plan No. 2009-052 as revised by Plot Plan No. 2014-113 proposes a revision to the previously approved Menifee Lakes Plaza (County Case No. CUP03487/City Case No. 2009-052) to add an LA Fitness gym. Specifically, the changes to the site plan include the following: 1. Eliminate Pad 2 (8,800 sq. ft.), Pad 3 (6,000 sq. ft.) Pad 4 (6,000 sq. ft), and Pad 5 (4,100 sq. ft.) and replace with a 34,500 sq. ft. LA Fitness (with additional 3,500 sq. ft. mezzanine); 2. Revise references from pads to outparcels; 3. Modify parking field around proposed LA Fitness; 4. Modify driveway across from Balsa Road; 5. Modify driveway between Balsa Road and Pampas Street (removed throat); 6. Major 1 increased in size from 14,900 to 16,000 sq. ft.; 7. Major 2 increased in size from 31,100 to 34,700 sq. ft.; 8. Major 3 increased in size from 15,600 to 17,700 sq. ft.; 9. Increase parking spaces from 787 to 854 spaces (808 parking spaces required); and, 10. Increase total building square footage from 171,817 sq. ft. to 191,717 sq. ft., Specific Plan Amendment No. 2012-115 and Change of Zone No. 2014-206 proposes to change the zoning ordinance text of the Specific Plan, in particular for Planning Area 1-1 as follows: 1. Allow for gym use with approval of a Plot Plan; 2. Automatic length of Conditional Use Permit life extended from 1 year to 5 years and automatic length of Plot Plan life extended from 2 years to 5 years; 3. Modify the parking rate for general retail from 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area to 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area; and 4. Modify parking area design standards. B. Type of Project: Site Specific ®; Countywide ❑; Community ❑; Policy ❑. C. Total Project Area: 16.35 (gross) acres Residential Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Units: N/A Commercial Acres: 16.35 Lots: 15 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 191,717 sq. ft. Projected No. of Residents: N/A Est. No. of Employees: 220 (full-time jobs) Page 1 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Industrial Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: N/A Other: N/A D. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 340-020-042 350 (construction -related jobs) Est. No. of Employees: N/A E. Street References: Northerly of Newport Road, easterly of 1-215 Freeway, westerly of Antelope Road F. Section, Township & Range Description or reference/attach a Legal Description: Township 5 South, Range 3 West, Section 35 G. Brief description of the existing environmental setting of the project site and its surroundings: The project site is currently vacant. The terrain of the project site is relatively flat and drains in a northerly direction to Salt Creek. There are palm trees within the right-of- way along the project's eastern boundary but the site itself contains primarily non-native grasslands. A Caltrans' ditch traverses the western boundary of the site and conveys storm flows from the freeway and area south of Newport Road. To the north and east of the project site are single-family tract homes. An existing commercial development is to the south of the site. Interstate 215 is located adjacent and to the west of the site. To the west is the Interstate 215 Freeway. H. General Plan Land Use Designation(s): Specific Plan (Menifee Village, Specific Plan 158, Planning Area 1-1) I. Adjacent and Surrounding: LAND USE ZONING EXISTING LAND DESIGNATION CLASSIFICATION USE NORTH Specific Plan (Menifee Specific Plan (Menifee Single -Family Villages, Planning Area Villages, Planning Area 1- Residential 1-2, Medium -High 2, Medium -High Residential) Residential EAST Specific Plan (Menifee Specific Plan (Menifee Single -Family Villages, Planning Area Villages, Planning Area 1- Residential 1-2, Medium -High 2, Medium -High Residential) Residential SOUTH Specific Plan (Menifee Specific Plan (Menifee Commercial Villages, Planning Area Villages, Planning Area 2- 2-7, Commercial) 7, Commercial WEST Specific Plan (Newport Specific Plan (Newport Commercial, Offices Hub, Planning Area 1, Hub, Planning Area 1, Retail/Commercial Retail/Commercial J. Adopted Specific Plan Information 1. Name and Number of Specific Plan, if any: Menifee Village (Specific Plan No. 158) 2. Specific Plan Planning Area, and Policies, if any: Planning Area 1-1, Commercial K. Existing Zoning: Specific Plan (Menifee Village, Specific Plan 158, Planning Area 1-1, Commercial) Page 2 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 L. Proposed Zoning, if any: N/A II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Other ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ® Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Other ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less than Significant' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils 0 Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ® Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ® Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Other ® Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would not be impacted by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ® Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use/Planning ® Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Other ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Page 3 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project, described in this document, have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED because (a) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, (b) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (c) the proposed project will not result in any new significant environmental effects not identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (d) the proposed project will not substantially increase the severity of the environmental effects identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (e) no considerably different mitigation measures have been identified and (f) no mitigation measures found infeasible have become feasible. ® I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously -certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. ❑ I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist, but I further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation; therefore a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. ❑ I find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following:(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, Page 4 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or,(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Signature Russell Brady Printed Name September 23, 2014 Date For Charles LaClaire, Interim Community Development Director Page 5 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21178.1), this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the proposed project to determine any potential significant impacts upon the environment that would result from construction and implementation of the project. In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision -makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Potentially Less than Less No Significant Signifcant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated AESTHETICS Would the project 1. Scenic Resources ® ❑ ❑ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character El El ® ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source: California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program; On -site Investigation; City of Menifee General Plan, Community Design Element; Findings of Fact: la. The proposed project is located immediately adjacent to the Interstate 215. The project site is located approximately 120 feet — 300 feet from the freeway and 50 feet from the on -ramp to the freeway. Motorists traveling on this highway would have visual access into the project site. Currently, the site could be considered as open space. Motorists on the I-215 can see into residential developments beyond the project site. The project is proposing commercial development within this open lot. Structures proposed along western potions of the project site could be regarded as aesthetically significant. It should also be noted that the 1-215 on -ramp is elevated above the project site which means that special attention must be paid to roof elements and roof -mounted equipment. All roof mounted equipment is required to be screened from public view. The site's layout, architecture and landscaping have been designed to avoid the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The proposed project demonstrated visual buffers, such as landscaping, along the project boundaries. The proposed buildings incorporate 360-degree architecture, meaning that the backs and sides of the buildings are architecturally enhanced. All landscaping plans have been deemed visually appropriate by the Landscaping Division. The project also proposes a 75 foot freeway pylon sign located on the western border of the site along Interstate 215. The sign exceeds the height and amount of surface area for a sign allowed under Page 6 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Ordinance 348 and the developer has proposed a variance to request that the sign be allowed to exceed the standards of the Ordinance. It should be noted that the site sits bellow the Interstate 215 overpass and a sign at a height of 45 feet would be blocked by the overpass. The sign will include architectural features, such as molding and stone, to make it visually pleasing and be neutral in color. As previously discussed, the project site is located approximately 120 feet — 300 feet from the freeway and 50 feet from the on -ramp to the freeway. The design, materials, color and location shall blend with the environment, utilizing natural materials where necessary. Due to the size and shape of the parcel and location of the Newport Road overpass which blocks views of the site from northbound traffic on the interstate, the proposed signage is determined to be the minimum necessary for identification and is consistent with signage on other projects in the vicinity. The signs shall utilize natural colors and tones and therefore, blend with the environment. In addition, to the 75 foot freeway pylon sign, the project proposes a 45 foot freeway pylon sign (allowed by ordinance), and six (6) tenant monument signs. The ordinance only allows for two (2) free standing signs in a commercial project which has frontage on two (2) or more streets. The signage proposed by the applicant exceeds the ordinance by six (6) monument signs. A variance application has been filed in order to allow the signage to exceed the standards of the ordinance. The parcel is over 16 acres in size, has an oblong shape and fronts on both Newport Road and Antelope Road. The project has approximately 1,900 feet of frontage on Antelope road. The eight (8) free-standing signs will be distributed throughout the site: one freeway pylon sign is located on the project site's western boundary; one pylon sign and one gas station monument sign is located on Newport Road; the remaining five (5) signs are located at the project driveways along Antelope Road, which, as described above, has 1,900 feet of frontage. The signs shall be architecturally enhanced with details such as molding and stone and shall be neutral in color. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 1b. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources. Presently, the site can be characterized as vacant and fallow land. No rock outcroppings, or unique or landmark features current exist on the project site. The project site has scattered palm trees lining Antelope Road. The project would include site design, architecture, and landscaping that retain the natural character of the area. As previously noted, the project site is visible from Interstate 215, which is designated as a County Eligible Scenic Highway in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan policies for projects located adjacent to generally balance preservation of scenic resources and to design the site, buildings, landscaping, and other features to be compatible with the scenic corridor. As previously noted in the prior section, the project has been designed to limit the visual impacts to the surrounding area, including views from Interstate 215. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 1c. Development of the proposed project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site's existing surroundings. Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the area. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the project site. However, construction activities are temporary and would not result in any permanent visual impact. The site contains minimal vegetation aside from the palm trees planted along Antelope Road that will be mostly preserved in place. The proposed project is located Page 7 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated within the Menifee Village Specific Plan (SP 158) which includes Landscaping Guidelines that provide a general framework for the design of the plant palette. The proposed landscape design will include the use of trees, shrubs, ground covers, and vines to create dynamic views that are also compatible with the landscaping of the surrounding area. Impacts on landscaping would be less than significant. The proposed project site is currently vacant. The area surrounding the proposed project site is a mixture of residential and commercial land uses. The architecture has been specifically designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and incorporate theme appropriate materials. Landscaping is also proposed in the form of alternating tree locations as well as moderate height shrubs within the parkway of both adjacent roads to partially screen and soften the view of the site. The proposed project will change the visual character of the project site by adding structures and landscaping; however, the design will comply with the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines and thus will blend with the characteristics of the adjacent urban community. With the specified design features the project will have less -than -significant impacts on the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 1d. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). There are lighting sources adjacent to this site, including free-standing street lights, light fixtures on buildings, vehicle headlights, and traffic lights. The proposed project will include outdoor lighting associated with the parking area lighting, building mounted signs, and freestanding signs. Chapter 6.01 of the Menifee Municipal Code (Dark Sky; Light Pollution) indicates that low-pressure sodium lamps are the preferred illuminating source and that all non-exempt outdoor light fixtures shall be shielded. Furthermore, Chapter 6.01 indicates that lighting fixtures used to illuminate an outdoor advertising display shall be mounted on the top of the outdoor advertising structure (Section 6.01.020). A maximum of 8,100 total lumens per acre or per parcel if under one acre shall be allowed. When lighting is "allowed", it must be fully shielded if feasible and partially shielded in all other cases, and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties (Section 6.01.040). The project will be conditioned that prior to the issuance of building permits all new construction which introduces light sources be required to have shielding divided or other light pollution limiting characteristics such as hood or lumen restrictions. The City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element includes goals that encourage attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community (CD-6) and that limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD-6.5). With the application of the requirements of Menifee Municipal Code Section 6.01 and General Plan goals, the project will have a less than significant impact on interfering with the nighttime use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas and are often associated with retail uses. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as glass, highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The exterior finish of the proposed buildings will primarily consist of stucco. Given the minimal use of glare -inducing Page 8 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated materials in the design of the proposed building, reflective glare impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: The project provides landscape screening, enhanced architecture, and the use of natural colors and materials. The project has been conditioned to submit elevations and landscaping plans to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. These plans shall be in conformance with the conceptual plans which have been submitted and reviewed for compliance with standards and guidelines. The landscaping shall be installed in compliance with the approved landscaping plans. The developer is also required to submit fees to cover the cost of a six-month and one-year landscape inspection to verify that the landscaping is properly in installed and maintained. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Planning Department during the Building plan check process. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project 2. Agriculture ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conservation Contract Maps)? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ ❑ ❑ of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source: Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) and Project Application Materials. Findings of Fact: 2a. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance, since according to RCLIS the site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. No impacts would occur in regard to Farmland resources. 2b. Since about 1880, the Menifee Valley was predominantly an agricultural area used for dry farming. In the past twenty years, this use has been replaced by residential and commercial uses as designated by the General Plan. The site is presently designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. Currently, it is not under a Williamson Act contract and is it is not located within 300 feet of Page 9 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated agriculturally zoned property. Additionally, the proposed project will not involve other changes in the existing environment that will result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Land within the vicinity of the project area has experienced rapid urbanization, particularly near 1-215 and Newport Road. The General Plan identifies the site's land use as Specific Plan; thus, the proposed use of the site conforms to the vision of the General Plan and the project is within the Menifee Village Specific Plan No. 158 which designates the site for Commercial land uses. The development would be similar in nature to neighboring development along 1-215 and Newport Road. Therefore, no impact is anticipated in regard to agricultural resources. 2c. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10- percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The project site is vacant, graded, and no substantial vegetation exists onsite, with the exception of grass and forbs. Therefore, development of this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning. 2d. The proposed project site is vacant, already graded land with limited landscaping; thus, there will be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use as a result of this project. No impact will occur. 2e. General Plan identifies the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land." The General Plan designates the project area as Specific Plan. The planned use of the property, therefore, is not agricultural. Furthermore, the adjacent streets have been fully improved and the land to the north, west, and south has already been developed. No impacts due to the conversion of Farmland are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. AIR QUALITY Would the project 3. Air Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors which are located ❑ ❑ ® ❑ within 1 mile of the project site to project substantial point source emissions? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Page 10 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated number of people? Source: General Plan Land Use Element, General Plan Air Quality Element, General Plan Circulation Element, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality Analysis prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates Findings of Fact: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for developing a regional air quality management plan to insure compliance with state and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The primary implementation responsibility assigned to the County (i.e. local governments) by the 2012 AQMP is the implementation of air quality control measures associated with transportation facilities. This project does not propose any transportation facilities that would require transportation control measures, and therefore will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. 3a. The 2012 AQMP is based on socioeconomic forecasts (including population estimates) provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The General Plan is consistent with SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 3b-c. The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is in nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the State 1-hour ozone standard, the federal 24-hour PM10 standard, and the State 24-hour and annual PM10 standards. The South Coast Air Basin is designated as attainment or unclassified for all other federal and state ambient air quality standards. The ozone precursors VOC and NO., in addition to fine particulate matter (PM2,s and PM10), are the pollutants of primary concern for projects located in the SCAQMD. Based on SCAQMD thresholds, a project would have a significant adverse impact on regional air quality if it generates emissions exceeding any of the thresholds found in Table 1. Table 1 SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100lbs/day 55lbs/da VOC/ROG 75lbs/day 55lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150lbs/da PM2.5 55lbs/day 55lbs/da CO 550 lbs/day 550lbs/day Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. The project would impact air quality in the short-term during construction and in the long-term through operation. Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic gases (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NOX), particulate sulfate (SOX) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction emissions are expected from the use of construction equipment (including heavy diesel trucks) and fugitive dust (associated with site preparation and equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads). Construction emissions would occur in close proximity to the disturbance area, but some spillover into the surrounding community may occur. In accordance with standard requirements, dust control measures and maintenance of Page 11 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated construction equipment shall be utilized on the property to limit the amount of particulate matter generated. Retail developments, such as the proposed project, would primarily impact air quality through increased automotive emissions. Single projects typically do not generate enough traffic and associated air pollutants to violate clean air standards or contribute enough air pollutants to be considered a cumulatively considerable significant impact. Operational impacts associated with the project would be expected to result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5 and SOx. Operational emissions would result from vehicle emissions, fugitive dust associated with vehicle travel, combustion emissions associated with natural gas use, emission related to electricity generation, and landscape equipment maintenance emissions. In the long term, emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 could exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds (in pounds per day). The construction and operational air quality emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using the CaIEEMod v.2013.2.2 air quality model. Table 2 below shows the maximum daily construction emissions with mitigation, which indicate construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's daily construction thresholds for any pollutant. Table 3 below shows the maximum daily operational emissions with mitigation, which indicate construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's daily operational thresholds for any pollutant. Therefore, regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Construction Emissions with Mitigation Emission Source Maximum Daily Emissions (Ibs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 44.87 79.15 51.93 21.36 12.83 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? NO NO NO NO NO Source: CaIEEMod v.2013.2.2 (See Appendix A for model results) Table 3 Operational Emissions Emission Source Operational Daily Emissions (Ibs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Emissions 19.98 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Energy Emissions 0.24 2.15 1.81 0.16 0.16 Mobile Emissions 25.90 48.38 190.09 24.86 7.03 Total Operational Emissions 46.12 50.53 191.98 25.02 7.19 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? NO NO NO NO NO Source: CaIEEMod v.2013.2.2 (See Appendix A for model results) Only paints, sealants, adhesives, and solvents containing less than 50 grams/liter volatile organic compounds (VOC) shall be utilized in the construction of the project. With the incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 3d. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact in regard to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest sensitive receptors include single- family homes located immediately to the north and east of the project site. Air pollutants will be Page 12 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during demolition, site preparation and construction activities. However, due to the temporary nature of the project construction, activities are anticipated to produce less than significant impacts. Additionally, county and city ordinances would minimize these emissions through construction method and equipment standards. Long-term operational emissions generated by the proposed project will primarily come from motor vehicles. These growth -related impacts, however, have been accounted for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. The project conforms to its Commercial Retail land use designation, and thus this growth was anticipated. No new or additional impacts would occur due to the implementation of this project. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 3e. The proposed project will not result in or create objectionable odors. No activities are anticipated to occur on the site that would create odors. No impact is anticipated. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned to implement fugitive dust control measures in accordance with Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403. These measures include, but are not limited to: a) The simultaneous disturbance of the site shall be limited to the extent feasible. b) The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including Rule 403 insuring the clean-up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile or disturbed surface area visible beyond the property line of the emission source. Particulate matter on public roadways is also prohibited. c) The project proponent shall comply with all SCAQMD established minimum requirements for construction activities to reduce fugitive dust and PM10 emissions. d) Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to mitigate the impact of construction -related dust particulates. Portions of the site that are undergoing surface earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface, and then watered again at the end of each day. Site watering shall be performed as necessary to adequately mitigate blowing dust. e) Any vegetative cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems required for these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain good ground cover and to minimize wind erosion of the soil. f) Any construction access roads (other than temporary access roads) shall be paved as soon as possible and cleaned up after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed on unpaved roads shall be 15 mph. g) Grading operations shall be suspended during first stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 mph. A high wind response plan shall be formulated for enhanced dust control if winds are forecast to exceed 25 mph in any upcoming 24-hour period. h) Any construction equipment using direct internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05 percent sulfur and a four -degree retard. i) Construction operations affecting off -site roadways shall be scheduled by implementing traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. j) The engines of idling trucks or heavy equipment shall be turned off if the expected duration of idling exceeds five (5) minutes. k) On -site heavy equipment used during grading and construction shall be equipped with diesel particulate filters unless it is demonstrated that such equipment is not available or its use is not cost -competitive. Page 13 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1) All haul trucks leaving or entering the site shall be covered or have at least two feet of freeboard. m) Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily. n) Any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed. Only paints, sealants, adhesives, and solvents containing less than 50 grams/liter volatile organic compounds (VOC) shall be utilized in the construction of the project. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Building Department and Planning during the Building plan check process. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project 4. Wildlife & Vegetation ❑ ® ❑ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly El ❑ ❑ED or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly El El® ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ® ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation Page 14 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated policy or ordinance? Source: RCIP, County Biologist, WRCMSHCP, On -site Inspection, Habitat Assessment (PDB 4214) Findings of Fact: 4a. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; however, the project is not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group. Therefore, the project shall not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 4b. The project site is free from suitable habitat for wildlife, as well as native plant species. No evidence of endangered species or suitable habitat was found on -site according to the habitat assessment. The project shall not have an effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12). Therefore, there is no impact. 4c. The site was surveyed for evidence of candidate, sensitive, or special status species, particularly for burrowing owl habitat. No small mammal burrows or signs of the presence burrowing owl within the project site where observed. The project is not anticipated to have an effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species based on the habitat assessment. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 4d. The project site is located in an area that has been disturbed by agricultural uses in the past. In addition, the project site is adjacent to two major roadways: Newport Road and Interstate 215. The site is primarily devoid of wildlife habitat. Although wildlife currently can move freely throughout the site, this parcel is not considered a corridor or constrained linkage area. Therefore the project shall not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there is no impact. 4e. The project site does not contain any riparian or riverine habitat. Therefore, the project shall not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there is no impact. 4f. The project site does not contain wetlands. Therefore, the project shall not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, Therefore, there is no impact. 4g. The proposed project site does not contain any oak trees or other protected resources. Therefore, the project shall not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: None required. Page 15 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Lessthan Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: None required. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project 5. Historic Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Alter or destroy an historic site? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? Source: Project Application Materials, County Archeologist Review, PD-A 4079 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment', prepared by Jean A. Keller, dated January 2006 Findings of Fact: 5a) The project site is currently vacant and is not classified as an historic site. Therefore, there is no impact. 5b) The project site does not contain a historical resource and therefore and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significant of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. 6. Archaeological Resources ❑ ® 0 ❑ a) Alter or destroy an archaeological site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ❑ ❑ ❑ the potential impact area? Source: Riverside County GIS, County Archeologist Review, PD-A 4079 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment', prepared by Jean A. Keller, dated January 2006 Findings of Fact: 6a-b. Although no archeological resources were found during the site assessment, the project site is located within an area that is sensitive for archeological resources and there are archeological sites within the project vicinity. Therefore, the project has been conditioned by the Planning Department prior to grading permit issuance, to have a qualified archeologist retained by the land divider for archeological monitoring. Should the archeologist, after consultation with the appropriate Native American Tribe, find the potential is high for impact to unique archeological resources, a pre -grading Page 16 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated meeting between the archeologist, a Native American observer, and the excavation and grading contractor shall take place. During grading, the archeologist and the Native American observer shall actively monitor all project -related grading and construction and shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of unique archeological resources. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 6c. The project site is not anticipated to contain human remains; however, the project has been conditioned by Planning, prior to grading permit issuance that if human remains are encountered, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 (b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 6d. The project site is not used for religious or sacred uses; therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned by the Planning Department prior to grading permit issuance, to have a qualified archeologist, Pechanga tribal monitor(s), and Soboba tribal monitor(s)retained by the land divider for archeological monitoring. During grading, the archeologist and tribal monitors shall actively monitor all project -related grading and construction and shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of unique archeological resources. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Planning Department during the plan check process. 7. Paleontological Resources ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature? Source: County Archeologist Review, Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) Findings of Fact: 7a. The Paleontological Sensitivity Resources Map indicates that the subject property is located within a paleontological high -sensitivity area, classified as High B as identified by the RCIP General Plan. This classification is based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. The category High B indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at or below four feet of depth and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities. The project has been conditioned to retain an archeologist during grading activities. Paleontological resources would be sufficiently protected and preserved in the event they are accidentally unearthed. This measure would ensure the preservation of paleontological resources. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned by Planning prior to grading permit issuance to retain an archeologist during grading activities. In addition, the project has been conditioned that if during grading, human remains are encountered, no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside Page 17 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and a decision regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains has been made. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Planning Department during the plan check process. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project 8. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County ® ❑ ❑ Fault Hazard Zones a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death? b) Be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Source: Riverside County GIS, "Geotechnical Evaluation and Additional Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Northwest Corner of Antelope Road and Newport Road, Menifee Area, Riverside County, Riverside," prepared by Global Geo-Engineering, Inc., dated June 21, 2005 (Geologic Report No. 1635) Findings of Fact: 8a-b. County Geologic Report (GEO) No. 1635, submitted for this project. The site does not lie within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There is no evidence for an active fault crossing the site. The Geologic Report determined that the nearest active fault is the Elsinore fault zone, and the project site is in Seismic Zone 4 as defined in the California Building Code. The potential for surface rupture affecting the proposed improvements is considered low or negligible. All new construction shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters in the California Building Code for seismic zone 4. Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with adherence to these standards. Mitigation: All new construction shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters in the California Building Code for seismic zone 4. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 9. Liquefaction Potential Zone ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be subject to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Source: Riverside County GIS, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: L_ Page 18 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 9a. The County Geologic Report No. 1635 determined that the liquefaction potential resulting from the effects of strong ground -shaking are considered to be negligible due to the fact that the upper soils encountered in the exploratory borings exhibited relatively high densities and groundwater was not encountered in the borings. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 10. Ground -shaking Zone ❑ ® ❑ Be subject to strong seismic ground shaking? Source: Riverside County GIS, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 10a. The site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and can be expected to experience strong seismic shaking during the life span of the project. The level of shaking that would occur is based on several factors including —but not limited to —earthquake magnitude and duration, type of faulting rupture propagation path, distance from the epicenter, site geology, etc. Impacts associated with ground motion would be adequately reduced to less than significant levels with adherence to California Building Code. All new construction shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters in the California Building Code for seismic zone 4. Mitigation: All new construction shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters in the California Building Code for seismic zone 4. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 11. Landslide Risk ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, or rockfall hazards? Source: Riverside County GIS, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 11 a. Due to the relatively flat local topography, the potential for the site to be affected by secondary Lseo,hazards, such as landslides, is considered low to very low for this site. Therefore, the impact ered less than significant. n: No monitoring is required. ng: No monitoring is required. Page 19 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 12. Ground Subsidence El❑ ® ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ground subsidence? Source: Riverside County Geologist, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 12a. Subsidence refers to the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. It may be caused by a variety of human and natural activities, including earthquakes. The Riverside County Land Information System identified the site as having a susceptibility to subsidence. The County Geologic Report No. 1635 did not identify subsidence as an issue of concern due to the relatively high in -place density and absence of high groundwater; thus, less than significant impacts due to subsidence are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. 13. Other Geologic Hazards El ❑ ❑ a) Be subject to geologic hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard? Source: Riverside County Geologist, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 13a. Due to the lack of significant local bodies of water in the area, the project site would not be subject to seismically induced flooding, seiches, or tsunamis. In addition, the project site is not subject to mudflow or volcanic hazards. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 14. Slopes ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) Change topography or ground surface relief features? b) Create cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher ❑ ® ❑ ❑ than 10 feet? c) Result in grading that affects or negates ❑ ❑ ❑ subsurface sewage disposal systems? Source: Geology Review, and Engineering Department Page 20 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Findings of Fact: 14a-b. The project site is relatively flat. It is not anticipated that additional project grading will substantially alter topography or ground surface relief features. The grading will balance the site. The proposed project has been conditioned by the Building Grading Division, to limit the steepness of slopes to a ratio of 2:1 unless otherwise approved. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 14c. The project site shall utilize sewer. Therefore, the project will not result in grading that affects or negates subsurface sewage disposal systems. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: The proposed project has been conditioned by the Building Grading Division, to limit the steepness of slopes to a ratio of 2:1 unless otherwise approved. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 15. Soils ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? b) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ® El ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Source: Riverside County Geologist, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 15a. The project site is relatively flat. Because the site will be fully developed with hardscaping and landscaping, onsite soils will be more stable than under current conditions. Stormwater runoff will flow through a system of water quality swales before entering into drainage facilities. During the construction phase, the applicant will be required to implement temporary erosion control measures immediately after rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Plans showing these measures will be submitted to the Flood Control District for review. With these measures, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 15b. The geologic report prepared for the project did not identify any expansive soils on the surface of the site. The project may be located on expansive soil; however, California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to commercial development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: During the construction phase, the applicant will be required to implement temporary erosion control measures immediately after rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Plans showing these measures will be submitted to the Flood Control District for review. The project shall comply with California Building Code pertaining to expansive soils. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building Plan Check process. Page 21 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 16. Erosion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? b) Result in any increase in water erosion either on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or off site? Source: Riverside County Geologist, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 16a. The subject property is relatively flat and drains in a northerly direction to Salt Creek to the north. According to the Flood Hazard Report, Salt Creek is considered an adequate outlet. The project is not anticipated to result in erosion that would modify the creek because the project will retain the existing natural drainage patterns. Additionally, the Building Department's plan check approval of this project would include the requirement that the reviewed and approved conceptual grading plan comply with any Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) required by Enginering Department. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake. Therefore the impact is considered less than significant. 16b. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any increase in water erosion either on or off - site. The site naturally drains in a northerly direction to Salt Creek which is considered an adequate outlet. According to the Flood Hazard Report no mitigation for increased runoff will be reqired. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in an increase in water erosion on or off site. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. 17. Wind Erosion and Blowsand from project either ❑ ® ❑ ❑ on or off site. a) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site? Source: Riverside County Geologist, "Geotechnical Evaluation" (GEO 1635) Findings of Fact: 17a. Wind erosion occurs when loose soil —usually sand —is moved by wind force against unstabilized ground surfaces. Implementation of the proposed project will stabilize soils within the project site through the construction of impervious surfaces and irrigated landscaping, which will reduce the potential for wind erosion and blowsand to less than significant levels. During construction, however, the project site will be susceptible to wind erosion. Engineering —Grading standard Conditions of Approval will limit this exposure and reduce impacts to less than significant L_ Page 22 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated levels. The project has been conditioned to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 in regards to fugitive dust. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 in regards to fugitive dust. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building Plan Check process. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project 18. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009; City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR 18a. Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. Natural changes in climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (e.g., changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes to the planet's surface. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. Greenhouse gases differ from other emissions in that they contribute to the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth's surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re -radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 600 Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth's temperature. Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. The City of Menifee does not currently have any quantitative thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. To determine whether the Project is significant, the Project uses the SCAQMD draft local Page 23 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated agency tier 3 threshold. The threshold is as follows: • Tier 1: The project is not exempt under CEQA; go to Tier 2. • Tier 2: There is no greenhouse gas reduction plan applicable to the project; go to Tier 3. • Tier 3: project greenhouse gas emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • (see analysis in Section VII below), if the project exceeds this threshold; got to Tier 4. • Tier 4, option 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual by 15 percent. GHG emissions for the project were quantified utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) version 2013.2.2 to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions The Project's emissions were initially compared to the screening SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year for all land uses. If the Project exceeds the screening thresholds, then, per the directions of AB 32, the CARB Scoping Plan recommends that the Project's business -as -usual (BAU) emissions be compared to the Project's Year 2020 emissions to determine whether (with regulation and mitigation) the Project's Year 2020 emissions will have a reduction of at least 15 percent from the Project's BAU emissions. Since the Project's emissions exceeded 3,000 metric tons CO2e, a BAU analysis was prepared for the Project's emissions that calculated the Project's emissions in 2020 and the BAU emissions in 2010. Business as usual for purposes of the GHG significance threshold is defined as pre -AB 32. Business as usual greenhouse gas emissions referred to emissions using protocol and emission factors from the period of 2004-2006 (prior to the adoption of AB 32 and related greenhouse gas regulations) and also do not take into account project design features or mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board's (ARB) Scoping Plan indicates that business as usual is projected emissions without any greenhouse gas reduction measures (business -as -usual case). The business -as -usual forecast does not take any credit for reductions from measures included in the Scoping Plan, including the Pavley greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, full implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard beyond current levels of renewable energy, or the solar measures. Table 4 below shows the 2010 BAU Project GHG Emissions and Table 5 below shows the 2020 Project GHG Emissions. As shown in these tables, the 2020 projected GHG emissions are a 20.81% reduction from 2010 BAU GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed any applicable draft GHG screening thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Table 4 2010 BAU Project -Related GHG Emissions 1VdI trio Tons Per Year MTV "t" Source 0z Q� NzQ Totali C Amortized Construction -- 53.30 Area 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Energy 1,739.26 0.07 0.02 1,747.06 Mobile 7,295.00 0.42 0.00 7,303.91 Solid Waste 77.74 4.59 0.00 174.21 Water 72.06 0.41 0.01 83.85 Sequestration 1 -278.92 Total 9,083.43 Source: CaIEEMod v.2013.2.2 (See Appendix A for model results) Note: Totals may differ slightly due to rounding Page 24 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Table 5 2020 Project -Related GHG Emissions Metric Tons Pr Yedr (1VIT1 ;r +yHa Source, Amortized Construction 44.73 Area 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 EneMy 1,642.66 0.06 0.02 1,650.01 Mobile 5,548.80 0.17 0.00 5,552.44 Solid Waste 77.74 4.59 0.00 174.21 Water 38.98 0.41 0.01 50.64 Sequestration -278.92 Total 7,193.14 % Reduction from BAU 20.81% Source: CaIEEMod v.2013.2.2 (See Appendix A for model results) Note: Totals may differ slightly due to rounding 18b. The City of Menifee has not yet adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan. The City of Menifee General Plan includes policies and measures (shown in General Plan Draft EIR GHG section Table 5.7-9) for the City to implement in support of achieving the reduction target of AB 32 and the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. The City has adopted the 2013 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), including the California Green Building Standards Code (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.06). The project would be subject to the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires new buildings to reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies for large buildings, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant -emitting finish materials. The project does not include any feature (i.e. substantially alter energy demands) that would interfere with implementation of these state and City codes and plans. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; no impact will occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project 19. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ® ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would Page 25 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source: Project Application Materials, Environmental Health Department Conditions of Approval Findings of Fact: 19a. The proposed project is for a commercial shopping center. Typically, this type of development does not require the routine use of acutely hazardous materials and will not generate hazardous waste. However, the project does include gasoline fueling pumps. The project has been conditioned by the Environmental Health Department prior to building final inspection to have construction plans reviewed and approved by the Hazardous Materials Division prior to the installation of the underground storage tank (UST) system. Environmental Health has also conditioned the project prior to building final inspection that the facility will also require a business emergency plan for the storage of hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds, or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances. The project has been conditioned by Environmental Health, that if further review of the site indicates additional environmental health issues, the Hazardous Materials Management Division reserves the right to regulate the business in accordance with applicable City Ordinances. With the above mitigation measures it is not anticipated that the project will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, during construction, hazardous materials such oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline may be transported to and used at the project site. The California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) operates programs for proper hazardous waste disposal and transport and takes enforcement actions against those who mishandle or dispose of hazardous wastes improperly. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, also requires licensed hazardous waste haulers to collect and transport hazardous wastes. Compliance with the requirements of the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health would reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Compliance with the requirements of the California DTSC and Riverside County of Environmental Health is not considered unique mitigation pursuant to CEQA. 19b. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project has been conditioned by Environmental Health prior to building final inspection, to have a business emergency plan for the storage of hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet, or 500 pounds, or for any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 19c. The proposed project does not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. The project site allows adequate emergency access. In addition, the project has been conditioned to have a business emergency plan for the storage of hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet, or 500 pounds, or for any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances. This is a standard condition of approval and is not considered unique mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Page 26 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 19d. This project proposes to construct a commercial shopping center including gasoline fueling pumps/station. There is no existing or proposed school site located within one -quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 19e. The project site and the surrounding properties that are not included on a list of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned by the Department of Environmental Health to do the following prior to building inspection: to have construction plans reviewed and approved by the Hazardous Materials Division prior to the installation of the underground storage tank (UST) system; a business emergency plan for the storage of hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds, or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances will be required; if further review of the site indicates additional environmental health issues, the Hazardous Materials Management Division reserves the right to regulate the business in accordance with applicable City Ordinances. Monitoring: Mitigation will be conducted by the Department of Environmental Health during the plan check process. 20. Airports El ❑ ❑ a) Result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan? b) Require review by the Airport Land Use ❑ ❑ ❑ Commission? c) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Source: General Plan, GIS database Findings of Fact: 20a. The project site is not located within an Airport Master Plan; therefore, the project will not result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan. Therefore, there is no impact. 20b. The project site is not located within an Airport Master Plan; therefore, the project will not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission. Therefore, there is no impact. 20c. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan; therefore, the project will not create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area in reference to a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there is no impact. Page 27 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 20d. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or heliport, and therefore would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 21. Hazardous Fire Area ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: General Plan, Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) Findings of Fact: 21a. According to the City of Menifee General Plan, Exhibit S-6, "High Fire Hazard Areas," the proposed development site is not located within a Hazardous Fire Area. No impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project 22. Water Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? b) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? d) Create or contribute runoff water that would ❑ ® ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Page 28 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ h) Include new or retrofitted stormwater Treatment ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. water quality treatment basins, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Source: Riverside County Flood Control District, City Engineering Department, Riverside County Land Information System Findings of Fact: 22a. The subject property is relatively flat and no streams, channels, lake beds, or rivers are located on site. The site drains in a northerly direction to Salt Creek which serves as a regional drainage facility. According to the Flood Hazard Report, Salt Creek is considered an adequate outlet and no mitigation for increased run-off will be required of this development. Therefore, the project shall not substantially change the drainage pattern of the site or result in an increase in erosion or siltation either on or off site. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 22b. Currently, the project proposes to direct onsite flows to catch basins that will convey water quality flows to enhanced swales proposed along the western boundary of the project. Calculations and exhibits supporting the size and design of aforementioned swales have been submitted to the District to supplement the Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). According to the additional information provided, the proposed size of the swales appears to be sufficient for adequate mitigation of the impacts. The swales within the site shall be maintained by the developer until an entity is formed or an existing entity accepts the swales for maintenance. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer will be required to submit a copy of the project specific Water Quality Management Plan to the Engineering Department for review and approval. In addition, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, Best Practice Management improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to provide to the Building Department evidence of compliance with the N.P.D.E.S. (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement and to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of "ONE" acre or larger. The owner/operator would comply by submitting a "Notice of Intent' (NOI), develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. It is anticipated that adherence to the requirements enumerated above would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 22c. The development of the proposed project, a commercial center on approximately 16.35 acres, would not require a significant amount of water usage based on land use estimations. It is not anticipated that the groundwater supply would be substantially depleted by the development of this project. The Applicant will be required to obtain a "will serve" letter from the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) prior to the issuance of building permits. The EMWD will utilize a mix of local groundwater and import water to serve the project area. The project site was identified as conforming Page 29 of 50 L_ Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated to its Commercial Retail land use designation set in the General Plan. Impacts to groundwater supply were previously analyzed and considered in the General Plan EIR and no new or additional impacts to groundwater supply would occur. 22d. The subject property is relatively flat and no streams, channels, lake beds, or rivers are located on site. The site drains in a northerly direction to Salt Creek to the north, which serves as a regional drainage facility. According to the Flood Hazard Report, Salt Creek is considered an adequate outlet and no mitigation for increased run-off will be required of this development. The proposed project will utilize enhanced swales to treat water before it enters into the Salt Creek. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology Study has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and based on those documents, the mitigation is anticipated to adequately mitigate for water quality; however, final reports and plans will be required. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer will be required to submit a copy of the project specific Water Quality Management Plan to the Engineering Department for review and approval. In addition, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, Best Practice Management improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 22e-f. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood zone according to the County GIS system. Therefore, the proposed project shall not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there is no impact. 23g. The proposed project is not anticipated to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. To avoid the substantial degradation of water quality, the project has been conditioned by Engineering - Grading, prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits, to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, by developing and implementing a storm water pollution prevention plan, as well as a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. The project has also been conditioned by the Engineering Department, to submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan prior to grading permit issuance for review and approval. It should be noted that a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology Study have been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and based on those reports, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to water quality. The Final WQMP addresses post -development water quality impacts from new development and re -development projects. These are standard conditions of approval and are not considered unique mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 22h. The proposed project will include the construction of new or retrofitted stormwater Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. water quality treatment basins, constructed treatment wetlands). Prior to grading permit issuance, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, BMP improvement plans and any other necessary documentation along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review. The plans must receive Engineering Department approval prior to the issuance of grading permits to ensure that the operation of the BMP's shall not result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer will be required to submit a copy of the project specific Water Quality Management Plan to the Engineering Department for review and Page 30 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated approval. In addition, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, Best Practice Management improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to provide to the Building Department evidence of compliance with the N.P.D.E.S. (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement and to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of "ONE" acre or larger. The owner/operator would comply by submitting a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. Monitorinq: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Engineering Department and Building Department. 23. Floodplains Degree of Suitability in 100-Year Floodplains. As indicated below, the appropriate Degree of Suitability has been checked. NA - Not Applicable ® U - Generally Unsuitable ❑ R - Restricted ❑ a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? b) Changes in absorption rates or the rate and ❑ ❑ ❑ amount of surface runoff? c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Dam Inundation Area)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑ water body? Source: Riverside County Flood Control District, Riverside County Land Information System Findings of Fact: 23a. The proposed project is not located within a 100 year flood plain. Therefore, the project shall not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site within a floodplain. Therefore, there is no impact. 23b. The project is not within a 100-year Floodplain. Therefore, the project shall not result in changes in absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff within a floodplain. Therefore, there is no impact. 23c. The project is not within a 100-year Floodplain. Therefore, the project shall not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam within a floodplain. Therefore, there is no impact. Page 31 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 23d. The project is not within a 100-year Floodplain. Therefore, the project shall not result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body within a Floodplain. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project 24. Land Use ❑ ❑ a) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence ❑ El and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries? Source: Ordinance No. 348, City of Menifee General Plan Findings of Fact: 24a-b. The project site is currently vacant. The implementation of this project will result in the construction of a total of 187,562 square feet of building area on 16.14 net acres. This development is comprised of a commercial shopping center with three (3) major stores ranging in size from 16,000 sq. ft. to 34,700 sq. ft., one (1) "shops®: 6,500 sq. ft., five (5) one-story commercial pads/outparcel buildings ranging in size from 3,850 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft., one (1) gas service station with a car wash, lube center, gas canopy and a convenience store, one (1) gym at 38,000 sq. ft., and one (1) four-story 40,532 sq. ft. hotel with 70 rooms. The proposed project conforms to the present land use of the area. There are existing commercial uses directly to the south of the site and across 1-215 to the west are Countryside Marketplace and other commercial operations. In addition, the project site is part of the Menifee Villages Specific Plan and portions of the Specific Plan have already been developed. Thus, the project would be further developing the vision of that Specific Plan. The proposed project meets the requirements of the General Plan designation of Specific Plan that reflects the adopted Menifee Village Specific Plan. The project is consistent with the land use designations, design guidelines and requirements of the Specific Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 25. Planning ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be consistent with the site's existing or proposed zoning? b) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be compatible with existing and planned ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding land uses? d) Be consistent with the land use designations and ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 32 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated policies of the Comprehensive General Plan (including those of any applicable Specific Plan)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Source: Riverside County Land Information System, City of Menifee General Plan, Staff review Findings of Fact: 25a. The proposed project is consistent with the site's zoning classification, Specific Plan 158, Planning Area 1-1 (Commercial). All standards and requirements of the Planning Area 1-1 zoning code and development standards per the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and zoning code text change have been met; thus, no impacts would occur. 25b. The project site is surrounded by properties which are zoned Specific Plan (SP 158, Planning Area 1-2, Medium High Density Residential) to the north and east, Specific Plan (SP 158, Planning Area 2-7, Commercial ) to the south, and Specific Plan (SP 248, Planning Area 1, Retail/Commercial) to the west. The existing Planning Area 1-1 (Commercial) zoning classification of the project site is compatible with these surrounding classifications. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Specific Plan 158 evaluated land use compatibility impacts and determined that land uses were in fact comptable. Since this project is an implementation of one planning area of the Specific Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated in regard to surrounding zoning. 25c. The project site is currently vacant and characterized by flat terrain. To the north and east, the General Plan has designated the properties as Specific Plan (Menifee Villages) which designates the area as Medium -High Residential. To the south and west, the properties are designated as Specific Plan (Menifee Villages) which designates the area as Commercial. The proposed use of the site is compatible with all existing surrounding land uses and conforms to the existing General Plan land use designation for the project site. 25d. The project site is designated Specific Plan (Menifee Villages) which designates the area as Commercial. The project is consistent with this land use designation. The project is located within the Menifee California Specific Plan. The Specific Plan prescribes the land use and design guidelines for the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan land use of the site and with all applicable policies and guidelines of the Specific Plan. Therefore, there is no impact. 25e. The properties surrounding the site are currently developed with commercial and residential uses. The project site itself is vacant and is bounded by Interstate 215 to the west, Antelope Road to the east and Newport Road to the south. Therefore, the proposed project is not disrupting or dividing the physical arrangement of an established community. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project 26. Mineral Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 33 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area classified or designated by the State that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ED important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a ❑ ❑ ❑ State classified or designated area or existing surface mine? d) Expose people or property to hazards from ❑ ❑ proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines? Source: City of Menifee General Plan Findings of Fact: 26a-d. According to the City of Menifee General Plan, the project site is located within an MRZ3 (Mineral Resource Zone) classification, which indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. In addition, no mineral resources have been identified on the project site and there is no historical use of the site or surrounding area for mineral extraction purposes. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. NOISE Would the project result in Definitions for Noise Acceptability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate Noise Acceptability Rating(s) has been checked. NA - Not Applicable A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 27. Airport Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA® A❑ B❑ C❑ D❑ b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA® A❑ B❑ C❑ D❑ Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Findings of Fact: Page 34 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 27a. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within approximately two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The development of the proposed project will not expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels associated with a public airport. 27b. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The development of the proposed project will not expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels associated with a private airport. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 28. Railroad Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ NA® A❑ B❑ C❑ D❑ Source: City of Menifee General Plan, Google Earth, Site Visit Findings of Fact: 28a. The project site is not located in close proximity to a railroad track, and will not be impacted by railroad noise. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 29. Highway Noise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ NA❑ A® B❑ C❑ D❑ Source: On -site Inspection, Project Application Materials, Site Visit, City of Menifee General Plan, Findings of Fact: 29a. The project is located northerly of Newport Road which is designated as an Urban Arterial with a 152 foot right-of-way. The project is also east of Interstate 215. Noise levels will be elevated within the vicinity of the project due to the location of the site adjacent to these major roadways. However, the project proposes commercial uses which are considered less sensitive to noise levels. The project also includes a hotel. Hotel guests may experience higher levels of noise. The project has been conditioned by Planning prior to building permit issuance to have an acoustical study performed which outlines methods by which interior sound levels within the buildings shall be maintained at nor more than 45 db(A) and that airborne sound insulation methods will comply with Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code. The study shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Agency, Office of Industrial Hygiene for review and comment and forwarded to the Planning Department for approval. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: An acoustical study performed which outlines methods by which interior sound levels within the buildings shall be maintained at nor more than 45 db(A) and that airborne sound insulation methods will comply with Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code. The study shall be submitted to Page 35 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated the Environmental Health Services Agency, Office of Industrial Hygiene for review and comment and forwarded to the Planning Department for approval. Monitorinq: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Planning Department and Office of Industrial Hygiene during the plan check process. 30. Noise Effects on or by the Project ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the roject? b) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: 30a. The project shall result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; however, this impact is not anticipated to be substantial. The project is located adjacent to Interstate 215 and Newport Road, and due to the existing traffic and related vehicular noise, noise levels in the project vicinity are currently elevated. There are residential uses to the east of the project site located across Antelope Road. The project has been conditioned by Planning to limit facility related noise, as projected to any portion of any surrounding property containing a "habitable dwelling, hospital, school, library or nursing home must not exceed the following worst -case noise levels 45 dB(A) —10 minute noise equivalent level, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB(A)-10 minute noise equivalent level, between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The permit holder may also be required to submit to periodic noise monitoring reports as determined by the Building Department as part of a code enforcement action. Therefore, due to the existing noise levels in the project vicinity and with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will result in a substantial permanent increase of noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 30b. Short-term construction -related noise impacts may occur during project grading and construction. However, the impacts are temporary and considered less than significant. Time limits on construction involving the operation of powered equipment are established by Ordinance 457.90, Section 1G, which states the following: "Whenever a construction site is within one -quarter (.25) a mile of an occupied residence(s), no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May." Exceptions to these standards Page 36 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated shall be allowed only with the written consent of the Director of Building. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 30c. The proposed project shall not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. In order to limit exposure of people within the hotel to noise levels in excess of standards, the project has been conditioned by Planning, prior to building permit issuance to have an acoustical study performed which outlines methods by which interior sound levels within the buildings shall be maintained at nor more than 45 db(A) and that airborne sound insulation methods will comply with Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code. The study shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Agency, Office of Industrial Hygiene for review and comment and forwarded to the Planning Department for approval. In addition, there are residential uses located to the east of the project site across Antelope Road. The project has been conditioned that exterior noise levels created by the proposed project, as projected to any portion of any surrounding property containing a sensitive receptor, shall not exceed 45 db(A) 10-minute LEQ, between the hours of 10:00pm to 7:OOam, and 55 db(A) at all other times. The project has also been conditioned to submit to periodic noise monitoring reports to insure that noise levels meet these standards. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 30d. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in excessive ground -born vibration or noise. Some vibration may be caused during construction by the use of construction equipment and vehicles; however, residents to the east of the site are not anticipated to be substantially affected due to the distance from the site. The proposed project is not anticipated to expose a person to excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned by Planning to limit facility related noise, as projected to any portion of any surrounding property containing a "habitable dwelling, hospital, school, library or nursing home must not exceed the following worst -case noise levels 45 dB(A) — 10 minute noise equivalent level, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB(A) — 10 minute noise equivalent level, between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The permit holder may also be required to submit to periodic noise monitoring reports as determined by the Building Department as part of a code enforcement action. The project shall also comply with the time limits on construction involving the operation of powered equipment established by Ordinance 457.90, Section 1G, which states the following: "Whenever a construction site is within one -quarter (.25) a mile of an occupied residence(s), no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May." The project has been conditioned by Planning, prior to building permit issuance to have an acoustical study performed which outlines methods by which interior sound levels within the buildings shall be maintained at nor more than 45 db(A) and that airborne sound insulation methods will comply with Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code. The study shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Agency, Office of Industrial Hygiene for review and comment and forwarded to the Planning Department for approval. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Planning Department and the Office of Industrial Hygiene during the plan check process. Page 37 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Lessthan Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project 31. Housing ❑ El ❑ a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Create a demand for additional housing, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ particularly housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County's median income? c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Source: Project Application Materials, GIS database, General Plan Housing Element Findings of Fact: 31a. The project will not displace any existing homes, since no structures exist on the site. Therefore, there is no impact. 31b. The proposed project will not have a significant impact related to population and housing. While the project proposes the construction of commercial uses and will create additional jobs, the General Plan has planned for this magnitude of development. The project conforms to the General Plan's designation of Specific Plan (SP) and with the Menifee Village Specific Plan; thus, regional plans and specific plans have already accounted for impacts associated with the commercial and employment growth that will occur with implementation of this project. Additionally, the jobs created by this project, when viewed from an area -wide perspective, would not create a significant demand for additional housing within the area. 31c. The proposed project is estimated to have approximately 300 employees which will result in direct employment growth. The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated employment growth of 1,700 by 2020 and 3,800 by 2035 for the City of Menifee compared to employment of 8,800 in 2008. The proposed project will result in an increase of 300 employees, approximately 18 percent of the anticipated growth by 2020 and 8 percent of the anticipated growth by 2035. The increase is within the assumptions estimated by SCAG and thus will not be substantially growth inducing. No new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure. Impacts will be less than significant. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. Page 38 of 50 L_ Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Signifcant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 32. Fire Services ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Source: General Plan Safety Element Findings of Fact: 32a. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for Fire services. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 659 which requires payment of the appropriate fees set forth in the Ordinance. Ordinance 659 sets forth policies, regulations and fees related to the funding and construction of facilities necessary to address the direct cumulative environmental effect generated by new development projects. With compliance to Ordinance 659, impacts to Fire services are viewed as less than significant. Additionally, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. As such, this project will not cause the construction that could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. Mitigation: The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 659 which requires payment of the appropriate fees set forth in the Ordinance Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 33. Sheriff Services ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Source: General Plan Findings of Fact: 33a. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) provides law enforcement and crime prevention services to the project site and City of Menifee. The RCSD operates out of stations in Perris, Elsinore and the Southwest Station for Sun City/Menifee area. Similar to fire protection services, the proposed project will incrementally increase the demand for sheriff services in the project area; however, due to its limited size, the proposed project will not create a significant impact on sheriff services. The development impact fee Ordinance 659 also collects fees for sheriff services, which is intended to offset any incremental increases in need for sheriff services. The proposed project is required to pay these development impact fees prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, with payment of the development impact fees pursuant to Ordinance 659, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on sheriff services. L- Page 39 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Mitigation: The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 659 which requires payment of the appropriate fees set forth in the Ordinance Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 34. Schools El ❑ Source: Menifee Union School District, Perris Union High School District Findings of Fact: 34a. The Menifee Union and Perris Union High School Districts provide public education services for the project area. The project proponent is conditioned to pay the school impact fees for residential uses as set forth in State Law; this requirement is a standard condition imposed on residential and commercial projects through the county and state. Fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits. With payment of school fees the potential impact is mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation: The applicant shall pay school mitigation fees. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 35. Libraries ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Source: General Plan Findings of Fact: 35a. The proposed development will have impacts on Library resources because it will generate end users. However, the development impact fee Ordinance 659 also collects fees for library services, which is intended to offset any incremental increases in need for libraries. The proposed project is required to pay these development impact fees prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation: The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 659 which requires payment of the appropriate fees set forth in the Ordinance Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 36. Health Services ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ Source: General Plan Findings of Fact: Page 40 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 37a. The project will create a less -than -significant demand for additional health services. No shortage in the provision of health care service is expected as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on health services and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. RECREATION 37. Parks and Recreation ❑ ❑ El 0 a) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? b) Would the project include the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Is the project located within a C.S.A. or recreation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and park district with a Community Parks and Recreation Plan (Quimby fees)? Source: GIS database, Ord. No. 460, Section 10.35 (Regulating the Division of Land — Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications), Ord. No. 659 (Establishing Development Impact Fees) Findings of Fact: 38a. The project does not propose the construction of recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, there is no impact. 38b. Due to the size and type of use of the proposed development, it is not anticipated that the project will individually generate significant impacts on nearby parks or recreational facilities. Since the project is a commercial development, the applicant will not be required to pay park and recreation fees and/or dedicate land for park use. Less than significant impacts would occur in relation to recreational facilities. 38c. The project will incrementally increase the use of some types of recreational facilities in the City of Menifee. However, impacts are not anticipated to reach significant levels. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 38. Recreational Trails ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: General Plan, Page 41 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Findings of Fact: 38a. According to the General Plan, no community trails are located within the project vicinity, but on - street bike lanes are designated along both Newport Road and Antelope Road. The proposed project provides for road dedication and improvements that provide for bike lanes on both Newport Road and Antelope Road. The project, as proposed, would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and implement the trails as planned for in the vicinity of the project area to serve the community. No impacts to recreational trails are associated with this project. Mitigation: No mitigation required. Monitoring: No monitoring required. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project 39. Circulation ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ® ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ altered maintenance of roads? h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's construction? i) Result in inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ access to nearby uses? j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Source: Menifee Lakes Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, dated December 20, 2007; Menifee Lakes Plaza Traffic Study Addendum, prepared by Kunzman Associates, dated June 18, 2014; Engineering Department Review Findings of Fact: 39a. The project will cause an increase in traffic in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project has been conditioned to make the following improvements in order to mitigate traffic impacts. Page 42 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at Newport Road (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Northbound: two left -turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: two left -turn lanes, one through lane, two right -turn lanes Eastbound: two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane Westbound: one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at North Project Access Drive (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Northbound: two through lanes Southbound: one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound: one right -turn lane Westbound: N/A NOTE: Driveway will be restricted to right -turns in and out only The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at Balsa Road (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Northbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound: one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane Westbound: one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at South Project Access (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Northbound: two through lanes Southbound: one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound: one right -turn lane Westbound: N/A NOTE: Driveway will be restricted to right -turns in and out only. The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at Pampas Street (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Northbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound: one left -turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Westbound: one shared left -turn, through/right-turn lane The intersection of Antelope Road (NS) at Palm Villa Drive (EW) shall be improved to provide the following geometries: Page 43 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Northbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Eastbound: one left -turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Westbound: one shared left -turn, through/right-turn lane All improvements listed are requirements for interim conditions only. Full right-of-way and roadway half sections adjacent to the property for the ultimate roadway cross-section per the City's Road Improvement Standards and Specifications must be provided. Any off -site widening required to provide these geometrics shall be the responsibility of the landowner/developer. The project has also been conditioned prior to building final inspection by Transportation to construct and install or modify traffic signals at Antelope and Pampas Street, Antelope Road and Palm Villa Drive, and Antelope and Newport Road. All analyzed intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better pursuant to the traffic study prepared for the project. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 39b. The proposal, as designed, would provide less parking than is typically required pursuant to Ordinance 348, Section 18.12. However, as analyzed in the Traffic Study Addendum provided, sufficient parking is anticipated to be provided to meet the peak demand of the uses anticipated to occupy the project based on the fluctuating peak demand of individual uses. The proposed change to the Specific Plan ordinance would formalize this reduction in parking required. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 39c. A traffic study was prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department concurred with the findings of the study relative to traffic impacts. The General Plan circulation policies require a minimum Level of Service "D", except that a Level of Service "E" may be allowed on roadways near Interstate-215. The traffic study indicated that it is possible to achieve a Level of Service "D" for all analyzed intersections by constructing the improvements listed above in 39a. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 39d-e. The project site is not located in close proximity to railroad tracks, and will not be impacted by or generate impacts on railways. The site is also not located within any airport land use plan area. In addition, the project would not be located close to any body of water where waterborne circulation is of concern. Thus, no impacts would occur to air, waterborne, or rail circulation. 39f. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and no design features were identified as hazardous or incompatible with adjacent land uses. Clearance from the Engineering Department will be required before the issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 39g. The project would contribute to the cumulative deterioration of nearby roadways. The assessment of fees, such as Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), however, would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Page 44 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 39h. As previously stated, clearance from the Engineering Department will be required before the issuance of grading permits. It is not anticipated that the development of the project would significantly inhibit traffic flow during its construction phase. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 39i. The proposed project has complied with fire and transportation requirements concerning emergency vehicle access to the site. No significant issues of concern were identified. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 39j. The project will provide bicycle racks. The project would not adversely affect policies designed to promote alternative modes of transportation within the area. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: The project has been conditioned to provide street improvements and to install traffic signals. The developer shall also pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted by the Engineering Department and Caltrans during the plan check process. 40. Bike Trails ❑ ❑ ® IT - Source: General Plan, Menifee Villages Specific Plan, Project Materials Findings of Fact: 41a. The General Plan and the Menifee Villages Specific Plan designates a Class II bike trail along Antelope Road. The developer will provide a striped eight foot wide bike lane within the street consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan requirements. With the incorporation of this designated trail, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project 41. Water ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Source: Riverside County Land Information System, Environmental Health Department review, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) review Page 45 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Findings of Fact: 42a-b. The proposed project is within the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) water services area. Service to the proposed project will be dependent upon the available capacity of the EMWD systems at the time service agreements are made with the purveyor. The project may result in the expansion of water facilities. The project is proposing Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) water and sewer service. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that all requirements to obtain water and sewer service are met with EMWD, as well as, all other applicable agencies. Mitigation: The developer shall meet all requirements to obtain water service with EMWD, as well as, all other applicable agencies. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 42. Sewer ❑ ® ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ® ❑ ❑ treatment provider that serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Source: Department of Environmental Health Review, Environmental Health Department review, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) review Findings of Fact: 43a-b. The proposed project is located within the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sewer services area. Service to the proposed project will be dependent upon the available capacity of the EMWD systems at the time service agreements are made with the purveyor. The project may affect sewer systems. The project is proposing Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) water and sewer service. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that all requirements to obtain water and sewer service are met with EMWD, as well as, all other applicable agencies. Mitigation: The developer shall meet all requirements to obtain sewer service with EMWD, as well as, all other applicable agencies. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted during the Building plan check process. 43. Solid Waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Page 46 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)? Source: Department of Waste Management review Findings of Fact: 44a-b. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional area of the Riverside County Waste Management Department. Waste Management, Inc. provides solid waste service to the project area. The majority of collected waste is hauled to the Perris transfer station and disposed in the Lamb Canyon Landfill. The Lamb Canyon landfill is classified as a Class 3, Solid Waste Municipal Landfill suitable for disposal of non -hazardous and general municipal waste. The landfill is owned and operated by the County of Riverside. The project is not expected to significantly contribute to the area's solid waste disposal needs and there is adequate capacity at the Lamb Canyon landfill to dispose of the solid waste generated by the proposed project. All local, state, and federal guidelines regarding solid waste will be satisfied during project construction and after completion. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitiqation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No mitigation is required. 44. Utilities a) Would the project impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? a) Electricity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Natural gas? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Street lighting? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: General Plan. Findings of Fact: 45a-h. Implementation of the project will result in an incremental system capacity demand for energy systems, communication systems, storm water drainage systems, street lighting systems, maintenance of public facilities, including roads and potentially other governmental services. Each of the utility systems, including collection of solid waste, is available at the project site and lines will have to be extended onto the site, which will already be disturbed by grading and other construction activities. These impacts are considered less than significant based on the availability of existing Page 47 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated public facilities that support local systems. The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. Compliance with the requirements of Southern California Edison, Eastern Municipal Water District, Verizon, Engineering Department, and Riverside County Transportation Department will ensure that potential impacts to utility systems are reduced to a non -significant level. Based on data available at this time, no offsite utility improvements will be required to support this project, other than improvement of local roadways, sewer lines and drainage facilities. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 45. Does the project have the potential to substantially ❑ ® ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 46. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 47. Does the project have impacts which are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Page 48 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 48. Does the project have environmental effects that will ❑ ❑ ED El cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Source: Staff review, project application Findings of Fact: The proposed project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: City of Menifee General Plan Final EIR Menifee Lakes Plaza Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 40567 The following technical studies were review and the findings and recommendations contained therein were incorporated into the analysis of this Initial Study: Geotechnical Evaluation and Additional Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development Northwest Corner of Antelope Road and Newport Road, Menifee Area, Riverside County, California (Geological Report No. 1635), prepared by Global Geo- Engineering, Inc., dated June 21, 2005. PD-A 4079 `A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment" prepared by Jean A. Keller, dated January 2006 Menifee Lakes Plaza Focused Traffic Analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, dated August 2, 2007 Page 49 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Signifcant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated PDB04214 "MSHCP Compliance Report", prepared by Principe and Associates, dated December 20, 2005. Air Quality Analysis for Menifee Lakes Plaza, prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates, dated June 2006. Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: Location: City of Menifee Planning Department 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Page 50 of 50 Addendum to EA 40567