PC18-375Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 1
CITY OF MENIFEE
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
1.
Project title: Gallery Senior Living Center – Plot Plan No. 2017-042 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29714
Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586.
3.
Contact person and phone number: Mathew Evans, Contract Planner 951-723-3741.
4. Project Location: East side of Antelope Road and immediately north of Aldergate Drive in the
City of Menifee, California (See Figures 1 and 2-Project Location)
A. Total Project Area: 4.86 acres (211,702 square feet)
Residential Acres:
4.86
Lots: 0 Units: 118 Projected No. of Residents:
225
Commercial Acres: 0 Lots: 1 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 84,520
B. Assessor’s Parcel No: 340-010-002
C. Latitude: 33° 41’ 43.35” N Longitude: 117° 10’ 34.56” W
5.
Project Applicant/Owners: Gallery Senior Living, LLC
31618 Railroad Canyon Road
Canyon Lake, CA 92
6.
General Plan Land Use Designation: 20.1-24 du/ac Residential (20.1-24R)
7. Zoning District: R-3 Residential
8. Project Description:
Planning Application Plot Plan (PP) No. 2017-042: The project proposes the construction and
operation a gated assisted living and memory care facility on a 4.86 acre property located on the
east side of Antelope Road and immediately north of Aldergate Drive. A total of 88 assisted living
units and 30 memory care units are proposed for the facility. The facility consist of one (1) three-
story building with two (2) interior courtyard. A total of 87 parking stalls are proposed for the
facility. Access into and out of the site is provided at (1) location on Antelope Road. An emergency
only exit gate is provided at the north end of the Project site proving access onto Antelope Road. A
water quality management basin is proposed at the south end of the site.
Landscaping
The project’s conceptual landscape plan includes a total landscape area of 92,036 square feet,
which is approximately 42 percent of the site area of 217,800 square feet. All trees, shrubs, and
ground cover are of low to moderate water demand and would be irrigated via a combination of
low volume/high efficiency overhead sprays and drip irrigation, which would be automatically
controlled with a weather sensing device for water conservation purposes.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 2
The proposed operations and hours of service for the proposed uses are as follows:
Gallery Senior Assisted Living Center
Hours of Operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week
Number of Employees 90 (in total)
Deliveries 3 per day
As adopted by the City, County Ordinance 348, Section 18.12 Off-Street Vehicle Parking provides
parking design and landscaping standards. The project is providing parking at a ratio of 1 per 3
beds, 1 bus van, and 1 per 3 employees (90), resulting in 87 spaces provided (including 4 H.C.).
Based on Ordinance 348 standards, a minimum of 65 spaces are required.
Circulation facilities exist on Newport and Antelope Road to serve the proposed project. Newport
Road is designated as an Urban Arterial (152-foot ROW) according to the City of Menifee General
Plan’s Circulation Element. No additional right-of-way is required of this proposal. Neither
roadways are eligible scenic highways.
Southern California Gas (SCG) has an existing gas line in Antelope Roads to service the project.
The service would be extended to provide connection to the new structures.
Southern California Edison (SCE) has existing electric service lines along Antelope Road to
service the project. The underground service lines would be extended to serve the restaurant and
retail structures.
Verizon has a service line within Antelope Road. The telephone service line would be extended
onto the property westward to provide connection to the assisted living facility structure.
Refuse and recycling service for the restaurant would be provided through dumpsters located to
the north of the building. A separate refuse enclosure would be utilized for the retail building.
9.
Surrounding land uses and setting:
The subject site is comprised of one parcel located north of Aldergate Road and on the east side
of Antelope Road. The site has been cleared and graded. The property currently supports a
sparse covering of non-native grasses and forbs. No shrubs or trees occur on the site.
Topographically, the study area is generally flat and level with a gentle slope from north to south.
The elevation ranges from 1,465 feet above mean sea level to a minimum of 1,442 feet.
The surrounding area is a mixture of vacant land and existing single-family residential located
outside the boundaries of the Menifee Village Specific Plan.
Table 1
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction
General Plan
Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use
Project Site 20.1-24 du/ac
Residential R-3 Vacant
North 2.1-5 du/ac Residential R-3 Residential
South Menifee Village
Specific Plan Specific Plan Zone Residential
East Menifee Village
Specific Plan Specific Plan Zone Residential
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 3
West 2.1-5 du/ac Residential R-3 Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
California Regional Water Quality Board - Santa Ana
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 4
Figure 1: Project Location
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 5
Figure 2: Project Location
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 6
Figure 3: Site Plan Concept
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 7
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 8
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 Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils Noise Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Less than Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics 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 Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils Noise Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental factors checked below (x) would have “No Impact” by this project as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics 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 Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils Noise Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 9
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
Printed Name
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 10
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. Issues:
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 11
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 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); City of Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,
September 2013
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, 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).
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 12
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 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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 13
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 (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. Views of hillsides and mountains are present to the north, east,
and west of the project site. Views of mountains to the west, east, and north are currently partially
obstructed by landscaping and existing development. Views of the hillsides to the north, east, and west of
the project site may be obstructed from view from within the project site. However, the Project site is not a
public viewshed. Thus, views from the project site are not protected under CEQA. Further, as discussed
in the General Plan Draft EIR, implementation of General Plan policies to preserve undisturbed hillsides
and other natural landforms would ensure that impacts to scenic resources from development in areas
designated in the General Plan for development, such as the Project site, would be minimized. In addition,
the proposed project would be subject to City Design Guidelines and Zoning Code which regulate the
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 14
height and bulk of the buildings. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located on vacant land within an urbanized area comprised of vacant land and
residential uses. This site is not considered to be within a portion of a scenic vista. The project site is
located on the east side of Antelope Road. The conceptual landscape plan for the project identifies the
inclusion of landscaping to include 24-inch box and 1-5 gallon ground cover that would be in character
with landscaping along Antelope Road. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan
Community Design Policies and the Zoning Code. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not adjacent to an officially designated state scenic
highway as identified by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System. The project site is located on
vacant land within an urbanized area comprised of residential and vacant land. This site is not considered
to be within a portion of a scenic vista and contains no scenic resources such as rock outcroppings,
significant trees, or historical buildings. However, development of the project may obstruct views of the
low-lying hills located north, east, and west of the project site. As discussed in the General Plan EIR,
implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with City Design Guidelines would ensure that
the project would not cause a significant impact on these resources. Impacts to these views would be less
than significant.
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 would result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character
and quality of the area. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and storage of
materials within the project site. However, construction activities are temporary and would not result in any
permanent visual impact. The project site is currently vacant. The area surrounding the proposed project
site is an area comprised of residential and vacant land.
Upon project completion, the proposed project would consist of one three-story building east of Antelope
Road and directly north of the entry to the Oasis development at the intersection of Antelope Road and
Aldergate Drive. Review by City staff would ensure consistency with City Design Guidelines and Zoning
Code. According to height requirements and exceptions included in the Municipal Code, all buildings
would be consistent with City design and building height requirements and limitations. The proposed
project would change the visual character of the project site by adding structures and landscaping;
however, the development would blend with the characteristics of the existing residential uses. With
incorporation of the specified design features, the project would have less than significant impacts on the
visual character of the site and its surroundings.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting 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
would include outdoor lighting associated with security light. Lighting associated with the project would not
be directed towards the adjacent land uses to the north, south, east, and west toward Antelope Road. The
proposed lighting would be in character and work in conjunction with existing uses surrounding the
project.
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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 15
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 would 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 would 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
would 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 would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 16
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.
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 vacant site within an
urbanized area comprised of residential and vacant land. The Important Farmland in California (2016)
map prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the proposed project site as being
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 The project site is
designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP.2 Further, the project site is zoned for the 20.1-
24 du/ac Residential and could not be developed as farmland. Therefore, impacts to Farmland would
be less than significant.
b) No Impact. No Williamson Act Contracts are active for the project site.3 The project site is zoned
20.1-24 du/ac Residential, which is intended for residential development. Therefore, there would be no
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would 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 would have no impact to any timberland zoning.
d) No Impact. The proposed project site is vacant and mostly unvegetated; thus, there would be no
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 17
loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of this project. No impact
would occur.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on a vacant site within an urbanized
area comprised of residential and vacant land. The project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land
and is zoned as 20.1-24 du/ac Residential. The site is not currently being used for agriculture.
Development of this project would not change the existing environment in a manner that would result in
the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land or forest land to non-forest land. Less than
significant impacts would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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; Gallery
Senior Living Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation (Urban Crossroads May 2017).
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.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 18
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.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
The Gallery Senior Living Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation was prepared by
Urban Crossroads (Urban Crossroads, 2017). The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix X
and the results are summarized herein.
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 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts
and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment
deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintain 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.4
Consistency review is presented below:
(1) The proposed project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant
emissions that are less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the
SCAQMD, as demonstrated by Section III et seq of this report; therefore, the project would not
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and would
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.
With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the
proposed project, the construction and operation of the project would not result in significant impacts
based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, project construction and operation would
not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed project is not
projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards.
With respect to the second criterion, the project’s intended use is generally consistent with AQMP
growth assumptions, which were considered in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
project would result in fewer trips and consequently fewer emissions than if the project were
constructed consistent with the existing entitlements (see Gallery Senior Living Trip Generation
Evaluation, Urban Crossroads, Inc. May 30, 2017). The SCAQMD’s attainment plans thresholds would
not exceeded and a less than significant impact is expected. On this basis, the proposed project is
determined to be consistent with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Total project emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds as shown in Table
AQ-4 below. The emissions increase due to the project would not interfere with the AQMP or the
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 19
attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, emissions from the project would not be
greater than those anticipated in the AQMP. The project would not result in a long-term impact on the
region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed project would be
consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP for the control of fugitive dust. Impacts would be
less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions
exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions substantially
contribute to existing or project air quality violations. The proposed project is located within the South
Coast Air Basin, where efforts to attain state and federal air quality standards are governed by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the state of California (state) and the
federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air
pollutants (known as ‘criteria pollutants’). These pollutants include ozone (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 would bring the region into attainment. Table AQ-1 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment
Status – Riverside County) summarizes the attainment status in the project area for the criteria
pollutants. Discussion of potential impacts related to short-term construction impacts and long-term
area source and operational impacts are presented below.
Table AQ-1
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status – Riverside County
Pollutant Federal State
O3 (1-hr) N/A Nonattainment
O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment 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
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx,
PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction
activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and
construction workers commuting.
The duration of construction activity was based on CalEEMod defaults and a 2018 opening year, as
shown on Table AQ-2. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case”
analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors
for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations
becoming more stringent. The associated construction equipment for all phases based on CalEEMod
defaults. Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of
construction. Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project
site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the project site) were estimated based
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 20
on CalEEMod defaults.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules that are currently applicable during
construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to: Rule 1403 (Asbestos); Rule 1113
(Architectural Coatings) (12); Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel) (13); Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (14); and
Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers). It should be noted that Best Available Control Measures
(BACMs) are not mitigation as they are standard regulatory requirements. The estimated maximum
daily construction emissions for the proposed project are summarized on Table AQ-3. Detailed
construction model outputs are presented in Appendix X. As shown, the proposed project would not
exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. As such, impacts would occur and no mitigation is
required.
Table AQ-2
Construction Schedule
Phase Name Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 08/29/2017 09/11/2017 10
Grading 09/12/2017 10/09/2017 20
Building Construction 10/10/2017 08/27/2018 230
Paving 08/28/2018 09/24/2018 20
Architectural Coating 09/25/2018 10/22/2018 20
Table AQ-3
Proposed Project Construction Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Year VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2017 6.57 77.12 26.66 0.06 23.76 13.32
2018 40.63 45.35 25.03 0.06 3.26 2.23
Maximum Daily
Emissions 40.63 77.12 26.66 0.06 23.76 13.32
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx,
PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions. Project mobile source
emissions impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the
project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project. The project
related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the project. Trip
characteristics available from the report, Gallery Senior Living Focused Traffic Assessment (Urban
Crossroads) 2017 were utilized in this analysis. The estimated operational‐source emissions for the
proposed project are summarized on Table AQ-4. As shown, the proposed project would not exceed
the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. As such, significant impacts would not occur and no mitigation is
required.
Table AQ-4
Operational Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Operational Activities
– Summer Scenario VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project 34.86 8.80 80.33 0.19 11.51 9.77
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 21
Operational Activities
– Winter Scenario VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project 34.74 8.85 78.94 0.19 11.50 0.67
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2017
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The potential impact of project-
generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive receptors
can include uses such as long term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes.
Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as
sensitive receptors. Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special
consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include
children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes
and others who engage in frequent exercise. The nearest sensitive receptor land use is located
immediately adjacent north and east of the Project site. The proposed project would not exceed any
applicable criteria pollutant thresholds during construction and on-going operational activities after
mitigation is incorporated, as such there would be no significant impact to sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the project. The project is a Senior Living Facility and although future onsite residents are
considered “sensitive receptors”, they will not be exposed to exceedances of thresholds.
Table AQ-5
Localized Significance Summary Construction
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions
Emissions (pounds
per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 77.04 25.05 23.56 13.26
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,230 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO YES YES
On-Site Grading Emissions
Emissions (pounds
per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 52.46 18.30 10.29 5.52
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 22
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 186 999 8 5
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO YES YES
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.
As localized emissions exceed Localized Significance Thresholds, impacts are potentially significant
and the mitigation measures below are required.
CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS MITIGATION MEASURES
BACM AQ-1
The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation
of Rule 403.
All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25
mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the
Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least three (3) times daily
during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are
reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
MM AQ-1
For construction equipment, greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall
use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards
during all construction phases and would ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
Impacts With Mitigation
With implementation of MM AQ-1, emissions during construction activity would not exceed SCAQMD’s
localized significance thresholds. Table AQ-6 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor
location in the vicinity of the project.
Table AQ-6
Localized Significance Summary Construction (With Mitigation)
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions
Emissions (pounds
per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 27.05 30.31 8.90 4.99
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,230 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
On-Site Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds
per day)
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 23
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 20.80 24.47 3.99 2.19
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 186 999 8 5
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE – LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of residential use. According to
SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the
project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing
and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such
uses, and thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance
threshold analysis is needed.
CO “HOT SPOT” ASSESSMENT
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot
spots. Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific carbon monoxide (CO) “hot spots” is not needed to
reach this conclusion as discussed below.
It has long been recognized that adverse localized CO concentrations (“hot spots”) are caused by
vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions
standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO
emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are
requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions
control technologies, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined.
A CO “hotspot” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight
hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SCAB was designated
nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO (7). As identified within
SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan),
peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and
topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection (7). To establish a
more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was
conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time
periods. This hot spot analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 8.
Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the analysis are shown on Table 9. It can
therefore be reasonably concluded that projects (such as the proposed Gallery Senior Living
development) that are not subject to the extremes in vehicle volumes and vehicle congestion that was
evidenced in the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot analysis would similarly not create or result in CO hot
spots. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase
traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per
hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (8).
The proposed project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a
CO hotspot either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study, or based on representative
BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of
concern for the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated
with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 24
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.
Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials
such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents, and emissions from diesel equipment. The
objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and
would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Due to
the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no
mitigation would be required.
Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts
The proposed project would consist of the development of a senior assisted living facility. Potential
sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would primarily
occur from odor emissions from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash
enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the
trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest sensitive receptors from the project site and
through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors would occur during
on-going project operations.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 25
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; and Riverside County Planning Department EPD Case Number: ME00165.
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) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project is located within the
boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP);
however, the project is not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group; therefore MSHCP criteria for
conservation identified for Cells do not apply. The site is not expected to support any sensitive wildlife
species (e.g. Burrowing owl) given the level of past disturbance, and the absence of any occupied
burrows or owl sign (e.g., castings, etc.). However, due to the location of Menifee lakes south of the
project site, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is recommended.
No other focused species surveys are required for MSHCP compliance. Due to the disturbed nature of
the project site and the surrounding area, the probability of state and/or federally listed plant species
onsite is low. As such, project implementation does not have the potential to adversely affect special
plant species. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant with the
implementation of the mitigation measure.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 26
The project would be subject to the payment of fees for a commercial project consistent with the
Riverside County Ordinance 810.2 as adopted by the City of Menifee. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the provisions of the adopted HCP, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state conservation plan and the impact is considered less than significant.
b) and c) No impact. The 4.86-acre site does not contain riparian or riverine habitat nor does it
support waters or drainage features that would be considered jurisdictional by local, regional, state or
federal resource agencies. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Further, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, there
is no impact.
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is currently vacant and mostly
barren with little standing vegetation. Impacts to nesting birds by the proposed project are prohibited
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Wildlife Code. The site contains
little standing vegetation and undergoes annual disking to remove vegetation. Therefore, the project
site could not serve as a migratory corridor and would not interfere with the movement of any native
resident or species. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been incorporated, since the site may
have the potential to interact with nesting birds in this manner in the future. Mitigation Measure BIO-2
requires a preconstruction nesting bird survey within three (3) days prior to grading permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to less-than-significant
levels.
e) No Impact. The project site is vacant and mostly barren. There are no trees on site. The proposed
development would include landscaping throughout the assisted living center and court yard areas.
Development would not involve the removal of any trees considered a Heritage as defined in the City’s
Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section 9.86.110 of the Municipal Code). Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee has two active conservation plans within the
City’s boundary, the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan (SKR-HCP). The subject site is within the jurisdiction of the SKR-HCP and the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project site is located inside the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys stephensi) (SKR) Fee Area. However, any potential impacts to the SKR would be
mitigated through the payment of the $500.00 per acre fee to the City of Menifee. The MSHCP also
establishes habitat assessment requirements for certain plant, bird, mammal, and amphibian species.
The project is within the habitat assessment area for BUOW and would be conditioned for a pre-
construction survey.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project would be subject to the payment of fees for a
commercial project consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance 810.2 as adopted by the City of
Menifee. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the adopted HCP, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan and the
impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl is required by the Western Riverside County
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 27
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 Community Development Department would be notified
and avoidance measures would be implemented, as appropriate, pursuant to the MSHCP, the
California Fish and Game Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 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.
BIO-2 If grading is to occur during the nesting season (March 1 – August 31), a nesting bird survey
shall be conducted within ten (10) days prior to grading permit issuance. This survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist holding an MOU with Riverside County. The findings shall
be submitted to EPD for review and approval.
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; Gallery Resort at Menifee Lakes Phase 1 CRA,
Historical/Archeological Resources Survey Report, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 340-010-002, City of
Menifee Riverside County, California.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 28
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:
The following analysis is based, in part, on the Gallery Resort at Menifee Lakes Phase I Cultural
Resource Assessment (January 2017), which is included as Appendix X to this Initial Study.
a) No Impact. Historical resources are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of
significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. These resources include intact structures
of any type that are 50 years or more of age. These resources are sometimes called the “built
environment” and can include, in addition to houses, other structures such as irrigation works and
engineering features. Historical resources are preserved because they provide a link to a region’s past
as well as a frame of reference for a community.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, define “historic resources” as resources listed in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources
Commission for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. The National Register
recognizes properties that are significant at the national, State and local levels. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, a site or structure may be considered a historical resource if it is
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of PRC Section 5020.1(j), or if it meets the criteria for listing in
either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources (14
Code of Federal Regulations § 4850). CEQA allows local historic resource guidelines to serve as the
California Register of Historical Resources criteria if enacted by local legislation to act as the
equivalent of the State criteria.
No cultural resources of historical origin were observed within the boundaries of the property during the
field survey, conducted on December 17, 2016. Results of the record search conducted by staff at the
Eastern Information Center indicated that the proposed project site had been included in a previous
cultural resource study. Four cultural resource properties have been recorded. Two of these resources
are of historical origin, shown in Table C-1.
Table C-1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Primary Description
33-
007703
c.1890 Menifee School. (Listed on Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties
in the Historic Property Data File, but not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places)
33-
026430
c.1964 Public Utility Building
33-Mapped, but no cultural resources record in 1976, field check in 1981 found no resources
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 29
001029 at mapped location
33-
001030
Mapped, but no cultural resources record in 1976, field check in 1979 and 1981 found no
resources at mapped location
The project site is not listed with the State Office of Historic Preservation or the National Register of
Historic Places. The project site is vacant and there are no known historically or culturally significant
resources, structures, buildings, or objects are located on the project site. As such, the proposed
project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts to
historic resources are not anticipated. No impact would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Archaeological resources are the
physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or historic in origin.
Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant evidence of human activity, including food
remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones,
modification of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains.
Archaeological sites are often located along creek areas and ridgelines. The proposed project site is
located on a vacant site within a suburbanized area comprised of residential, vacant land, and Surface
Street features. The proposed project consists of the development of a senior assisted facility on a
vacant site. Four cultural resources of prehistoric (i.e. Native American) or historical origin were
identified in the Cultural Resources Assessment. However, as shown in Table C-1, no resources were
found at the mapped locations.
Although the project site would not have an impact on any known cultural resources, due to the
identification of prehistoric site and historic structures located within one mile of the project site, buried
materials may be unearthed during construction. As such, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-3 have
been incorporated. 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). Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1 through C-3 and adherence to General Plan policies would
reduce impacts to buried cultural resources to a less than significant impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources are the
fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These
resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological
settings. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given
area. It is possible that potentially significant prehistoric remains could be found, since buried fossils
often go undetected during a walkover survey. Therefore, Mitigation Measure C-4 has been
incorporated. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no human remains or
cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed project, the project site is vacant and
undisturbed. Therefore, the potential exists for the uncovering of 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 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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 30
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-5 and C-6 have been incorporated to
ensure compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 5097.98. Compliance with
the above-referenced state laws and Mitigation Measures C-5 and C-6 would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
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
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 would 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 A monitor from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians monitor shall be required in areas where
resources are not already identified or identified through further study and evaluation.
C-3 The Developer shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including the 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-4 Paleontological Resources. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Paleontological Resource
Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Community
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 31
Development Department for review and approval.
C-5 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
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-6 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, would be asked to withhold
public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set
forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 32
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
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.5 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 ten miles west of the project site.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would 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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 33
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 would 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 would
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 would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to
strong ground shaking would 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 and the
Menifee General Plan, the project the site is not located in a Zone of Required Investigation for
liquefaction.6 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 would
occur.
a.iv.) No Impact. The project site is located in a suburbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no
potential for landslides on the project site. No impacts to the proposed project site from landslides
would 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
project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction
activities. Wind erosion would 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 would 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 would be
covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Impacts related to soil erosion would 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.
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 would be reduced to less than
significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The CBC requires special design considerations for foundations of
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 34
structures built on soils with expansion indices greater than 20. With the project’s adherence to CBC
design considerations, impacts related to expansive soils would be considered less than significant.
e) No Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would require conveyance through a
municipal sewage system and would not utilize a septic system. No impact would occur.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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; Gallery Senior Living Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Evaluation (Urban Crossroads May 2017).
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),
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 35
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
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 and 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 would 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 would 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:
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 36
The Gallery Senior Living Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation was prepared by
Urban Crossroads (Urban Crossroads, 2017). The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix X
and the results are summarized herein.
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. 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
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 would be used.7 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.8 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
would accept the interim threshold recommended in SCAQMD’s Interim Thresholds document for
commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects.9 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
GH-1 (Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions) below. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
proposed project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold; therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Table GH-1
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (Metric Tons Per Year)
Source CO2E (MT/YR) CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Construction (amortized) 11.71 0.002 -- 11.76
Operational 951.11 1.62 0.01 994.97
Total 1,006.73
Threshold 3,000
Exceeds? No
Source: Urban CrossRoads, 2017
b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee has not yet adopted a qualified GHG reduction
plan.10 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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 37
2016 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), including the California Green Building
Standards Code (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.06). The project would be subject to
the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires new buildings to reduce water
consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies for large
buildings, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. The
project does not include any feature (i.e. substantially alter energy demands) that would interfere with
implementation of these state and City codes and plans. Furthermore, construction emissions for the
proposed project would be below the SCAQMD GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be less than
significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 38
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
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
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-4.3: Use technology to identify flood-prone areas and to notify residents and motorists of
impending flood hazards and evacuation procedures.
Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire
areas or mitigate.
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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 39
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 a commercial/office and residential zoned area that contains
residential uses and vacant land. 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.
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.
During project operations, widely used hazardous materials common at residential, retail, and office
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. Operation of a senior assisted living facility would not result in significant impacts
involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Quantities of these
materials would not be significant enough to pose a substantial risk to the public. Compliance with
existing laws, regulations and standard procedures (including, among others, Department of
Transportation provisions regulating the transport of hazardous materials) would minimize risks to the
maximum extent practicable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A search of the SWRCB Geotracker and DTSC Envirostor
databases did not reveal any cleanup sites or hazardous waste sites within proximity. Two closed
LUST cleanup sites were identified in Geotracker: one at 30107 Antelope Road and one at 26600 Sun
City Boulevard. The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a senior assisted
living center on a vacant site. Therefore, there impacts related to the release of hazardous materials
into the environment as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. The project site
is currently vacant. Thus, there would be no impacts related to structures with asbestos containing
materials or lead-based paint. With adherence to existing regulations, the proposed project would 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 would
be less than significant.
c) No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the project site. The Menifee Union
School District office is approximately ½ mile south of the proposed project. However, it is not a facility
with constant in-flow and out-flow of students. The nearest school is Chester W. Morrison Elementary
School at 30250 Bradley Road, 1.12 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, impacts associated
with the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would not 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.11
Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not:
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 40
listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC),12
listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB),
listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,13
currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order
(CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,14 or
developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.15
e-f) No Impact. There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the project site. No
impact would occur.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of a senior
assisted living facility. All project elements, including landscaping, would 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. The project would 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 would be limited to
minor roadway improvements that would be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Furthermore,
as part of the project design, an emergency only exit gate is provided at the north end of the project
site, with access onto Antelope Road. Therefore, impacts related to emergency evacuation plans
would be less than significant.
h) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Menifee General Plan, the proposed project site is
located in a Moderate Fire Severity Zone. However, General Plan Policy S-4.1 requires that fire-
resistant building construction materials, use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and
fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire be utilized. Implementation of Policy S-4.1
would ensure that impact related to fire hazard from nearby fire hazard zones would be reduced and
minimized. Impact would be less than significant.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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)?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 41
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?
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”
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.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 42
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 would disturb approximately 4.86 acres of land and therefore would
be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Pursuant to the Menifee
Municipal Code § 15.01.015, new development or development projects shall control stormwater runoff
so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of
the water. The Department of Public Works and Engineering would 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 would include stabilized construction entrances,
sand bagging, designated concrete washout, tire wash racks, silt fencing, and curb cut/inlet protection.
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
Operational Impacts
Proposed construction of the project would increase impervious areas by replacing the vacant property
with one building and associated paving and landscaping. Landscaping is proposed as part of project
design along the north, west, south, and east boundaries of the site and within the central parking
areas. Compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations related to water quality,
implementation of BMP’s included in the project construction SWPPP would result in impacts to water
quality being less than significant.
The proposed development would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special
waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the project’s interior plumbing systems would
be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant.
Impacts would 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 would no
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 43
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 South Hydrologic Area of the San Jacinto Valley
Hydraulic Unit.16 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 would not interfere with intentional groundwater recharge. Further, all on-site runoff would
drain towards pervious pavement/infiltration areas. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on- or off-site erosion or
siltation. The project would collect and convey off-site run-off from upstream areas and convey these
flows to a bio-retention basin located within landscaped areas at the southern boundaries of the site. A
site drainage plan is required by the City of Menifee and would be reviewed by the City Engineer. The
final grading and drainage plan would 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 would be implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, the
project would consist of impervious surfaces, landscaping, a bio-retention area, and therefore the
development would not be subject to substantial erosion. The proposed project would not alter any
stream course. Impacts would be less than significant.
d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the project applicant would be required to
comply with drainage and runoff guidelines pursuant to the City of Menifee guidelines. There are no
channels or creeks running through the project site.
Operation of the proposed project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site
because the site is currently vacant. Project implementation would not result in alteration of any
existing drainage course. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained
prior to construction. Therefore, the increase in discharges would not impact local storm drain capacity.
The project would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be
required to protect downstream water quality. The proposed project would include a bio-retention area
south of the project boundary to address 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, would be reduced to acceptable levels. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that would have the potential to otherwise
degrade water quality beyond those issues discussed in Section IX herein. No impacts would occur.
g & 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.17 Therefore, no impact would 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 6.5 miles east of the project site, Canyon Lake is
located approximately 5.3 miles west of the project site, and Perris Reservoir is located approximately
10 miles north of the project site. According to the General Plan EIR, 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. Furthermore, according to the County of Riverside DEIR No.521, the
project site is not within a dam inundation area, therefore impacts would be less than significant.
j) No Impact. The project site is not subject to tsunami due to its elevation and distance (over 30 miles)
from the ocean. There are several reservoirs in the City of Menifee associated with Menifee Lakes
Country Club (south 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 1,615 feet from the
nearest reservoir to the south. As noted in Section VI, the project site has not been identified as being
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 44
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 would occur.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 45
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, vacant
land, and surface street features. Single family residential is located to the north, east and south while
Antelope Road borders the project boundary to the west. Interstate 215 is further west beyond
Antelope Road. The proposed project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control
channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. The proposed
project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an
established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Less Than Significant. The project site is designated as 20.1-24 du/ac Residential in the City’s
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 46
General Plan. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, this designation allows multifamily
dwellings, including apartments and condominiums. The project site has a zoning designation of R-3,
which allows for congregate care residential facilities. The proposed project would comply with all
development standards set forth in the development standards for the R-3 zoning, as noted in
Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No.348. The project would 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 would 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
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.18 Thus, the project would not impact mineral resources.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 47
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. Gallery Senior
Living Acoustical Analysis Revalidation/Update, LSA August 11, 2017.
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.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 48
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 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 would increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic
volume or speed would 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.19
Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 49
been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are
common metrics for measuring noise:20
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
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, vacant land, and
surface street features. Existing noise conditions are representative of this environment. Traffic noise from I-
215 is the greatest contributor to ambient noise levels near the project site.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
a) Less Than Significant Impact 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.
Temporary Construction Noise
The project would 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.
Section 9.09.030(B) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with new, private
construction projects located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling from the City’s noise
standards provided construction activities do not occur either: (1) between the hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM
during the months of June through September; or (2) between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM during the
months of October through May. Through adherence to the limitation of allowable construction times provided
in Section 9.09.030(B), construction-related noise levels would be temporary and would not exceed any
standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
The operation of the proposed project may create an increase in onsite noise levels from noise impacts from
rooftop mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, and delivery truck activities. General Plan Policy N-1.7
limits exterior noise impacts to the nearby single-family homes to 65 dBA Leq from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and
45 dBA Leq from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM and limits the interior noise impacts to 55 dBA Leq from 7:00 AM to
10:00 PM and 40 dBA Leq from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. A typical home provides 15 dB of attenuation between
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 50
exterior to interior noise levels with windows of the home open; therefore, if the exterior noise levels at the
nearby homes are within 65 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA Leq nighttime, the interior noise standards would
not be exceeded.
Exterior noise levels at the building fascade were modeled using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model. The receptor height was modeled at a heigt of five feet. For the noise barrier analysis, receptor height
of three feet was modeled when the noise barrier is higher than six feet was analyzed for all three building
levels. The elevation between I-215 and the project site I generally flat and the noise modeling assumed no
differences in elevation between the roadway and receptor.
Table N-2 shows the exterior noise levels at each of the three representative receptors locations for each of
the three building levels.
Table N-2: Exterior Noise Analysis
Receptor
Number
Exterior
Noise Level
without
Shielding
(dBA CNEL)
Shielding
(dBA)
Exterior
Noise Level
with
Shielding
(dBA CNEL)
Noise Level with Barrier (dBA CNEL)
6 feet 7 feet 8 feet
R‐1 (1st Floor) 77 0 77 71 65 64
R‐2 (1st Floor) 77 3 74 68 61 60
R‐3 (1st Floor) 75 3 72 66 60 59
R‐1 (2nd Floor) 77 0 77 71 64 63
R‐2 (2nd Floor) 77 3 74 67 61 60
R‐3 (2nd Floor) 75 3 72 66 59 58
R‐1 (3rd Floor) 77 0 77 70 64 63
R‐2 (3rd Floor) 77 3 74 67 61 60
R‐3 (3rd Floor) 75 3 72 65 59 58
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2017)
A noise level reduction of 3 dBA from partial shielding of the proposed residential structure was factored into
Receptors R‐2 and R‐3. As shown in Table N-2, the exterior noise level is 77, 74, and 72 dBA CNEL at
Receptors R‐1, R‐2, and R‐3, respectively, for all three building levels. Noise barriers were modeled from 6 ft
to 8 ft at 1‐ft increment for the three representative receptor locations for each of the three building levels to
determine the barrier height required to reduce noise levels to the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA
CNEL or below. Table N-2 shows the results of the noise barrier modeling.
The interior noise level reduction required to meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL was
calculated based on the exterior noise level discussed above. Table N-3 shows the required interior noise
level reduction at each of the three representative receptor locations for each of the three building levels.
Table N-3: Noise Level Reduction Required
Receptor
Number
Exterior
Noise Level
without
Shielding
(dBA CNEL)
Shielding
(dBA)
Exterior
Noise Level
with
Shielding
(dBA CNEL)
Interior
Noise
Standard
(dBA CNEL)
Noise
Reduction
Required
R‐1 (1st Floor) 77 0 77 45 32
R‐2 (1st Floor) 77 3 74 45 29
R‐3 (1st Floor) 75 3 72 45 27
R‐1 (2nd Floor) 77 0 77 45 32
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 51
R‐2 (2nd Floor) 77 3 74 45 29
R‐3 (2nd Floor) 75 3 72 45 27
R‐1 (3rd Floor) 77 0 77 45 32
R‐2 (3rd Floor) 77 3 74 45 29
R‐3 (3rd Floor) 75 3 72 45 27
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2017).
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A‑weighted decibel(s)
In order to meet the City’s exterior and interior noise standard of 65 and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively, the
following Mitigation Measures would be implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-
2 would lower impacts to a less than significant level.
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 would require heavy construction equipment.
Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include grading of the project site,
building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. The nearest sensitive receptors to the
proposed project are single-family homes located approximately 35 feet north/east/south.
Section 5.12 Policy N 15.3 of the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Report prohibits exposure of residential
dwellings to perceptible ground vibration from passing trains as perceived at the ground or second floor and
defines perceptible vibration to be a motion velocity (PPV) of 0.01 inches/second over a range of 1 to 100 Hz.
Based on these standards, there is potential that groundborne vibration may expose persons to excessive
vibration levels.
The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. A large
bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 52
propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest sensitive receptors would be 0.125 inches per second
PPV. Caltrans research found that human response to transient sources becomes distinctly perceptible at
0.25 inch per second PPV. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be below the
distinctly perceptible levels of vibration at the nearby sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Operations-Related Vibration Impacts
The on-going operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration
sources. Therefore, a less then significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the proposed
project. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The ongoing operation of the proposed project may result in a potential
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the
proposed project. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be
from project-generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite activities, which have been
analyzed separately below.
Roadway Vehicular Noise
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic
noise depends on three primary factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of
trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial
number of truck trips and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the
proposed project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with
the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed project. The change in the
volume of traffic due to the proposed project would be less than significant.
Onsite Noise Sources
Operation of the proposed project may create an increase in onsite noise levels from noise impacts from
rooftop mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, and delivery truck activities. The proposed project’s
onsite noise sources would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts
would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project may create a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels existing without the proposed
project. The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include grading, building
construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities
associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment,
equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.
Section 9.09.030(B) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with new, private
construction projects located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling from the City’s noise
standards provided construction activities do not occur between the hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM during the
months of June through September. Additionally, construction activities must not occur between the hours of
6:00 PM and 7:00 AM during the months of October through May. As discussed above, the proposed project
would conform to the City construction noise standards and impacts would 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 would be no impacts related to excessive noise near a
private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
N-1: A minimum noise barrier height of 7 feet that would surround ground‐floor patios, balconies, and
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 53
recreational areas shall be required for the western and northern building facade at each of the three
building levels.
N-2: The following measures shall be applied to the interior components of the proposed project.
Mechanical ventilation systems (e.g., air conditioning) for all units would be required so that windows
and doors can remain closed for a prolonged period of time.
Standard wall construction as defined by the project plans with upgraded windows on all three levels
for each facade. The specifics are as follows:
○ Minimum STC‐35 windows would be required for the western building facade at each of the three
building levels.
○ Minimum STC‐33 windows would be required for the northern building facade at each of the three
building levels.
○ Minimum STC‐29 windows would be required for the northeastern building facade at each of the
three building levels.
Standard wall construction as defined by the project plans with standard STC‐25 windows would be
required for the eastern facade at each of the three building levels.
For all living rooms with sliding glass doors located behind 7 ft high balcony barriers, standard
sliding glass doors with minimum STC‐29 would be required at each of the three building levels for all
facades.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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 2016 RTP Growth
Forecast; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31,
2001.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the development of a Senior
Living Facility. According to the Department of Finance population estimates, the City of Menifee had a
population of 90,660 as of January 1, 2017.21 The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 54
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Adopted Growth Forecast projects an estimated population of
121,100 by the year 2040. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS, Menifee had an employment base of
10,300 in 2012 and is projected to increase to 23,500 by the year 2040. These increases in population
and employment are within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG for the City of Menifee and
thus would not be substantially growth inducing. The proposed project would include approximately
118 rooms and up to 149 residents. Due to the low number of possible residents in relationship to the
estimated population of 121,100 by 2040, impacts would be less than significant.
b & c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on a vacant site within a suburbanized area
comprised of residential, vacant land, as well as surface street features. The proposed project would
not displace existing housing or any people necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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 and Perris Union High
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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 55
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. 76 is located approximately
1.45 miles southeast of the proposed project site at 29950 Menifee Road. The Riverside County Fire
Department in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves
approximately 1.6 million residents over 7,200 square miles.22
The project would 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 would be required as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of fire
protection services would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff to
provide police service for the City. The Menifee Police Department is located at 137 N. Perris
Boulevard in Perris, California approximately 7 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.23
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 would 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 would need to be
constructed as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of police protection services would
be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the Menifee Union School
District and Perris Union High School District. Although the proposed senior assisted living uses would
not generate school-aged residents, 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 would occur.
d) No Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential
development. The proposed assisted living facility use would not generate residents that would
demand off-site recreational facilities. The project would not create additional demand for parkland. No
impact would result.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The expansion of public services such as libraries or hospitals
would not be required. The proposed development would not significantly increase the demand of such
services. A less than significant impact would occur.
XV. RECREATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 56
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.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
a-b) No Impact. The proposed project includes development of an assisted living facility. Demand for
park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. However, this
residential development is an age-restricted assisted living facility and includes both internal and
external courtyards, an outside walking paths, a dog park, and other on-site amenities within the
building which act as the recreational facilities. Additional recreation facilities include a garden and trail
surrounding the bio-retention pond. The proposed project, therefore, would not generate any additional
demand for new or expanded park facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. No impact would occur.
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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 57
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; Urban Crossroads, Haun Medical
Building: Focused Traffic Impact Analysis City of Menifee July 18, 201724.
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.
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.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 58
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
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 & b) Less Than Significant Impact. A Focused Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban
Crossroads to assess project-related impacts. The purpose of this TIA was to identify potential traffic-
related impacts associated with the proposed project.
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
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 59
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 Traffic Conditions (2017)
Existing (2017) traffic volume forecasts are based on current traffic counts collected at the intersection
of Antelope Road and Aldergate Drive, conducted in September 2017.
Intersection Operations Analysis
As shown on Table T-1, the study area intersection is currently operating at an acceptable LOS during
the peak hours.
Table T-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2017) Conditions
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(secs.)
LOS
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T
R L T R L T
R L T
R AM PM AM PM
1
2
Antelope Rd. & Dwy. 1
Antelope Rd. & Aldergate Dr.
AWS Intersection Does Not Exist 9.1 8.8 A A
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 d
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width turning
vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane
2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic sig stop
control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or moveme a single lane)
are shown.
3 AWS = All-Way Stop
Projected Future Traffic
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting
the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses
being proposed for a given development. Trip generation rates used to estimate project traffic are
shown in Table T-2. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. A summary of the project’s
trip generation is also shown on Table T-2. The project is estimated to generate a
net total of 314 trip-ends per day on a typical weekday with approximately 17 AM peak hour trips and
26 PM peak hour trips.
Table T- 2: Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use
Units ITE
LU
Code
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Project Trip Generation Rates1
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 60
Assisted Living Beds 254 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.22 2.66
Land Use
Quantity
Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Gallery Senior Living 118 Beds 11 6 17 12 14 26 314
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Ge nera tion Ma nua l, Ninth Edition (2012).
Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that
would be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and
surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the project traffic
would distribute.
Project Trip Assignment
The assignment of traffic from the project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon
the project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system
improvements that are currently in place or that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of
the project.
Intersection Operations Analysis
As shown on Table T-3, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS for Existing plus Project traffic conditions during the peak hours with the addition of
project traffic.
Table T-3: Intersection Analysis for Existing plus Project Conditions
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Existing (2017) Existing plus Project
Delay2
(secs.)
Level of
Service
Delay2
(secs.)
Level of
Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1
2
Antelope Rd. & Dwy. 1
Antelope Rd. & Aldergate Dr.
CSS
AWS
Future Intersection 10.3
9.2
10.4
8.9
B
A
B
A 9.1 8.8 A A
1 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic
signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-Way Stop; CSS = Improvement
Opening Year Cumulative (2019) Conditions
Traffic Volume Forecasts
Cumulative development traffic has then been added to Existing (2017) traffic conditions in
conjunction with background (ambient growth) to determine the Opening Year Cumulative (2019)
Without project traffic volume forecasts. Project traffic has then been added to determine the Opening
Year Cumulative (2019) With project traffic volume forecasts.
Intersection Operations Analysis
As shown on Table T-4, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2019) traffic conditions during the peak hours.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 61
Table T-4: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative Conditions
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
2019 without project 2019 with project
Delay2
(secs.)
Level of
Service
Delay2
(secs.)
Level of
Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1
2
Antelope Rd. & Dwy. 1
Antelope Rd. & Aldergate Dr.
CSS
AWS
Future Intersection 11.3
10.3
11.5
9.9
B
B
B
A 10.2 9.7 B A
1 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic
signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-Way Stop; CSS = Improvement
Implementation of the proposed project would generate a total of 314 trips per typical weekday. LOS
would remain above the City’s threshold of LOS E. 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 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. SR-74 currently operates and would continue to operate at acceptable LOS E or better.
Segments of the I-215 are located within the project vicinity and currently operate and continue to
operate at LOS F. As discussed in the Menifee General Plan EIR, the City is required to contribute to a
deficiency plan prepared by Caltrans. The deficiency plan would contain mitigation measures, including
consideration of Transportation Demand Management strategies and transit alternatives, and a
schedule for mitigating deficiency. As determined by the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 62
c) No Impact. The project site is located within the March Air Reserve Base designated airport
influence area, in particular Compatibility Zone E. This Compatibility Zone does not restrict non-
residential intensity and also prohibits hazards to flights. Since the property project is outside of the
airport influence area where safety concerns exist, the proposed project would not pose a safety
hazard, and therefore there would be no impact.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Final project site plans would be subject to City review and approval
which would 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. This
would prevent any project impacts due to a design feature. The project site is bordered by residential
uses to the north, east, and south and Antelope Road to the west and would not create hazards due to
incompatible uses. Impacts would 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 would provide adequate access and turning
radius for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department’s requirements. A 24-foot
emergency access gate would be located at the northern portion of the project site. Emergency access
to the site would be maintained during construction. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would 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. Per the City’s Circulation Element, there is a Class III bike trail
along Antelope Road. There are no current transit facilities near the project site. However, according to
the General Plan Exhibit C-5, Antelope Road is planned for a future on-road transit service. The project
would not decrease the performance or safety of existing pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less
than significant.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of the Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
Sources: Menifee General Plan; National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places; California
State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation; Jean A, Keller, Ph.d. Cultural Resources Assessment –
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 63
Gallery Resort at Menifee Lakes, January 2017.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
a & b) Less than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a
substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) may result in a significant
effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a
traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to
request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead
agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject
to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52
identifies examples of mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. The bill
makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent
to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB
52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3,
21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native
Americans.
The sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project
area, but recommended that local Native American groups be contacted for further information. For
that purpose, the NAHC provided a list of potential contacts in the region. Upon receiving the NAHC’s
response, in February 22, 2017 the City of Menifee sent written requests 45 individuals on the referral
list and the organizations they represent. A complete list of the tribal contacts is included in the Cultural
Resource Report.
As of this time, two tribal representatives have responded in writing: The Pala Tribal Historic
Preservation Office and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
assessed the subject property through their Cultural Resources Department, where it was concluded
that although it is outside the existing reservation boundaries, the project area does fall within the
bounds of their Tribal Traditional Use Areas. Their sources indicate that the project location is in
proximity to known sites, is a shared use area that was used in ongoing trade between the tribes, and
is considered to be culturally sensitive to the people of Soboba. At this time, they have requested the
following: consultation with the project proponents and lead agency; that information be transferred to
the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians regarding the progress of the project as soon as new
developments occur; that they continue to act as a consulting tribal entity for the project; Further, the
Tribe believes that monitoring would be required in areas where resources are not already identified or
identified through further study and evaluation. Multiple areas of potential impact were identified during
an in-house database search, the specifics of which would be discussed in consultation with the Lead
Agency.
The Pala Tribal Historic Preservation Office consulted their maps and determined that the project is not
within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation; it is also beyond the boundaries of
the territory the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area. Therefore, they have no objection to the
continuation of project activities as currently planned and defer to wishes of tribes in closer proximity to
the project area.
The results of the study have established that no potential “historical resources” or “tribal cultural
resources” were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area, and none was encountered
during the present survey. In addition, Native American input during this study did not identify any
specific sites of traditional cultural value in the vicinity, and historic maps show no notable cultural
features within the project area throughout the historic period. Impacts would be less than significant in
this regard.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 64
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significan
t 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
Improvement Program.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 65
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 Impact. 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 would 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.
The proposed project could affect Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) treatment
standards if it increases wastewater production and requires expansion of existing facilities or
construction of new facilities. Exceeding the RWQCB treatment standards could result in contamination
of surface or groundwater with pollutants such as pathogens and nitrates. However, the Perris Valley
RWRF and the Temecula Valley RWRF are sufficient to treat wastewater from the proposed project
with a combined treatment capacity of 40 mgd. According to the General Plan Draft EIR, at General
Plan buildout no additional expansions of wastewater treatment capacity would be required by the
EMWD. The proposed project would include bioretention facilities which would achieve the maximum
feasible level of infiltration and evapotranspiration and achieve the minimum feasible (but highly
biotreated) discharge to the storm drain system. The proposed project would comply with all EMWD
and RWQCB requirements, and Title 15: Water and Sewers of the City’s Municipal Code; therefore a
less than significant impact would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provides water
service to the City of Menifee. EMWD has four sources of water supply: imported water from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), local groundwater, desalinated groundwater,
and recycled water. State Water Code § 10910-10915 require the preparation of a water supply
assessment (WSA) demonstrating sufficient water supplies for any subdivision that involves the
construction of more than 500 dwelling units, or the equivalent thereof. As the project is below the
established thresholds, no WSA is required. In normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year
scenarios presented by the 2015 EMWD Urban Water Management Plan, supply would meet demand
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 66
under the normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios.25 EMWD is able to respond to
supply shortages through implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) and MWD’s
Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP). According to the UWMP projections, 2040 water demand is
268,200 AFY and 2040 supply is 268,200 AFY under normal year conditions. According to the General
Plan EIR, there is sufficient supply to meet demand of General Plan buildout and impacts were
determined to be less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and
impacts related to water supply are consistent with those contemplated and analyzed in the EIR.
Impacts would be less than significant.
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 would generate minimal
wastewater to be conveyed to the Perris Valley RWRF and would be well within the existing remaining
treatment capacity of the Perris Valley RWRF.
Connections to local water and sewer mains would involve temporary and less than significant
construction impacts that would 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 would address any incremental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore,
the project would 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 would not generate any
increased runoff from the site that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. All
drainage would be directed to a water quality detention basin. A NPDES permit would 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). Proposed construction of the project would increase
impervious areas by replacing the vacant property with one building and associated paving and
landscaping. Landscaping is proposed as part of project design along the north, west, south, and east
boundaries of the site and within the central parking areas. Although the number of impervious
surfaces would be greater than existing conditions, all on-site runoff would drain towards the west and
east of the property into proposed bio-retention basins within the landscaped areas. Impacts would 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. 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. In addition, the EMWD 2015 UWMP projects adequate supply to meet demand under the
normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. There are adequate forecast water
supplies in the region for the proposed project, and no additional water supplies would be needed.
Less than significant impacts would occur.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Sections XVII.a and XVII.b, the proposed project
would be adequately served by existing facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project would 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 would have a less than significant impact on
regional landfill capacity. During 2014, the City of Menifee utilized four landfills: Badlands Sanitary
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 67
Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, and Simi
Valley Landfill and Recycling Center.26 Compliance with County waste reduction programs and policies
would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects within the
County would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations, thus reducing the
amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. According to CalRecycle, solid waste facilities serving
Riverside County had a combined annual disposal limit surplus of 4,564,818 tons in 2015 and are
projected to have a combined annual disposal limit surplus of 3,633,512 tons in the year 2025.27
Combined remaining capacities at the landfills would be adequate to accommodate future
development. Considering the availability of landfill capacity, project solid waste disposal needs can be
adequately met without a significant impact on the capacity of the nearest and optional, more distant,
landfills. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would impact the City’s compliance with
state-mandated (AB 939) waste diversion requirements. Impacts would 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 would occur.
XIX. 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?
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 68
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially
impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section
I and would not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is comprised of one parcel located
north of Aldergate Road and on the east side of Antelope Road. The site has been cleared and
graded. The property currently supports a sparse covering of non-native grasses and forbs. No shrubs
or trees occur on the site. The surrounding area is a mixture of vacant land and existing single-family
residential located outside the boundaries of the Menifee Village Specific Plan. Although the site is not
expected to support any sensitive wildlife species (e.g. Burrowing owl) given the level of past
disturbance, due to the location of Menifee lakes south of the project site, implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 is recommended. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to
burrowing owls in the project area to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would
ensure that impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Adverse impacts to historic,
paleontological resources, or human remains would not occur. Construction-phase procedures would
be implemented in the event any important archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered
during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-6. The project 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 would be less than significant. Sections VII and IX conclude that impacts
related to climate change and hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. Based on the
preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items I thru XVIII, no evidence is presented
that this project would degrade the quality of the environment. The City hereby finds that impacts
related to degradation of the environment and cultural resources would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would result in several
potentially significant project‐level impacts in the following areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, and
Cultural Resources, and Noise. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce
each of these impacts to less than significant. Standard conditions would also be imposed upon the
project, including the payment of fair‐share development impact fees, design standards, etc. Other
new development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements. All other
impacts of the project were determined either to have no impact, or to be less than significant without
the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the project would not result in any significant impacts that would
substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the project,
in conjunction with other future development projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable
impacts.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Based on the analysis of the project’s impacts
in the responses to items I thru XVIII, there is no indication that this project will result in substantial
adverse effects on human beings. While there will be a variety of temporary adverse effects during
construction related to noise, these will be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. The
analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects will at worst require mitigation to
reduce to less than significant levels. Generally, environmental effects will result in less than significant
impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human
beings will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
XIX. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of
Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 69
XX. REFERENCES
1 California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2016.
2 California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland Map Sheet 1 of 3. 2016.
3 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. Riverside County Williamson Act FY
2015/2016 Sheet 1 of 3.
4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993.
5 California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Maps.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm [Accessed November 2017].
6 California Department of Conservation. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm
[Accessed November 2017].
7 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting #
15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010
9 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008.
10 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. p. 5.7-23.
11 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed November 2017].
12 California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List
(Cortese List). http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm [Accessed November 2017].
13 California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf [Accessed November 2017].
14 California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed November 2017].
15 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
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed November 2017].
16 City of Menifee. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.9-2 (Groundwater Basins).
17 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FIRM Panel 06065C2060H.
August 18, 2014.
18 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones. September 2013.
19 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement.
November 2009.
20 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003.
21 California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January
1, 2017.
22 Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with CAL Fire. 2015 Annual Report.
23 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Public Services. September 2013.
Haun Medical Building: Focused Traffic Impact Analysis City of Menifee. Prepared by Urban Crossroads.
July 18, 2017.
25 Eastern Municipal Water District. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2017.
26 CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Disposal during 2012 for Menifee.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx [Accessed November
2017].
27 CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/DisposalGap.aspx [Accessed November 2017]
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Gallery Resort at Menifee Lakes. Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.
Cultural Resources Consultant. January 2017.
Gallery Senior Living Acoustical Analysis Revalidation/Update. LSA. August 2017.
Planning Application No. Plot Plan 2017-042 Page 70
Gallery Senior Living Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum. Urban Crossroads.
September 2017.
Gallery Senior Living Trip Generation Evaluation. Urban Crossroads. May 2017.