Loading...
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.