Loading...
PC16-292Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 1 CITY OF MENIFEE CEQA Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 3. Contact person and phone number: Manny Baeza, Contract Planner (951) 723-3742 4. Project Location: West of I-215 and east of Haun Road between Garbani Road and Wickerd Road in the City of Menifee, California (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context and Vicinity Map) A. Total Project Area: 9.85 acres (429,066 square feet); Storage Buildings (225,674 square feet) Residential Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Units: 0 Projected No. of Residents: 0 Commercial Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0 Industrial Acres: 9.85 Lots: 2 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 225,674 Est. No. of Employees: 0 Other: 0 B. Assessor’s Parcel No: 360-350-028-0 & 360-350-029-0 C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2006 Page 868, Grid E7 D. Section, Township & Range: Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian E. Latitude: 33° 39’ 3.67” N Longitude: 117° 10’ 24.30” W 5. Project Applicant/Owners: Stephen J. Manfredi, M. D. All Star Super Storage, LLC P.O. Box 890880 Temecula, California 92589-0880 6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Economic Development Corridor (EDC) 7. Zoning District: Economic Development Corridor Southern Gateway (EDC-SG) 8. Project Description: Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 The project site consists of two parcels. The northern parcel (Parcel 1) (APN 360-350-028-9) currently consists of the existing All Star Super Storage facility. Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-156 includes the expansion of the storage facility onto the southern parcel (Parcel 2) (APN 360-350-029-0) and the redevelopment of approximately 0.08 acres of the northern parcel with new/improved access roads, driveway entrances, and the reconfiguration of one existing building to provide for a functional collective storage facility. For purposes of this report, the Project Site consists of the 9.77-acre Parcel 2 and the southern 0.08- acre portion of Parcel 1 for a total 9.85-acre Project Site. Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-156 is a proposal for the construction and operation of an additional 225,674 square feet of storage space in 15 buildings. The project includes seven regular parking stalls, two loading stalls, and one accessible stall. Vehicular access to the existing Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 2 facility on Parcel 1 is provided by two driveways on Haun Road. The proposed project includes the addition of a 25-foot wide third driveway at the southern portion of Parcel 2. The proposed project includes the widening and improvement of the existing driveway located at the southern portion of the existing storage facility to 44 feet. The project site is bound to the west by Haun Road, to the east by I-215, to the north by the existing All Star Super Storage facility, and to the south by Louie’s plant nursery. Landscaping All project landscaping is subject to the requirements of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.28.110, which requires a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total lot area be landscaped. Parcel 2 consists of 425,714 square feet and includes 85,554 square feet of landscaping (20%). Altogether, the entire storage facility as a whole consists of 786,665 square feet and will include 123,742 square feet of landscaping (15.7%) along the western, southern, and eastern boundaries of the facility. Existing and proposed parking is located along the western boundary of the site and will be surrounded by landscaping. All trees, shrubs, and ground cover are of low to moderate water demand. Grading and Drainage The project site is primarily vacant. The project will include net export of approximately 1,570 cubic yards of soil. Drainage from the project site will flow from the west to the proposed on-site detention basin at the eastern portion of the site. Project Phasing The project consists of three separate construction phases. Phase 1 will consist of the construction of the five western buildings (Buildings AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE) and the detention basin. Phase 2 will consist of the construction of the four central buildings (Buildings FF, GG, HH, and II) on the site. Phase 3 will consist of construction of the six eastern buildings (Buildings JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, and OO). 9. Surrounding Land Uses & Environmental Setting: The subject site is comprised of two parcels located west of the I-215 and east of Haun Road between Garbani Road and Wickerd Road. The proposed project site is primarily vacant with 0.08 acres developed with the northern self-storage facility of which the proposed project will be an expansion of. The southern Parcel 2 has been used for agriculture and is vacant. Ruderal vegetation and minimal riparian and riverine area occur on the project site. Topographically, the study area is generally flat. The elevation ranges from 1,490 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to a minimum of 1,477 feet AMSL. The project site and surrounding area contains a mixture of industrial, residential, plant nursery, and vacant land uses. The site is surrounded by vacant land to the west, the existing self-storage use to the north, plant nursery to the south, and the I-215 to the east. Table 1 (Surrounding Land Uses) lists the different uses that are located immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 3 Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Economic Development Corridor (EDC) EDC-Southern Gateway Vacant Storage Facility North Economic Development Corridor (EDC) EDC-Southern Gateway Storage Facility South Economic Development Corridor (EDC) EDC-Southern Gateway Plant Nursery East I-215 Economic Development Corridor (EDC) I-215 I-215 West Economic Development Corridor (EDC) EDC-Southern Gateway Vacant 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):  Permitting required under Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit;  Various encroachment and construction permitting from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 for improvements in the vicinity of Interstate 215.  Permitting may be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain of the Project operations and its associated equipment.  USACOE  CDFW Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 4 Insert Figure 1: Project Location (USGS map from Application) Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 5 Insert Figure 2: Project Location Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 6 Insert Figure 3: Site Plan Concept Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 7 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 8 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:  I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project 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.  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.  I 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. Signature Date Manny Baeza, Contract Planner Printed Name Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 9 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. CUP 2015-156 Page 10 Issues: I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit C-8, “Scenic Highways” and Riverside County General Plan Figure 5, “Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy”; State of California, Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway Mapping System; Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution); City of Menifee Ordinance 2009-24 (Dark Sky) Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-6: Scenic highway corridors that are preserved and protected from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the designated routes. Policy C-6.1: Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating compatible land uses. Policy C-6.4: Incorporate riding, hiking, and bicycle trails and other compatible public recreational facilities within scenic corridors. Policy C-6.5: Ensure that the design and appearance of new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within eligible county scenic highway corridors are compatible with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. Goal CD-3: Projects, developments, and public spaces that visually enhance the character of the community and are appropriately buffered from dissimilar land uses so that differences in type and intensity do not conflict. Policy CD-3.1: Preserve positive characteristics and unique features of a site during the design and development of a new project; the relationship to scale and character of adjacent uses should be considered. Policy CD-3.2: Maintain and incorporate the City's natural amenities, including its hillsides, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 11 indigenous vegetation, and rock outcroppings, within proposed projects. Policy CD-3.3: Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support structures through sensitive site design and construction. This includes, but is not limited to: appropriate placement of facilities; undergrounding, where possible; and aesthetic design (e.g., cell tower stealthing). Policy CD-3.5: Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene. Policy CD-3.6: Locate site entries and storage bays to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy CD-3.7: Consider including public art at key gateways, major projects, and public gathering places. Policy CD-3.8: Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses. Policy CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety. Policy CD-3.10: Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence. Policy CD-3.11 Provide special building-form elements, such as towers and archways, and other building massing elements to help distinguish activity nodes and establish landmarks within the community. Policy CD-3.12: Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles and designs that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area. Policy CD-3.13: Utilize architectural design features (e.g., windows, columns, offset roof planes, etc.) to vertically and horizontally articulate elevations in the front and rear of residential buildings. Policy CD-3.14: Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences. Policy CD-3.15: Require property owners to maintain structures and landscaping to high standards of design, health, and safety. Policy CD-3.16: Avoid use of long, blank walls in industrial developments by breaking them up with vertical and horizontal facade articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, modulation, and landscaping. Policy CD-3.17: Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses. Policy CD-3.18: Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting roadway, commercial, agricultural, and industrial uses. Policy CD-3.19: Design walls and fences that are well integrated in style with adjacent structures Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 12 and terrain and utilize landscaping and vegetation materials to soften their appearance. Policy CD-3.20: Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls. Policy CD-3.21: Use open space, greenways, recreational lands, and water courses as community separators. Policy CD-3.22: Incorporate visual buffers, including landscaping, equipment and storage area screening, and roof treatments, on properties abutting either Interstate 215 or residentially designated property. Goal CD-4: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the aesthetic value of the City's enhanced landscape corridors and scenic corridors. Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape streets, including coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street furniture, and hardscaping. Policy CD-4.2: Design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture. Policy CD-4.3: Apply special paving at major intersections and crosswalks along enhanced corridors to create a visual focal point and slow traffic speeds. Policy CD-4.4: Frame views along streets through the use of wide parkways and median landscaping. Policy CD-4.5: Orient new streets to maximize the view of open space, parks, mountains, and built landmarks where possible. Policy CD-4.6: Prohibit outdoor advertising devices (billboards, but not on-site signs identifying a business on the same property as the sign) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way line of all scenic corridors as depicted on Circulation Element Exhibit C-8 and the entire length of I- 215; City Community Information Signs or other City-sponsored signs are not subject to this requirement. Policy CD-4.7: Design new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within the scenic corridors for compatibility with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. Policy CD-4.8: Preserve and enhance view corridors by undergrounding and/or screening new or relocated electric or communication distribution lines, which would be visible from the City's scenic highway corridors. Policy CD-4.9: Require specialized design review for development along scenic corridors, including but not limited to, building height restrictions, setback requirements, and site-orientation guidelines. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) Less than Significant 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 13 (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 project site is located on a primarily vacant, previously disturbed site located immediately west of I- 215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial use, vacant land, and surface street features. This site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista.1 Although the portion of the I-215 that is adjacent to the project site is not designated as or eligible for designation as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation, the City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element and Circulation Element designate the I-215 corridor as a Scenic Corridor and Enhanced Landscape Corridor.2 The project site is located on the west side of the I-215. The proposed project includes a vegetated water quality detention basin and landscaping on the east side of the project site and storage buildings will be of the same size and scale as the existing storage facility to the north. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Community Design Policies. Impacts will be less than significant. b) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to an officially designated state scenic highway as identified by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System; however, the City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element and Circulation Element designate the I-215 corridor as a Scenic Corridor and Enhanced Landscape Corridor.3 4 The project site is located in a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial use, vacant land, and 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 by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site’s existing surroundings. Construction of the proposed project 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. Parcel 2 of the project site has been previously disturbed by agricultural uses and is currently vacant. The southern 0.08-acre portion of Parcel 1 is currently developed with the existing All Star Super Storage facility. The area surrounding the proposed project site is an area comprised of industrial and vacant land uses. The site is surrounded by vacant land to the west, existing self-storage use to the north of which the proposed project will be an expansion of, plant nursery to the south, and the I-215 to the east. Upon project completion, the proposed project will consist of 15 additional self-storage buildings. The project will also include associated street, utility, parking, and landscaping improvements. 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 development will blend with the characteristics of the adjacent storage facility to the north and the existing plant nursery to the south. 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 14 d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). There are lighting sources adjacent to this site, including free-standing street lights, light fixtures on buildings, vehicle headlights, and traffic lights. The proposed project will include outdoor lighting associated with security light. Lighting associated with the project would not be directed towards the adjacent plant nursery to the south, the vacant land use to the west, or the I-215 to the east. The proposed project is the expansion of the existing storage use to the north and proposed lighting will be in character and work in conjunction with existing lighting on the northern property. 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, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community (CD-6) and that limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD- 6.5). 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 and materials will be non-reflective. 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 15 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Range 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 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 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 Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Government Code section 51104(g))?     d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     Sources: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, Sheet 1 of 3, map published September 2009; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-6: High value agricultural lands available for long-term agricultural production in limited areas of the City. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 16 Policy OSC-6.1: Protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural acres transition to more developed land uses. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on a primarily vacant site immediately west of I-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial use, vacant land, and 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.5 However, the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the FMMP.6 The project site is designated for Economic Development Corridor in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Economic Development Corridor – Southern Gateway (EDC-SG) . 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.7 Therefore, impacts to Farmland will be less than significant. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act Contracts are active for the proposed project site.8 The project site is zoned EDC-SG , which is for business park and 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 primarily 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 primarily vacant site west of I- 215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial use, vacant land, and surface street features. The project site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance; however, the site is designated for economic development in the City’s General Plan and zoned for industrial use. 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.9 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. CUP 2015-156 Page 17 III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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?     Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source. Policy OSC-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 18 Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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.10 Consistency review is presented below: (1) The proposed project will result in short-term construction (with mitigation incorporated) and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated by 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 Plan 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 offshore 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 19 Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status – Riverside County Pollutant Federal State O3 (1-hr) N/A Nonattainment O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment PB Attainment Nonattainment Source: CalEPA Air Resources Board. State and National Area Designation Maps. 2015. Construction Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 was utilized to estimate emissions from the proposed construction activities (see Appendix A, Air Quality Modeling Data). The project consists of three separate construction phases. The project consists of three separate construction phases. Phase 1 will consist of the construction of the five western buildings (Buildings AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE) and the detention basin. Phase 2 will consist of the construction of the four central buildings (Buildings FF, GG, HH, and II) on the site. Phase 3 will consist of construction of the six eastern buildings (Buildings JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, and OO). To provide a worst case analysis, CalEEMod was run assuming that all proposed buildings will be constructed as part of one phase. CalEEMod default construction phase lengths were utilized with the exception of demolition. The proposed project includes the demolition of approximately 2,200 square feet of the existing structure on Parcel 1. The total area that will be disturbed on Parcel 1 is less than one acre. Therefore, CalEEMod default demolition length and construction equipment usage for areas less than one acre have been utilized. CalEEMod defaults were utilized for all other construction equipment and construction parameters in the model. The maximum (summer or winter) results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)). The model indicates that construction of the proposed project will result in excessive emissions of volatile organic chemicals (identified as reactive organic gases) associated with interior and exterior coating activities. Table 3 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer 497.80 54.73 42.27 0.07 10.19 6.63 Winter 497.80 54.74 42.18 0.07 10.19 6.63 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Potential Impact? Yes No No No No No Source: MIG, 2016 Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic compounds To compensate for excessive VOC emissions from coating activities, the model includes use of a Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 20 maximum zero g/l VOC content for interior coatings and 50 g/l VOC content for exterior coatings. Use of low-VOC coatings during construction activities will reduce VOC emissions to 25.3 in winter and summer months, less than the threshold established by SCAQMD. The requirement of use of low-VOC coatings has been included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 below. The results of the CalEEMod outputs with mitigation incorporated are summarized in Table 4 (Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions for ROG (lbs/day)) below. Table 4 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions for ROG (lbs/day) Source ROG Summer 25.33 Winter 25.34 Threshold 75 Substantial? No Source: MIG, 2016 Operational Emissions Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result from the operation of the proposed project. 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 proposed project. CalEEMod was utilized to estimate mobile source emissions. Trip generation is based on the project traffic analysis prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc.11 Area source emissions are the combination of many 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. Emissions from area sources were estimated using CalEEMod using program default values for area and energy demand emissions. Operational emissions are summarized in Table 5 (Long-Term Daily Emissions (lbs/day)). Long-term emissions will not exceed the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD; impacts will be less than significant. Table 5 Long-Term Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer 11.89 2.26 8.64 0.03 1.70 0.48 Winter 11.91 2.37 8.36 0.02 1.70 0.48 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Potential Impact? No No No No No No Source: MIG, 2016 Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic compounds Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee Planning Division of the Community Development Department, a Coating Restriction Plan (CRP), consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines and a letter agreeing to include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that the contractors adhere to the requirements of the CRP. The CRP measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. These may include the following: • The volatile organic compounds (VOC) of proposed architectural coatings shall not exceed 0 g/l for interior applications. • The volatile organic compounds (VOC) of proposed architectural coatings shall not exceed Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 21 50 g/l for exterior applications. This measure shall conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or exterior coatings shall not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The CRP shall specify use of High-Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of coatings. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative short-term, construction-related emissions and long- term, 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 CEQA 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 0.15 miles south of the project site. The proposed development will not generate toxic pollutant emissions. Localized Significance Thresholds As part of SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, attention has recently been focusing more on the localized effects of air quality. Although the region may be in attainment for a particular criteria pollutant, localized emissions from construction activities coupled with ambient pollutant levels can cause localized increases in criteria pollutant that exceed national and/or State air quality standards. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions and potentially significant localized impacts were evaluated pursuant to the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. This methodology provides screening tables for one- through five-acre project scenarios, depending on the amount of site disturbance during a day using the Fact Sheet for equipment usage in CalEEMod. Daily oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions will occur during construction of the project, grading of the project site, and paving of facility parking area and drive aisles. Table 6 (Localized Significance Threshold Analysis) summarize on- and off-site emissions as compared to the local thresholds established for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 24 (Perris Valley). Based on the use of four tractors and three dozers during site preparation activities, a 3.5-acre threshold will be used (using linear regression). A 500-meter receptor distance was used to reflect the proximity of sensitive receptors; however, the nearest residential uses are located greater than 800 feet (0.15 miles) to the south of the project site. Note that particulate matter emissions account for daily watering required by SCAQMD Rule 403 (three times per day for a 61 percent reduction in fugitive dust). Emissions from construction activities will not exceed any localized threshold. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 22 Table 6 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis (lbs/day) Phase CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 8.69 11.22 0.89 0.78 Site Preparation 41.11 54.63 9.98 6.58 Grading 26.08 38.45 4.75 3.34 Building Construction 18.51 28.51 1.97 1.85 Paving 14.73 20.30 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coating 1.87 2.19 0.17 0.17 Threshold 20,719 732 196.3 97.9 Potentially Substantial? No No No No Operation-related LSTs become of concern when there are substantial on-site stationary sources that could impact surrounding receptors. The proposed project does not include such on-site operations; therefore, impacts related to operational LSTs will not occur. Carbon 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 (Caltrans) Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol). 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 CO 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. Caltrans notes that because of the age of the assumptions used in the screening procedures and the obsolete nature of the modeling tools utilized to develop the screening procedures in the Protocol, they are no longer accepted. More recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. The proposed project’s operations would not involve an intersection experiencing this level of traffic; therefore, the proposed project passes the screening analysis and impacts are deemed less than significant. 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 proposed project is satisfactory pursuant to the CO Protocol 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 development does not include any of the above noted uses or process; no impact would occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 23 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 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?     f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     Sources: Menifee General Plan; Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Approved June 7, 2003; Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc, Biological Technical Report for the All Star Super Storage Project 2015-156, September 22, 2015; Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc., Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis for Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, All Star Self Storage Project 2015-156, September 22, 2015 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 24 Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-8: Protected biological resources, especially sensitive and special status wildlife species and their natural habitats. Policy OSC-8.1: Work to implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority. Policy OSC-8.2: Support local and regional efforts to evaluate, acquire, and protect natural habitats for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species occurring in and around the City. Policy OSC-8.4: Identify and inventory existing natural resources in the City of Menifee. Policy OSC-8.5: Recognize the impacts new development will have on the City's natural resources and identify ways to reduce these impacts. Policy OSC-8.8: Implement and follow MSHCP goals and policies when making discretionary actions pursuant to Section 13 of the Implementing Agreement. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a, f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located on a primarily vacant site immediately west of I-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial, vacant land, and surface street features. The site was previously used for agriculture and is currently vacant. The project site is not located within a Critical Habitat area according to the USFWS.12 According to the Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (Appendix B), no special-status plant species were on the project site. Based on the presently disked and disturbed nature of the project site and the lack of suitable habitat, no impacts to special-status plant species are expected as a result of the project. According to the Biological Technical Report, the project site has a low potential to support three special-status animal species, including the loggerhead shrike (foraging only), the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. Each of these species is covered under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) without survey/conservation requirements. The loss of habitat for these species would be less than significant. The project site also has a low potential to support Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR), which is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. The project site is located within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and SKR Fee Assessment Area. Impacts to SKR are covered under the SKR HCP, and would be less than significant through project compliance with the SKR HCP. The proposed project site is within the planning area of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).13 The proposed project is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP, and is not within a criteria cell (see Appendix C). The proposed project is not located within or near any MSHCP Special Linkage areas and will not interfere with the goals of the MSHCP. 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.14 The proposed project is located in the MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl. According to the Biological Technical Report, the project site does not contain suitable burrows with the potential to support burrowing owls due to the absence of ground squirrel activity. However, the general habitat of the site is suitable for burrowing owls, and if ground squirrels were to become active onsite in the future, then the site may have the potential to support burrowing owls in the future. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a pre- construction burrowing owl survey pursuant to Objective 6 of the MSHCP within 30 days prior to disturbance of the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls to Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 25 less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 A 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl is required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to determine if burrowing owl is present within the survey area. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with MSHCP survey requirements to avoid direct take of burrowing owl. If burrowing owl are determined to occupy the project site or immediate vicinity, the City of Menifee Planning Division will be notified and avoidance measures will be implemented, as appropriate, pursuant to the MSHCP, the California Fish and Game Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the mitigation guidelines prepared by the CDFW (2012). The following measures are recommended in the CDFW guidelines to avoid impacts on an active burrow:  No disturbance should occur within 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season.  No disturbance should occur within 75 meters (approximately 250 feet) of occupied burrows during the breeding season. For unavoidable impacts, passive or active relocation of burrowing owls would need to be implemented by a qualified biologist outside the breeding season, in accordance with procedures set by the MSHCP and in coordination with the CDFW. b & c) Less than Significant Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, the project site does not contain any wetlands. Approximately 0.04 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water of the U.S. was detected within Drainage A and the adjacent Caltrans flood control channel; however, none of these waters were determined to be wetlands.15 The proposed project site has been previously used for agriculture and is currently primarily vacant. The northern 0.08 acres of the project site is developed with structures associated with the storage facility on Parcel 1 to the north. Approximately 0.12 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas were detected within Drainage A and the adjacent Caltrans flood control channel. Riparian areas total 0.09 acre, consisting entirely of the mulefat thickets within Drainage A, while riverine areas total 0.03 acre. The proposed project will offset permanent impacts to riparian/riverine areas by purchasing credits through an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program within the Santa Ana River watershed. The proposed project will compensate for project-specific impacts at a minimum 1:1 ratio for Corps/Regional Board jurisdiction and CDFW unvegetated streambed, and a minimum of 2:1 ratio for riparian vegetation, ensuring that any impacts are reduced to less than significant. In addition, according to the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) prepared for the project, the proposed project will reconstruct a concrete trapezoidal channel in the southeast corner of the site, just southeast of where it currently exists, and this channel will continue to convey flows from offsite areas into the adjacent Caltrans flood control channel. Given the low habitat quality within the project site itself, the proposed off-site mitigation, described above, will result in a biologically equivalent or superior condition within the MSHCP Plan Area compared within the existing conditions of the riparian/riverine areas. This determination is based on one or more of the following factors, described below: effects on Conserved Habitats; effects on riparian/riverine planning species; and effects on riparian linkages and function of the MSHCP conservation area. Effects on Conserved Habitats The project site is not located within the MSCHP Criteria Area or existing PQP Conserved Lands, and therefore will not impact lands under existing conservation or lands targeted for conservation. Although Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 26 the project will directly impact approximately 0.12 acre of riparian/riverine areas, the proposed mitigation would result in superior preservation in the amount and quality of riparian/riverine habitat within the MSHCP. The project will purchase credits at an off-site mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program within the Santa Ana River Watershed at a 2:1 ratio for impacts to riparian habitat, and at a 1:1 ratio for impacts to unvegetated riverine areas. Effects on Riparian/Riverine Planning Species The project will not impact habitat with the potential to support wildlife typical of riparian areas. The proposed off-site mitigation will provide habitat with better opportunity for MSHCP riparian/riverine planning species, and other planning species. Effects on Riparian Linkages and Function of the MSHCP Conservation Area The project will not adversely impact existing or proposed Conservation Areas, and will not adversely impact existing or proposed Linkages or Constrained Linkages. Furthermore, the project is designed to minimize adverse hydrologic effects to downstream resources. As such, the proposed project will not adversely affect linkage and/or overall MSHCP conservation function. As such, impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat will be less than significant. Because measures to mitigate impacts have been incorporated into the project as laid out in the DBESP, impacts to will be less than significant without the need for additional mitigation. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has been previously disturbed and is currently primarily vacant. The northern 0.08 acres of the project site is developed with structures associated with the storage facility on Parcel 1 to the north. The project site is surrounded by the existing storage facility to the north, vacant land to the west, a plant nursery to the south, and I-215 to the east. The project site contains limited vegetation, including 0.09 acre of mulefat stands occurring within Drainage A, which is a Blue Line stream, 0.003 acre of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub occurring offsite within the Caltrans flood control channel, and limited disturbed and ruderal vegetation. There are no trees on site. There are no substantial vegetated areas or water bodies located on-site. The project site does not provide for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife. Less than significant impacts will occur. According to the Biological Technical Report, the limited amount of ruderal/disturbed vegetation and the mulefat thickets within the proposed project have the potential to support nesting birds. Impacts to nesting birds by the proposed project are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Wildlife Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been incorporated to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that vegetation removal occur outside of the nesting season (February 15th to August 31st). If vegetation is removed during the nesting season, a qualified biological shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to scheduled removals. Within implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Removal of vegetation shall not occur during the nesting season, between February 15 to August 31 to the extent that this is feasible. Should vegetation require removal during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey prior to removal. Surveys shall be conducted no more than three days prior to scheduled removals. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish appropriate buffers around the vegetation containing the active nest. The vegetation containing the active nest shall not be removed, and no grading shall occur within the established buffer, until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If clearing is not conducted within three days of a negative survey, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 27 e) No Impact. The project site is primarily vacant and is largely unvegetated. There are no trees on site. The proposed development will include landscaping along the western, southern, and eastern portion of the site and will not involve the removal of any trees considered a Heritage Tree as defined in the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section 9.86.110 of the Menifee Municipal Code). 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     Sources: Menifee General Plan; National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places; California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation; Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment All Star Super Storage, October 1, 2015; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and integrated into the City's built environment. Policy OSC-5.1: Preserve and protect significant archeological, historic, and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, and other features, such as Ringing Rock and Grandmother Oak, consistent with state law. Policy OSC-5.3: Preserve sacred sites identified by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, such as tribal burial grounds, by avoiding activities that would negatively impact the sites. Policy OSC-5.5: Establish clear and responsible practices to identify, evaluate, and protect previously unknown archeological, historic, and cultural sites, following CEQA and NEPA procedure. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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.16, 17 No known historically or culturally significant resources, structures, buildings, or objects are located on the project site.18 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 primarily vacant site immediately west of I-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 29 industrial use, vacant land, and surface street features. The proposed project consists of the expansion of the existing self-storage facility to the north. No cultural resources of prehistoric (i.e. Native American) or historical origin were identified in the Phase I Cultural Resources/Archeological Study (Appendix D), which includes a records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) and a field survey.19 In addition, the site was previously used for agriculture, which likely included ground- disturbing activities that would likely have unearthed cultural resources at the site, if they were present. A Sacred Lands File Search request was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 27, 2015. The NAHC provided the contact information to 40 individuals with tribal affiliation. Scoping letters were sent to all 40 contacts by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. on September 9, 20185 to request any information regarding the use of the project area or any known cultural resources within the vicinity. Productive comments were received from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Soboba Band of Mission Indians and formal consultation with the City has been requested and is under way in accordance with AB 52 guidelines. Although the project site will not have an impact on any known cultural resources, because of the identification of prehistoric site and historic structures located within one mile of the project site and the existence of a natural intermittent stream/drainage which traverses the property, buried materials may be unearthed during construction. As such, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-3 are incorporated. Mitigation Measure C-1 requires that recommended procedures be followed in the event of an inadvertent archeological find. Mitigation Measure C-2 requires that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during earth-moving activities in the areas of construction most likely to uncover resources (areas of the drainage/blue line stream, detention basin and utility trenches). Mitigation Measure C-3 and C-4 require that a tribal monitor from both the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians be present during ground-disturbing activities involving clearing and grubbing and grading in the areas of the blue line stream, detention basin, and utility trenches. 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 (OCS-5.1). Impacts to buried cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure C-1 Inadvertent Archeological Find. 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.  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.  Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 30 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.  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 ground-disturbing activities involving clearing and grubbing and grading in the areas of the blue line stream, detention basin, and utility trenches in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Project Archaeologist and the representative(s) 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 ground-disturbing activities involving clearing and grubbing and grading in the areas of the blue line stream, detention basin, and utility trenches. 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 ground-disturbing activities involving clearing and grubbing and grading in the areas of the blue line stream, detention basin, and utility trenches. The boundaries of areas to be monitored shall be determined by the grading superintendent, the project archaeologist and the Pechanga Tribe based on existing field conditions. 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. CUP 2015-156 Page 31 C-4 Native American Monitoring (Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during ground-disturbing activities involving clearing and grubbing and grading in the areas of the blue line stream, detention basin, and utility trenches. The boundaries of areas to be monitored shall be determined by the grading superintendent, the project archaeologist and the Soboba Tribe based on existing field conditions. 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 Applicant/Permittee shall be responsible for all curation costs. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site, according to the Menifee General Plan EIR, is located in a high paleontological sensitivity area. It is possible that potentially significant prehistoric remains could be found, since buried fossils often go undetected during a walkover survey. C-5 Paleontological Resources. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 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. In addition to state laws referenced above, Mitigation Measures C-6 and C-7 have been incorporated to ensure compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 5097.98. Thus, compliance with the above-referenced state laws will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure C-6 Human Remains. 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 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 32 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 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. C-7 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). Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 33 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?     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 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 where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibits S-1, “Fault Map,” S-2, “Slope Distribution,” S-3, “Liquefaction and Landslides,” and S-4, “Geologic Map”; Riverside County General Plan Figure S-8, Wind “Erosion Susceptibility Map,” Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-1: A community that is minimally impacted by seismic shaking and earthquake-induced or Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 34 other geologic hazards. Policy S-1.1: Require all new habitable buildings and structures to be designed and built to be seismically resistant in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City. Goal S-2: A community that has used engineering solutions to reduce or eliminate the potential for injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by geologic hazards such as slope instability; compressible, collapsible, expansive or corrosive soils; and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. Policy S-2.1: Require all new developments to mitigate the geologic hazards that have the potential to impact habitable structures and other improvements. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a.i.) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.20 No active faults have been identified at the ground surface within City limits. The nearest active fault is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately nine miles west 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.iii) 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 Evaluation system, the project the site is not located in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction.21 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. Therefore, no impacts due to the project site from seismically induced liquefaction will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 35 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 agricultural use. 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 (NPDES), such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or sandbags. Following 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. 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 CBC. Therefore, with the project’s compliance with CBC requirements, 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. With the project’s adherence to CBC design considerations, impacts related to expansive soils will be considered less than significant. e) No Impact. The proposed project includes the development of self-storage facilities, and will not generate any wastewater that requires conveyance through a municipal sewage or septic system. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 36 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     Source: OPR’s Technical Advisory. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design. Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate alternative systems of energy production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell. Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32. Policy OSC-10.2: Align the City's long-term GHG reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects. Existing Setting: Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global warming, a related concept, is the observed increase in average temperature of the earth’s surface and atmosphere. The six major greenhouse gases (GHGs) identified by the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHGs absorb longwave radiant energy reflected by the earth, which warms the atmosphere. GHGs also radiate long wave radiation both upward to space and back down toward the surface of the earth. The downward part of this longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is known as the “greenhouse effect.” The potential effects of global climate change may include rising surface temperatures, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, and more drought Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 37 years. CO2 is an odorless, colorless natural GHG. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic (human caused) sources of CO2 are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, wood, butane, propane, etc. CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. N20, also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG. Some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of GHGs. HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (whose production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol) for automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Events and activities, such as the industrial revolution and the increased combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, coal, etc.), have heavily contributed to the increase in atmospheric levels of GHGs. An air quality analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following reasons. For criteria pollutants significance thresholds are based on daily emissions because attainment or non-attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, several ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short-term exposure effects on human health, e.g., one-hour and eight-hour. Since the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 100 years, for example, the effects of GHGs are longer-term, affecting global climate over a relatively long time frame. As a result, the SCAQMD’s current position is to evaluate GHG effects over a longer timeframe than a single day. In its CEQA & Climate Change document (January 2008), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) identifies many potential GHG significance threshold options. The CAPCOA document indicates that establishing quantitative thresholds is a balance between setting the level low enough to capture a substantial portion of future residential and non-residential development, while also setting a threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. Two potential significance thresholds were 10,000 metric tons per year and 25,000 metric tons per year. Finally, another approach to determining significance is to estimate what percentage of the total inventory of GHG emissions are represented by emissions from a single project. If emissions are a relatively small percentage of the total inventory, it is possible that the project will have little or no effect on global climate change. According to available information, the statewide inventory of CO2 equivalent emissions is as follows: 1990 GHG emissions were estimated to equal 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and 2020 GHG emissions are projected to equal 600 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, under a business as usual scenario. Interpolating an inventory for the year 2011 results in an estimated inventory of approximately 121 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Interpolating an inventory for the year 2012 results in an estimated inventory of approximately 127 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. These amounts assume that between 1990 and 2020 there is an average increase of 5.76 million tons per year of GHG. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions for the project were analyzed in the project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions (See Appendix A). The emissions inventory accounts for GHG emissions from construction and operational activities. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from mobile Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 38 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, SCAQMD 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. 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.22 Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based 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.23 This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. It should also be noted that the city of Menifee does not yet have an adopted GHG inventory or an adopted GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). The City also has not adopted a quantitative threshold of significance for GHGs. The city will accept the interim threshold recommended in SCAQMD’s Interim Thresholds document for commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects.24 Thus, and based on guidance from the City of Menifee and SCAQMD, if a residential or commercial project would emit GHGs less than 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, the project is not considered a substantial GHG emitter and the GHG impact would be less than significant. Annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 7 (Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory) below. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project will not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold; therefore, impacts will be less than significant. Table 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Source CO2E (MT/YR) Construction (amortized) 24.5 Operational 906.3 Total 930.8 Threshold 3,000 Exceeds? No Source: MIG, 2016 b) No Impact. The City of Menifee has not yet adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan.25 The City of Menifee General Plan includes policies and measures (shown in General Plan Draft EIR GHG section Table 5.7-9) for the City to implement in support of achieving the reduction target of AB 32 and the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. The City has adopted the 2013 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), including the California Green Building Standards Code (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.06). The project 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 39 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     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?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit S-6, “High Fire Hazard Areas,” and Exhibit S-7, “Critical Facilities;” State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control, EnviroStor database; State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control, Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 40 Substances Sites database; State of California, Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, All Hazards Site Search; United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database; Priority 1 Environmental, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, August 31, 2015 Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination. Policy S-5.1: Locate facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials away from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities and areas susceptible to impacts or damage from a natural disaster. Policy S-5.2: Ensure that the fire department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy S-5.4: Ensure that all facilities that handle hazardous materials comply with federal and state laws pertaining to the management of hazardous wastes and materials. Policy S-5.5: Require facilities that handle hazardous materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal. Goal S-6: A City that responds and recovers in an effective and timely manner from natural disasters such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes, and as a result is not impacted by civil unrest that may occur following a natural disaster. Policy S-6.1: Continuously review, update, and implement emergency preparedness, response, and recovery plans that make the best use of the City- and county-specific emergency management resources available. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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 an industrially zoned area that is primarily vacant. The proposed project does 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 a self-storage 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 self-storage uses 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 facility would not result in significant impacts involving use, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 41 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.26 According to the Phase I Site Assessment (Appendix E), pesticides are likely to be found in sub surface soils due to the past use of the site as a wheat field. The proposed project consists of the expansion of the existing All Star Storage to the north. Past agricultural use and the potential presence of pesticides is not considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Impacts will be less than significant. Therefore, there will be no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of the proposed project. The project site is primarily 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) No Impact. There are no schools within ¼ mile of the project site. Therefore, no impact regarding hazardous material transportation, storage, and use will occur. 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.27 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),28  listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),29  listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,30  currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,31 or  developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.32 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 consists of the expansion of an existing self- storage facility. All project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. 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 driveways off of Haun Road. 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 minor roadway improvements 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 42 latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).33 There are no wildland conditions in the suburbanized area where the project site is located. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 43 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion 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 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 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 Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?     h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?     Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 44 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?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Safety Element Exhibit S-5, “Flood Hazards”; Riverside County General Plan Figure S-9, “100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones,” and Figure S-10 “Dam Failure Inundation Zone”; Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, July 2, 2015; Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Preliminary Hydrology Study for All Star Super Storage, July 1, 2015. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards. Policy S-3.1: Require that all new developments and redevelopments in areas susceptible to flooding (such as the 100-year floodplain and areas known to the City to flood during intense or prolonged rainfall events) incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards. Policy S-3.2: Reduce flood hazards in developed areas known to flood. Policy OSC-7.8: Protect groundwater quality by decommissioning existing septic systems and establishing connections to sanitary sewer infrastructure. Policy OSC-7.9: Ensure that high quality potable water resources continue to be available by managing stormwater runoff, wellhead protection, and other sources of pollutants. Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac Wash, Paloma Wash, and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation, replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper drainage, and prevention of flood damage. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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. The proposed project will disturb approximately 9.85 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 45 runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that will impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The Department of Public Works and Engineering will review and approve Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the project applicant’s submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants during construction. The project applicant’s SWPPP 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 storage facility will increase impervious areas by replacing the vacant property with 15 storage buildings and associated paving and landscaping. Landscaping is proposed as part of project design along the west, south, and east boundaries of the site. Although the amount of impervious surfaces will be greater than existing conditions, all on-site runoff will drain towards the east of the property into a water quality detention basin. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix F), the detention basin has been sized in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District criteria and that outflow from the basin is significantly lower than the outflow under existing conditions. According to the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed project, the detention basin and the following source control BMPs would fully address drainage management areas and no alternative compliance measures are required for the project. Permanent Structural Source Control BMPs  Mark all inlets “only rain in the drain”.  Landscaping design to minimize irrigation and runoff. Specify plants tolerant to saturated soil conditions for self-retaining areas.  Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler water to the sanitary sewer. Operational Source Control BMPs  Maintain stencil.  Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides.  Sweep sidewalks, parking lots and drive aisles regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. Compliance with existing federal, state and local regulations related to water quality, including implementation of BMP’s included in the project construction SWPPP will result in impacts to water quality being less than significant. The proposed development will not generate hazardous wastewater that will require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the project’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 Hydraulic Unit.34 According to the General Plan EIR, there are no percolation basins or other areas in the City used for intentional recharge of groundwater basins. Therefore, the increase in impermeable surfaces will not interfere with intentional groundwater recharge. Further, all on-site runoff will drain towards the east of the property into a water quality detention basin. Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 46 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 water quality detention basin located in the eastern portion 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 Department of Public Works and Engineering 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, landscaping, a water quality detention basin, and therefore the development will not be subject to substantial erosion. The proposed project will not alter the course of Drainage A, which traverses the southeastern portion of the project site; thus, the project will not alter any stream course. Impacts will be less than significant. d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. One drainage course that is a Blue Line stream (Drainage A) traverses the southeastern portion of the project site. Drainage A originates offsite and flow through the plant nursery south of the project site. Prior to entering the project site, flows from Drainage A are diverted into a constructed side channel on the nursery property. This side channel runs parallel to the southern boundary of the project site and ties into the flood control channel located immediately east of the site. Flows within Drainage A that overtop the constructed side channel enter the site from the south and sheet flow across the disked and plowed field in a northeastern direction, eventually exiting the site along the eastern boundary over a concrete spillway and directly into the Caltrans channel that runs parallel to I-215. The drainage course has been diverted to run along the southern portion of the project site. 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 primarily vacant. Project implementation will not result in alteration of the existing drainage course; however, the project proposes to turn Drainage A into a concrete channel. The proposed water quality detention basin will be located at the eastern portion of the site, which will continue to collect any excess flows from Drainage A. 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 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 IX.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 15 self-storage buildings totaling 225,324 square feet on 9.85 acres. 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.35 No impact will occur. 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.36 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 approximately 6.3 miles east of the project site, Canyon Lake is located approximately 6.0 miles west of the project site, and Perris Reservoir is located Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 47 approximately 13.1 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 (north 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 approximately 2.0 miles from the nearest reservoir to the north. 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. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 48 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 conservation plan?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit LU-2, “Land Use Map”; Menifee Zoning Map; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-1: Land uses and building types that result in a community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a diversity of options of where they can live, work, shop, and recreate within Menifee. Policy LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options. Policy LU-1.4: Preserve, protect, and enhance established rural, estate, and residential neighborhoods by providing sensitive and well-designed transitions (building design, landscape, etc.) between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas. Policy LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities. Policy LU-1.6: Coordinate land use, infrastructure, and transportation planning and analysis with regional, county, and other local agencies to further regional and subregional goals for jobs-housing balance. Policy LU-1.8: Ensure new development is carefully designed to avoid or incorporate natural features, including washes, creeks, and hillsides. Policy LU-1.9: Allow for flexible development standards provided that the potential benefits and merit of projects can be balanced with potential impacts. Policy LU-1.10: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 49 hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. Goal LU-2: Thriving Economic Development Corridors that accommodate a mix of nonresidential and residential uses that generate activity and economic vitality in the City. Policy LU-2.1: Promote infill development that complements existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Infill development and future growth in Menifee is strongly encouraged to locate within EDC areas to preserve the rural character of rural, estate, and small estate residential uses. Goal ED-1: A diverse and robust local economy capable of providing employment for all residents desiring to work in the City. Policy ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations. Goal ED-2: A variety of retail shopping areas distributed strategically throughout the City and regional retail, dining, and entertainment destinations in key locations with freeway access. Policy ED-2.1: Promote retail development by locating needed goods and services in proximity to where residents live to improve quality of life, retain taxable spending by Menifee residents, and attract residents from outside the City to shop in Menifee. • Locate businesses providing convenience goods and services in retail centers that are on arterials adjacent to neighborhoods and communities throughout the City but not in rural residential areas. • Encourage comparison goods businesses to locate in larger retail centers located on major arterials near freeway interchanges, because businesses that provide comparison goods tend to draw customers from larger areas. Policy ED-2.2: Require regional retail districts to provide entertainment and dining in addition to retail sales and services to create destinations prepared to withstand e-commerce's increasing capture of retail spending. These districts should create a pedestrian-friendly human-scale atmosphere with street furniture, shading, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping and socializing. Local retail centers (primarily intended to serve Menifee residents) need not necessarily provide dining and entertainment but shall provide street furniture, shading, pedestrian-circulation, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping. Goal ED-3: A mix of land uses that generates a fiscal balance to support and enhance the community's quality of life. Policy ED-3.1: Incorporate short-term and long-term economic and fiscal implications of proposed actions into decision making. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) No Impact. The proposed project is within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial, vacant land, and surface street features. To the north of the project site is the All Star Super Storage facility of which the proposed project will be an expansion of and to the south of the site is a plant nursery. Vacant land is located to the west of the project site and the I-215 is located to the east. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not divide an Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 50 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 Economic Development Corridor (EDC) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned EDC- Southern Gateway. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the areas designated EDC are envisioned to develop primarily as nonresidential uses, with residential uses playing a supporting role. The EDC designation is primarily intended for uses along corridors such as I-215. The City of Menifee has adopted the Economic Development Corridor District Ordinance. According to the Ordinance Public Self-Storage facilities are conditionally permitted within the EDC- Southern Gateway zone. The proposed project will comply with all development standards set forth in. 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 (NCCP/HCP) and complies with the provisions of that plan. Moreover, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less than significant levels. Less than significant impacts will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 51 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     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?     Sources: Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Figure 5.11-1, “Mineral Resource Zones”; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.4: Require that any future mining activities be in compliance with the State Mining Reclamation Act, federal and state environmental regulations, and local ordinances. Policy OSC-4.5: Limit the impacts of mining operations on the City's natural open space, biological and scenic resources, and any adjacent land uses. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a-b) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in 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 EIR, no known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City of Menifee.37 Thus, the project will not impact mineral resources. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 52 XII. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 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?     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 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 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     Sources: Menifee General Plan, Noise Element; Menifee General Plan, Noise Element Exhibit N-1; Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Figure 5.12-3, “Airport Noise Contours”; Menifee Municipal Code; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure. Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 53 ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Table N-1 Stationary Source Noise Standards Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 40 Leq (10 minute) 55 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) Policy N-1.8 Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state, and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors and require that new noise-producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures. Policy N-1.10: Guide noise-tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors adjacent to the I-215 or within the projected noise contours of any adjacent airports. Policy N-1.11: Discourage the siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. Goal N-2: Minimal Noise Spillover. Minimal noise spillover from noise-generating uses, such as agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses into adjoining noise-sensitive uses. 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 bels. 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.38 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:39 LEQ (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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 54 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. LDN (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 LDN 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. LEQ 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, industrial use, vacant land, and surface street features. Existing noise conditions are representative of this environment. Traffic noise from the I-215 Freeway, Haun Road, Wickerd Road, and Garbani 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, industrial use, and vacant land. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a, d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.09.050 (Noise Control Regulations) establishes the permissible noise level that may intrude into a neighbor’s property. The Municipal Code establishes the exterior noise level criteria for residential properties affected by stationary noise sources. For residential properties the exterior noise level shall not exceed 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and shall not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). 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. Temporary 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 project consists of three separate construction phases. Phase 1 will consist of the construction of the five western buildings (Buildings AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE) and the detention basin. Phase 2 will consist of the construction of the four central buildings (Buildings FF, GG, HH, and II) on the site. Phase 3 will consist of construction of the six eastern buildings (Buildings JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, and OO). To provide a worst case analysis, the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was run assuming that all proposed buildings will be constructed as part of one phase. The proposed project will be completed in six phases: 1) demolition, 2) site preparation, 3) grading, 4) facility construction, 5) paving, and 6) application of architectural coatings. According to the model, the demolition phase of construction produces the loudest noise levels. Demolition activity to occur at the southwest corner of the storage use to the north of the site would likely require the use of a concrete saw, dozer, tractor, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 55 and backhoe. Operation of this equipment will also include the use of warning horns. According to RCNM (Appendix H), noise levels due to project construction activity are expected to range from 51.6 to 69.6 dBA Lmax at nearby industrial receiver locations and will therefore not result in significant impacts to neighboring industrial uses. The nearest land uses that are considered sensitive receptors are existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 0.15 miles south of the project site. Section 9.09.030(B) of the City’s Municipal Code indicates that private construction projects located within one quarter mile of an occupied residence are considered exempt from Municipal Code noise standards if they occur within the permitted 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, with no activity allowed on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Mitigation Measures N-1 has been implemented to restrict hours of construction for the proposed project to the hours permitted in the City’s Municipal Code. With adherence to these construction hours, impacts related to project construction will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures NOI-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. On-Site Operational Noise The proposed project is expected to create transportation noise sources typical of self-storage facilities (cars coming and going, people talking, landscape maintenance equipment). These activities can generate noise levels between 49 dBA (tire squeals) at 50 feet but are not expected to last for more than a few minutes at a time and therefore are not likely to violate the City’s noise ordinance ten- minute Leq noise level standards. 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 Haun Road and I-215, and therefore, would not result in a permanent substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts will be less than significant. Traffic Noise A substantial increase in ambient noise is an increase that is barely perceptible (3 dBA). The Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels at 50 feet from the roadway centerline were calculated using TNM Version 2.5 (see Appendix H) based on average daily traffic volumes presented in the traffic impact analysis. The Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 8 (Existing Roadway Noise Levels). As shown in Table 8, increase in traffic noise due to the proposed project will not result in perceptible increases in noise. Impacts will be less than significant. Table 8 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Roadway Segment Existing Existing Plus Project Difference Significant? Noise Level at 100 ft from Centerline (dBA CNEL) Haun Road between Garbani Rd & Project Site 70.2 70.5 +0.3 No between Project Site & Scott Rd 70.3 70.6 +0.3 No Scott Road west of Haun Rd 70.5 70.7 +0.2 No between Haun Rd & I-215 SB Ramps 72.7 73.0 +0.3 No Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 56 It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site will be traffic noise from the I- 215 Freeway and Haun Road. The proposed self-storage use is not considered a noise-sensitive land use. The City’s General Plan references the state Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments that indicates noise levels at industrial uses are normally acceptable up to 75 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 85 dBA CNEL. According to Exhibit N-1 (Future Noise Contours) of the General Plan Noise Element, the site would be exposed to noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA CNEL on the western portion of the site and greater than 70 dBA CNEL at the eastern portion, adjacent to the I- 215. The proposed project includes a detention basin at the eastern boundary of the site with the eastern buildings set back approximately 150 feet from the I-215. The manager’s office for the facility is already existing and operating as part of the existing storage facility to the north. The expansion of the facility would not include additional offices that would expose managers to traffic noise. Expansion of the self-storage use along the I-215 would not result in the exposure employees or residents to noise exceeding normally or conditionally acceptable levels on a regular basis. Impacts will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 57 project is a vibratory roller (for paving purposes). This machine can cause vibration levels of up to 0.02 PPV at 25 feet. The nearest land uses that are considered sensitive receptors are existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 0.15 miles south of the project site. 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 in./sec. peak particle velocity (ppv) at 10 feet.40 Based on reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the proposed project will not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in barely perceptible human response (annoyance) for infrequent events. Further vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receptor are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating simultaneously at a distance of 100 feet from the project site perimeter. Moreover, construction at the project site will be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City requirement thereby eliminating potential vibration impacts during the sensitive nighttime hours. Impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section XII a. above, operational noise impacts associated with day-to-day use of the proposed storage facility would not exceed the City’s noise ordinance ten-minute Leq noise level standards. As such, long-term operational noise impacts will be less than significant. 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 impacts related to airport land use plans or airports could occur. There are also no private airstrips in the project vicinity; there will be no impacts related to excessive noise near a private airstrip. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 58 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places over 50,000; Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Adopted 2012 RTP Growth Forecast. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the expansion of a self- storage facility; therefore, the project would not result in direct population increases. Expansion of this self-storage facility would not generate any new employees. Management and maintenance of the facility will be handled by the existing management and maintenance staff. The proposed project will not generate significant amounts of new employment in the city because self-storage facilities either require no employment or generate only a few employees. There will be no impact related to population growth. b) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on a primarily vacant, previously disturbed site west of I-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial uses, vacant land, as well as surface street features. The proposed project will not displace existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on a primarily vacant, previously disturbed site west of I-215, within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, industrial uses, vacant land, 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. CUP 2015-156 Page 59 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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?     b) Police protection?     c) Schools?     d) Parks?     e) Other public facilities?     Sources: Menifee General Plan Safety Element; Menifee Union School District, Perris Union High School District and Romoland School District websites. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.7: Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are well-maintained by the responsible agency. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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. 68 is located approximately 1.7 miles west of the proposed project site at 26020 Wickerd Road. 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.41 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 60 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 9.9 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.42 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 proposed development 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. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed storage facility 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 does not include any residential development and is not a use that will create additional demand for parkland. No impact will result. e) No Impact. The proposed expansion of the self-storage facility will not result in new employment or population that would create demand for additional public services. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 61 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 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 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     Sources: Menifee General Plan Draft EIR; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.1: Provide parks and recreational programs to meet the varied needs of community residents, including children, youth, adults, seniors, and persons with disabilities, and make these facilities and services easily accessible and affordable to all users. a-b) No Impact. The proposed project includes the expansion of a storage facility. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed project, therefore, will not generate any additional demand for new or expanded park facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impact will occur. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 62 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     Sources: Menifee General Plan Circulation Element; Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2010 Riverside County Congestion Management Program adopted March 10, 2010; Riverside Transit Agency. 2010 Annual Report, Ride Guides and System Map; TJW Engineering, Inc., All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis, October 19, 2015. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-1: A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents, employees, and visitors to the City of Menifee. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 63 Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to: • Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. • Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-1.2: Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted. Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee. Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to: • Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. • Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on-street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel, and explore the shared use of low speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so. Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points. Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way and other potential options. Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent. Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary. Goal C-4: Diversified local transportation options that include neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts. Policy C-4.1: Encourage the use of neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts instead of Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 64 automobiles for local trips. Goal C-5: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts. Policy C-5.3: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the negative environmental impacts of goods movement. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. (Appendix I) to assess project related impacts.43 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). Per the City of Menifee’s traffic study guidelines, a “significant” direct traffic impact under CEQA occurs when the addition of projected project traffic is defined by the existing plus project scenario causes an intersection that operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions to operate at an unacceptable level of service for existing plus project conditions. Therefore, existing plus project conditions are compared to existing conditions to identify significant, direct, project related traffic impacts according to the following criteria:  If an intersection operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) under existing conditions and the addition of projected project traffic causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F).  If an intersection is operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) under existing conditions and the addition of projected project traffic at the intersection is 50 or more peak hour trips. A significant cumulative impact is identified when a facility is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) due to cumulative future traffic and project related traffic. Cumulative traffic impacts are the result of a combination of the proposed project and other future developments contributing to the overall traffic impact at an intersection. Existing Circulation Network The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the project site are described below:  Haun Road is a two- to four-lane north-south undivided roadway. Haun Road is classified as a four-lane divided major roadway with a 118-foot cross section in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element.  Holland Road is a two-lane east-west undivided roadway. Holland Road is classified as a four- lane divided major roadway with a 118-foot cross section in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. In the City of Menifee’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), construction of the Holland Road overcrossing of the I-215 is expected to commence construction in 2016 with a completion date in 2017. This improvement will construct Holland Road as a four-lane major-roadway between Haun Road and Antelope Road and is expected to relieve traffic congestion currently experienced on Newport Road and Scott Road.  Garbani Road is a two-lane undivided east-west roadway west of Haun Road. East of Haun Road, Garbani Road is a dirt road providing access to land uses between Haun Road and I- 215. Garbani Road, in the study area, is classified as a four-lane divided major roadway with a 118-foot cross section in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 65  Scott Road is a two- to four-lane east-west roadway. Scott Road is classified as a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway with a 152-foot cross section in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. West of Haun Road, Scott Road is a two-lane undivided roadway; between Haun Road and the I-215 Ramps, Scott Road is a three-lane undivided roadway with two lanes in the westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction. In the City’s CIP, major improvements are planned at the Scott Road/I-215 interchange including a major widening of the interchange. This project is expected to commence in 2017 with a completion date in 2019. The traffic impact analysis evaluated three intersections and four roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site:  Haun Road at Holland Road  Haun Road at Garbani Road  Haun Road at Scott Road  Haun Road between Garbani Road and Project Site  Haun Road between Project Site and Scott Road  Scott Road west of Haun Road  Scott Road between Haun Road and I-215 The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzes the following study scenarios:  Existing Conditions  Existing Plus Project Conditions  Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Traffic operations are evaluated for the following time periods:  Weekday AM Peak Hour occurring between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM  Weekday PM Peak Hour occurring between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM Existing Plus Project Conditions Existing Plus Project volumes include background traffic plus the addition of project-generated traffic. Because the proposed project is expected to be operational in 2017, Existing Plus Project volumes include an ambient growth rate of three percent per year for two years, applied to existing traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Existing Plus Project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Table 9 (Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions). Based on the thresholds of significance for existing plus project conditions, the addition of project-generated trips will not have a significant impact at any of the study intersections because (1) Haun Road at Garbani Road operates at a deficient LOS pre-project, and (2) the proposed project is projected to generate less than 50 peak hour trips at the intersection. Impacts to study area intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions will be less than significant. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 66 Table 9 Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Control Type Existing (2015) Existing Plus Project (2017) Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Haun Rd/Holland Rd AWSC 23.9 20.4 C C 30.4 27.5 D D Haun Rd/Garbani Rd TWSC 170.6 23.2 F C 265.4 25.7 F D Haun Rd/North Drwy TWSC 23.6 17.9 C C 26.1 19.3 D C Haun Rd/Middle Drwy TWSC N/A 26/6 19.4 D C Haun Rd/Scott Rd Signal 41.5 36.9 D D 46.3 37.8 D D Note: AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC= One- or Two-Way Stop Control; Delay shown in seconds per vehicle 1 = Per the 2010 HCM, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and wall-way stop-controlled intersections. For intersections with one- or two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown. Source: TJW Engineering, Inc., All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis, October 19, 2015 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 10 (Roadway Segment Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions) summarizes the roadway segment analysis based on the LOS E capacities provided in the Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. As shown in Table 10, study area roadway segments operate at unacceptable LOS. The addition of project-generated trips will not have a significant impact because roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F without the proposed project. Impacts to study area roadway segments under Existing Plus Project conditions will be less than significant. Table 10 Roadway Segment Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions Roadway Segment LOS E Capacity Existing Existing Plus Project Project Contribution ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C Haun Rd btwn Garbani & Site 13,000 11,587 0.891 D 12,405 0.954 E 112 0.009 Haun Rd btwn Site & Scott 13,000 11,776 0.906 E 12,717 0.978 E 224 0.017 Scott Rd w/o Haun Rd 13,000 13,044 1.003 F 13,889 1.068 F 51 0.004 Scott Rd btwn Haun & I-215 SB Ramps 19,500 21,746 1.115 F 23,243 1.192 F 173 0.009 Source: TJW Engineering, Inc., All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis, October 19, 2015 Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants were met at the intersections of Haun Road at Holland Road and Haun Road at Garbani Road under Existing Conditions and will continue to be met under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Impacts will be less than significant. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Under Cumulative conditions, lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place under Existing Plus Project conditions apply with the exception of project driveways and other facilities assumed to be constructed by the proposed project to provide site access. Additionally, the Holland Road overcrossing is assumed to be built; although no intersection improvements at the Haun Road/Holland Road intersection are assumed. Cumulative Plus Project volumes include background traffic plus the addition of project-generated traffic and traffic projected to be generated by cumulative developments in the vicinity of the proposed project which are in various stages of planning, entitlement, and construction. Since the proposed project is projected to be operational in 2017, Cumulative Plus Project volumes include an ambient growth rate of three percent per year for two years, applied to existing volumes. Intersection Analysis Cumulative Plus Project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Table 11 (Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions). Based on the thresholds of significance for cumulative plus project conditions, the addition of project-generated trips at the intersections of Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 67 Haun Road/Holland Road, Haun Road/Garbani Road, and Haun Road/Scott Road will result in cumulative impacts. In order to reduce cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels, Mitigation Measure TIA-1, requiring participation in the funding and/or construction of off-site improvements, has been implemented. Within implementation of Mitigation Measure TIA-1, impacts will be less than significant. Table 11 Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Control Type Cumulative Plus Project (2017) Delay1 LOS Haun Rd/Holland Rd AWSC 78.2 75.8 F F Haun Rd/Garbani Rd TWSC 265.4 509.9 F F Haun Rd/North Drwy TWSC 26.1 31.6 D D Haun Rd/Middle Drwy TWSC 26.6 25.4 D D Haun Rd/Scott Rd Signal 78.9 93.4 E F Note: AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC= One- or Two-Way Stop Control; Delay shown in seconds per vehicle 1 = Per the 2010 HCM, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and wall-way stop-controlled intersections. For intersections with one- or two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown. Source: TJW Engineering, Inc., All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis, October 19, 2015 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 12 (Roadway Segment Analysis –Cumulative Plus Project Conditions) summarizes the roadway segment analysis based on the LOS E capacities provided in the Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. As shown in Table 12, study area roadway segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS. The addition of project-generated trips will result in cumulative impacts. In order to reduce cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels, Mitigation Measure TIA-1, requiring participation in the funding and/or construction of off-site improvements, has been implemented. Within implementation of Mitigation Measure TIA-1, impacts will be less than significant. Table 12 Roadway Segment Analysis – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Roadway Segment LOS E Capacity Cumulative Plus Project ADT V/C LOS Haun Rd btwn Garbani & Site 13,000 15,717 1.209 F Haun Rd btwn Site & Scott 13,000 15,605 1.200 F Scott Rd w/o Haun Rd 13,000 19,909 1.531 F Scott Rd btwn Haun & I-215 SB Ramps 19,500 28,081 1.440 F Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants were met at the intersections of Haun Road at Holland Road and Haun Road at Garbani Road under Existing Conditions and will continue to be met under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TIA-1 The applicant shall participate in the funding or construction of off-site improvements, including traffic signals that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF), and Scott Road and Bridge Benefit District Fees (Scott RBBD) or a fair share contribution 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 (RCTC) in 2010. All freeways and selected arterial roadways in the County are designated elements of the CMP system of Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 68 highways and roadways. There are two CMP system roadways in the City, I-215 and SR-74. RCTC has adopted a minimum Level of Service threshold of LOS “E” for CMP facilities. Although, the CMP indicates that I-215 in the Menifee area had a LOS “D” in 2011, the Riverside County Congestion Management Program indicates that I-215 is "exempt" from CMP requirements in accordance with CMP Statutes because this facility (roadway segments or intersections) had an LOS "F" in 1991. The proposed development is located immediately west of I-215; however, project-related traffic is not expected to significantly impact this facility with payment towards recommended roadway improvements. Impacts to CMP facilities will be less than significant. c) No Impact. The project site is over seven miles from Perris Valley Airport. The project site is not located within any airport influence area. No impact will occur. d) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 exiting the site. Implementation of these recommendations will prevent any project impacts due to a design feature. The project site is bordered by an existing storage facility to the north, vacant land to the west, a plant nursery to the south, and I-215 to the east and will not create hazards due to incompatible uses. Impacts will be less than significant e) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access. 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. There are no striped Class II bicycle lanes in the study area. Sidewalks along roadways and curb ramps at intersections are present in some locations and are generally provided along roadway segments and at intersection corners where development has occurred. Sidewalks are present adjacent to the existing All Star Super Storage site to the north as well as the project’s frontage. There are no transit routes directly serving the project site, and no transit routes within an acceptable walking distance. Additionally, the proposed self-storage use does not lend itself to transit use by customers due to the nature of the business. The project will not decrease the performance or safety of existing pedestrian facilities. Impacts will be less than significant. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 69 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 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?     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 project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     Sources: Menifee General Plan; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-3: A full range of public utilities and related services that provide for the immediate and long-term needs of the community. Policy LU-3.1: Work with utility providers in the planning, designing, and siting of distribution and support facilities to comply with the standards of the General Plan and Development Code. Policy LU-3.2: Work with utility provides to increase service capacity as demand increases. Policy LU-3.3: Coordinate public infrastructure improvements through the City's Capital Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 70 Improvement Program. Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project's ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services. Policy LU-3.5: Facilitate the shared use of right-of-way, transmission corridors, and other appropriate measures to minimize the visual impact of utilities infrastructure throughout Menifee. Goal OSC-7: A reliable and safe water supply that effectively meets current and future user demands. Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water resources. Policy OSC-7.4: Encourage the use of reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas, and other feasible applications as service becomes available from the Eastern Municipal Water District. Policy OSC-7.5: Utilize a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that adequately serves the existing and long-term needs of the community. Policy OSC-7.7: Maintain and improve existing level of sewer service by improving infrastructure and repairing existing deficiencies. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: 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 in 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 system and conveyed for treatment at the Perris Valley RWRF.44 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). Minimal wastewater flows associated with the proposed storage facility will consist of the same kinds of substances typically generated by maintenance of 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. The project will 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 71 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 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 af 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 af 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 af. 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. EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies will increase by 88,300 afy over that period. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate indoor water demand as the project consists of storage units and no restroom facilities. The project is anticipated to demand approximately 1,270,673 gallons (3.9 afy) of water per year for landscaping. This demand is well within the anticipated increase in water supply. 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 will generate minimal wastewater to be conveyed to the Perris Valley RWRF and will be 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 a water quality detention basin proposed along the eastern edge of the site. A NPDES permit will be required for the 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). According to the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix F), the detention basin has been sized in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District criteria and that outflow from the basin is significantly lower than the outflow under existing conditions. According to the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed project, the detention basin and the Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 72 following source control BMPs would fully address drainage management areas and no alternative compliance measures are required for the project. Permanent Structural Source Control BMPs  Mark all inlets “only rain in the drain”.  Landscaping design to minimize irrigation and runoff. Specify plants tolerant to saturated soil conditions for self-retaining areas.  Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler water to the sanitary sewer. Operational Source Control BMPs  Maintain stencil.  Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides.  Sweep sidewalks, parking lots and drive aisles regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. 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. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate indoor water demand as the project consists of storage units and no restroom facilities. The project is anticipated to demand approximately 1,270,673 gallons (3.9 afy) of water per year for landscaping. 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 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 XVII.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.45 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 2052.46 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 73 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. CUP 2015-156 Page 74 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to 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 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, there is potential for burrowing owls to occur on site. As such, Mitigation Measure B-1 will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls in the project area to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure B-2 will ensure that impacts to nesting birds will be less than significant. Adverse impacts to historic, paleontological resources, or human remains will not occur. Construction-phase procedures will be implemented in the event any important archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-7. 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 with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 75 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 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, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, 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 requires implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to reduce emissions of VOC during construction. Impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to local air quality impacts. Biological Resources. The context for assessing local cumulative biological resources impacts is the extent to which project related construction will contribute to or result on the disturbance of habitat Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 76 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. Mitigation Measure B-2 requires nesting bird surveys prior to removal of vegetation on the project site to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-1 and B-2 will eliminate any destruction of critical habitat in the immediate area; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to local biological resource impacts. Cultural Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to local 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-5 have been incorporated requiring construction monitoring and evaluation of any discovered potential archaeological or paleontological resources, the uniqueness of the archaeological or paleontological sample or ancestry of the remains, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact or remains. Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-5 will eliminate any potential loss of important regional archaeological or paleontological information that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local archaeological knowledge. Mitigation Measures C-6 and C-7 have been incorporated to ensure compliance with State Health and Safety Codes in regards to buried human remains and associated grave goods. Noise. The context for assessing local cumulative noise impacts 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 has 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. This will eliminate any noise impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project site; therefore, the project will have no local contribution to cumulative noise impacts. 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 XVI.A 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 (DIF), 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 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, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, wildfires, Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 77 groundwater levels, drainage and water quality, flooding, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, 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, 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 requires implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to reduce emissions of VOC during construction. Impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels; therefore, the project will have no cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts. Biological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative biological resources impacts in 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. Mitigation Measure B- 2 requires nesting bird surveys prior to removal of vegetation on the project site to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-1 and B-2 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-5 have been incorporated requiring construction monitoring and evaluation of any discovered potential archaeological or paleontological resources, the uniqueness of the archaeological or paleontological sample or ancestry of the remains, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact or remains. Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-5 will eliminate any potential loss of important regional archaeological or paleontological information that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important regional archaeological or paleontological knowledge. Mitigation Measures C-6 and C-7 have been incorporated to ensure compliance with State Health and Safety Codes in regards to buried human remains and associated grave goods. Noise. The context for assessing cumulative noise impacts in 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 has 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. This will eliminate any noise impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project site. The proposed project will not result in permanent increase in traffic noise; therefore, the project will have no local contribution to cumulative noise impacts. 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 Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 78 roadway segments. The analysis provided in Section XVI.A 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 (DIF), 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. 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 air quality and noise, these will be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. Long-term effects include increased vehicular traffic, traffic related noise, and emissions of criteria pollutants. 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). XX. REFERENCES 1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program. Riverside County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm [Accessed March 17, 2016]. 2 City of Menifee General Plan. Community Design Element. Exhibit CD-2: Enhanced Landscape Corridors and Scenic Corridors. 2013. 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program. Riverside County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm [Accessed January 28, 2016]. 4 City of Menifee General Plan. Community Design Element. Exhibit C-8: Scenic Highways. 2012. 5 California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2012. 6 California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2012. 7 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Agricultural Resources. Page 5.2-13. 8 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. Riverside County Williamson Act FY 2008/2009 Sheet 1 of 3. 9 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Agricultural Resources. Page 5.2-13. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993. 11 TJW Engineering, Inc. All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis: City of Menifee, California Project #2015-156. March 16, 2016. 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat Portal. http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ [Accessed March 18, 2016]. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 79 13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Summary Table. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP [Accessed March 23, 2016]. 14 Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Biological Technical Report for the All Star Super Storage Project 2015- 156. September 22, 2015. 15 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html [August 2016] 16 National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 17 California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. California Historical Resources: Riverside County. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 18 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Phase 1 Cultural Resources/Archaeological Study: All Star Super Storage. October 1, 2015 19 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Phase 1 Cultural Resources/Archaeological Study: All Star Super Storage. October 1, 2015 20 California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Maps. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm [Accessed March 17, 2016]. 21 California Department of Conservation. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm [Accessed March 17, 2016]. 22 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting # 15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010 24 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008. 25 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. p. 5.7-23. 26 California Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 27 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 28 California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 29 California Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 30 California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 31 California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 32 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/corteselist/SectionA.htm#Facilities [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 33 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Riverside County City Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_riverside_city_maps.php [Accessed March 24, 2016]. 34 City of Menifee. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.9-2 (Groundwater Basins). 35 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FIRM Panel 06065C2070H. August 18, 2008. 36 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FIRM Panel 06065C2070H. August 18, 2008. 37 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones. September 2013. 38 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 39 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003. 40 California Department of Transportation. Division of Environmental Analysis. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 41 Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with CAL Fire. 2014 Annual Report. Planning Application No. CUP 2015-156 Page 80 42 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Public Services. September 2013. 43 TJW Engineering, Inc. All Star Super Storage Traffic Impact Analysis: City of Menifee, California Project #2015-156. March 16, 2016. 44 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Utilities and Service Systems. September 2013. 45 CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Disposal during 2012 for Menifee. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx [Accessed February 2, 2016]. 46 CalRecycle. Detailed Facility Search. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/search.aspx [Accessed February 2, 2016].