The URL can be used to link to this page

PC16-263Resolution No. PC 16-263 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 2015-099 FOR THE SHOPS AT NEWPORT LOCATED SOUTH OF NEWPORT ROAD, EAST OF WINTERHAWK ROAD AND WEST OF BRADLEY ROAD Whereas, on April 29, 2015, the applicant, BDG Architects, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for a Plot Plan for the construction and operation of a new 9,750 sq. ft. multi -tenant office, restaurant and retail building with drive -through on a 1.77 gross acre project site located at the south of Newport Road, east of Winterhawk Road and west of Bradly Road within the City of Menifee; and Whereas, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study ("IS") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") have been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and Whereas, between April 15, 2016 and May 6, 2016, the twenty-(20)-day public review period for the draft IS/MND 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, one comment letter on the IS/MND was received during the public review period; and Whereas, on May 11, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise), an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and continued the open public hearing to June 8, 2016 in order to allow staff time to review and respond to the comment letter; and, Whereas, on June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held the continued open public hearing on the Project, which hearing was not required to be re -noticed for the June 8, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, because the project was continued to a date certain (i.e., June 8, 2016) at the May 11, 2016 hearing, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents; and, Whereas, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and 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/MND which would require re -circulation; and, Whereas, the mitigated negative declaration/initial study has not been substantially revised as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 and does not require re -circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee resolves as follows: Resolution No PC IS/MND for the PP 2015-099 May 11, 2016 The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the draft MND, 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"), which a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" 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 MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. 4. The MND, all documents referenced in the MND, 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 adopts an MND for the project including but not limited to the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan as attached to the MND. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 811 day of June, 2016. Attest: 4Jeiferllen, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to form: Ajit Kind, Assistant City Attorney Scott A. Mann Mayor Greg August Mayor Pro Tern John V. Denver Councilmember Matthew Liesemeyer Councilmember Lesa Sobek Councilmember 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Phone 951.67z.6777 Fax 951.679.3843 www.cityofrnenifee.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. PC16-263 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of June, 2016 by the following vote: Ayes: Karwin, Madrid, Phillips, Thomas Noes: None Absent: Doty Abstain: None ennifer Allen, Deputy City Clerk c�Y CITY OF MENIFEE CEQA Environmental Checklist Form ENIE . • - it'r S 1. Project Title: Planning Application No, PP 2015-099 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 3. Contact person and phone number: Lisa Gordon, Planning Manager (951) 672-6777 4. Project Location. South side of Newport Avenue between Bradley Road and Winterhawk Road in the City of Menifee, California (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context and Vicinity Map) A. Total Project Area: 1.77 acres (56,628 gross square feet), Building Area: 2,200 square feet (Restaurant w/ Drive Thru); 3,490 square feet (office); and 4,060 square feet (Restaurant). B. Assessor's Parcel No: 360-030-025 and 360-030-D26 C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2006 Page 868, Grid G2 D. Section, Township & Range: Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian E. Latitude: 33" 41' 04.45" N Longitude: 117" 11' 27.58" W F. Elevation: 1,440' AMSL 5. Project Applicant/Owners: Newport Road, LP 4909-405 Murphy Canyon Road San Diego, California 92123 E ng i neerl Representative, Burghard Design Group, Inc. 27258 Via Industria Temecula, California 92590 6. General Ilan Land Use Designation: Specific Plan (Cal Neva Specific Plan - SP 208) 7. Zoning District: Specific Plan Zone No. 208, Planning Area 3-5 (C-P-S) 8. Project Description: Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 is a proposal to construct a 9,750 square foot commerciallretail building on 1.77 acres. The proposed building will include a 2,200 square foot restaurant with drive-thru window, 3,490 square feet of office space, and 4,060 square feet of retail space. The site is located on the south side of Newport Road between Bradley and Winterhawk Road in the City of Menifee. Based on Ordinance 348 standards, the total required parking is 75 spaces, plus six (6) spaces for stacking. There are a total of 100 parking spaces provided, including the six (6) spaces for stacking and four (4) parking spaces for persons with disabilities. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 1 Primary and secondary access to the project site will be provided via three existing 36-foot driveways currently associated with use of the existing gas station/convenience store uses to the west and east of the proposed site. These driveways will provide ingresslegress from Newport Avenue, Winterhawk Road and Bradley Road; however, primary access to the site will be provided via the Newport Avenue driveway while secondary access to the site will be provided via the Winterhawk and Bradley Road driveways. The project site consists of 77,078 gross square feet and proposes approximately 8,145 square feet (of landscaping within and around the perimeter of the project site. Ordinance 348 also requires a minimum eleven percent (11 %) of the interior parking area to be landscaped, as well as a minimum fifty percent (50%) of parking stall shading. The project meets these requirements, All trees, shrubs, and ground cover are of low to moderate water demand. Gradina and Drainage The project site is currently vacant. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site has been previously disturbed. The Geotechnical Investigation provides recommendations for earthwork and site preparation; removal and recompaction; import soils for grading; temporary stability of removal excavations; fill placement and compaction; trench backfill and compaction; foundation selection and floor slabs; structural setbacks; corrosivity to concrete and metal; pavement recommendations; control of surface water and drainage; and slope landscaping and maintenance.' Drainage improvements include improvements such as on -site storm drain inlets, interior floor drains, and pervious landscaping. Drainage from the project site generally flows to the northeast and flows from the project will be directed toward and connect to an existing storm drain at the northeast corner of the site under the existing sidewalk. 9_ Surrounding Land Uses & Environmental Setting; The subject site is comprised of a single parcel located on the south side of Newport Road between Bradley and Winterhawk Road in the City of Menifee. The proposed project site is vacant. The property has been previously disturbed and supports a sparse covering of non-native grasses and forbs. No shrubs or trees occur on the project site. Topographically, the study area is generally flat and level with a gentle slope downward from the southwest to the northeast. The elevation ranges from 1,440 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to a minimum of 1,430 feet AMSL. No jurisdictional drainages are located within the site boundary. The surrounding area is part of the Cal Neva Specific Plan and is a mixture between residential, commercial, institutional, and vacant land uses. To the south is vacant property. To the north is the Newport Plaza Shopping Center. To the east is an existing gas station and convenience store. To the west is an existing McDonald's fast-food restaurant. Table 1 (Surrounding Land Uses) lists the different uses that are located immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Cal Neva Specific Plan Specific Plan Zone Vacant North Cal Neva Specific Plan Specific Plan Zone Newport Plaza Shopping Center South Cal Neva Specific Plan Specific Plan Zone Vacant East Cal Neva Specific Plan S ecific Plan Zone Gas Station, Convenience Store West Cal Neva Sped fic Plan Specific Plan Zone Fast -Food Restaurant Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 2 10. Required Approvals & Other Pubic Agency Whose Approval is Required: Plot Plan Statewide General Construction Permit Grading Permit Building Permits Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 3 � Project Site Hogke'|re|and Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Regional ' Otto Seale Exhibit 1Regional and Vicinity Map PP2U1S'O00Shops atNewport /Nen|fee California 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 ❑ GeologylSoils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ 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 ❑ GeologylSoils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources nNoise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ® 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 Z GeologylSoils ® Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® HydroiogyAA/ater Quality ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ® Population and Housing E Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Trans portationlTraffic 0 Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would have "No Impact" by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ GeologylSoils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ HydrologyAlVater Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ® Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ® Recreation ❑ TransportationfFraffic ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 5 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAMATION will be prepared. 0 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 have been made by 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. rl I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. April 11, 2016 Signature Date Lisa Gordon, Planning Manager Printed Name Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 6 -- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone), A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below,_may be cross-referenced). 5) 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. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 7 Issues: I. AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ 0 ❑ 0 outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ❑C ❑ nighttime views in the area? a) No Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). The natural mountainous setting of the Menifee area is critical to its overall visual character, and provides scenic vistas for the community. Topography and a lack of dense vegetation or urban development offer scenic views throughout the City, including to and from hillside areas. Scenic features include gently sloping alluvial fans, rugged mountains and steep slopes, mountain peaks and ridges, rounded hills with boulder outcrops, farmland and open space. Scenic vistas provide views of these features from public spaces. Many of the scenic resources are outside the City limits and beyond the planning area boundary. Scenic views from Menifee include the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa, Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. The Canyon Lake Reservoir is adjacent to the City's western boundary, The proposed project is located on a vacant, previously disturbed site one mile west of 1-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial and vacant land uses, and surface street features, This site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista.2 3 Development of the vacant site with the proposed commercialfretail development, parking features, and landscaping elements will have no effect on a scenic vista. As such, the proposed project will result in no impact with regard to view of a scenic vista. b) No Impact. While the project is not adjacent to an officially designated state scenic highway, it is located one mile west of an eligible state scenic highway (1-215) as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System" a However, the project site is located in a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features, and contains no scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, significant trees, or historical buildings. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources will occur_ c) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 lby substantial changes to the existing Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 8 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 will result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the area. Construction activities will require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the project site. However, construction activities are temporary and will not result in any permanent visual impact. The site has been previously disturbed and contains minimal, sparse vegetation. The proposed project is located within the Cal Neva Specific Plan (SP 208), which includes Design Guidelines as well as 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, planter islands, and parking dividers to create a dynamic internal landscape_ Impacts on landscaping will be less than significant. The proposed project site has been previously disturbed and is currently vacant. The area surrounding the proposed project site is an area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses. To the south is vacant property. To the north is the Newport Plaza Shopping Center. To the east is an existing gas station and convenience store, To the west is an existing McDonald's fast-food restaurant. Upon project completion, the proposed project will consist of a restaurant with drive thru window, an additional restaurant with no drive thru, office/retail space, associated parking, and landscaping improvements. The restaurant will consist of 2,200 square feet of floor area, the office space will consist of 3,490 square feet of floor area, and the second restaurant use will consist of 4,060 square feet of floor area. All buildings will be consistent with City design and building height requirements and limitations_ The proposed project will change the visual character of the project site by adding structures and landscaping; however, the design will comply with the Cal Neva Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines of the City and thus will blend with the characteristics of the adjacent urban community. With incorporation of the specified design features, the project will have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the site and its surroundings. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting ran 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 operation of the facility and parking lot as well as from wall mounted signs. The wall mounted signs would not direct any lighting towards the single-family residences to the south and southeast. 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_ A maximum of 8,100 total lumens per acre or per parcel if less than 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 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. liahtina. and sianaae that convevs a positive image of the community (CD-6) and that limit Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 9 light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD- 6.5). Lighting proposed by the project complies with Menifee Municipal Code Section 6.01 and General Plan goals. Accordingly, 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. Exterior paint colors will be non - reflective by applying earth tone colored stucco and accents to the buildings. There are no exposed metal or other materials proposed that could result in a substantial amount of glare, Given the minimal use of glare -inducing materials in the design of the proposed buildings for the project, reflective glare impacts will be less than significant. 11, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No Impact RESOURCES: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and flange Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ []R ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ j, ❑ ❑x contract? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ d 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 ❑ a ❑ � conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 10 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ x[] ❑ Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on a vacant site one mile west of I- 215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The map of Important Farmland in California (2012) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the proposed project site as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.6 However, the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the FMMP.7 The project site is located within the Cal Neva Specific Plan area and has been designated for development accordingly. The City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that will serve the growing population, Thus, Menifee's future development emphasizes mixed -use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable.$ Therefore, impacts to Farmland will be less than significant. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act Contracts are active for the proposed project site. The project site is zoned Specific Plan No_ 208, Planning Area 3-5 (C-P-S- Scenic Highway Commercial), which is for commercial uses. Therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact will occur. c) No Impact. 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 and mostly unvegetated. Therefore, development of this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning. d) No Impact. The proposed project site is vacant and mostly unvegetated; 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. e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on a vacant site one mile west of I- 215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The project site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance; however, the site is designated for development as part of the Cal Neva Specific Plan. The site is not currently being used for agriculture_ Moreover, the City is focused on developing land in an economically productive way that will serve the growing population. Thus, Menifee's future development emphasizes mixed -use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable.1° Development of this project will not change the existing environment in a manner that will result in the conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural land or forest land to non -forest land. Less than significant impacts will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 11 III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 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 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? a) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintaining existing compliance with applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP." Consistency review is presented below: (1) The proposed project will result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated by the Air Quality Analysis conducted for the proposed site12 summarized in Section III et seq of this report; therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and will not cause a new air quality standard violation. (2) The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General flan Elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and off -shore drilling facilities. This project does not involve a General Plan Amendment and is not considered a significant project. According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared for the proposed project and the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project will not conflict with the AQMP; less than significant impacts will occur. .Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 12 b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions substantially contribute to existing or project air quality violations. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, where efforts to attain state and federal air quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the state of California (state) and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as 'criteria pollutants'). These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS are more stringent than the national AAQS. Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the air basin. Areas that are in nonattainment with respect to federal or state AAQS are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. Table 2 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status — Riverside County) summarizes the attainment status in the project area for the criteria pollutants, Discussion of potential impacts related to short-term construction impacts and long-term area source and operational impacts are presented below. Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status — Riverside County Pollutant Federal State 03 (1-hr) NIA Nonattainment 03 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PMi0 Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 1 Nonattainment Nonattainment Co Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment S02 Attainment Attainment P13 Attainment Nonattainment Source: CaIEPA Air Resources Board. State and National Area Designation Maps. 2015. Construction Emissions The proposed project will result in construction -related and operational emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions will substantially contribute to existing or project air quality violations. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report was prepared for the project by First Carbon Solutions on September 1, 2015 (See Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis Report). The report includes an air quality impact analysis with respect to CEQA significance thresholds. The responses below are based on the analysis included in the report. Table 3 (Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbslday without Mitigation)) summarizes the results of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Emissions Analysis Report. Based on the results of the report, maximum daily emissions from the construction of the proposed project will not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in the summer and winter of 2016, As such, impacts will be less than significant. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 13 Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Ibslday without Mitigation) Year ROG NOx CO SOz PM-10 PM-2.5 Summer 2016 23.45 25.81 16.97 0.02 4.10 2.64 Winter 2016 23.45 25.81 %91 0.02 4,10 2.64 Threshold 75 100 550 160 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: First Carbon Solutions, 2015. Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic gases. Operational Emissions Long-term emissions are evaluated at build -out of a project. The project is assumed to be operational in 2017. Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result from the operation of the development. Long- term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to- and -from the residential homes, businesses and the proposed facility. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. Mobile source emissions refer to on -road motor vehicle emissions generated from the project's traffic. These emissions are estimated by using the trip generation provided in the project -specific Traffic Study.13 Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of the proposed structure. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. Operational emissions are summarized in Table 5 (Long -Term Daily Emissions (Ibslday))_ As shown in Table 5, Long-term emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD; impacts would be less than significant. Table 5 Long -Term Daily Emissions (lbslday) Source ROG NOx CO SO;! Mp PW5 Summer 2017 Area Sources 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Demand 0.05 0.48 0.41 0.03 0.04 0.04 Mobile Sources 7.87 11,50 48.96 0.08 5.13 1.45 Summer Total 8.19 11.98 49.38 0.08 6.13 1.48 Winter 2017 Area Sources 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Demand 0.05 0,48 0.41 0.03 0,04 0.04 Mobile Sources 7.74 11.85 50.93 0.07 5.13 1.49 Winter Total B.06 12.33 51.35 0.08 5.13 1.49 Threshold 55 1 55 560 1660 160 65 Potential Impact? No No Na J No No No Source: First Carbon Solutions, 2015 Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive or anic compounds Localized Significance Threshold Analysis As part of the SCAQMD's environmental justice program, attention has been focused on localized effects of air quality. Staff at SCAQM❑ developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology that can be used by public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts (both short- and long-term)." LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). Analysis of emissions in light of LSTs is a voluntary process and considering the relatively small size of the project site and the routine construction and operational characteristics of the project, impacts related to LSTs will be less than significant. Planning Application No_ PP 2015-099 Page 14 c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative short-term, construction -related emissions and longterm, operational emissions from the project would not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative air quality impact because short-term project and operational emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. As is required of the proposed project, other concurrent construction projects and operations in the region would be required to implement standard air quality regulations and mitigation pursuant to State CFQA requirements. Such measures include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires daily watering to limit dust and particulate matter emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population that are most susceptible to poor air quality such as children, the elderly, the sick, and athletes who perform outdoors. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, outdoor athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest land uses that are considered sensitive receptors are existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 460 feet to the southeast of the project site. The proposed commercial retail center will not generate toxic pollutant emissions as discussed in detailed below. Therefore, in regard to toxic pollutant emissions, the proposed retail center will have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. Carlson Monoxide Hotspots A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential for violation of state and federal CO standards at study area intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The potential for violation of state and federal CO standards at study area intersections and exposure to sensitive receptors at those intersections is addressed using the methodology outlined in the California Department of Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol). Section numbers for the CO Protocol are provided in parenthesis for ease of reference. In general, SCAQMD and the California Department of Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol recommend analyzing CO hotspots when a project has the potential to result in higher CC concentrations within the region and increase traffic congestion at an intersection operating at level of service (LOS) D or worse by more than two percent. There has been a decline in CO emissions over the past two decades even though vehicle miles traveled on U-S. urban and rural roads have increased. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per vehicle CQ emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner -burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs. Local impacts from the project need to be examined because the project is not exempt from emissions analysis as defined by the CD Protocol (31.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.9). According to the CO Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they significantly increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes (by two percent or more), significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes, or reduce average speeds on uninterrupted roadway segments (increase delays at intersections for interrupted roadway segments) (4.7.1). Based on the project traffic analysis that identifies net traffic volume changes between the existing parking use and the proposed retail center, the proposed project would not increase vehicles operating in cold start mode In the morning, evening, or Saturday peak hours by more than two percent at any of traffic study intersections. Furthermore, the project does not meet any of the special conditions that may be a cause of concern for air quality impacts such as urban street canyons, high percentages of gasoline -powered heavy duty trucks in the project vehicle mix, high cold starts coupled with high traffic volumes, location near a significant stationary source of CO emissions, or location with a high CO background. The or000sed oroiect is satisfactory pursuant to the CO Protocol Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 page 15 because it will not result in a CO hotspot and no additional analysis is needed. Impacts to sensitive receptors due to localized carbon monoxide emissions will be less than significant. e) No Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong - smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills_ The proposed commercial retail center does not include any of the above noted uses or process; no impact would occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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 ❑X ❑ ❑ 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 on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ❑ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Planning Application No. PI' 2015-099 Page 16 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located on a vacant, previously graded site a mile west of 1-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The project site is not located within a Critical Habitat area according to the USFWS.15 The proposed project is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP, and is not within a criteria cell. The proposed project is not located within or near any MSHCP Special Linkage areas and will not interfere with the goals of the MSHCP. No vernal pools or areas suitable for vernal pool formation were observed in the study area. No features on the project site meet the MSHCP definition of riparianlriverine areas, and there is no riparian vegetation present on the site. The study area is not within a Criteria Area plant Species habitat assessment area. The study area is not within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area,'$ The proposed project is located in the MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl, and burrowing owls are known to occur near the project site. First Carbon Solutions conducted a reconnaissance level survey for burrowing owls on July 28, 2015 (See Appendix B, Burrowing Owl Reconnaissance Survey).17 The survey was conducted in accordance with survey protocols developed by the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) and the "Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area" (County 2006) per the Riverside County survey requirements, The entire project site was surveyed as well as a 500-foot buffer (survey area) surrounding the property. No active burrows or burrowing owls were observed within the project site; however, four burrowing owls and several active burrows were found within the survey area. Mitigation Measure B-1 will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls in the project area to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure B-1: Pursuant to Objective 6 and Objective 7 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, within 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre -construction presence/absence survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this presence/absence survey shall be provided in writing to the Environmental Programs Department, If it is determined that the project site is occupied by the Burrowing Owl, take of "active" nests shall be avoided pursuant to the MSHCP and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, when the Burrowing Owl is present, relocation outside of the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) by a qualified biologist shall be required. The County Biologist shall be consulted to determine appropriate type of relocation (active or passive) and translocation sites. Occupation of this species on the project site may result in the need to revise grading plans so that take of "active" nests is avoided or alternatively, a grading permit may be issued once the species has been actively relocated. If the grading permit is not obtained within 30 days of the survey a new survey shall be required, No ground disturbance, including disking, blading, grubbing or any similar activity shall occur within the site until the burrowing owl study is reviewed and approved. For any ground disturbance activities during the general bird nesting season (February 1-August 31), a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any such activities during the general bird nesting season and the results of the survey shall be provided in writing to the Environmental Programs department. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 17 b) No Impact. The proposed project site has been previously graded and is currently vacant. No riparian habitat exists on site. As such, no impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat will occur. c) No Impact. According to the federal National Wetlands Inventory, the proposed project site does not contain any wetlands.18 The proposed project will not disturb any offsite wetlands (see Section IX for discussion of project drainage features). There is no vegetation or onsite water features indicative of potential wetlands. No impact will occur. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site has been previously disturbed and is currently vacant. To the south is vacant property_ To the north is the Newport Plaza Shopping Center. To the east is an existing gas station and convenience store, To the west is an existing McDonald's fast-food restaurant. The project site contains limited vegetation, including grasses and fortis, in the context of an urbanized setting surrounded by residential, commercial, and institutional uses. There are no trees located on site. There are no substantial vegetated areas or water bodies located on -site. The project site does not provide far the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife. Less than significant impacts will occur. Impacts to nesting bird species must be avoided at all times_ The period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected breeding season for bird species occurring in the project area. If project activity or vegetation removal must be initiated during the breeding season, a qualified biologist should check for nesting birds prior to such activity. If active bird nests are found, avoidance buffers of 1,000 feet for large birds of prey, 500 feet for small birds of prey and 250 feet for songbirds, decided by FPD on a case by case basis, will need to be observed and implemented. With compliance with this condition of approval, impacts to nesting birds will be less than significant. e) No Impact. The project site vacant and is largely unvegetated. The project site does not contain any trees or other protected resources. Therefore, the proposed project shall not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, there will be no impact. f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is within the planning area of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).M19 The proposed project is located in the MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl, and burrowing owls are known to occur near the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-1 will ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less than significant levels. The project site is not within any other MSHCP survey areas and is not within a criteria cell or within or near any MSHCP Special Linkage areas, and does not contain vernal pools or riparian habitat. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP with implementation of Mitigation Measure S-1. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ❑x ❑ ❑ resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 18 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ 0 [] geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. This proposed project site does not satisfy any of the criteria for a historic resource defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not listed with the State Office of Historic Preservation or the National Register of Historic Places. 20. 2' No known historically or culturally significant resources, structures, buildings, or objects are located on the project site. As such, the proposed project will not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. No impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located on a vacant site one mile west of 1-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 9,750 square -foot commerciallretail building and associated parking and landscape improvements. The City contacted the Eastern Information Center (DIG) for a records search on prehistoric and historic cultural resources. EIC determined that a previous Phase I cultural resource study (RI-1126) identified no cultural resources within the project site and recommended that no further study was required.22 In addition, the site was previously used for agriculture according to the Phase I ESA report (See Appendix D, Phase I ESA) prepared for the project, which likely included ground disturbing activities that would likely have unearthed cultural resources at the site, if they were present. However, in response to consultation with local Native American tribes, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians submitted letters stating that the project area falls within the bounds of Tribal Traditional Use Areas and that the project site is in proximity to known sites and is considered culturally sensitive to both tribes. As such, the tribes have requested to have a Native American monitor present for all ground disturbing activities. Mitigation measures C-1 through C-5 have been applied to the proposed project to mitigate possible impacts to archeological resources. Furthermore, General Plan policies are in place to preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted by the City (QCS-5.1). impacts to buried cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures C-1: If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc. for the cultural resources. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 page 19 iii. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity. v, Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council." C-2: Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources_ The Project Archaeologist and the representatives) from the Native American Tribe (s) shall be included in the pre -grade meetings to provide cultural/historical sensitivity training including the establishment of set guidelines for ground disturbance in sensitive areas with the grading contractors. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal representative(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal representative(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Any newly discovered cultural resources shall be subject to an evaluation, in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s) and which will require the development of a treatment plan and monitoring agreement for the newly discovered resources. C-3: Native American Monitoring (Pechanga). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. The Developer shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are of Native American origin, found in the project area for proper treatment and disposition to a curational facility that meets or exceeds Federal Curation Standards outlined in 36 CFR 79, The Applicant/Permittee shall be responsible for all curation costs. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 20 C-4: Native American Monitoring (Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department, The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. The Developer shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are of Native American origin, found in the project area for proper treatment and disposition to a curational facility that meets or exceeds Federal Curation Standards outlined in 36 CFR 79. The ApplicantlPermittee shall be responsible for all Curation costs. C-5: Non -Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site, according to Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS)23, is located in Area B, denoting a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Areas classified as high sensitivity may contain buried paleontological deposits dating to the City's prehistoric and historical periods. It is possible that potentially significant prehistoric remains could be found, since buried fossils often go undetected during a walkover survey. Prehistoric remains may have been buried by erosional sediments accumulating in this area and masked by existing pavement. The project site is mapped in the General Plan as having a high potential for paleontological resources (fossils); therefore, the proposed project site grading/ea rth moving activities should be monitored for potential impacts to this resource and therefore has recommended a standard condition to prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to grading permit issuance and a monitoring program prior to issuance of the final grading permit_ Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure C-6, the likelihood that the project will directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources on site or a unique geologic feature will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure C-6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site has been previously disturbed by agricultural uses, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed project. Nevertheless, if human remains are encountered, State 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 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. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant". The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 21 the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Human remains from other ethnic/cultural groups with recognized historical associations to the project area shall also be subject to consultation between appropriate representatives from that group and the Community Development Director. Thus, compliance with the above -referenced state laws wilt reduce impacts to less than significant levels. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑C ❑ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. li) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 ❑ 0 ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ d b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil? c) 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, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Q ❑ ❑ Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a.i.) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is not located within an AI uist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.° No active faults have Planning Application No. PIP 2015-099 — page 22 �R been identified at the ground surface within City limits. The nearest active fault is the Temecula Fault Zone, which is located approximately nine and a half (9.5) miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake in the area occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The proposed buildings are subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The 2013 California Building Code (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2) contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an average return period of 2,475 years. Adherence to these requirements will reduce the potential of the building from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations will reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong ground shaking will be less than significant. a.1ii) No Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore -water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table (within 50 feet of the surface). Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur_ According to the California Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Evacuation system, the project the site is not located in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction.25 This indicates that the area has not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions do not indicate potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required. Furthermore, the Geotechnical investigation report prepared by Inland Engineering Technology, Inc. (,July 13, 2015) concluded that due to the absence of ground water in the upper 50 feet, the potential for liquefaction is low (See Appendix C, Geology and Soils Report).26 Therefore, no impacts due to the project site from seismically induced liquefaction will occur. a.iv.) No Impact. The project site is located in a suburbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no potential for landslides on the project site, No impacts to the proposed project site from landslides will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms_ The topsoil on the project site has been disturbed by past development and more recent grading activities. The project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion will be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion will be prevented through the City's standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NIDDES), such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or sandbags. Fallowing project construction, the site will be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Impacts related to soil erosion will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 23 c) Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above_ Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. As such, the soils report includes preliminary design recommendations for footings and building floor slabs. Furthermore, the project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CRC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City -approved recommendations contained in the soils report be made conditions of the building permit. Therefore, with the project's compliance to these conditions and adherence to recommendations listed in the Geotechnical Investigation, impacts arising from unstable soils will be reduced to less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The CBC requires special design considerations for foundations of structures built on soils with expansion indices greater than 20. According to Inland Engineering Technology's laboratory testing, earth materials onsite exhibit a medium expansion potential as classified in accordance with 2013 CBC Section 1802.3.2 and ASTM D4829-03, With the project's adherence to CRC design considerations and recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, impacts related to expansive soils will be considered less than significant_ e) No Impact. The project proposes to connect to the existing municipal sewer system and will not require use of septic tanks. No impact will occur. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time.27 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 Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 24 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 60° 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, and 18 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. GHG emissions for the project were analyzed in the project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions (See Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis Report). Cumulatively considerable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions are summarized in Table 6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory). The emissions inventory accounts for GHG emissions from construction activities and operational activities. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from mobile sources (transportation), energy, water use and treatment, waste disposal, and area sources. GHG emissions from electricity use are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy) that is produced offsite. Area sources are owned or controlled by the project (e.g., natural gas combustion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. Construction activities are short term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQM❑ recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions in order to generate a precise project -based GHG inventory. Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory Source GHG Emissions MT1YR CO2 CH 4 N20 TOTAL* Construction Grand Total 205.87 1 0.041 0.00 1 206.81 30-Year Amortization 6.861 0.001 a 00 1 6.89 Operational Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 208.81 0.01 0.00 209.84 Mobile 1,01171 0.04 0.00 1,012,58 Solid Waste 16.18 0.96 0.00 36.27 Water and Wastewater 9.89 0.07 0.00 11.97 Total 1,246.60 1.08 0.00 1,270.67 Total Construction + Operational 1,253.46 1.08 0.00 1,277.56 Proposed SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Screening Threshold? No Source: First Carbon Solutions, 2015 MTCO2ElYR Note: Slight variations may occur due to rounding. Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 25 A numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the Basin has not officially been adopted by the SCAQMD. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper, a non -zero threshold based on Approach 2 of the handbook will be used.2$ Threshold 2.5 (Unit -Based Thresholds Eased on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for residential and commercial projects_"' This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. 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 5-03-05. 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 will 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 will 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. Vlll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than MATERIALS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporates! Impact Impact Would the project: 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 ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ M 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 26 e) 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) (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? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within a primarily residential and commercial area of the City, and is not located in an industrial area_ The proposed project does not include a housing component and would therefore not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The proposed project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of retail use. During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at commercial uses such as office and retail space and restaurants include cleaners, pesticides, and food waste. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Regular operation and cleaning of the proposed retailloffice building would not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport and use of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. There are no open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases on or near the proposed project site." According to the Phase I Site Assessment, no on- or off -site recognized conditions were identified that were likely to impact the subject property.32 There will be no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of the proposed project. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 27 The project site is vacant thus there will be no impacts related to structures with asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. With adherence to existing regulations, the proposed project will not 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; impacts will be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. There are two schools within'/ mile of the project site. Good Shepard Lutheran School (26800 Newport Road) is located across Newport Road from the site to the northwest, and Chester W. Morrison Elementary School (30250 Bradley Road) is approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the project site. Operation of the proposed project will not generate any hazardous emissions and storage, handling, production or disposal of acutely hazardous materials is not required or proposed for any aspect of this project_ Less than significant impacts will occur with the implementation of federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous material transportation, storage, and use, d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses." Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not: ■ listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)'34 ■ listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),35 ■ listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,3$ currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB'37 or * developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.31 e-f) No Impact. There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the project site. No impact will occur. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will replace vacant land with a 9,750 square - foot commercial/retail building on 1.77 acres. All project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed building so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the building. The proposed project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Menifee Municipal Code. Primary and secondary access to the project site will be provided via three existing 35-foot driveways currently associated with use of the existing gas station and convenience stores to the west and east of the proposed site. The driveways for the commercial retail center will allow emergency access and evacuation from the site, and are constructed to California Fire Code specifications. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Construction work in the street associated with the project will be limited to lateral utility connections (i.e., sewer) that will be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Project impacts will be less than significant. h) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).39 There are no wildland conditions in the suburbanized area where the project site is located. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 28 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ � ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ ❑ d ❑ river, in a manner which would result in substantial erasion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ Q Q river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or [] ❑ ❑x provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? g) place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Q ❑ Q Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ Q ❑ x❑ flood flows? Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 29 i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? 1 0 1 ❑ 1 13 1 0 a) Less Than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential post - construction water quality impacts. Construction Impacts Three general sources of potential short-term, construction -related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth -moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment (See Appendix E, Preliminary Hydrology Study). The proposed project will disturb approximately 1.77 acres of land and therefore will be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Pursuant to the Menifee Municipal Code § 15,01.015, new development or redevelopment projects shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that will impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The project applicant's SWPP shall identify erosion control BMPS to minimize pollutant discharges during construction activities. These identified BMPS will include stabilized construction entrances, sand bagging, designated concrete washout, tire wash racks, silt fencing, and curb cut/inlet protection. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Operational Impacts Proposed construction of the commerciallretail building will increase impervious areas by replacing the vacant property with associated paving and landscaping. Landscaping is proposed as part of project design in the form of landscaped planters containing trees, shrubs, ground covers, and vines. Although the amount of impervious surfaces will be greater than existing conditions, all on -site runoff will drain towards bio-retention areas for treatment. The runoff from the bio-retention area will then drain into an existing drainage inlet located at the southwest corner of the site. The project proponent has submitted for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP identifies post - construction BMPS in addressing increases in impervious surfaces, methods to decrease incremental increases in off -site stormwater flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in off -site discharges as required by the applicable NPDES requirements (See Appendix F, Water Quality Management plan). Operational source control BMPS in the WQMP include a Flo -Gard Trash and Debris Guard to catch trash and debris and regular sweeping and proper housekeeping and maintenance of the site. Other BMPS for water quality protection include storm drain inlet controls, minimizing use of pesticides, proper containment of solid waste, draining fire sprinkler test water appropriately, and avoiding use of metals in roofs, gutters and trims that could leech into storm water. Accordingly, compliance with existing federal, state and local regulations related to water quality, including implementation of BMP's included in the project WQMP and construction SWPPP will result in impacts to water quality being less than significant, Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 30 The proposed commerciallretail building will not generate hazardous wastewater that will require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the building's interior plumbing systems will be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. b) Less Than Significant Impact. If the project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells will no longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur. The project site is located in the Menifee Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) within the Perris Hydrologic Area of the San Jacinto Valley Hydrolic Unit.40 No groundwater was encountered during the subsurface investigation conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation."' The Geotechnical Investigation report noted that groundwater at the site is more than 60 feet below ground surface (tags)_ Project -related grading will not reach these depths and no disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed building footprint and parking lot areas will increase on -site impervious surface coverage thereby reducing the total amount of infiltration on -site. Because this site is not managed for groundwater supplies, however, this change in infiltration will not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on- or off -site erosion or siltation. The project will collect and convey off -site run-off from upstream areas and convey these flows to a bioretention basin located within the site. The runoff from the bio-retention area will then drain into an existing drainage inlet located at the southwest corner of the site. A site drainage plan is required by the City of Menifee and will be reviewed by the City Engineer. The final grading and drainage plan will be approved by the City Engineer during plan check review. Erosion and siltation reduction measure BMPs contained in the required SWPPP will be implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, the project will consist of impervious surfaces, landscaped planters, a bioretention basin, and a post -construction WQMP and therefore the commercial/retail building will not be subject to substantial erosion. No streams cross the project site; thus, the project will not alter any stream course. Impacts will be less than significant. d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. No streams traverse the project site, thus, the project will not result in the alteration of any stream course. During construction, the project applicant will be required to comply with drainage and runoff guidelines pursuant to City of Menifee guidelines. With regard to project operation, construction of the proposed project will increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site because the site is currently vacant. However, on -site drainage will be directed to bioretention basins located within the site. A Preliminary Hydrology Study was prepared for the project (Adkan Engineers, 2015) which confirms that the bioretention areas have adequate capacity to convey 10-year and 100-year storm flows. The runoff from the bio-retention area will then drain into an existing drainage inlet located at the southwest corner of the site. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system will be obtained prior to construction. Therefore, the increase in discharges will not impact local storm drain capacity. The project is not an industrial use (commerciallretail building) and therefore will not result In substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs will be required to protect downstream water quality. With implementation of the BMPs as noted in Section 1X.a, other impacts from polluted runoff, such as from oil and other pollutants from parking areas, will be reduced to acceptable levels. Impacts will be less than significant. f) No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that will have the potential to otherwise degrade water quality beyond those issues discussed in Section IX herein. No impacts will occur. g) No Impact. The proposed project consists of one commercial/retail building on 1.77 acres. No housing is proposed as part of this project. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 31 h) No Impact. According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project site is not located in an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event.42 No impact will occur. i) Less Than Significant Impact. Parts of the City of Menifee are within existing dam inundation areas for three dams at Diamond Valley Lake, two dams at Canyon Lake, and one at Lake Perris Reservoir. Diamond Valley Lake is located 7.1 miles east of the project site, Canyon Lake is located 2.7 miles west of the project site, and Perris Reservoir is located 10.8 miles north of the project site. The design and construction of the dams for earthquake resistance, in combination with monitoring of the dams, reduce risks of dam failure due to earthquakes. Dam inundation impacts will be less than significant. j) No Impact. The project site is not subject to tsunami due to its elevation and distance (over 40 miles) from the ocean. There are several reservoirs in the City of Menifee associated with Menifee Lakes Country Club (south, west and northwest of the proposed project site). There is no possibility of a seiche from these reservoirs affecting the project site given the project's location being 1.3 miles from the nearest reservoir to the east. As noted in Section VI, the project site has not been identified as being in an area susceptible to landslides, thus the potential for mudflow is relatively low because the project does not lie in a landslide hazard zone and no natural rivers or streams are located in the project vicinity. No impact will occur. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact. Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community Q ❑ 0 ❑ conservation plan? a) No Impact. The proposed project is within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. To the north is the Newport Plaza Shopping Center. To the east is an existing Arco gas station, including convenience store. To the south is a vacant property. To the west is a McDonald's and a gas station with convenience store, cash for gold shop, car wash and drive-thru restaurant (Los Primos). The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not divide an established community. The project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that will physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant. The project site is designated as Cal Neva Specific Plan (SP 208) in the City's General Plan and is zoned Cal Neva Specific Plan (SP 208) Planning Area 3-5 (C-P-S- Scenic Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 32 Highway Commercial). Menifee Ordinance 348, Article 1X, Section 9.1 and Article XVll.a, Section 17.25 identifies standards that apply to uses designated as Commercial and Specific Plan in the General Plan. According to Ordinance 348, all buildings and structures shall not exceed 35 feet in height unless a height of up to 75 feet is approved pursuant to Section 18.34. In no case shall more the 50 percent of the lot be covered by buildings. The proposed project will comply with all development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Cal Neva Specific Plan (SP 208). The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement for a five (5) foot landscape planter along the right-of-way of Newport Road_ Ord_ 348, Section 18.12, b. Landscaping, General Provisions (6) Landscape Design Standards, 4., requires that "A planter at least five feet wide shall be provided adjacent to all public road right-of-ways. Any area within the road right-of-way between the edge of the walkway and outer edge of the right-of-way shall also be developed as a landscaped area in conjunction with the required planter, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Director." The applicant does not provide a five (5) foot landscaped planter adjacent to frontage along the Newport Road right- of-way line. There will be approximately fifteen feet of landscaping in the parkway along Newport Road. The project includes a five foot planter along the front of the building. Although the applicant is not providing the five foot landscaped planter adjacent to the right-of-way, they do have additional landscaping in the front of the project; and, therefore, the intent of the ordinance is met and the specific requirement for the landscape to be adjacentto the right -of --way is requested to be waived. The amount of landscaping provided along Newport Road will be consistent with what is provided on the adjacent McDonald's and Arco sites; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. The project provides parking that generally exceeds what is required by Ordinance 348, Section 18.12; however, the applicant has requested modifications to parking lot layout and parking dimensions. Pursuant to Ord. No. 348, Section 18.12, d_ "Requests for Modifications from Parking Standards", the Planning Director may without notice or hearing, permit modifications to the circulation and parking layout requirements where topographic or other physical conditions make it impractical to require strict compliance with these requirements. Pursuant to this section, the applicant is seeking relief on the requirement that no parking space shall be located within three feet of any property line; the width of end stalls; and, the length of the stacking spaces. Several parking spaces are located within three feet of interior property lines; however, all of the property is currently under one owner and reciprocal access and parking agreements will be a condition of approval on the project. The requirement for parking spaces to be located no more than three feet from property lines is more applicable to exterior property lines or where parking abuts roads. In addition, approximately four (4) end stalls have been reduced in width from the required eleven (11) feet to the requested ten (10) feet. The width of the end stalls was reduced to accommodate a landscape planter and pedestrian pathway, while still providing adequate parking for the proposed project. Increasing the width of these four stalls is considered impractical because it would shift the entire row of parking resulting in the drive aisles and adjacent parking stalls not being aligned. The final modification request relates to the dimensions of stacking spaces, which are required to be 25 ft. in length, however, the project only provides 20 feet in length for each stacking space. Due to the building orientation and because the project is an infill development, the space for a drive -through is constrained. The location of the drive -through and the stacking has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department, which includes internal traffic/circulation review and the stacking provided was justified by the Traffic Study. Increasing the length of the drive -through would result in skewing the drive aisle that connects this site to the McDonald's and the main driveway on Newport. The stacking length has therefore been determined to be acceptable. The modifications to the parking lot layout and dimensions is not anticipated to cause environmental impacts. The project will also be consistent with the City's General Plan, including policies intended to mitigate environmental impacts as noted in other sections of this initial study, Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section IV above, the proposed project site is within the planning area of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCPlHCP) and complies with the provisions of that plan. Moreover, implementation of Mitigation Measure E3-1 will Planning Application No. PP 2615-099 Page 33 ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less than significant levels. Less than significant impacts will occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a completely suburbanized area. There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the site. No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity. According to the General Plan Draft IFIR, no known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City of Menifee,43 Thus, the project will not impact mineral resources. XII. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ X❑ ❑ ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Planning Application No, PP 2915-999 Page 34 e) 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 ❑ n airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people 1 13 13 ri 0 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves that people receive and interpret. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bell. In order to provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into ten decibels, abbreviated dB. To account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known as the A -weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dBA_ A 3 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible.4° Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise:4$ LEa (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over given sample periods. LEQ is typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00pm to 10:00pm and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00pm to 7:00am. L D14 (Day -Night Average Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm and before 7:00am. CNEL and Lori are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. LEO is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period_ Existing Noise Environment The proposed project is located within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the Good Shepard Lutheran School, located across Newport Road from the site to the northwest_ There is a multi -family housing development bordering the school to the west, approximately 0.1 mile northwest of the site, and there are single family houses immediately to the north of the school and to the north and west of the multi-familv development. There are also sinale family houses startina Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 35 less than 0.1 mile to the southeast of the site, across Bradley Road. Existing noise conditions are representative of this environment, Traffic noise from Newport Road and Bradley Road are the greatest contributors to ambient noise levels near the project site. There are no discernible, substantial stationary noise sources within the area, as surrounding areas of development consists of residential, commercial, institutional and vacant uses. a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.09.050 and General Plan Noise Element has a residential noise standard of 55 decibels Laq (10 minute) between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 40 decibels L,q (10 minute) between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The City of Menifee Municipal Code and General Plan Noise Element do not establish a noise level standard for commercial uses. In addition, the City's General Plan references the state Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments that indicates noise levels at residential uses are normally acceptable up to 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL, at school uses are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL, and at commercial uses are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 77.5 dBA CNEL. Construction Noise Construction noise varies depending on the construction process, type of equipment involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work. The proposed project will be completed in five phases: 1) site preparation, 2) grading, 3) facility construction, 4) paving, and 5) application of architectural coatings. The grading phase of construction produces the loudest noise levels. Grading of the site would likely require the use of excavators, graders, dozers, scrapers and water trucks. Operation of this equipment will also include the use of warning horns. This construction noise is exempt from the City's noise ordinance as long as construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May. Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-2 have been incorporated into the project to ensure the contractor adheres to the requirements of the City's noise ordinance. Impacts related to project construction will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated - On -Site Operational Noise The proposed project is expected to create transportation noise sources typical of a small commercial center including parking lot noise (cars coming and going, people talking, occasional loud music and/or car alarms). These activities can generate noise levels between 49 dBA (tire squeals) and 74 dBA (car alarms) at 50 feet but are not expected to last for more than ten minutes and therefore are not likely to violate the City's noise ordinance ten-minute Leg noise level standards. Cooling and heating units, property maintenance equipment (between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM), safety and alarm devices, and motor vehicles are exempt from the City's noise standards. Project operations will not exceed City of Menifee noise standards and are not expected to be readily audible over existing traffic noise associated with Newport Road, Winterhawk Road, and Bradley Road, and therefore, would not result in a permanent substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts will be less than significant. Traffic Noise Per the Future Traffic Noise Contours found in the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element, future traffic noise at the site is not expected to exceed 70 dBA CNEL. According to the land use compatibility guidelines found in the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Background Document, exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA are considered to be acceptable. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the land use compatibility guidelines. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 36 b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude, and unlike sound there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Groundborne vibration can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Each of these measures can be further described in terms of frequency and amplitude. Displacement is the easiest descriptor to understand; it is simply the distance that a vibrating point moves from its static position. The velocity describes the instantaneous speed of the movement and acceleration is the instantaneous rate of change of the speed. Although displacement is fundamentally easier to understand than velocity or acceleration, it is rarely used for describing groundborne vibration, for the following reasons: 1) human response to groundborne vibration correlates more accurately with velocity or acceleration; 2) the effect on buildings and sensitive equipment is more accurately described using velocity or acceleration; and, 3) most transducers used in the measurement of groundborne vibration actually measure either velocity or acceleration. For this study velocity is the fundamental measure used to evaluate the effects of groundborne vibration. Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment. The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those working and residing in the area. Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron microscopes. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can also damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Structural damage is generally only of concern where large construction equipment is necessary to complete a development project (e.g. large bulldozers, vibratory pile drivers), where blasting is required, or where very old buildings are involved (e.g. ancient ruins)_ Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is generally highest during pile driving or rock blasting. Next to pile driving, grading activity has some potential for structural vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other heavy equipment are used where very old structures are present. Construction of the project does not require rock blasting or pile driving. Project site grading activities will require heavy construction equipment. Operation of the proposed project does not include uses that cause vibration. Furthermore, the project does not require pile driving or blasting to complete, there are no ancient structures in the project vicinity, and no research medical facilities in the vicinity that could be using sensitive medical or scientific equipment. Potential impacts related to temporary construction activities are discussed below. The most vibration -causing piece of equipment that will likely be used onsite as part of the proposed project is a vibratory roller (for paving purposes). This machine can cause vibration levels of up to 0.02 PPV at 25 feet. The closest receptors are located to the northwest (Good Sheppard Lutheran School) and southeast (single-family residences) of the site. Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-8 will reduce potential impacts to nearby structures. Annoyance related impacts would be short term and would only occur during site grading and preparation activities. Based on California Department of Transportation data, haul trucks would not be anticipated to exceed 0.10 indsec. peak particle velocity (ppv) at 10 feet." Impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section XII a. above, operational noise impacts associated with day-to-day use of the proposed commercial retail development would not exceed the City's noise ordinance ten-minute t-eq noise level standards. As such, long-term operational noise impacts will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Operationally, the project will result in noise sources typical of commercial retail developments including vehicles idling and truck trailer deliveries. Periodic noises that may be generated by the proposed parking lot include landscaping maintenance, solid waste disposal, conversations and/or yelling in parking lots, vehicle doors closing, and car alarms. These activities do not represent a substantial increase in periodic noise in the project vicinity and are common in an urban environment. Periodic operational noise increase will be less than st nificant, Planning Application No. PP 2015 099 Page 37 TemaoraW Construction Noise The project will result in temporary construction -related noise increases during on -site ground disturbing and construction activities. Construction noise levels vary, depending on the type and intensity of construction activity, equipment type and duration of use, and the distance between the noise sources and the receiver. The City of Menifee recently adopted Ordinance 2014-155 amending Municipal Code Section 9.09 (Noise Control Regulations) which prohibits the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level at a property designated as "Residential" in the general plan to exceed 55 dBA Lmax between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM or 40 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. However, construction is exempt from Municipal Code Section 9.09 standards as long as it is limited to between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May (Sec 2J.1,2). Project construction will comply with required construction schedule with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. Mitigation Measures N-2 through N-8 will also be incorporated to reduce construction noise through distance attenuation and activity and mechanical constraints. Temporary construction related noise impacts will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation and existing regulations. Mitigation Measures N-1: Limit construction activities to the hours of between 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May. All plans submitted to the City shall have the above noted on plans prior issuance of grading or issuance of building permits. N-2. Limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction (above)_ N-3: To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not be permitted to pass through sensitive land uses or through residential developments. N-4: During all project site excavation and grading on -site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N-a: The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. N-6: During construction, the developer shall require that all contractors turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and prohibit idling in excess of 3 minutes. N-7: For the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents. A sign shall be posted at the project site with the contact phone number. N-8: Limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project's northern boundary to the greatest degree possible. It is acknowledged that some soil compression may be necessary along the project boundaries. e-f) No Impact. No airport land use plans apply to the area, and the proposed project site is not located within two miles of an airport. No imoacts related to airoort land use ❑fans or airports could occur. There Planning Application No, PP 2015-099 Page 38 are also no private airstrips in the project vicinity; there will be no impacts related to excessive noise near a private air strip. XIII, POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project; a) induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ [� 0 ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q replacement housing elsewhere" c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the development of any dwelling units; therefore, the project would not result in direct population increases. The project will generate employment and thus could result in increased employment in the area, resulting in new residents moving to the area for employment (indirect population growth). According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density Study, retail uses generate an average of 20 employees per acre.41 The project site is 1.77 acres, creating approximately 26 jobs. According to the SLAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTPISCS), employment in Menifee was estimated at 8,800 employees in 2008 and is projected to increase to 10,500 employees in 2020 and 12,600 employees in 2035, an increase of 3,800 jobs.411 The 26 jobs that would be created by the proposed commerciallretail use is within the growth assumptions estimated by SLAG. Impacts related to population growth will be less than significant b) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on a vacant, disturbed site approximately one mile west of 1-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The proposed project will not displace existing housing necessitation the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, No impacts will occur. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on a vacant, disturbed site approximately one mile west of 1-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, commercial and vacant land uses, as well as surface street features. The proposed project will not displace any people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 39 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Less Than significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ d ❑ a) Less Than Significant Impact, The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City of Menifee. Station No. 76 (Menifee Lakes Station) is located approximately 2.1 miles east of the proposed project site at 29950 Menifee Road. Battalion 13 operates out of Station No, 76, The Riverside County Fire Department in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves more than 1,360,000 residents and employs nearly 1,700 career and volunteer fire fighters and 240 administrative support personnel." The project will not have a significant impact on fire response times because the project is located within the existing service area of the Riverside County Fire Department. No new or expanded fire protection facilities will be required as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services will be less than significant_ b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff to provide police service for the City. The Menifee Police Department is located at 137 N. Perris Boulevard in Perris, California approximately 7.2 miles northwest of the proposed project site. In January 2013 the Perris Station was staffed with 138 sworn deputies and 30 classified employees, including 33 patrol and traffic officers assigned to patrol in the City of Menifee. Average RCSD response time to emergency calls is 7.28 minutes, and average response time for nonemergency calls is 49,58 minutes.50 The sheriff's department provides a crime prevention program to the City of Menifee, consisting of support to the Neighborhood Watch program in the City and officer visits to schools and churches with presentations on topics including drug education and personal safety. The project has been reviewed by the Sheriff's Department and based on that review, conditions of approval for review and approval of a security plan, including security cameras, have been applied to the project. The requirement for a security plan is a standard condition of approval for commercial projects in the City. The proposed commercial retail center will not result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources. The proposed project is located within the Riverside County Sheriff service area. No new or expanded police facilities will need to be constructed as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of police protection services will be less than significant. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 40 c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed commercial/retail building is located within the Menifee Union School District and Perris Union High School District. The proposed project is subject to development fees for school facilities pursuant to Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). With the payment of these development fees, less than significant impacts will occur. d) No Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed development is for a commercial/retail building on 1.77 acres. The proposed project will not generate any additional demand for park facilities_ No impact will occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, a 9,750 sq. ft commercialtretail building, will result in nominal employment growth. The SLAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated employment base of 10,500 by 2020 and 12,600 by 2035 in the City of Menifee. The anticipated increase, whether from employed residents within the City or commuting from outside the City, will be within the assumptions estimated by SCAG and thus will not be substantially growth inducing and will nut require expansion of any other public services such as libraries or hospitals. The proposed commercial/retail building will not significantly increase the demand of such services. A less than significant impact will occur. XV. RECREATION potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ 0 substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ �"N ❑x might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No Impact. The proposed project consists of a 9,750 sq. ft. commercial/retail building on a 1.77 gross acre parcel. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. Because the project is not a residential development, the project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated. The proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 41 J X'VI. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and ❑ x�J„ Q d relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ Q f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads (dated March 29, 2016) to assess project related impacts.5' The purpose of this TIA was to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions_ The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of Menifee Planning Department Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2015). The traffic impact analysis evaluated eleven intersections in the vicinity of the project site: 1. Murrieta Road / Newport Road 2. Evans Road 1 Newport Road Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 42 3. Winter Hawk Road l Newport Road 4. Winter Hawk Road / Driveway 2 5_ Driveway 1 J Newport Road 6. Bradley Road ! Newport Road 7. Bradley Road 1 Driveway 3 S. Avenida de Cortez 1 Sherman Road / Newport Road 9. Haun Road 1 Newport Road 10. 1-215 SIB Ramps 1 Newport Road 11, 1-215 NB Ramps / Newport Road Project Traffic The City of Menifee requires that the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM2000) or the most recent release of the HCM be used to analyze LOS. The HCM 2010 evaluates LOS of intersections based upon the control delay per vehicle. The methodology used to evaluate the intersection LOS differs on whether the intersection is signalized or unsignalized. LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections as well as the queuing analysis were performed using Synchro software (Version 8 Build 806), which is based upon HCM2010 methodologies. City of Menifee and Caltrans standards were used to determine minimum LOS (LOS D or better). The Traffic Impact Analysis based projections on the following criteria: 1. Existing (2015) Conditions 2. Existing Plus Project (E+P) Conditions 3. Opening Year Cumulative (2016) Without Project Conditions 4. Opening Year Cumulative (2016) With Project Conditions The report uses a study year of 2016 for analysis purposes. Existing Conditions. Existing AM peak period and PM peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted for the project. The existing LOS conditions for study intersections are shown in Table 7 (Levels of Service — Existing Conditions) below. The level of service calculations are provided in Appendix G (Traffic Impact Analysis). According to the City of Menifee General Plan Policy C-1.2, developments are required to mitigate traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour LOS D or better at intersections. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, one of the study intersections is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (Haun Road/Newport Road). Table 7 Levels of Service Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delay (sec)' LOS 1. Murrieta Road (NS) Newport Road (EW) TO AM 45.3 D PM 46.7 Q 2. Evans Road (NS) Newport Road EW T5 AM 42.1 D PM 21.7 C 3. Winterhawk Road (NS) Newport Road (EW) T5 AM 41.2 D PM 37.2 D 4. Winterhawk Road (N5) Driveway 2 (EW) CSS AM 8.9 A PM 8.6 A 5_ Driveway 1 (145) Newport Road (EW)2 CSS AM 13.9 B PM 12.2 B 6_ Bradley Road (NS) Newport Road (EW) TS AM 48A D PM 52.1 D 7. Bradley Road (NS) Driveway 3 (EW) CSS AM 13.4 B PM 10.7 B Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 43 8. Sherman Road (NS) Newport Road (EW) TS AM 19.8 B PM 29.9 C 9. Haun Road (NS) Newport Road (EW) TS AM 187.9 F PM 146.3 F 10, 1-215 SB Ramps (NS) Newport Road (EW) TS AM 38.8 D PM 22.0 C 11. 1-215 NB Ramps (N5) Newport Road (EW) TS AM 34.7 C PM 30.4 C Source; Urban Crossroads, 2015 I Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown, z Although striped as a northbound right turn lane only, vehicles were observed turning left out of this driveway during the peak hours. In addition, there Is currently only a striped median along Newport Road which does not prohibit northbound left turns. As such, this intersection has been evaluated assuming lefts out, in an effort to accurately report LOS findings consistent with current observations. s The 1-215 Ramps at Newport Road and Newport Road between Haun Road and Antelope Road are currently undergoing roadway widening and reconstruction of the existing diamond interchange to a partial cloverleaf Interchange configuration. As such, construction lane geometries and speed limits have been assumed for existing traffic conditions at the applicable intersections, in an effort to reflect lane closures in affect at the time the traffic counts were conducted. CSS- Cross -Street Stop; AWS= All Way Stop. TS= Traffic Signal Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic traveling to and from the proposed project. The traffic generation figures used in the project Traffic impact Analysis are based on the weighted average trip generation rates provided in the Trip Generation Manual (94h Edition) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2012. The inbound and outbound trip generation rates are calculated by multiplying the total peak hour generation rate by the directional distribution provided in the ITE manual. Table 8 (Project Trip Generation) presents the daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project. As shown, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,889 daily trip -ends, including 216 trip - ends during the AM peak hour and 111 trip -ends during the PM peak hour. Table 8 Project Trip Generation Land use Qty. Unit AM Peak Dour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 3.490 T5F 1 1 2 2 4 6 68 High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant 4.060 TSF 18 15 33 18 12 30 387 Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive-Thru 2.407 TTSF 92 89 181 38 37 75 1,434 Project Total 111 105 216 56 53 111 1,8B9 Source, Urban Crossroads, 2015 TSF= 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Existing Plus Proiect Conditions The existing plus project scenario includes existing traffic and project traffic. Table 9 (Levels of Service -- Existing Plus Project Conditions) provides the projected delay and LOS at the study intersections under existing plus project conditions without off -site improvements. The levels of service are based upon the existing geometries for the study intersections. As indicated in Table 9, the intersection analysis indicates that there are no additional study intersections that are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS durina peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 44 Table 9 Levels of Service — Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Weak Hour Delay (sec)' Los 1. Murrieta Road (NS) T5 AM 46.1 D PM 47.8 D Newport Road (EW) 2. Evans Road (NS) T5 AM 43.1 D PM 28.6 C Newport Road (EW) 3_ Winterhawk Road (NS) TS AM 43.4 D PM 37.8 D Newport Road (EW) 4, Winterhawk Road (NS) CSS AM 9.0 A PM 8.6 A Driveway 2 (EW) 5. Driveway 1 (NS) CSS AM 14.3 B PM 13.2 B Newport Road (EW)2 6. Bradley Road (INS) TS AM 52.5 D PM 54.0 D Newport Road (EW) 7, Bradley Road (NS) CSS AM 13.8 B PM 10.8 B Driveway 3 (EW) 8, Sherman Road (N5) TS AM 20.6 C PM 30.8 C Newport Road (EW) 9, Haun Road (NS) T5 AM 191.6 F PM 149.2 F Newport Road (EW) 10. 1-215 SB Ramps (NS) TS AM 42.6 D PM 22,1 C Newport Road (EW) 11. 1-215 NB Ramps (NS) TS AM 38.7 D PM 30.7 C Newport Road (EW) Source: Urban Crossroads, 2015 ' Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 2 Although striped as a northbound right turn lane only, vehicleS were observed turning left out of this driveway during the peak hours. In addition. there is currently only a striped median along Newport Road which does not prohibit northbound left turns. As such, this intersection has been evaluated assuming lefts out, in an effort to accurately report LOS findings consistent with Current observations. } The 1-215 Ramps at Newport Road and Newport Road between Haun Road and Antelope Road are currently undergoing roadway widening and reconstruction of the existing diamond interchange to a partial cloverleaf interchange Configuration. AS Such, construction lane geomeirics and speed limits have been assumed for existing traffic conditions at the applicable Intersections, in an effort to reflect lane closures in affect at the time the tragic Counts were conducted. CSS= Gross -Street Stop; AW$= All Way Stop; TS= Traffic Signal Opening Year Cumulative (2016) Without Project Conditions The opening year plus cumulative without project scenario includes existing traffic and other projects in the project area provided by the City of Menifee, but excludes project generated traffic. Table 10 (Opening Year (2016) Cumulative Without Project Conditions) provides the projected delay and levels of service at the study intersections under existing plus cumulative plus project conditions without off - site improvements. The levels of service are based upon the existing geometrics for the study intersections. As indicated in Table 10, under these conditions the intersections of Bradley Road at Newport Road and Haun Road at Newport Road would be expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service without the proposed project. Table 10 Opening Year 2016 Cumulative Without Pro ect Conditions Intersection Traffic peak Hour Delay (sec)' LOS Control Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 45 1. Murrieta Road (NS) Z5 AM 51.1 ❑ PM 51.8 D Newport Road EW) 2. Evans Road (NS) TS AM 45.1 D PM 35.6 D Newport Road (EVV) 3. Winterhawk Road NS TS AM 47.4 D PM 49.2 D Newport Road (EW) 4, Winterhawk Road (NS) CSS AM 9.3 A PM 9.7 A Driveway 2 (EW) 5. Driveway 1 (NS) CSS AM 15_8 C PM 15.3 C Newport Road (EW)2 6. Bradley Road (N5) TS AM 66.3 E PM 67.8 E Newport Road (EW) 7. Bradley Road (NS) CSS AM 13.6 B PM 10.9 B Driveway 3 (EW) 8. Sherman Road (NS) T5 AM 49.6 D PM 40.6 D Newport Road (EW) 9. Haun Road (NS) TS AM >200.0 F PM >200.0 IF Newport Road (EW) 10. 1-215 SB Ramps (NS) TS AM 49.3 D PM 30.9 C Newport Road EW 11. 1-215 NB Ramps (NS) TS AM 47.7 D PM 44.7 D Newport Road (EW) Source: Urban Crossroads, 2015 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way slop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Y Although striped as a northbound right turn lane only, vehicles were observed turning left out of this driveway during the peak hours. In addition, there Is currently only a striped median along Newport Road which does not prohibit northbound left turns. As such, this intersection has been evaluated assuming lefts out, in an effort to accurately report LOS findings consistent with current observations. 3 The 1-215 Ramps at Newport Road and Newport Road between Haun Road and Antelope Road are currently undergoing roadway widening and reconstruction of the existing diamond interchange to a partial cloverleaf interchange configuration. As such, construction lane geometrics and speed limits have been assumed for existing traffic Conditions at the applicable Intersections, in an effort to reflect lane closures in affect at the time the traffic counts were conducted. CSS- Cross -Street Stop; AWS= All Way Stop; TS- Traffic Signal QUeningLYear Cumulative (2016) With IProiect Conditions The opening year plus cumulative with project scenario includes existing traffic, other projects in the project area provided by the City of Menifee, and project traffic. Table 11 (Opening Year (2016) Cumulative With Project Conditions) provides the projected delay and levels of service at the study intersections under existing plus cumulative plus project conditions, without off -site improvements, As indicated in Table 11, under these conditions the intersections of Bradley Road at Newport Road and Haun Road at Newport Road would be expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service with the proposed project. Table 11 Opening Year 2016 Cumulative With Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delay (sec)' LOS 1. Murrieta Road (NS) TS AM 53,11 D PM 63.3 D Newport Road (EW 2. Evans Road (N5) TS AM 46.1 D PM 42,1 D Newport Road (EW) 3. Winterhawk Road (NS) T5 AM 52.3 D PM 55,0 D Newport Road (EW) CSS AM 9.6 A Planning Application No_ PP 2015-099 Page 46 4. Winterhawk Road (NS) PM 9.9 A Driveway 2 EW 5. Driveway 1 (N5) CSS AM 16.2 C PM 16.0 C Newport Road EWF 6. Bradley Road (NS) TB AM 68.9 E PM 69.5 E Newport Road (EW) 7, Bradley Road (NS) CSS AM 14.1 B PM 11.0 B Driveway3 (EW) 8, Sherman Road (NS) TS AM 5M D PM 42.3 D Newport Road (EW) 9, Haun Road (NS) TS AM >200.0 F PM >200.0 F Newport Road (EW) 10. 1-215 SB Ramps (NS) TS AM 50.0 D PM 33.2 C Newport Road (EW) 11. 1-216 NB Ramps (NS) TS AM 49.4 D PM 1 46.9 D Newport Road (EW) I Source: Urban Crossroads, 2015 ' Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are Shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way stop control_ For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 2 Although striped as a northbound right turn lane only, vehicles were observed turning left out of this driveway during the peak hours. In addition, there is currently only a striped median along Newport Road which does not prohibit northbound left turns. As such, this intersection has been evaluated assuming lefts out. In an effort to accurately report LOS findings consistent with current observations. 3 The 1-215 Ramps at Newport Road and Newport Road between Haun Road and Antelope Road are currently undergoing roadway widening and reconstruction of the existing diamond interchange to a partial cloverleaf interchange configuration. As such, construction lane geometries and speed limits have been assumed for existing traffic conditions at the applicable Intersections, in an effort to reflect lane closures in affect at the time the traffic counts were conducted. CSS= CroSS-Street Stop; AWS= All Way Stop; TST Traffic Signal Roadway Improvements The following lane configurations and traffic controls are assumed to be in place for Opening Year (2016) Cumulative Conditions: Onsite Improvements: • Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2016) conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project's frontage and driveways), + Cumulative project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the cumulative development projects to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2016) conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along cumulative development's frontage and driveways). Offsite Improvements: The buildout of Newport Road as an urban arterial with 3 lanes of travel in each direction divided by a raised median is assumed for the purposes of utilizing a different Project trip distribution than existing plus project trip distribution. + 1-215 Freeway at Newport Road interchange improvement project which Includes: reconstruction and widening of the existing overcrossing from 6 to S lanes, widening and realigning the four diamond on and off -ramps, construction of a new loop tan -ramp in the northwest quadrant and a new loop on -ramp in the southeast quadrant and improvements at both the intersections of Haun Road at Newport Road and Antelope Road at Newport Road (estimated completion — late 2016)_ Planning Application No_ PP 2015-099 Page 47 As recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the applicant shall participate in the funding of off -site Improvements, including traffic signals that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Menifee Valley Road RBBD, or City of Menifee DIF as directed by the City. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases_ Each of the off -site improvements discussed above have been identified as being included as part of the TUMF fee program or City DIF fee program in Section 1.6 (Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms) of the Traffic Impact Analysis. As such, Mitigation Measure T-1 has been included, requiring the project proponent to contribute to the above -mentioned improvement fee programs. The effectiveness of the off -site improvements discussed above is shown in Table 11 (Opening Year (2010) Cumulative Plus Project With Improvements). With implementation of off -site improvements associated with planned projects in the area, LOS at the deficient intersections will be reduced to Las D at opening year 2016. Moreover, with payment of fees towards these improvements, the proposed project's traffic - related impacts to local intersections and roadways will be less than significant. Table 11 Opening Year (2016) Cumulative Plus Project With Improvements Intersection Traffic Peak Hour Delay (sec)' LOS Control E. Bradley Road (NS) AM 39_8 D Newport Road (EW) TS PM 44.4 D 9. Haun Road (NS) TS AM 50.2 D PM 54.4 D Newport Road (EW) Source: Urban Crossroads, 2015 ' Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic Signal or ell -way stop control. For intersections with cross street Stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 2 TS= Traffic Signal Mitigation Measures T-1: The applicant shall participate in the funding of off -site roadway and intersection improvement projects, including the construction of traffic signals that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of TUMF, Menifee RBBD, or City of Menifee DIF, as directed by the City, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Congestion Management program (CMP) in effect in Riverside County was approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) in 2010. All freeways and selected arterial roadways in the County are designated elements of the CMP system of highways and roadways_ There are two CMP system roadways in the City, 1-215 and SR-74, RCTC has adopted a minimum Level of Service threshold of LOS 'E" for CMP facilities. Although, the CMP indicates that F 215 in the Menifee area had a LOS "ID" in 2011, the Riverside County Congestion Management Program indicates that 1-215 is "exempt" from CMP requirements in accordance with CMP Statutes because this facility (roadway segments or intersections) had an LDS "F" in 1991. The proposed commercial retail project is located one mile west of 1-215; however, project -related traffic is not expected to significantly impact this facility. Impacts to CMP facilities will be less than significant. c) No Impact. The project site is over five miles from Perris Valley Airport, the nearest airport, and over 15 miles from March Air Force Base. The project site is located outside the airport influence area of the March Air Reserve Base and Perris Valley Airfield. No impact will occur. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The TIA prepared for the project includes recommendations for on -site roadway and site access improvements to ensure that project driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering and exitinq the site. Implementation of these Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 48 recommendations will prevent any project impacts due to a design feature. The project site is bordered on three sides by existing commercial, institutional and residential development and the proposed commercial/retail project will not create hazards due to incompatible uses. Less than significant impacts will occur with incorporation of Mitigation Measure T-9. e) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access. The project has been reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department. Project site access and circulation will provide adequate access and turning radius for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department's requirements. Emergency access to the site will be maintained during construction. No impact will occur. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) with bus services along Newport Road, Murrieta Road, Evans Road, and Bradley Road via Route 40, Route 61 and Route 74. Based on a review of the existing transit routes within the vicinity of the proposed project, it appears RTA Route 40, Route 61, and Route 74 could feasibly serve the project, There is an existing sidewalk along Newport Road along the northern frontage of the site. Both Newport Road and Bradley Road have bicycle facilities which would provide access to the project site. Newport Road has Community On -Street Class II Bike Lanes while Bradley Road contains Sub Regional Route On -Street Class II Bike Lanes. Both Newport Road and Bradley Road have bicycle facilities which would provide access to the project site. Newport Road has Community On -Street Class II Bike Lanes while Bradley Road contains Sub Regional Route On -Street Class II Bike Lanes. The project will be served by these existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; however, the project will not decrease their performance or safety. Impacts will be less than significant. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ []x ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ []x ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ �] ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ❑ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 49 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid d ❑ ❑ 0 waste? a) Less Than Significant Impacts. The proposed project could affect Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) treatment standards by increasing wastewater production such that expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities will be required, Exceeding the RWQCB treatment standards could result in contamination of surface or groundwater with pollutants such as pathogens and nitrates. New development in the City is required to install wastewater infrastructure concurrent with project development. Wastewater service within the City of Menifee is provided by Eastern Municipal Water District_ Open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD); smaller underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. EMWD provides wastewater treatment to the City of Menifee. Wastewater from most of Menifee — except the north and south ends of the City — are collected at the Sun City Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and sent to the Perris Valley RWRF for treatment. All wastewater generated by the interior plumbing system of the proposed project will be discharged into the local sewer main and conveyed for treatment at the Perris Valley RWRF.52 Wastewater flows will consist of typical commercial wastewater discharges and will not require new methods or equipment for treatment that are not currently permitted for the facility. The Perris Valley RWRF has a capacity of treating 22 million gallons per day (mgd). Wastewater flows associated with the proposed commercial/ retail building will consist of the same kinds of substances typically generated by commercial uses and no modifications to any existing wastewater treatment systems or construction of any new ones will be needed to treat this project's wastewater. Using the default CalEEMod calculations provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report conducted by First Carbon Solutions, estimated wastewater generated by the proposed retail use is approximately 4,870 gallons per day (gpd) (wastewater is estimated to be 80 percent of total water use). Wastewater generated by the proposed project will be within the treatment capacity of the Perris Valley RWRF and will thus have a less than significant impact on the ability of the Perris Valley RWRF to operate within its established wastewater treatment requirements, which are enforced via the facility's NPDES permit authorized by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB_ b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provides water service to the City of Menifee. EMWD has three sources of water supply: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), local groundwater, and recycled water. Roughly 75 percent of EMWD's potable water demand is supplied by imported water from MWD through its Colorado River Aqueduct and connections to the State Water Project. EMWD forecasts that it will provide water for future growth in its service area through imported water from MWD. EMWD procures water from MWD that has Planning Application No_ PP 2015-099 Page 50 been treated at MWD's Skinner Filtration Plant in Winchester and Mills Filtration Plant in Riverside. In 2010 EMWD obtained 75,000 acre-feet (af) of MWD water treated at MWD filtration plants before delivery, and 16,600 of of raw MWD water treated at EMWD water filtration plants. EMWD has two water filtration plants, one in Hemet and one in San Jacinto, with total existing capacity of 32 million gallons per day or about 35,840 of per year. About 25 percent of EMWD's potable water demand is supplied by EMWD groundwater wells in the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. EMWD's estimated production of potable groundwater in 2010 was 18,800 at. EMWD's production of desalinated groundwater in 2010 was 5,800 af. EMWD's recycled water production in 2010 was 41,500 af. EMWD's territory is divided into four subareas. Parts of the City of Menifee are in two service areas: most of the City is in Sub -Area 41, but the southeast corner is in Sub -Area 43. Potable water sources for Sub -Area 41 are 1) Imported MWD water treated at MWD's Mills Filtration Plant in the City of Riverside, 2) Imported MWD water treated at EMWD's Perris Water Filtration Plant, 3) Local potable groundwater, and 4) Local groundwater treated at EMWD's Menifee Desalter. According to the City of Menifee General Plan EIR, the projected net increase in water demands by buildout of the General Plan — about 15mgd, or 16,800 acre-feet per year (afy) - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water supplies over the 2015-2035 period. EMWID forecasts that its total water supplies will increase by 88,300 afy over that period. The proposed project is anticipated to require approximately 6.82 afy in water. There are adequate forecast water supplies in the region for the proposed project and General Plan buildout, and no additional water supplies will be needed. Less than significant impacts will occur. Regarding wastewater facilities, as discussed in the preceding response, wastewater generated at the project site is treated at the Perris Valley RWRF_ The proposed project is estimated to have a wastewater generation of approximately 4,870 gpd. This generation is well within the existing remaining treatment capacity of the Perris Valley RWRF. Connections to local water and sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on -site improvements. No additional improvements are needed to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve the proposed project. Standard connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts as a result of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of this project if storm water runoff was increased to a level that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. As discussed in the Hydrology section, the proposed project will not generate any increased runoff from the site that will require construction of new storm drainage facilities. All drainage will be directed to bioretention basins proposed within the site. A NPDES permit will be required forthe proposed project, and pursuant to the Menifee Municipal Code 15.01.015 all construction projects shall apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be contained in the project applicant's submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed project will also be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in identifying post -construction BMPs that include drainage controls such as infiltration pits, detention ponds, bioswales, berms, rain gardens, and pervious pavement. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and BMP's. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project could result in significant impacts if the project required additional water supplies, than are currently entitled. Using the default CaIEEMod calculations provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report conducted by First Carbon Solutions, the proposed project's estimated water demand is approximately 2.22 million gallons per year or 6.82 acre feet per year. According to the City of Menifee General Plan EIR, the projected net increase in water demands by buildout of the General Plan — about 15.0 mgd, or 16,800 acre-feet per year - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water supplies over the 2015-2035 period. EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies will increase by 88,300 acre-feet per year over that period_ There are adequate Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 51 forecast water supplies in the region for the proposed project, and no additional water supplies will be needed. Less than significant impacts will occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Sections XVII.a and XVll,b, the proposed project will be adequately served by existing facilities. Therefore less than significant impacts will occur. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project will exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Solid waste from Menifee is collected by Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). The proposed project's additional solid waste stream will have a less than significant impact on regional landfill capacity. During 2014, the City of Menifee utilized four landfills, Badlands Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill, and Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center.53 Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 4,000 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 33,560,993 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 14,730,025 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2024. El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 16,054 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 184,930,000 tons. The remaining capacity is 145,530.000 tons and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2045. Lamb Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 3,000 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 34,292,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 18,955,000 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in April 2021. Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 7,500 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 67,520,000 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in April 2033- Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center has a maximum daily capacity of 9,250 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 119,600,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 119,600,000 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2052.54 Different uses have varying levels of estimated solid waste production. Using the default calculations in the CalEEMod model provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report conducted by First Carbon Solutions, the proposed project will generate 79,73 tons of solid waste per year. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region to accommodate project -generated waste. Considering the availability of landfill capacity and the relatively nominal amount of solid waste generation from the proposed project, project solid waste disposal needs can be adequately met without a significant impact on the capacity of the nearest and optional, more distant, landfills. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will impact the City's compliance with state -mandated (AB 939) waste diversion requirements. Impacts will be less than significant. g) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County, and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Therefore, no impact will occur. Planning Application No. PP 2016-099 -- Page 52 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than SIGNIFICANCE Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to ri 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse 0 effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section I and will not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is located within an urbanized area with little -to -no natural habitat. However, evidence of burrowing owl habitat exists on site. As such, Mitigation Measure B-1 will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls in the project area to less than significant levels. Adverse impacts to historic, paleontological resources, or human remains will not occur. Construction -phase procedures will be implemented in the event any important archaeological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2. This site is not known to have any association with an important example of California's history or prehistory. The environmental analysis provided in Section III concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants and other air quality impacts will be less than significant. Sections VII and IX conclude that impacts related to climate change and hydrology and water quality will be less than significant. Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items I thru XVII, no evidence is presented that this project will degrade the quality of the environment. The City hereby finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment and cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 53 construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics involved with the project. Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies two methods to determine the scope of related projects for cumulative impact analysis: List -of -Projects Method: a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. Summary -of -Projections Method: a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan, AQMP, and the CMP. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than significant Non -Cumulative Impacts Impacts related to geology and soils, and airport hazards at the project -level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on -site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to these topics will occur. Local Impacts Projects can contribute considerably to cumulative impacts in context of the local environment. Local cumulative impacts are limited to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, groundwater levels, drainage and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. A general discussion of potentially significant cumulative impacts in the local context is summarized below. The analysis provided in Section XV found that no individual impacts will occur; therefore, the project will not contribute considerably to recreation impacts. The analysis also found that no impacts to mineral resources would occur. The analyses related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services systems found that impacts will be less than significant; therefore, while the project will contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and traffic and transportation were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels; therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant regional cumulative impacts in these topical areas. These topics are discussed in detail below. Air Quality. The context for assessing cumulative air quality impacts to the area is the extent to which project related emissions will contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment. The proposed project will contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutant emissions in the region; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts. Biological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative biological resources impacts to the region is the extent to which project related construction will contribute to or result on the disturbance of habitat critical to endangered and/or protected species. To protect against significant impacts to burrowing owls, the project will implement Mitigation Measure B-1, which requires a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl as required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 54 (MSHCP). If burrowing owls are discovered during pre -construction surveys, buffers will be erected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. This will eliminate any destruction of critical habitat in the region; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to regional biological resource impacts. Cultural Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to regional archeological knowledge of our past is the geographical extent of regional and statewide historic and prehistoric knowledge. Loss of on -site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the San Jacinto Basin and the State of California. Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-6 have been incorporated requiring evaluation of any discovered potential archaeological resources, the uniqueness of the archaeological sample or ancestry of the remains, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact or remains. This will eliminate any potential loss of important regional archaeological information that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important regional archaeological knowledge. Noise. The context for assessing cumulative noise impacts to the region is the extent to which temporary or permanent noise generating sources exist in the area. Noise generating sources can create annoyance to residents and can cause vibration impacts. Mitigation Measure N-1 through N-8 have been incorporated requiring construction activities to be limited to between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during the months of ,tune through September and between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May (N-1). Mitigation Measure N-2 will limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction (above) and N-3 will limit haul routes passing through sensitive land uses, residential dwellings or tract developments. Measure N-4 requires that during all project site excavation and grading on -site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. Furthermore, the contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Mitigation Measure N-5 requires the contractor to locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. Mitigation Measure N-6 requires that during construction, the developer shall require that all contractors turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and prohibit idling in excess of 3 minutes. Mitigation Measure N-7 requires that for the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents. In addition, a sign shall be posted at the project site with the contact phone number. Mitigation Measure N-8 requires the contractor to limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project's southern boundary to the greatest degree possible. These measures will eliminate any regional noise impacts resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to cumulative noise impacts in the region. Traffic and Transportation. The context for assessing cumulative impacts on the regional transportation system is the extent to which project -generated trips will pass through regional transportation facilities such as freeway on and off ramps and Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections or roadway segments. The analysis provided in Section XVLA found that the project would contribute considerably to traffic impacts. Therefore, Mitigation Measure T-1 has been incorporated to require the applicant to participate in the funding of off -site improvements, including intersections that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of Western Riverside County TUMF, City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DI F), or RBBD fees, as directed by the City. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases. Lastly, Section XVI.B found that no CMP facilities will be impacted by the project. Regional Impacts Projects can contribute considerably to cumulative impacts in context of the regional environment. Regional cumulative impacts are limited to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous Planning Application No, PP 2015-099 Page 55 materials, wildfires, groundwater levels, drainage and water quality, flooding, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. A general discussion of potentially significant cumulative impacts in the regional context is summarized below. No impacts related to mineral resources were identified. The analysis provided related to aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, wildfires, groundwater levels, drainage and water quality, flooding, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services systems found that impacts will be less than significant; therefore, while the project will contribute to regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources (burrowing owls), cultural resources, noise and traffic and transportation were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels; therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant regional cumulative impacts in these topical areas. These topics are discussed in detail below. Air Qualify. The context for assessing cumulative air quality impacts to the area is the extent to which project related emissions will contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment. The proposed project will contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutant emissions in the region; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts. Biological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative biological resources impacts to the region is the extent to which project related construction will contribute to or result on the disturbance of habitat critical to endangered and/or protected species. To protect against significant impacts to burrowing owls, the project will implement Mitigation Measure B-1, which requires a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl as required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). If burrowing owls are discovered during pre -construction surveys, buffers will be erected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. This will eliminate any destruction of critical habitat in the region; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to regional biological resource impacts. Cultural Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to regional archeological knowledge of our past is the geographical extent of regional and statewide historic and prehistoric knowledge. Loss of on -site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the San Jacinto Basin and the State of California. Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2 have been incorporated requiring evaluation of any discovered potential archaeological resources, the uniqueness of the archaeological sample or ancestry of the remains, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact or remains. This will eliminate any potential loss of important regional archaeological information that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important regional archaeological knowledge. Noise. The context for assessing cumulative noise impacts to the region is the extent to which temporary or permanent noise generating sources exist in the area. Noise generating sources can create annoyance to residents and can cause vibration impacts. Mitigation Measure N-1 through N-7 have been incorporated requiring construction activities to be limited to between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7.00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May (N-1). Mitigation Measure N-2 will limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction (above) and N-3 will limit haul routes passing through sensitive land uses, residential dwellings or tract developments. Measure N-4 requires that during all project site excavation and grading on -site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. Furthermore, the contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Mitigation Measure N-5 requires the contractor to locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 56 between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. Mitigation Measure N-5 requires that during construction, the developer shall require that all contractors turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and prohibit idling in excess of 3 minutes. Mitigation Measure N-7 requires that for the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents. In addition, a sign shall be posted at the project site with the contact phone number. Mitigation Measure N-S requires the contractor to limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project's southern boundary to the greatest degree possible. These measures will eliminate any regional noise impacts resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to cumulative noise impacts in the region. Traffic and Transportation. The context for assessing cumulative impacts on the regional transportation system is the extent to which project -generated trips will pass through regional transportation facilities such as freeway on and off ramps and Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections or roadway segments. The analysis provided in Section XVLA found that the project would contribute considerably to traffic impacts. Therefore, Mitigation Measure T-1 has been incorporated to require the applicant to participate in the funding of off -site improvements, including intersections that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of Western Riverside County TUMP, City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF), or RB13D fees, as directed by the City. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases. Lastly, Section XVI,13 found that no CMP facilities will be impacted by the project, Global Impacts One topic of global concern is climate change. As discussed in Section VII, climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world, The project will not contribute considerably to global climate change. Based on the above analysis concerning the local, regional, and global impacts of the project in consideration of past, current, and future projects, the City hereby finds that the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation, Based on the analysis of the project's impacts in the responses to items I thru XVII, there is no indication that this project will result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there will be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction related to noise and traffic, these will be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. Long-term effects include increased vehicular traffic, traffic related noise, use of hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects will at worst require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Generally, environmental effects will result in less than significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. XIX. 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). Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 57 X.X. REFERENCES ' Inland Engineering Technologies, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, July 13, 2015. 2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program. Riverside County. http://www,dot.ca.govlhq/LandArch/scenic highways/index,htrn (Accessed January 12, 2016). 3 City of Menifee General Plan. Community Design Element. Exhibit CD-2: Enhanced Landscape Corridors and Scenic Corridors. 2013_ 4 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program. Riverside County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_ highwayslindex.htm [Accessed January 12, 20161. 5 City of Menifee General Plan. Community Design Element. Exhibit C-8: Scenic Highways, 2012. 6 California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2012. 7 California department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2012. a City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Agricultural Resources. Page 5.2-13. s California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. Riverside County Williamson Act FY 2008/2009 Sheet 1 of 3. 10 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Agricultural Resources. Page 5.2-13. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993. 12 First Carbon Solutions, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report_ September 1, 2015. 13 Urban Crossroads. Traffic Impact Analysis. March 29, 20% 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2008. http:llwww.agmd,gov/cega/handbooWLSTILST.htmi [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat Portal. htip://ecos.fws_govicrithab/ [Accessed January, 13 2016]. First Carbon Solutions. Burrowing Owl Reconnaissance Survey, August 12, 2015. 17 First Carbon Solutions. Burrowing Owl Reconnaissance Survey, August 12, 2015. 18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Mapper. http://www.fws.govlwetlands/Data/Mapper.htmi [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Summary Table. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP[Accessed January 13, 2016]. 20 National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.cr,nps.gov/nr/research/ [Accessed January 13, 2016], 21 California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. California Historical Resources: Riverside County. http://ohp.parks.ca,govllistedresources/ [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 22 Eastern Information Center Response Letter. June 18, 2015, 23 Riverside County. Geographic Information Services. Map My County. http:tlgjs.rivcoit.org/ [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 24 California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Prialo Maps- http://www,quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm [Accessed January 13, 2016], 25 California Department of Conservation, http,llwww.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps_htm [Accessed January 13, 20161. 26 Inland Engineering Technologies, Inc. Prelminiary Geotechnical Investigation. July 13, 2015. 21 United States Environmental Protection Agency_ Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009. 29 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008. 29 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting #15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010. 311 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. p. 5.7-23, 31 California Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. http:l/gectracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed January 13, 201% 32 Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. July 8, 2015. 33 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. http:Hwww.calepe.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed January 13, 20161. 34 California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm [Accessed January 13, 2016]. Planning Application No. PP 2015 099 Page 58 35 California Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. https:f/geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 96 California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 37 California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanupfcorteselistl [Accessed January 13, 20161. �a California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. http://www.calepa.ca,gov/sitecleanup/corteselistl [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 39 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Riverside County City Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. http://www.fire.ca.govlfire_prevention/fhsz_maps_riverside_city_maps.php [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 40 Advantage Environmental Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. July 8, 2015. 41 Inland Engineering Technologies, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. July 13, 2015. 42 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FIRM Panel 06065C2062G. August 28, 2008. as City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones. September 2013. 44 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 45 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003. 46 California Department of Transportation. Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009, 47 Southern California Association of Governments. Employment Density Study: Summary Report. October 31, 2001. 48 Southern California Association of Governments. 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Growth Forecast Appendix. April 2012. 49 Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with CAL Fire. 2014 Annual Report. so City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Public Services. September 2013, 51 Urban Crossroads. The Shops at Newport Traffic Impact Analysis. March 29, 2016. 52 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Utilities and Service Systems. September 2013. CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Disposal during 2012 for Menifee. http:/Iwww.c@lrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx [Accessed January 13, 2016]. 54 CalRecycle. Detailed Facility Search. http:/Iwww.caIrecycle.ca,gov/FacIT/farility/search,aspx [Accessed January 13, 20161. Planning Application No. PP 2015-099 Page 59