PC20-516RESOLUTION NO. PC 20-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TR NO. 2015-211 (TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 36911) LOCATED WEST OF VALLEY BOULEVARD,
NORTH AND SOUTH OF CHAMBERS AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2015, the applicant, Tracy Marx of Recreational Land
Investments, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 2015-211 for 26.95 gross acres into 68 single-family residential
lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and common area lots located west of
Valley Boulevard, north and south of Chambers Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (“IS”) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) have
been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental
impacts; and,
WHEREAS, between June 17, 2020 and July 16, 2020, the thirty (30)-day public
review period for the IS/MND took effect. During this time, the IS/MND, was publicly
noticed by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and was noticed to owners
within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries, related agencies and government
agencies; and
WHEREAS, comments on the IS/MND were received during the public review
period regarding landscaping and traffic improvements and have been addressed by the
Community Development Department and Public Works and Engineering Department;
and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee
adjourned/continued the public hearing on the Project to August 12, 2020 due to
technical difficulties in hosting the meeting online; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee
held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all
materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for Tentative Tract Map No.
2015-211 (TR 36911), which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the Press
Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to
property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting
public notice, and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate
and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA Guidelines and represents the
independent judgment of the City; and
WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts or increased severity of
environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been
received by the City after circulation of the draft IS/MND which would require re-
circulation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee hereby
makes the following findings:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
516
Page 2 of 2
IS/MND for TR 2015-211
Date: August 12, 2020
1. The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the
whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the draft MND a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”, and any comments received, that there is
no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission determines that the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), which is attached to the MND and incorporated into
the project’s Conditions of Approval, and a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein by reference, will assure compliance with the
mitigation measures during project implementation.
3. The Planning Commission further finds that the adoption of the MND reflects the
Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.
4. The MND, all documents referenced in the MND, and the record of proceedings
on which the Planning Commission’s decision is based are located at City of
Menifee City Hall at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 and the custodian of
record of proceedings is the City of Menifee City Clerk.
5. The City of Menifee Planning Commission adopts an MND for the project
including but not limited to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
as attached to the MND and incorporated into the project’s Conditions of
Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2020.
_________________________
Randy Madrid, Chairman
Attest:
_______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Thai Phan, Assistant City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 1
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
CITY OF MENIFEE
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
1.
Project title: Tentative Tract Map No. 2015-211 (TR 2015-211) (also referred to as Tentative Tract
Map No. 36911)
2.
Lead agency name and address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29844
Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586
3.
Contact person and phone number: Manny Baeza, Senior Planner: 951-723-3742
4.
Project location: The project site is located west of Interstate 215 (I-215), west of Valley
Boulevard and north and south of Chambers Avenue, in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside,
California (APNs: 335-080-056 (5.8 acres), 335-080-066 (9.81 acres), and 335-080-067 (6.05
acres) and a portion of 335-070-054. Refer to Figures 1 Project Vicinity, and Figure 2, Project
Location.
A. Total Project Area: 26.95 gross acres.
Residential Acres: 19.76 Lots:68 Units: 68 Projected No. of Residents: 2031
Commercial Acres: 0 Lots: Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0
Industrial Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0
Other: 1.9 acres (catch basins, storm drain dedications, fire turnaround, and monuments)
B. Assessor’s Parcel No: 335-080-056, 335-080-066, 335-080-067, and 335-070-054.
C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2008 Page 837, Grid J4-J5.
D. Section 20 NW, Township 5S & Range 3W of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian.
E. Longitude: 33°43'17.6"N Latitude: 117°12'51.3"W
5.
Project Applicant/Owners: Recreational Land Investments, Inc. 5642 Research Drive, Unit A,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649.
Representative: Bryan Ingersoll, Adkan Engineers (Office:951-688-0241)
6.
General Plan Designation: 2.1-5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R)
7.
Existing Zoning: Low-Density Residential -2 (LDR-2) 7,200 SF
8.
Description of Project: Planning Application Tentative Tract Map No. 2015-211 (TR 2015-
211) (also referred to as Tentative Tract Map No. 36911) proposes a Subdivision of 26.95 gross
acres into 68 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The project
proposal also includes multiple lots including three water quality basins for compliance with
Regional Water Quality Control Board totaling 1.5 acres, three storm drain dedications totaling
1 DOF. 2019. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2019. Available at
http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed January 8, 2020.
ISMND RESOLUTION "EXHIBIT 1" TTM 36911
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 2
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
0.15 acres, two entry monuments totaling 0.2 acres, a fire turnaround totaling 0.24 acres, and an
access way totaling 0.1 acre. Refer to Figure 3, Site Plan Concept.
Site Preparation/Phasing
While the project site is relatively flat through most of the site, the project proposes 138,692 cubic
yards of cut, with a need for 108,506 cubic yards of fill, for a net of 30,186 cubic yards of export of
material.
The project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase. Grading is anticipated to last
approximately four months and approximately 18 to 24 months of construction activity. Project
operations are anticipated to begin in June 2021.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site will be provided via one access point on Connie Way at Valley
Boulevard, and one access point on Chambers Avenue at Valley Boulevard. Primary access would
be from Valley Boulevard. The project also provides interior street improvements, which would be
public roads (currently identified as Byers Road, Foothill Avenue, and Street “A”), for internal
circulation. Internal roadways would be 60 feet wide, including sidewalks on both sides.
No bicycle infrastructure is proposed as part of the project; however, On-street Class II bike lanes
are provided along Valley Boulevard, Chambers Avenue and Rouse Road near the project site,
and Class III bike routes are provided on Connie Way.
Other Site Improvements and Amenities
The project includes three water quality basins totaling approximately 1.5 acres.
Infrastructure, Utilities, and Public Services
Onsite infrastructure will include approximately 0.15 acres of storm drain easements through the
project site.
Onsite infrastructure will include associated internal roadways, drainage facilities, and three
detention basins. The detention basins will be in the following locations: Detention Basin #1 will be
located just east of Street “A” cul-de-sac and west of Valley Boulevard; Detention Basin #2 will be
located north of Chambers Avenue, east of Valley Boulevard, and west of Foothill Avenue; and
Detention Basin #3 will be located at the northwest corner of the site, just west of the Foothill
Avenue cul-de-sac.
The following public services are available to the Project:
• Fire Protection Services (City of Menifee through contract with the Riverside County Fire
Department);
• Police Protection Services (City of Menifee Police Department);
• Public Schools (Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District)
• Library Services (Riverside County Library System); and
• City Administrative Services (City of Menifee).
The following utilities/infrastructure systems and services are available to the Project:
• Water/Sewer (Eastern Municipal Water District);
• Electricity (Southern California Edison);
• Natural Gas (Southern California Gas Company); and
• Telephone/Communications (AT&T, Frontier Communications).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 3
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting:
The project site is currently vacant and the site elevation ranges from a low of 1,484± feet above
mean sea level (msl) in the northern portion of the project site to a high of 1,560± feet above msl
in the southwestern portion of the assessment area. This represents an elevational change across
the assessment area of 76± feet. The entire site consists of undulating, sloping land among sage
scrub habitat. The project site has been impacted by anthropogenic activities. Vegetation has been
disturbed by dirt roads, vegetation removal for fire breaks, unauthorized access and adjacent land
uses. Land use in the surrounding area varies between natural, semi-rural and single-family
residential.2
The adjacent General Plan Area Plan(s), Land Use Designation(s), and Zoning(s), if any:
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use
Project Site
SP - Cimmaron Ridge SP and
2.1-5 Dwelling Units per Acre –
Residential (2.1-5R)
LDR -2 Vacant Land
North 2.1-5 Dwelling Units per Acre –
Residential (2.1-5R) LDR - 2 Vacant Land
South 2.1-5 Dwelling Units per Acre –
Residential (2.1-5R) LDR - 2 Vacant Land
East 5.1-8 Dwelling Units per Acre –
Residential (5.1-8R) OS-R Single-family
residential
West
SP -Cimarron Ridge SP and
2.1-5 Dwelling Units per Acre –
Residential (2.1-5R)
Cimarron Ridge SP
and LDR-1 Vacant land
10
.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
Based on the current Project design concept, other permits necessary to realize the proposal will
likely include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Stormwater management and associated permitting will be required consistent with the
provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
• Permitting required under Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
2 Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. September 2019. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 4
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 5
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Figure 2: Project Location
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 6
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Figure 3: Site Plan Concept
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 7
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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
Geology/Soils
Mineral Resources
Noise
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
Aesthetics 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
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Mineral Resources
Noise
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
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
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Mineral Resources
Noise
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
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
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Mineral Resources
Noise
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 9
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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. State CEQA
Guidelines §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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 10
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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) In non urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
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 (MGP) Exhibit C-8, “Scenic Highways” and Riverside County General
Plan Figure 5, “Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy”; MGP Draft EIR; 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) (Menifee Municipal Code 6.01).
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 11
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Policy CD-3.3: Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support structures through
sensitive site design and construction. This includes, but is not limited to: appropriate placement of
facilities; undergrounding, where possible; and aesthetic design (e.g., cell tower stealthing).
Policy CD-3.7: 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-3.10: Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and
permanence.
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-3.17: 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 watercourses as community
separators.
Policy CD-3.22: Incorporate visual buffers, including landscaping, equipment and storage area
screening, and roof treatments, on properties abutting either Interstate 215 or residentially designated
property.
Goal CD-4: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the aesthetic value of the City's enhanced landscape
corridors and scenic corridors.
Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape streets, including
coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street furniture, and hardscaping.
Policy CD-4.2: Design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability,
bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through
improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street
lighting, and street furniture.
Policy CD-4.3: Apply special paving at major intersections and crosswalks along enhanced corridors
to create a visual focal point and slow traffic speeds.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 12
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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:
Impact I.a) Less Than Significant Impact. Under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that
provides expansive views of a highly-valued landscape for the public’s benefit. 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). Menifee’s natural
mountainous setting 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 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 and approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the
project site.
The project site is a vacant lot bounded by vacant land to the north, south, and west, and by Valley
Boulevard to the east. It is planned that in the future, Chambers Avenue will traverse the project site.
Additionally, Connie Way would provide access on the south of the site. The project site is not considered
to be within or comprise a portion of a scenic vista. While the project would construct new single-family
residential structures on a site that is currently vacant, the structures would be similar to the residential
uses directly east of the project site. As such, the project would not introduce a new visual obstacle to an
existing scenic vista. Land to the northwest of the project site is currently being graded for residential
development associated with the Cimarron Ridge Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
Impact I.b) Less Than Significant Impact. While the project is not adjacent to an officially designated
state scenic highway, it is located approximately 1.3 mile west of an eligible County Scenic Highway (I-
215) as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System and the Menifee General Plan3. An
existing residential neighborhood is located directly in between the I-215 and the project site. Further,
project site is within a suburbanized area comprised of residential neighborhoods and vacant land, as well
as surface street features, and does not contain significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings.
3 General Plan. 2013. Scenic Highways, Exhibit C-8.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 13
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and
no mitigation would be required.
Impact I.c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area of the City that is adjacent
to residential developments to the east, and to vacant non-urbanized land to the north, south, and west.
Given that the project site is bounded by vacant land planned for future housing and next to existing
residences, the project site is not located in a non-urbanized area. The proposed project would not result
in a significant impact and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the project 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. As such, the proposed project would not
significantly alter the surroundings of the area.
The project’s construction-related activities would result in short-term impacts to the area’s visual character
and quality. 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. While the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, the area surrounding the project site
generally comprises residential land uses and vacant land. Surrounding land uses include residential to
the east. Vacant lands are to the north, south, and west. However, land to the northwest of the project site
is currently being graded for residential development associated with the Cimarron Ridge Specific Plan.
Upon completion, the proposed project would include the subdivision of 26.95 gross acres into 68 single-
family residential lots with a minimum size of 7,200 SF. The project proposal also includes multiple lots
including three water quality basins for compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board totaling 1.5
acres, three storm drain dedications totaling 0.15 acres, two entry monuments totaling 0.2 acres, a fire
turnaround totaling 0.24acres, and an access way totaling 0.1 acre. The project would also include
landscaping improvements.
While the project site’s existing visual quality would change by incorporating residential uses and new
improvements, this would not degrade the existing visual character, site quality, or surroundings. The site’s
visual character would be altered; however, the project would not become visually incompatible or visually
unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. Moreover, the project would be subject to
compliance with City design guidelines and applicable development standards. Therefore, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on the site’s visual character and its surroundings and no
mitigation is required.
Impact I.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). Existing outdoor lighting at and near the project site is associated
with residential and street lighting typical of suburban areas. The proposed project would generate lighting
from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows, and lighting
from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, vehicles, housing illumination, security lighting, and landscape
lighting). Lighting associated with the project would not be directed towards adjacent properties across
Valley Boulevard or new dwelling units.
MMC Chapter 6.01 (Dark Sky; Light Pollution) indicates that low-pressure sodium lamps are the preferred
illuminating source and that all non-exempt outdoor light fixtures shall be shielded. A maximum of 8,100
total lumens per acre or per parcel if less than one acre would 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 (MMC §6.01.040). The project would be
conditioned that, prior to the issuance of building permits, all new construction which introduces light
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 14
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
sources would be required to have shielding or other light pollution limiting characteristics such as hood or
lumen restrictions for consistency with Menifee Municipal Code 6.01.
The MGP Community Design Element includes goals that encourage attractive landscaping, lighting, and
signage that conveys the community’s (Goal CD-6) positive image and that limit light leakage and spillage
that may interfere with the Palomar Observatory operations (Goal CD-6.5). Lighting proposed by the project
would be subject to compliance with MMC §6.01 and MGP goals and policies. Accordingly, the project
would have a less than significant impact on interfering with Mt. Palomar Observatory nighttime use which
is located approximately 35 miles southeast. Further, the City would also review new lighting for
conformance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (CCR Title 24 Part 11)
such that only the minimum amount of lighting is used, and no light spillage occurs.
Buildings with large facades constructed of reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building façades, metal
surfaces, and reflective glass) could increase existing levels of daytime glare. The project’s proposed
design does not include such surfaces or components. Therefore, the project would result in a less than
significant impact concerning a new source of glare and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
§12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined in Government
Code §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?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 15
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Sources: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation, 2010.
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:
Impact II.a) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan, the project site contains other
land, grazing land, and farmland of local importance.4 Similarly, the California Department of Conservation
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the project site as prime farmland of local
importance, grazing land, and urban and built-up land.5 Although the project site is designated as Farmland
of Local Importance by the FMMP, the project site is currently zoned Low-Density Residential -2 (LDR-2)
7,200 SF and designated as 2.1-5 dwelling units/acre Residential (2.1-5 R). Thus, the project site was
identified as appropriate for development by the City and the conversion of farmland on site was analyzed
by the City’s General Plan EIR, which found the conversion to be appropriate. Considering the small size
of the area mapped as farmland and the economic and regulatory constraints on agriculture in western
Riverside County, along with the currently approved Specific Plans and individual projects throughout the
City, it is unlikely that the project site would re-establish agricultural production even without
implementation of the project. Therefore, the project’s impacts concerning farmland conversion would be
less than significant.
Impacts II.b-c) No Impact. The project site is zoned Low-Density Residential -2 (LDR-2) 7,200 SF is not
under a Williamson Act Contract. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use or forestland; therefore,
the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or forestland, or a Williamson Act
contract.
Impact II.d) No Impact. The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or
used for forest land; therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use.
Impact II.e) No Impact. Surrounding land uses include residential to the east. Vacant lands are to the
immediate north, south, and west. The surrounding zoning is LDR-2 to the north and south, LMDR to the
east, and Cimarron Ridge SP and LDR-1 to the west. Forest land are not present in the area surrounding
the project site. Based upon historical records, the project site and surrounding areas were not historically
used for agricultural/dry farming uses. Additionally, according to the General Plan EIR and historical aerial
images, the project site is not currently used for agricultural uses and the residential uses surrounding the
project site have existed since at least 2002. The project would not divide any agricultural parcels or impede
access to any agricultural parcels, and would therefore not cause indirect conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4 Menifee General Plan. 2013. Agricultural Resources, Exhibit OSC-5.
5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 16
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
III. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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) 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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993; Menifee
General Plan; MGP Draft EIR; and Air Quality Impact Analysis (Tract 36911) (Urban Crossroads April
2018); see Appendix A, Air Quality Assessment.
Federal, State, and Regional Standards:
Appendix A (State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards) presents the federal and state standards.
Appendix A (SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds) shows the ambient air quality standards for
NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate
matter.
Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions
from construction activities.
Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation
areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous
materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.
Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all
airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.
Policy OSC-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 11 of the California Building
Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact III.a) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would
conflict with or obstruct South Coast Air Basin 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) implementation.
Conflicts and obstructions that hinder AQMP implementation can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines
for criteria pollutants and maintain existing compliance with applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to
the methodology in 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality
Handbook Chapter 12, AQMP consistency is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase the frequency
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 17
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the
AQMP’s growth assumptions. Consistency review is presented below.
1. The first criterion refers to violations of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The project would result in short-term
construction and long-term operational pollutant emissions that would be less than the SCAQMD’s
CEQA significance emissions thresholds, as demonstrated by the project Air Quality Assessment
presented in Response III.b-e) below and Appendix A. The project’s short-term construction and
long-term operational impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of MM AQ-1.
Therefore, the project would not increase the frequency or severity of any air quality standards
violation or cause a new air quality standard violation and is found to be consistent with the AQMP
for the first criterion.
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.
Consistency with AQMP growth assumptions is determined by analyzing the proposed project with
AQMP growth assumptions. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the project’s analyses
are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The MGP Land Use Map depicts the land use
assumptions represented in the AQMP. The site’s existing land use designation is 2.1-5 dwelling
units per acre – residential (2.1-5R). As concluded in III.b-e) below, the project would be consistent
with the site’s existing land use designations, and thus, the assumptions represented in the AQMP.
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. The proposed project is not considered a significant project. Therefore, the project would
not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP
for the second criterion.
Impacts III.b-d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 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 projected air quality violations. The proposed project is
located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where efforts to attain state and federal air quality
standards are governed by the 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’): 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
national AAQS.
Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the air basin. Areas that are in
nonattainment concerning federal or state AAQS are required to prepare plans and implement measures
to bring the region into attainment. Appendix A Table 2.2 (Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the
South Coast Air Basin) summarizes the project area’s attainment status for the criteria pollutants. The
project’s short-term construction and long-term operational emissions and their context for subsequently
impacting the environment are discussed below.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
Construction‐Related Regional Impacts
The construction‐related regional air quality impacts have been analyzed for criteria pollutants. The
methodology used to calculate regional construction air emissions is detailed in Appendix A and
summarized below. The analysis of the project’s short‐term construction emissions for criteria pollutants is
also presented below.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 18
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Using
CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during each project phase were calculated and presented
below. The CalEEMod construction emissions model outputs are provided in Appendix A.
The project would be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for reduction of fugitive dust
emissions (Rule 403), architectural coating (Rule 1113), low sulfur fuel (Rule 431.2) and street sweepers
(Rule 1186/1186.1). These SCAQMD rules are included as Best Available Control measures (BACM) AQ-1
and AQ-2. Compliance with BACM AQ-1 (Rule 403) is achieved through application of standard best
management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical
stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles,
restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access
roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent,
stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. BACM AQ-2 (Rule 1113) requires architectural coating used to
be no more than a low VOC default level of 50 g/L. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires CARB
certified tier 3 or higher during site preparation and grading activity for all construction equipment greater
than 150 horsepower.
Table 1 Emissions Summary of Overall Construction (Without Mitigation) presents the construction‐related
criteria pollutant emissions anticipated during the construction period and indicates that NOx would exceed
the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. Table 2 Emissions Summary of Overall Construction (With
Mitigation) shows all criteria pollutants over the SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of MM AQ-1.
Therefore, project construction-related activities would result in a less than significant regional air quality
impact during construction.
Table 1: Emissions Summary of Overall Construction (Without Mitigation)
Year Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 7.40 112.86 44.95 0.16 11.45
2018 16.98 29.00 22.75 0.04 2.23 1.83
2019 16.58 26.17 22.12 0.04 1.97 1.59
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No Yes No No No No
Table 2: Emissions Summary of Overall Construction (With Mitigation)
Year Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 3.53 66.51 45.76 0.16 9.10 5.04
2018 16.98 29.00 22.75 0.04 2.23 1.83
2019 16.57 26.17 22.12 0.04 1.97 1.59
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Construction‐Related Local Impacts
Construction‐related air emissions could exceed state and federal air quality standards in the localized
project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional
impact to the Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts
created from: construction‐related fugitive dust and diesel emissions; toxic air contaminants; and
construction‐related odor impacts.
Local Air Quality Impacts from Construction
The appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the localized significance threshold (LST) analysis for
the project is the Perris Valley monitoring station (SRA 24). LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 19
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
dioxide (NO2), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The
SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. In order to determine
the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of project
construction, the following process is undertaken:
1. The CalEEMod model is utilized to determine the maximum daily on-site emissions that will occur
during construction activity.
2. The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds is used
to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction
equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod.
3. If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to five acres per day, then the SCAQMD’s
screening look-up tables are utilized to determine if a project has the potential to result in a
significant impact (the SCAQMD recommends that projects exceeding the screening look-up tables
undergo dispersion modeling to determine actual impacts. The look-up tables establish a maximum
daily emissions threshold in pounds per day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs.
The CalEEMod output sheets included in Appendix A indicate the equipment used for this analysis.
The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized
Significant Threshold Look‐up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. Per the Air Quality Report, the project would
actively disturb approximately 3.5 acres per day during the site preparation phase and 4.0 acres per day
during the grading phase. As the look-up tables identify only 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre, an appropriate
3.5-acre and 4.0-acre value was interpolated for the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the
project site is the residential community located adjacent to the east boundary of the site. Therefore, the
LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (82 feet) was used for the analysis.
As shown in Table 3: Localized Significance Summary Construction (without Mitigation), during the site
preparation phase PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD local emissions thresholds at the nearest
sensitive receptors. For the grading phase, all criteria pollutants analyzed would remain below the
SCAQMD thresholds. With MM AQ-1, none of the criteria pollutants would exceed SCAQMD thresholds at
the nearest sensitive receptors as shown in Table 4: Localized Significance Summary Construction (with
Mitigation). Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Table 3: Localized Significance Summary Construction (without Mitigation)
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Nox CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 77.04 25.05 11.25 7.07
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,230 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes
On-Site Site Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Nox CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 80.32 39.58 7.16 4.15
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,346 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Table 4: 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 20
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
On-Site Site Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Nox CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 33.97 40.40 5.18 2.79
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,346 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Construction‐Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions
associated with heavy equipment operations during project construction. According to SCAQMD
methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “Individual
Cancer Risk.” Individual Cancer Risk is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air
contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment
methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy‐duty construction equipment and relatively short
construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 years) substantial
source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk (Appendix A). Further,
construction‐based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) would not
exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, project construction activities would not result in
significant short‐term toxic air contaminant impacts.
Construction‐Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials
such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process
are short‐term and the odor emissions would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing
materials. Due to the relatively short‐term nature of project construction activities and limited amounts of
odor-producing materials being utilized, the project would result in a less than significant impact concerning
construction-related odors. Additionally, project construction activities would emit diesel exhaust and
VOCs, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site
and therefore would not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Construction odors
would be temporary, short-term, intermittent, and would not affect a substantial number of people. A less
than significant impact would occur in this regard.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONS
Long-term project operations would result in a long‐term increase in air quality emissions. Increased
emissions would be due to project‐generated vehicle trips and on‐going use of the proposed project. The
following is an analysis of potential long‐term operational air quality impacts.
Operational Regional Impacts
The project’s potential operational air emissions have been analyzed below for the criteria pollutants and
cumulative impacts.
Operations‐Related Criteria Pollutant Analysis
The project’s operational criteria air quality impacts have been analyzed using the CalEEMod model. The
operational emissions were based on the project becoming operational in year 20196. The operational daily
emissions CalEEMod model outputs are provided in Appendix A. The CalEEMod analysis presented below
addresses operational emissions from mobile sources, area sources, and energy usage.
Mobile Sources. Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the
proposed project. The project trips were used in CalEEMod.
6 The CalEEmod run in the Air Quality Report conservatively assumes an opening year of 2019 which utilizes higher emissions factors.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 21
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Area Sources. Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment,
hearths/fireplaces, and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion
emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers,
chainsaws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. As landscaping
equipment fleet specifics were unknown, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from
landscaping equipment. The project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 445 which prohibits the use of
wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.
Energy Usage. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used
on‐site. No changes were made to the CalEEMod default energy use parameters.
Project Impacts. Table 5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary presents the project’s long-term
operational worst‐case summer/winter criteria pollutant emissions for all phases and indicates that none of
the phases would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, long-term project operations would
result in a less than significant regional air quality impact.
Table 5: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Scenario
Area Sources2 8.93 1.37 6.75 0.01 0.13 0.13
Energy Usage3 0.06 0.54 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile Sources4 1.78 12.57 21.51 0.08 5.50 1.53
Total Emissions 10.77 14.43 28.49 0.09 5.62 1.70
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Scenario
Area Sources2 8.93 1.32 6.75 0.01 0.13 0.13
Energy Usage3 0.06 0.54 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile Sources4 1.52 12.65 18.62 0.07 5.50 1.53
Total Emissions 10.51 14.51 25.60 0.03 5.67 1.70
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However,
as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out
of the local area. Therefore, concerning air quality, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local
projects, and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the
cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic in nature.
The project area is non- attainment for both ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Cumulative
projects construction and operational activities would further degrade the local air quality, as well as the
Basin’s air quality. The greatest cumulative impact on regional air cell quality would be the incremental
addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic associated with residential, commercial, and industrial
development, and use of heavy equipment/trucks associated with construction of these projects. Air quality
would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously.
However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria
or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative
impact. Concerning long‐term emissions, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative
impact.
Operational Local Impacts
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 22
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Project‐related air emissions could exceed state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity,
even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the
Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the
project‐related vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. An
analysis of the vehicular CO emissions, local impacts from on‐site operations, and odor impacts is
presented below.
Local CO Emission Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicular Trips
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts
can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the state and federal CO
standards. To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards,
a sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections
in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, hot spots can potentially
occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse. The project would not create
sufficient traffic to warrant a traffic impact analysis; therefore, no CO hot spot modeling was not necessary.
Therefore, long-term project operations would result in a less than significant impact to local air quality.
Operations‐Related Odor Impacts
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis
shall determine whether a project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California
Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would
constitute a public nuisance related to air quality. Land uses typically associated with odors include
wastewater treatment facilities, waste‐disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not
involve land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors, therefore, no impact would occur
in this regard. Consistent with City requirements, all project-generated refuse would be stored in covered
containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Potential
operational-related odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 During site preparation and grading activity, all construction equipment greater than 150
horsepower shall be CARB certified tier 3 or higher.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 23
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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 Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Sources: Menifee General Plan; MGP Draft EIR; Riverside County Transportation and Land Management
Agency, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Approved
June 7, 2003; U.S. FWS Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report, Updated
May 2019; Habitat Assessment Including the Results of a Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and MSHCP
Consistency Analysis TTM 36911 Project (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. December 2019),
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report, (Gonzales Environmental
Consulting, LLC. September 26, 2019, Revised March 24, 2020), and Delineation of Waters of the United
States and Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Habitats for Tentative Tract Map 36911,
(Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. June 16, 2019) included in Appendix B.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 24
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Vegetation
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Sensitive vegetation communities are those that are: considered sensitive pursuant to the State of
California NCCP program; are under the jurisdiction of the ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; are
under the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1612 of the California Fish and
Game Code; are known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity
Data Base (CNDDB 2019); are considered regionally rare in southern California; have undergone a large-
scale reduction from their Pre-European coverage in southern California due to increased urban and
agricultural encroachment; and/or support sensitive plant and animal species. Sensitive vegetation
communities listed for the surrounding project area are:
· Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest,
· Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest,
· Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool,
· Southern Riparian Scrub,
· Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and
· Valley Needlegrass Grassland.
Vegetation Communities on the Project Site
The project encompasses seven vegetation community types. Vegetation communities currently present
are characterized as Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance – Disturbed, Grasslands – Disturbed (Bromus
diandrus-mixed herb Alliance), Baccharis salicifolia Alliance (Mule Fat Scrub), Populus
fremontii(Cottonwood Scrub) Alliance and developed. Several special-status plant and animal species
have the potential to occur on site; Table 5.1, Special-Status Plan Species Listed for Romoland and
Surrounding Nine Quadrangles, of the Habitat Assessment in Appendix B, shows that although there is
habitat present to host some of the plant species, Table 5.1 shows that no Special-Status plant species
were observed onsite.7 Additionally, no oak trees are located onsite.
No Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) species or habitat is located on the project site.
There are no NEPSSA impacts associated with the proposed project. Although there are sensitive plant
species in the project area, none were observed on the project site.
Wildlife
The project site supports a moderate-high diversity of wildlife species due to the moderate level of
disturbance and development in the vicinity. Many of the wildlife species observed or detected in the project
study area are commonly found in the urban interface or on disturbed habitat Wildlife is generally specific
to disturbed sage scrub habitat. While a few wildlife species are entirely dependent on a single vegetative
community, the entire mosaic of the site and adjoining areas constitutes a functional ecosystem for a variety
of wildlife species. The habitat on the site provides foraging habitat for year-round residents, seasonal
residents, and migrating song birds. In addition, the site encompasses raptor foraging and perching habitat.
A list of observed wildlife is attached as Appendix B.
Wildlife usage of the project site tends to be focused around the margins of the project site, away from the
eastern development. Characteristic avian species detected include Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna),
Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), western kingbird (Tyrannus
verticalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), bushtit (Psaltriparus
minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), Savannah sparrow (Passerculus
7 Gonzales Environmental Consulting. 2019. Habitat Assessment Including the Results of a focused survey and MSHCP Consistency
Analysis.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 25
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
sandwichensis), Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) and lesser
goldfinch (Spinus psaltria).
Sensitive Wildlife
No sensitive wildlife was detected within the project site during the wildlife field studies. However, although
it was not seen, the Stephen’s Kangaroo rat (Diphodomys stephensi) is assumed to be present. Wildlife
species that are covered and adequately conserved by the MSHCP does not include Stephens Kangaroo
rat. Stephens Kangaroo rat (SKR) is covered under a separate Habitat Conservation Plan. As a Covered
species, participation in the HCP would provide “take” for SKR species and no additional mitigation except
a fee, would be required. Although SKR is adequately conserved, the intent of the proposed project is to
avoid and/or minimize impacts to all biological resources that occur within its boundaries.
Burrowing Owl Survey:
Burrowing owl habitat assessment surveys and focused surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2019,
according to the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Area. The focused Burrowing Owl Surveys (BUOW) revealed that no owl burrows or
burrowing owls on the proposed project site or within a 500-foot buffer area.
Hydrological Resources
Two intermittent watercourses that contain minimal riparian vegetation (1 mulefat and 1 willow) are present
on the project site. Surface water was observed on-site during March, which triggered fairy shrimp surveys.
Fairy Shrimp
Wet season fairy shrimp surveys found immature fairy shrimp in a relatively small, shallow tire rut. Wet
and dry season protocol surveys were conducted for fairy shrimp. The only fairy shrimp identified were
non-sensitive fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sp). Based on this, no impacts to fairy shrimp would occur.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact IV.a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
SENSITIVE SPECIES
A total of 64 plant species are listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species.
Several special-status plant and animal species have the potential to occur on-site. Table 5.1 of the Habitat
Assessment found as Appendix B of this Initial Study, documents the special-status plant species that may
occur in the Romoland quadrangle and surrounding nine quadrangles (Rarefind 5- 2019). Due to the lack
of suitable habitat and/or soils at the site, these 64 species were found to either have low or no potential
to occur onsite. No sensitive plant species were observed on the project site. Areas with vegetation consist
primarily of non-native species or species tolerant of disturbed areas.
Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) covers 146 species, 38 of which require additional
surveys if the proposed project occurs in the specific survey area for a species. As noted in Table 4 of the
Habitat Assessment (see Appendix B), the proposed project occurs within the burrowing owl survey areas.
This finding is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Exhibit OSC-7, MSHCP Survey Area, which
identified the project site as being within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The project site does not traverse
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats as defined by the MSHCP.
Burrowing Owl Survey:
Burrowing owl habitat assessment surveys and focused surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2019,
according to the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Area. The focused Burrowing Owl Surveys (BUOW) revealed that no owl burrows or
burrowing owls on the proposed project site or within a 500-foot buffer area. However, one burrowing owl
was observed outside the 500 foot buffer area near McCall Avenue. The MSHCP requires preconstruction
surveys pursuant to the MSHCP Objective 6. For burrowing owl, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 26
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
shall be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit to verify the presence/absence of the owl on the
project site. Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Species Not Covered by the Western Riverside MSHCP. No non-MSHCP covered special status wildlife
species were observed on the project site. Impacts to non-MSHCP covered special status wildlife species
would not be considered significant with the implementation of minimization and avoidance measures
proposed in conjunction with other nesting and/or migratory bird species. Therefore, compliance with
BIO-2, which requires a preconstruction survey to identify presence of nesting birds and raptors, would
reduce potential impacts to non-covered species to less than significant.
Nesting Birds. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take,
capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term
“take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect”
any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt
those activities. In addition, the CFGC extends protection to non‐migratory birds identified as resident game
birds (CFGC §3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC
§3503). The project site would not support tree- and shrub-nesting species, but ground-nesting species
could nest onsite during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15. Therefore, if ground
disturbance would occur between February 15 and September 15, the project could impact ground-nesting
birds. To address potential impacts to nesting migratory birds, the project would be subject to compliance
with mitigation measure BIO-2, which addresses construction activities within the nesting season.
Following compliance with BIO-2, the project’s potential impacts to nesting migratory birds would be less
than significant.
CRITICAL HABITAT
The project is not located within federally designated critical habitat. Therefore, no impact to critical habitat
would occur.
Impacts IV.b-c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
RIPARIAN HABITATS AND JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pools
An assessment of the potentially significant effects of the proposed project on riparian, riverine and vernal
pool areas was conducted. Seasonal watercourses are present and evidence of recent surface water was
observed on site. Potential MSHCP 6.1.2 areas were found on the project site. There are no
Riparian/Riverine associated species on the project site (i.e., least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, blue grosbeak, etc.) as the drainage areas are seasonal watercourses with lack of appropriate
habitat. Although ponded water was found in two check-dams (plastic lined depressions created by the
City of Menifee to control water flow downstream) and in tire ruts. These features are not vernal pools, but
anthropogenic created features. Due to the lack of appropriate vegetation, it was concluded that the site is
not suitable for riparian bird species including least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).
The ponding features found on the project site are not wetlands, as the soils are not hydric soils. Soils in
the check-dams are typical of flood prone areas (sandy) and water retention was created by adding black
plastic to create the check-dams. The tire ruts were created by unauthorized off-road vehicles compaction
of the soil during rainy conditions. No vernal pool plants or appropriate soils were observed on the project
site.
Streambed/wetland delineation studies found 0.726 acres of state streambed /MSHCP Section 6.1.2
riverine and 0.726 acre waters of the U.S. (WOUS) for federal jurisdictional area on the proposed project
site. In addition, 0.004 acre of streambed off of the project site were found between the project site and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 27
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Chambers Street. Permanent impacts to 0.726 acres of riverine under MSHCP 6.1.2 on-site and 0.004
acre of riverine under MSHCP 6.1.2 off site will be impacted by construction of the proposed project.
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
USACE regulates deposition of fill material into waters of the U.S. (WOUS) under Section 404 of the CWA.
RWQCB regulates impacts to WUS under Section 401 of the CWA and to waters of the State (WOS) under
the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Unnamed Drainage 1 is a created drainage (2005 aerial
shows the creation) as a result of graded development lots to the northeast. Drainage 1, with its checkdams
lined with black plastic, (2007 aerial) appears to have been created in order to channelize flow coming off
of the graded area to the northeast on to Chambers Avenue. Unnamed Drainage 2, which is a forked (2
tributaries converge into 1 drainage), is located in the southern portion of the project site and flows west to
east until joining into a single drainage that flows north to a culvert which is directed under Valley Boulevard.
Delineation studies found waters of the U.S. WOUS, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional areas on the project
site. 0.726-acres of WOUS/CDFW/RWQCB jurisdictional waters were found on the project site.
During construction of the current site existing vegetation will be trimmed and/or removed. Impacts to these
features would result in impacts to conservation of habitats and may result in impacts to covered species.
As previously discussed, WOUS potential jurisdictional areas, CDFW jurisdictional areas, and RWQCB
jurisdictional areas are present on the site. Unnamed Drainages 1 and 2 have non-wetland waters
(Riverine), as defined by the MSHCP. The Unnamed Drainages in this location have low functions and
values for flood storage and flood flow modification, sediment trapping and transport, nutrient retention and
transformation, toxicant trapping, public use, and wildlife and aquatic habitat due to its small size, severe
anthropogenic impacts by homeless, off-road vehicles, equipment access via Valley Boulevard and
Chambers Avenue, and lack of perennial or intermittent sources of water. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values.
The area is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Permits/Agreements for activities within
the streambed will be required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Final authority over the area rests with
the appropriate agencies. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require payment of a one time fee payment
to an in lieu program offsite to be approved by appropriate agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant.
Impact IV.d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project area was evaluated for its function as a wildlife
corridor that species would use to move between wildlife habitat zones. Features (e.g., mountain canyons
or riparian corridors) typically used by wildlife as corridors are not present in the project area. The project
site is located within the Sun Valley/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
However, the project site is not located within a Criteria Cell or sub-unit of the Sun Valley/Menifee Valley
Area Plan. Increases in noise, construction traffic, and human activities during construction activities may
temporarily deter movement of wildlife within the project vicinity. However, significant impacts to wildlife
corridors or nursery sites are not expected from construction or operational activities of the proposed
project.
In addition, the project area does not contain mountain canyons or riparian corridors that have the potential
to be used by wildlife as corridors. Further, the project area is surrounded by human activity in the form of
residences, agricultural uses, and roadways. No wildlife movement corridors were found to be present on
the project site and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Impact IV.e) No Impact. Vegetation onsite is limited to grassland species and ruderal species. There are
no trees on-site that are considered Heritage Trees as defined in the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(MMC §9.86.110). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur in this regard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 28
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Impact IV.f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No wildlife species that are
Covered Species and Adequately Conserved by the MSHCP, were detected within the project site during
the habitat assessment and focused surveys.
With urban interface mitigation, the project would have a less than significant impact on open space.
Overall, the project would not conflict with the relevant provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard with implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1: Burrowing Owl. Pursuant to Objective 6 and Objective 7 of the Species Account for the Burrowing
Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, within
30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-construction presence/absence survey for
the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this
presence/absence survey shall be provided in writing to the City of Menifee Community
Development Department. As long as there are fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls on or adjacent
to the Site, passive or active relocation of the burrowing owls will occur prior to ground-disturbing
activities onsite and follow standard protocols. If 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are detected on
or adjacent to the Site, the City and County will be contacted immediately to discuss appropriate
actions. If construction must occur during the avian breeding season, pre-construction surveys
shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 10 calendar days prior to the start of work to
determine the presence or absence of nesting birds within 300 feet (500 feet for special-status
species and raptors) of the impact area. If nesting birds are detected, the City, County, and Wildlife
Agencies shall be contacted to discuss the potential impact minimization measures to be
implemented.
If construction and/or disturbance of the site is suspended for a period of days (30) days or more,
a new survey shall be required.
If the 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey finds burrowing owls on the site, the project
biologist shall notify CDFW and USFWS within two business days of discovering the occupied
burrows, and shall subsequently prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for
review and approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) prior to initiating any
ground-disturbing activities (including disking and mowing, among others).
BIO-2: Raptors and Nesting Birds. To avoid impacting raptors, one of the following must be implemented:
Conduct grading activities from July 1 through January 31st, when raptors are not likely to be nesting
on the site; OR
Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February
1 to June 30), a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the project impact area for the
presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status). Any nest found during survey
efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation
would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFW. If nesting activity is
present at any raptor nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to
ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest
site, the following restrictions to construction activities are required until nests are no longer active
as determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500-foot buffer
around any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist, and (2) access and
surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by
a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be
allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 29
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the
nest. If an active nest is observed during the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored
by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will flush any raptor
to open space areas. A qualified biologist, or construction personnel under the direction of the
qualified biologist, shall then remove the nest site so raptors cannot return to a nest.
If construction is to occur during the MBTA nesting cycle (February 15-September 15) than a
nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may
be considered take and is potentially punishable by fines or imprisonment. Active bird nests should
be mapped utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) and a 300’ buffer will be flagged
around the nest (500’ buffer for raptor nests). Construction should not be permitted within the buffer
areas while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.).
BIO-3: In Lieu Payment. Applicant shall pay a one-time fee for 2.19 acres for riparian and riverine habitats
in-lieu fee program off-site reestablishment through Riverpark Mitigation Bank, or any other
approved in-lieu fee program at time of rough grading permit issuance will be acquired for mitigation
of the impacts at a minimum ratio of 2:1 or greater if required by another agency. If reestablishment
credits are not available then 3.0 acres for riparian and riverine habitats in-lieu fee program off-site
enhancement credits through Riverpark Mitigation Bank, or any other approved in-lieu fee program
at time of rough grading permit issuance will be acquired for mitigation of the impacts if required by
another agency. Notification to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required regarding which type of in-
lieu fee credits (reestablishment or enhancement) are being utilized. Mitigation for the impacts will
be at a minimum 3:1 ratio for riverine or whatever is required1 by California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Should sufficient in-lieu fee credits not be available for purchase at the time the project is
implemented, or should other agencies not approve in-lieu fee credit purchase, then the Developer
must prepare and submit for review and approval a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP)
for a site-specific restoration project at a minimum 3:1 mitigation to impact ratio. The plan must meet
County of Riverside requirements, as well as requirements of other resource and wildlife agencies.
Appropriate guarantees for the restoration project must be in place (e.g., letter of credit, bond, etc.)
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The Restoration Plan and Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program (HMMP) will be reviewed and
approved by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and Wildlife Agencies prior to project
implementation (any vegetation removal, staging equipment on site, ground disturbance, etc.).
BIO-4: Landscaping. Project-related landscaping shall not include exotic plan species that may be
invasive to native habitats. Invasive exotic plant species not to be used include those listed on the
California Invasive Plant Council’s Invasive Plant Inventory and Table 6-2: Plants that should be
avoided adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area,” found in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
BIO-5: Best Management Practices: Best Management Practices and the SWPPP shall specifically include
mandatory measures to prevent any movement of water, soils, or any material from the site into
offsite areas.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 30
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Sources: Menifee General Plan; MGP Draft EIR; Riverside County Land Information System; and
Archaeological Associates, Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for The Menifee Tentative Tract Map
36911 Project, dated September 12, 2017 provided in Appendix C.
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:
Impact V.a) No Impact. The project site is vacant and no buildings are present. Archaeological Associates
conducted a cultural resources records search on July 5, 2017 at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at
the University of California, Riverside. Additionally, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California
Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and the California Directory of Properties (DOP) were reviewed for the
purpose of identifying historic properties. The results of the search indicated that no prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the boundaries of the project site.
The project site had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. However, outside of the project
site, approximately 75 percent of the surrounding land situated within 1.0-mile radius has been previously
surveyed for cultural resources. The previous surveys conducted returned negative results for cultural
resources in the area. Similarly, the project specific cultural research conducted found that no NRHP,
CRHR, CHL, or CPHI listed properties have been recorded within the project area. Furthermore, no such
resources have been recorded within a 0.25, 0.5, or 1.0-mile radius. There are no historic buildings situated
within 0.25, 0.5, or 1.0-mile radius of the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not cause
an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and no impact would occur in this regard.
Impact V.b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Cultural Resources Assessment did not encounter any
prehistoric or archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project site. Outside the study area, three
prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within a 1.0-mile radius. All three sites are located
between 0.5 and 0.75 miles to the northwest. RIV-4486/33-004486 is the closest of the three sites to the
project site. It is described a milling slick accompanied by a small scatter of lithic tools. It lies approximately
0.5-miles to the northwest. There are no locations of archaeological interest recorded within a 0.25-miles
of the project site. Each of the locations is listed and briefly characterized in Table 6, Archaeological Site
Located Within the Study Area Search Radius.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 31
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Table 6: Archaeological Site Located Within the Study Area Search Radius
Primary # 33-/RIV Site
Number Site Description
CA-RIV-1557 Described as a “sparse surface distribution of quartzite debitage and retouched flakes…”
(Drover 1978). Located ¾ to the northwest.
33-004486/CA-RIV-4486 Described as a bedrock milling station comprising one slick accompanied by a sparse scatter
of lithics (Drover 1991). Located 2/3 mile to the northwest. Site found to have been destroyed
through grading when location revisited in 2012 (Ballester 2012).
18086/CA-RIV-9289 Described as a bedrock milling station comprising two slicks on two boulders (White 2003).
Located 3/4 mile to the northwest. Site found to have been destroyed through grading when
location revisited in 2012 (Ballester 2012).
Source: Archaeological Associates. 2017. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.
Given the negative results of the assessment, no additional work in conjunction with cultural resources is
recommended for the project. Monitoring of future earth-disturbing activities connected with development
of the property is not warranted or recommended as the chance of encountering buried archaeological
deposits is considered extremely low. Additionally, a record search of the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed for the area of potential effect (APE) “the project
site” and the search returned negative results. Therefore, the project’s potential impacts concerning the
significance of an archaeological resource would be less than significant.
Impact V.c) Less Than Significant Impact. No formal cemeteries are on or near the project site. Most
Native American human remains are found in association with prehistoric archaeological sites. Given the
very low potential for the project’s ground-disturbing activities to encounter archaeological remains, human
remains to be potentially encountered are considered low. Notwithstanding, if previously unknown human
remains are discovered during the project’s ground-disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in
the significance of such a resource could occur.
Standard Condition SC-CUL-1 through SC-CUL-8 is required to reduce potentially significant impacts to
previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation
to a less than significant level. SC-CUL-1 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are
uncovered the contractor is required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County
Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, who must then determine whether the
remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines
that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she must contact the Native American
Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Impacts
will be less than significant with implementation of the aforementioned Standard Conditions.
Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from
disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside
County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission
shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant". The most likely descendant shall then
make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Human remains from other ethnic/cultural groups with
recognized historical associations to the Project area shall also be subject to consultation between
appropriate representatives from that group and the Community Development Director. Thus, compliance
with the above-referenced state laws will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
SC-CUL-1 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 32
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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.
SC-CUL-2 Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials.
It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native
American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be
governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner,
pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and
Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial,
pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
SC-CUL-3 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).
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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. Work shall be
allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal
monitors if needed.
d) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the
Cultural Resources Management Plan 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 as identified in
Non-Disclosure of Reburial Condition.
e) If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a
Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archeologist, in consultation with
the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to
implementation of the said plan.
f) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the
Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural
resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for
decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 33
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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.”
SC-CUL-4 Cultural Resources Disposition.
In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading
(inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the
discoveries:
a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the
tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development
Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means
avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no
development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include,
at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from
any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required
cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred
items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial
process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall
be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with
the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a
culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State
Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of
Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The
collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be
accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of
curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological
materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the
landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items,
burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any
inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
SC-CUL-5 Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside
County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown
archaeological resources.
The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial
ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing,
grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing,
structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification,
evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special
interest or tribal monitors.
The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community
Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the
Community Development Department shall clear this condition.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 34
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and
the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the
definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural
activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB
52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and
has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section
21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the
City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural
Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief
review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could
potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program;
the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified,
including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly
evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct
earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take
the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and
Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project
archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any
newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
SC-CUL-6 Native American Monitoring (Pechanga).
Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities, including grading,
stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain
a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above-mentioned
Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community
Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of
cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
SC-CUL-7 Native American Monitoring (Soboba).
Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities, including grading,
stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain
a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above-mentioned Tribe
and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development
Department and to the Engineering Department. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of
cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
SC-CUL-8 Prior to Final Occupancy
Archeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall
prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if
required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with
the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall
include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held
during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to
determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community
Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be
adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 35
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural
Resources Department(s).
VI. ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Sources: Menifee General Plan; OPR’s Technical Advisory; and Air Quality Impact Analysis – Tentative
Tract Map No. 36911 (Urban Crossroads, April 5, 2018); see Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis and
Appendix E, Greenhouse Gas Analysis.
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.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact VI.a-b): Less Than Significant Impact. California Code Title 24, Part 6 (also referred to as the
California Energy Code), was promulgated by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption. To these ends, the California
Energy Code provides energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. California’s
building efficiency standards are updated on an approximately three‐year cycle. The 2019 Standards for
building construction, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, improved upon the former 2018 Standards
for residential and nonresidential buildings.
For new development such as that proposed by the Project, compliance with California Building Standards
Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen) are considered demonstrable evidence of
efficient use of energy. Residential development on the Project site would be required to promote and
provide for energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal or State of California
standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet all California Building Standards Code 24
standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the Project is expected be comparable to, or less than, energy
consumed by other residential uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in
California. On this basis, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary
consumption of energy. Furthermore, the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional
energy facilities or energy delivery systems. Less than significant impacts would occur.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 36
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 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?
r
f) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind
erosion and blowsand, either on or off-site?
g) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological feature?
Sources: Menifee General Plan Exhibits S-1, “Fault Map,” S-2, “Slope Distribution,” S-3, “Liquefaction and
Landslides,” and S-4, “Geologic Map”; MGP Draft EIR; Riverside County General Plan Figure S-8, Wind
“Erosion Susceptibility Map; ” State of California Department of Conservation Website - EQ Zapp:
California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application – Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation; and
Limited Engineering Geologic Report, Tentative Tract Map No. 36911 Project (RGS Engineering Geology,
February 27, 2019) in Appendix D of this document.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 37
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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.
Policy S-2.3: Minimize grading and modifications to the natural topography to prevent the potential for
man-induced slope failures.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact VII.a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults on or immediately adjacent to the property.8
The closest faults to the project site is the Wildomar/Lake Elsinore Fault located approximately 10.0 miles
southwest and the San Jacinto Fault located approximately 11.0 miles northeast. Additionally, the geologic
investigation concluded that the site is not located within any California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.
Furthermore, the site lacks geomorphic features indicative of faulting such as offset drainage courses,
topographic scarps, or sag ponds.9 Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects
involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Impact VII.a.ii-iv, VII.c-d) Less Than Significant. While the site is in a seismically active region, no active
or potentially active faults are presently known to exist at this site, as shown on the MGP Fault Map
Exhibit S-1. Although the site is likely to experience ground shaking during the life of the development due
to its regional location, with compliance with the latest California Building Code (CBC) would provide for
the development of seismically suitable structures. Additionally, the MGP Liquefaction and Landslides Map,
Exhibit S-3, shows that the project site is not delineated as a landslide or liquefaction zone. Similarly, the
geologic report concluded that the project site is has a very low potential for liquefaction, landslides, ground
rupture, and/or earthquake induced settlement.10
However, given the potential for seismic activity in the general region, moderate to strong seismic shaking
may occur during the project’s design life. Therefore, project implementation could expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The intensity
of ground shaking on the project site would depend on several factors including: the distance to the
earthquake focus, the earthquake magnitude, the response characteristics of the underlying materials, and
the quality and type of construction.
In summary, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded the project is feasible from a geotechnical
perspective provided the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation are confirmed by testing
following rough grading and then are incorporated into design and carried out through construction.
Regulatory controls to address potential geologic and seismic hazards would be imposed on the project
through the permitting process. Pursuant to MMC §8.04.010, the City has adopted the 2019 California
Building Code (CBC), subject to certain amendments and changes. CBC design standards correspond to
the level of seismic risk in a given location and are intended primarily to protect public safety and secondly
to minimize property damage. The project would be subject to compliance with all applicable regulations
in the most recently published CBC (as amended by MMC §8.04.010), which specifies design requirements
to mitigate the effects of potential geologic and seismic hazards. Additionally, Geotechnical Investigation
Page 14 through 16 makes preliminary recommendations concerning seismic design parameters.
Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 requires that the Applicant comply with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation and any revisions deemed necessary by the City’s Building Official and/or
Engineering/Public Works Director. The Menifee Building and Safety Department and Engineering/Public
8 California Geological Survey. 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed on January 15, 2020.
9 RGS Engineering Geology. 2019. Limited Engineering Geologic Report.
10 RGS Engineering Geology. 2019. Limited Engineering Geologic Report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 38
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Works Department would review construction plans for compliance with the MMC/CBC and the
Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations. Following compliance with standard engineering practices,
the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations (SC-GEO-1), and the established regulatory framework
(i.e., MMC and CBC), the project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects involving geologic and seismic hazards, and unstable conditions,
would be less than significant.
Impact VII.b) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would
expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. During construction, the project would be
subject to compliance with erosion and sediment control measures and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and
Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction
General Permit); see Response X.a). MMC §15.01.015(B)(1) specifies that any person performing
construction work in the City shall comply with the provisions of MMC Chapter 15.01 and control stormwater
runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The Director
of Public Works would identify the BMP’s that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and the
manner of implementation. Further, the project proposes hardscapes throughout most of the project site,
which would stabilize soils and contain them onsite. Following compliance with the established regulatory
framework (NPDES and MMC), the project’s potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Impact VII.e) No Impact. Sewers would be available for disposal of project generated wastewater; see
Responses XIX.a.The project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Impact VII.f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area designated as having
moderate susceptibility to wind erosion. However, the site is surrounded by residential development to the
east, which would minimize exposure to wind erosion. As such, it is not anticipated that high winds or
blowing sand would have substantial impacts on project-related improvements. Project implementation
would cover currently exposed soils with buildings/improvements, further reducing potential impacts related
to windblown dust or sand within the project vicinity.
Impact VII.g) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. While no fossils are known
to have been collected within the site or within a one-mile radius of the site, significant fossils have been
approximately 9.0 miles to the southeast of the project site in Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits exposed
during construction of the Diamond Valley Lake project. According to the City of Menifee’s General Plan,
the majority of the City is assigned as a high paleontological sensitivity which includes the project site. The
project site is bordered to the west by an area assigned as a low sensitive site.11 The Geotechnical
Investigation concluded that the project site is underlain by very old alluvial fan deposits of early to mid-
Plestocene age. The alluvium material was encountered within each exploratory exaction and is reported
to cover the entire site at the ground surface. The alluvium deposits range in thickness from more than
thirteen feet in the norther portion of the site to less than two feet in the higher southern area. Bedrock is
underlays the very old alluvial fan deports across the entire site. Given that the project site’s paleontological
sensitivity is high, and given the excavation of native soils ranges from two to thirteen feet within a sensitive
area, there is potential to encounter fossils, which may be impacted during excavation by construction
activities. Implementation of GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less
than significant level.
Standard Conditions
SC-GEO-1 Geotechnical Recommendations
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the City of Menifee Building & Safety Department Official and/or City of Menifee Engineering/Public
11 Menifee General Plan. 2013. Paleologic Resource Sensitivity, Exhibit OSC-4.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 39
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Works Director, that the recommendations for design and construction identified in the Limited
Engineering Geologic Study, Tentative Tract Map No. 36911, (RGS Engineering Geology,
February 27, 2019), have been incorporated into the project design, and grading and building plans.
The project’s final grading plans, foundation plans, building loads, and specifications shall be
reviewed by a State of California Registered Professional Geologist/Registered Professional
Engineer to verify that the Geologic Study recommendations have been incorporated/updated, as
needed.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring A qualified project paleontologist, that meets qualifications described
in the paleontology report and is approved by the City of Menifee, should be retained to monitor
for and address incidental discovery during project construction activities.
The project paleontologist retained shall review the approved development plan and shall
conduct any pre-construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation
requirements as appropriate. These requirements shall be documented by the project
paleontologist in a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). This PRIMP
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
issuance of a Grading Permit.
Information to be contained in the PRIMP, at a minimum and in addition to other industry standard
and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, are as follows:
i. The project paleontologist shall participate in a pre-construction project meeting with
development staff and construction operations to ensure an understanding of any mitigation
measures required during construction, as applicable.
ii. Paleontological monitoring of earthmoving activities will be conducted on an as-needed
basis by the project paleontologist during all earthmoving activities that may expose sensitive
strata. Earthmoving activities in areas of the project area where previously undisturbed strata
will be buried but not otherwise disturbed will not be monitored. The project paleontologist
or his/her assign will have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she determines the
probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level.
iii. If the project paleontologist finds fossil remains, earthmoving activities will be diverted
temporarily around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated and recovered.
Earthmoving will be allowed to proceed through the site when the project paleontologist
determines the fossils have been recovered and/or the site mitigated to the extent necessary.
iv. If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the project paleontologist
is not onsite, these activities will be diverted around the fossil site and the project
paleontologist called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the discovery,
recover the remains, if deemed necessary, in accordance with GEO-2.
v. If fossil remains are encountered, fossiliferous rock will be recovered from the fossil site and
processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be
recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit if appropriate.
vi. Any recovered fossil remains will be prepared to the point of identification and identified to
the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then will
be curated (assigned and labeled with museum* repository fossil specimen numbers and
corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; places in specimen trays and, if
necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, an associated
specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data will be archived
(specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum
repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 40
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
technician. The remains will then be accessioned into the museum* repository fossil
collection, where they will be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated
specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators.
*The City of Menifee must be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil
material prior to being curated.
vii. A qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings made during all site grading
activity with an appended itemized list of fossil specimens recovered during grading (if any).
This report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval prior to building final inspection as described elsewhere in these conditions.
All reports shall be signed by the project paleontologist and all other professionals
responsible for the report's content (e.g., Professional Geologist, Professional Engineer,
etc.), as appropriate. Two wet-signed original copies of the report shall be submitted directly
to the Community Development Department along with a copy of this condition, deposit-
based fee and the grading plan for appropriate case processing and tracking.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Source: Menifee General Plan; OPR’s Technical Advisory; Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Tract 36911)
(Urban Crossroads April 2018); see Appendix E, Greenhouse Gas Analysis.
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.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 41
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Existing Setting:
Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global warming, a related concept, is the observed
increase in average temperature of the earth’s surface and atmosphere. The six major greenhouse gases
(GHGs) identified by the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHGs absorb
longwave radiant energy reflected by the earth, which warms the atmosphere. GHGs also radiate long
wave radiation both upward to space and back down toward the surface of the earth. The downward part
of this longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is known as the “greenhouse effect.” The potential
effects of global climate change may include rising surface temperatures, loss in snow pack, sea level rise,
more extreme heat days per year, and more drought 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 timeframe. 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 42
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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:
Impacts VIII.a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would comprise 68 single-family residential
dwelling units, which is consistent with the land use type and density designated for the project site in the
General Plan. 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.
As shown in Table 7, the project’s emissions would generate approximately 1,648 metric tons of CO2
equivalents per year. According to SCAQMD, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if
the GHG emissions created from the on‐going project operations would exceed 3,000 metric tons per year
of CO2e. Therefore, project operations would not create a significant cumulative impact to global climate
change.
Table 7: Project‐Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 30.05 0.01 -- 30.21
Area 19.27 1.59E-03 3.94E-04 19.41
Energy 330.37 1.00E-02 3.94E-03 331.82
Mobile Sources 1,182.40 6.00E-02 0.0 1,184.02
Waste 17.89 1.06 0.0 44.33
Water Usage 32.73 0.16 4.03E-0.3 37.94
Total CO2e (all sources) 1,647.73
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: Urban Crossroads Greenhouse Gas Analysis 2017.
The project is also subject to compliance with 2019 CALGreen (CCR Title 24 Part 11) requirements. The
Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings.
CALGreen provides the minimum standards that buildings need to meet to be certified for occupancy. The
project’s CALGreen compliance would be enforced through the City’s Building Official.
Impacts VIII. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee has not yet adopted a qualified GHG
reduction plan. The City of Menifee General Plan includes policies and measures (shown in General Plan
Draft EIR GHG section Table 5.7-9) for the City to implement in support of achieving the reduction target
of AB 32 and the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. The City has adopted the
2019 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), including the California Green Building Standards
Code (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.06). The Project will be subject to the California
Green Building Standards Code, which requires new buildings to reduce water consumption, employ
building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies for large buildings, divert construction
waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.
SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels
by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds
upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which
sets a statewide greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 43
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Modeling shows the GHG emissions from the proposed project will fall below the 3,000 metric ton limit
established by the SCAQMD in 2010. The project reduces its GHG emissions to the maximum extent
feasible as discussed above. In addition, all proposed improvements associated with the project will meet
current energy efficiency requirements of California Title 24. Those responsible for design and completion
of the project are dedicated to regulatory compliance in all other areas of construction and operation, the
requirements of many of which are mandated by the members of the Climate Action Team. For these
reasons, this project will be consistent with the California Scoping plan and should not conflict with
applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The project would not interfere with any future City-mandated, state-mandated, or federally-mandated
retrofit obligations enacted or promulgated to legally require development City-wide, state-wide, or nation-
wide to assist in meeting state-adopted GHG reduction targets, including those established under
Executive Orders S-3-05, B-30-15, or SB32. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 44
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit S-6, “High Fire Hazard Areas,” and Exhibit S-7, “Critical Facilities;”
MGP Draft EIR; 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; and California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Website - Riverside County City Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps.
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination.
Policy S-5.1: Locate facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport, or disposal of
hazardous materials away from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities and areas
susceptible to impacts or damage from a natural disaster.
Policy S-5.2: Ensure that the fire department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a
hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an
accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City.
Policy S-5.4: Ensure that all facilities that handle hazardous materials comply with federal and state
laws pertaining to the management of hazardous wastes and materials.
Policy S-5.5: Require facilities that handle hazardous materials to implement mitigation measures that
reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal.
Goal S-6: A City that responds and recovers in an effective and timely manner from natural disasters
such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes, and as a result is not impacted by civil unrest that may occur
following a natural disaster.
Policy S-6.1: Continuously review, update, and implement emergency preparedness, response, and
recovery plans that make the best use of the City- and county-specific emergency management
resources available.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impacts IX.a) Less Than Significant Impact. A typical project that could result in a significant hazard to
the public 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 routine use, transport, or
disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for
operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications.
Both the EPA and the US Department of Transportation (DOT) regulate the transport of hazardous waste
and material, including transport via highway. The EPA administers permitting, tracking, reporting, and
operations requirements established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The DOT regulates
the transportation of hazardous materials through enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act. This act includes requirements for container design and labeling, as well as for driver training. The
established regulations are intended to track and manage the safe interstate transportation of hazardous
materials and waste. Additionally, State and local agencies enforce the application of these acts and
coordinate safety and mitigation responses in the case that accidents involving hazardous materials occur.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 45
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
The proposed project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport,
or disposal of hazardous substances. Project construction activities may include refueling and minor
maintenance of construction equipment on-site, which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and
handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal,
State, and local laws, including California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)
requirements. It is anticipated that a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and
wastes would occur that are typical of construction projects.
During project operations, widely used hazardous materials common at residential uses include cleaners,
pesticides, and food waste would be present. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of
as household hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills.
Regular operation and cleaning of the single-family homes would not result in significant impacts involving
use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Use of common household
hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community
Additionally, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and
therefore would not release known hazardous materials due to ground-disturbing activities.12 Project
impacts associated with the routine transport and use of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than
significant.
Impact IX.b) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response IX.a above. The project site is not
identified as a hazardous waste site with either an active or past occurrence. 13 The nearest three listed
sites on EnviroStor are classified as inactive or not requiring further action. The closest site to the project
site is identified as Elementary School No. 14 located approximately 0.5 miles west (Inactive Status), prior
McCall Mesa K-8 School located approximately 1.5 miles southeast (No Further Action Status), and The
Club K-8 School located approximately 1.5 miles northeast. However, after aerial review of these sites,
neither Elementary School No. 14 or The Club K-8 are in existence.
Additionally, the project includes the development of 68 single-family residential lots. Although typical
hazardous materials associated with residential development may be used (household pesticides, oils,
fertilizers, household chemicals, etc.) these hazardous materials would not be used in large amounts and
thus would not create a significant hazard involving the release of these materials. Because the project
site is undeveloped, 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. No mitigation is required.
Impact IX.c) No Impact. The proposed uses are residential, which would not emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. There are no schools within a
0.5 mile of the project site. The nearest school is the Hans Christensen Middle School located at 27625
Sherman Road, 92585, which is approximately 2.0 miles from the project site. No impact would occur in
this regard and no mitigation is required.
Impact IX.d) No Impact. Government Code §65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC). As stated in Impact IX.a, the project site is not included on the Cortese List. Therefore, the project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment in this regard.
12 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor. 2019. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=san+bernardino. Accessed on June 2019.
13 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor. 2019. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=san+bernardino. Accessed on June 2019.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 46
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Impact IX.e) No Impact. The following airports/airstrips are located nearest the project site:
Perris Valley Airport: at 2091 Goetz Road, Perris, approximately 3.0 miles to the north;
French Valley Airport: at 37600 Sky Canyon Drive, Murrieta, approximately 11 miles to the
southeast;
Pines Airpark: at 32655 Flight Way, Winchester, approximately 9 miles to the east; and
Skylark Field Airport: at 20701 Cereal St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 10 miles to the
southwest.
The project site is not within the Perris Valley Airport Land Use Plan area14, and is not within 2.0 miles of
any other public airport/public use airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project would
not result in an airport-/airstrip-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No
impact would occur in this regard.
Impact IX.f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee collaborates with local and regional
emergency service organizations and personnel to conduct simulated emergency response exercises
throughout the year. The City routinely coordinates with Riverside County/CAL Fire, Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department, Riverside County Emergency Management Department and the local utility providers
to discuss methods and response plans for various emergency scenarios that could potentially present
themselves within the region. Additionally, the City makes available to resident’s downloadable resources
such as emergency preparedness information session in PowerPoint, an emergency contact list, and a list
of responses to frequently asked questions. Additionally, the proposed project site would include two main
access points via Valley Boulevard and would include an internal circulation road that would allow for
emergency vehicles and resident movement/evacuation in case of an emergency. Therefore, impacts to
an emergency response plan would be less than significant.
Impact IX.g) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) and in the MGP High Fire Hazard Areas,
Exhibit S-6.
The project would be subject to compliance with the CCR Title 24 Parts 2 and 9 – Fire Codes and California
Public Resources Code Sections 4290-4299 ad General Code Section 51178. The project would also be
subject to compliance with regulations pertaining to fire protection, including MMC Chapter 8.20, Fire Code.
Additionally a permanent fuel modification area shall be required around portions of the project, that are
adjacent or exposed to hazardous fire areas for the purpose of fire protection. The recommended width of
the fuel modification area shall be based on applicable Building and Fire codes and a Fire Hazard Analysis
Study approved by the Fire District Further, it is the City’s goal (Goal S-4) for a community that has effective
fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and
structure fires. To this end, the project would be subject to compliance with the following City policies:
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.
14 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For
Perris Valley Airport. Available at https://www.colliers.com/-
/media/Images/UnitedStates/MARKETS/GreaterLA/GLA/AirportBuilding/Perris-Valley-Airport-Study.pdf, accessed January 15, 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 47
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response
services in the City of Menifee. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station #07 located
approximately 1.5 miles southeast at 28349 Bradley Road, 92586. In coordination with the RCFD and
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the RCFD would evaluate the project to determine
the necessary fire prevention features. Following compliance with the established local and state regulatory
framework discussed above, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving
wildland fires and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii) 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; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Sources: Menifee General Plan Safety Element Exhibit S-5, “Flood Hazards”; MGP Draft EIR; Riverside
County General Plan Figure S-9, “100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones” and Figure S-10 “Dam Failure
Inundation Zone.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 48
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards.
Policy S-3.1: Require that all new developments and redevelopments in areas susceptible to flooding
(such as the 100-year floodplain and areas known to the City to flood during intense or prolonged rainfall
events) incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards.
Policy S-3.2: Reduce flood hazards in developed areas known to flood.
Policy OSC-7.8: Protect groundwater quality by decommissioning existing septic systems and
establishing connections to sanitary sewer infrastructure.
Policy OSC-7.9: Ensure that high-quality potable water resources continue to be available by managing
stormwater runoff, wellhead protection, and other sources of pollutants.
Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac Wash, Paloma Wash,
and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation, replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper
drainage, and prevention of flood damage.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impacts X.a, c (i) – c (iii), X e) Less Than Significant Impact.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
The project’s construction-related activities would include excavation, grading, and trenching, which would
displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion.
Construction-related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program’s
Construction General Permit. Construction activity subject to this General Permit includes any construction
or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other
activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1.0 acre. Given that the project would
disturb an area greater than 1.0 acre, it would be subject to this General Permit.
To obtain coverage under the General Permit, dischargers are required to file with the State Water Board
the Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), which include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and other compliance-
related documents. The General Permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed General Permit-required measures
to control potential construction-related pollutants. MMC Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff,
addresses stormwater and runoff pollution control and is intended to reduce the quantity of pollutants being
discharged to waters of the United States. MMC §15.01.015(B)(1) specifies that any person performing
construction work in the City shall comply with the provisions of MMC Chapter 15.01 and control stormwater
runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The Director
of Public Works would identify the BMP’s that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and the
manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMP’s implemented to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the MS4 would be required when requested by the Director of Public Works.
Further, the project proposes hardscapes throughout a large portion of the project site, which would be
stabilizing soils and contain them onsite as compared to the current undeveloped condition. Following
compliance with NPDES and MMC requirements, the project’s construction-related activities would not
violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, the project would implement three
catch basins that would assist in the retention and collection of water runoff from hardscapes. A less than
significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONS
Urban stormwater runoff is covered under the municipal permit for Riverside County, the NPDES Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4
within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) (CAS618033,
Order No. R8-2010-0033). The City of Menifee is a Co-Permittee (Discharger) under the MS4 Permit. Each
Co-Permittee is required to ensure that an appropriate Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is
prepared for “New Development” (and “Significant Redevelopment”) projects for which a map or permit for
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 49
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
discretionary approval is sought. The New Development category includes new developments that create
10,000 SF or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including residential
housing subdivisions requiring a Final Map, among other types of projects. The project would create more
than 10,000 SF of impervious surface area; as such, a WQMP must be prepared. The WQMP is required
to include site design (including, where feasible, LID principles), Source Control and Treatment Control
elements to reduce the discharge of pollutants in urban runoff. The proposed Project would include
approximately 1.5 acres among three water quality basins to capture urban runoff from the site.
Additionally, MMC §15.01.015(C) specifies that new 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 Director of Public Works would identify the BMP’s that may be implemented to prevent such
deterioration and identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMP’s
implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 is required when requested by the Director
of Public Works.
Following compliance with the existing water quality regulatory framework (i.e., NPDES and MMC),
including implementation of BMP’s that would be specified in the project WQMP, project operations would
not violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. A less than significant impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
Impact X.b) Less Than Significant Impact. If the project was to remove an existing groundwater recharge
area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no
longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur. The project site is located in the
Menifee Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) within the Perris Hydrologic Area of the San Jacinto Valley Hydrologic
Unit. Although the project would increase onsite impervious surface area, the project would include three
catch/infiltration basins throughout the site. The catch/infiltration basin would not pose a significant risk for
groundwater. Rather, the proposed catch/infiltration basin would recharge groundwater. The proposed
Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Impact X.d) Less Than Significant Impact. Flood hazards for the City include dam inundation in the
event of a catastrophic failure, such as seismically induced dam failure. The California Division of Dam
Safety monitors the structural safety of dams that are greater than 25 feet high or have more than 50 acre-
feet of storage capacity. Parts 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 10.0 miles southeast of the project site, Canyon Lake is located approximately
4.0 miles southwest of the project site, and Perris Reservoir is located approximately 10.0 miles north of
the project site.
The project site is located in Zone X.15 Zone X corresponds to areas outside of the 500-year flood or areas
protected from a 100- year flood by levees. Additionally, the project site is located approximately 35 miles
from the Pacific Ocean. Given the distance from the coast and the previously mentioned dams, the potential
for inundation by a large catastrophic tsunami is extremely low. The design and construction of the dams
for earthquake resistance, in combination with continued monitoring by the California Division of Dam
Safety reduces risks of dam failure due to earthquakes. Dam inundation impacts would be less than
significant. No steep slopes are in the Project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is insignificant.
Therefore, potential impact concerning release of pollutants due to inundation from flood, tsunami, or
seiche are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
15 Menifee General Plan. 2013. Flood Hazards, Exhibit S-5.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 50
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit LU-2, “Land Use Map”; and 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, hazardous
materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XI.a) No Impact. An example of a project that has the potential to divide an established community
includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The project
proposes a residential community consisting of 68 single-family residential dwelling units. The project
would be located just west of an already established residential community and the general area is
developing into residential neighborhoods. Given the project’s nature, scope, and location, the project
would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur in this regard and no
mitigation is required.
Impact XI.b) Less Than Significant Impact. The MGP Land Use Map depicts the City’s land use
designations and indicates the project site is designated 2.1-5 Dwelling Units per Acre - Residential (2.1‐
5R). The City Zoning Map indicates the project site is zoned Low-Density Residential - 2 (LDR-2) 7,200
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 51
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
SF. The project proposes residential uses, which are permitted in the LDR-2 Zone and 2.1-5R land use
designation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the applicable land use plans. Given that the
General Plan EIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development of the
project site assuming the 2.1-5R land use designation, this project would not create any new or greater
environmental impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XII. 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; MGP Draft EIR Figure 5.12-1, ”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.
Goal OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand
management, and subdivision and building design.
Goal OSC-4.3: Advocate for cost-effective and reliable production and delivery of electrical power to
residents and businesses throughout the community.
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:
Impact XII.a-b) No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires
classification of land into MRZs according to the known or inferred mineral potential of the area. Under
SMARA, areas are categorized into MRZs as follows:
MRZ-1 Areas where the available geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits or a
minimal likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
MRZ-2 Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits
or that there is a likelihood of significant mineral deposits. However, the significance of the deposit
is undetermined.
MRZ-3 Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are inferred to exist;
however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.
MRZ-4 Areas where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of
mineral deposits.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 52
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the project site. No mineral resources are
known to exist in the site and the site is designated as an Urban Area. An area approximately 0.5 miles
east of the site is identified as an MRZ-1 area. However, this area is mostly developed with residential
dwelling units and there are no signs of mining activities. Implementation of the proposed Project would
not deplete mineral deposits or involve mining activities. Furthermore, the Project site is not located in an
area identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site and is not a mining area. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XIII. NOISE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or 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?
Sources: Menifee General Plan, Noise Element; MGP Draft EIR Figure 5.12-3, “Airport Noise Contours”;
Menifee Municipal Code (MMC); and Noise Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 36911 (Urban Crossroads,
April 2018); see Appendix F.
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.
Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when
preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications.
Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state
building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes.
Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory
mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and 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 8: Stationary Source Noise Standards
Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 53
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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.
Refer to Appendix G Sections II and III for discussions concerning noise fundamentals and the existing
noise environment.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impacts XIII.a-b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
Existing single‐family residential homes located south, east and west of the project site may be affected
by short‐term noise impacts associated with the transport of workers, the movement of construction
materials to and from the project site, and ground clearing, excavation, grading, and building activities.
Project generated construction noise would vary depending on the construction process, type of equipment
involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to
carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work. Site
grading and preparation is expected to produce the highest sustained construction noise levels.
The potential short-term noise impacts of construction activity have been calculated in Table 9. The
estimated construction noise levels are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway
Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. Noise levels are calculated based on the worst-case distance of
equipment operating over an 8-hour period; approximately 25 feet from the nearest residential property
line. The construction related noise levels are shown for each phase of construction.
As shown in Table 9, the peak 8-hour Leq noise levels will be 71.6 dBA Leq. Based on the results of the
analysis, construction noise levels are not expected to be exceed the 85 dBA Leq threshold over an 8-hour
period. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant temporary increase in noise
associated with construction.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 54
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Table 9: Construction Noise Level Summary (dBA Leq)
Receiver
Location1
Construction Phase Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating Peak Activity2
R1 59.1 59.1 47.7 51.1 47.0 59.1
R2 65.0 65.0 53.6 57.1 52.9 65.0
R3 64.9 64.9 53.5 56.9 52.8 64.9
R4 50.9 50.9 39.5 43.0 38.8 50.9
R5 71.6 71.6 60.2 63.7 59.5 71.6
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A in the Noise Study.
2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions.
Per the Municipal Code construction activity is permitted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from
June to September, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from October to May with no activities allowed on Sundays
and federal holidays. The City does not have established construction standards. The noise levels in the
table include construction noise abatement measures included below. Therefore, Construction Noise
Impacts are less than significant.
To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels
were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structure. The nearest sensitive
receptors are residential homes located adjacent to the site on Valley Boulevard. For purposes of
assessing structural impacts from vibration, the nearest sensitive receptors are considered “new residential
structures.” No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site. The
construction of the proposed project would not require the use of substantial vibration inducing equipment
or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main sources of vibration impacts during construction of
the project would be from bulldozer activity during site preparation and grading and loading trucks during
excavation. Per Table 10 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, none of the construction equipment
would exceed the FTA 80 VdB vibration standard. Decibel notation (VdB) is the average vibration amplitude
(also known as root mean square [RMS]) often used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body.
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB.
Table 10: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity (feet)
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)
Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Peak
Vibration
Threshold
Exceeded?2
R1 298 25.7 46.7 65.7 54.7 54.7 No
R2 150 34.7 55.7 62.7 63.7 63.7 No
R3 152 34.5 55.5 62.5 63.5 63.5 No
R4 761 13.5 34.5 41.5 42.5 42.5 No
R5 70 44.6 65.6 72.6 73.6 73.6 No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads 2018.
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A in the Noise Study.
2 Threshold used is 80 Vdb from FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard.
The annoyance potential of vibration from construction activities may be “strongly perceptible” during a
short period of time if heavy construction activities occur along the adjoining residential property line.
However, with implementation of Construction Vibration Abatement measures below, vibration impacts
from construction would be less than significant.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 55
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Construction Noise and Vibration Abatement Measures
Though construction noise is temporary, intermittent and of short duration, and will not present any long-
term impacts, the following practices would reduce noise level increases generated by the construction
equipment to the nearby noise-sensitive residential land uses.
· Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note
indicating that noise-generating Project construction activities shall only occur between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June to September, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from October to May, with
no activity allowed on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays (Section 9.09.030(B) of the City of
Menifee Municipal Code).
· During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’
standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
· The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest
distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project
site during all Project construction (i.e., to the center).
· The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction
equipment (between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June to September, and 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. from October to May, with no activity allowed on Sundays and nationally recognized
holidays). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses
or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONS
Noise Impacts to Off‐Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic
Future development generated by the Project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways,
increasing vehicular noise near existing and proposed land uses. The project site and surrounding
residential areas adjacent to roadways currently experience traffic-related noise levels within the “normally
acceptable” 60 dBA CNEL limit for residential areas based on noise measurements taken in June 2017.
Valley Boulevard has existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of 35,900 vehicles. The project’s
contribution to traffic-related noise levels would remain within the “normally acceptable” 60 dBA CNEL limit.
Therefore, the increase in traffic is considered to be consistent with the City’s performance standards for
the planned circulation system established in the General Plan and the impact is considered less than
significant.
Noise Impacts to the Proposed Project
Traffic noise along Valley Boulevard would be the main source of noise impacting the project site and the
surrounding area.
The unmitigated exterior noise level in the backyard of the units nearest Valley Boulevard would range
from approximately 67.1 dBA CNEL to approximately 69.4 dBA CNEL. In order to ensure the noise levels
are below the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard (conditionally acceptable noise range classification),
a minimum 6-foot noise shielding wall would be included as part of the project to enclose the backyard
area for all lots along Valley Boulevard (lots 36-68). With the installation of the 6-foot noise shielding wall,
the combined exterior noise levels will be below the City’s standard (range from 58.1 dBA CNEL to 62.3
dBA CNEL); refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Adequate building insulation and design must be provided to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45
dBA CNEL. While not required, the noise study also recommends an interior noise level design goal of 40
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 56
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
dBA CNEL using upgraded second floor windows with a minimum STC rating of 32 for windows facing
Valley Boulevard of lots 36-68.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1 Limit construction activities to daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, between 6:30 AM and
6:00 PM, June through September and 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, October through May. No construction
activity shall occur on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays.
NOI-2 Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the project applicant
shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee City Engineer that the project plan
specifications comply with the following:
1. During all project site excavation and grading on‐site, construction contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturer standards.
2. The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
3. Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use.
4. The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance
between construction‐related noise sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during all project construction as is feasible.
5. The project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music
or sound amplification on the project site during construction.
6. The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for
construction equipment.
7. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with
appropriate noise attenuating devices and equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and
their loads are secured from rattling and banging. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not
in use.
NOI- 3 Construction Monitoring. A noise monitoring program shall be implemented during construction.
The monitoring program will alert construction management personnel when noise levels approach
the upper limits of the residential noise threshold (80 dBA) at the surrounding residential property
line. Construction activity will cease prior to noise levels exceeding the residential threshold.
NOI-4 Sound Walls and Windows. A Minimum 6-foot high sound walls are required around all habitable
exterior backyard and sideyard areas for lots 36 to 68. Additionally, upgraded second floor windows
with a minimum STC rating of 32 for windows facing Valley Boulevard of lots 36 to 68 are required.
Therefore, the project’s operational noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Impact XIII.c) Less than Significant Impact. The following airports/airstrips are located nearest the
project site:
Perris Valley Airport: at 2091 Goetz Road, Perris, approximately 2.5 miles to the north;
French Valley Airport: at 37600 Sky Canyon Drive, Murrieta, approximately 11 miles to the south;
Pines Airpark: at 32655 Flight Way, Winchester, approximately 8 miles to the east; and
Skylark Field Airport: at 20701 Cereal St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 9 miles to the
southwest.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 57
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
The project site is within approximately 2.5 miles of the Perris Valley Airport. However, the adopted Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Perris Valley Airport demonstrates that the project site is not within the
airport’s vicinity and would not be within the airport’s mapped noise contours.16 Additionally, the project site
is located outside the compatibility zone for the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUC). The runway for March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport is located
approximately 11 miles north of the project site.
The project site is not within 2.0 miles of any other public airport/public-use airport or in the vicinity of a
private airstrip; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive airport- airstrip-related noise levels. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Sources: Menifee General Plan; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Incorporated Places over 50,000; Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Adopted 2012-
2040 RTP Growth Forecast; and State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2019.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XIV.a) Less Than Significant Impact. As of January 1, 2019, the City’s population is
approximately 93,452 persons and the City’s housing stock totaled 93,264 DU with approximately 2.99
persons per household (PPH). 17 No land uses generating permanent employment or extension of roads
capable of inducing direct/indirect population growth in the City are proposed. The project proposes
development of a residential community consisting of 68 DU. Assuming 68 DU and 2.99 PPH, the project’s
forecast population growth is approximately 203 persons. Therefore, the project would induce direct
population growth in the City by proposing new homes. The project’s forecast population growth would
increase the City’s existing population by less than one percent (approximately 0.002%). According to the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Menifee’s population was estimated at 81,600 persons in 2012 and is
projected to increase to 121,100 persons by 204018, an increase of approximately 39,500 persons over
2012 conditions. As such, the project’s forecast population growth (203 persons) are within SCAG’s growth
assumptions for the City. Additionally, the project is consistent with City’s land use and zoning designation
and the project’s nominal population growth has been accounted for in the City’s General Plan and the
16 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commissions, Current Compatibility Plans, Available at: http://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-
Compatibility-Plan
17 California Department of Finance. 2019. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2019, with 2010 Benchmark. Available
at http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed on January 16, 2020.
18 SCAG. Draft December 2015. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Table 11 – City Forecast.
Available at http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf, accessed on January 16,
2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 58
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
population growth is not considered substantial in a City-wide context. Therefore, the project would result
in a less than significant concerning population growth and no mitigation is required.
Impact XIV.b) No Impact. There are no housing units or other structures on the project site; therefore, the
project would not displace housing or people, or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
No impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Sources: Menifee General Plan Safety Element; Menifee Union School District, Romoland 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
agency.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impacts XV.a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) provides
fire protection and emergency medical response services for the City. RCFD Station No. 7, which is part
of Battalion 13, is at 28349 Bradley Road, Sun City, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site.
The Riverside County Fire Department in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 59
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Protection serves more than 1,360,000 residents and employs nearly 1,700 career and volunteer
firefighters and 240 administrative support personnel.19
The nominal population growth associated with the project would incrementally increase the demand for
fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. However, the project would not have a
significant impact on fire response times, because the project site is within RCFD’s existing service area.
Therefore, project impacts concerning fire protection services would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. Additionally, the project does not propose, and would not create a need for,
new/physically altered fire protection facilities, thus, less than significant environmental impacts would
occur in this regard. Further, the project would include improving the existing dirt portions west of Valley
Boulevard to a fully developed residential community. These roadway improvements would allow existing
fire service providers to better access the area and provide emergency services. Finally, the project will be
constructed to meet the latest CBC requirements and the project is subject to fire suppression development
impact fees and other standards and conditions required by the City and County Fire. As such, a less than
significant impact would occur.
Impacts XV.b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee contracts with the Riverside County
Sheriff (Sheriff) to provide police services for the City. Menifee-specific police services are coordinated out
of the Sheriff’s Perris office at 137 North Perris Boulevard approximately 4.5 miles north of the 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 Menifee. Average Sheriff response time to
emergency calls is 7.28 minutes, and average response time for nonemergency calls is 49.58 minutes.20
The Sheriff will continue to provide police services to the City until July 1, 2020. On July 1st, the Menifee
Police Department (MPD) will take over. The police substation located at 28115 Bradley Road in the Sun
City portion of Menifee. Data is currently insufficient to make a forecast regarding potential impacts to the
MPD.
The Project is subject to Ordinance No. 17-232, Development Impact Fees (DIF). DIF shall be paid at the
time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever
occurs first. However, the fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. DIF is
used to pay for fire protection and emergency response services. Credits may be afforded to the applicant
if improvements are made to these facilities as part of the Project development.
The nominal population growth associated with the project would incrementally increase the demand for
police protection services to the project site. However, the proposed residential development would not
result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of
police resources. Additionally, the project would not have a significant impact on police response times,
because the project site is within the Police’s existing service area. Therefore, project impacts concerning
police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, the
project does not propose, and would not create a need for, new/physically altered police protection
facilities; thus, less than significant environmental impacts would occur in this regard.
Impacts XV.c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within jurisdiction of the Romoland
School District and Perris Union High School District. The student population growth associated with the
project would nominally/incrementally increase the demand for school facilities/services. However, the
project would be subject to payment of school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB50).
Pursuant to Government Code §65995(3)(h), “payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete
mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the
planning, use or development of real property…” Therefore, project impacts to schools would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, the project does not propose, and would not create
19 Riverside County Fire Department. 2017. Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with CAL Fire. 2017 Annual Report. Available
at http://www.rvcfire.org/ourDepartment/PIOEducation/Documents/2017%20AR.pdf, accessed January 16, 2020.
20 City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. 2013. Public Services.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 60
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
a need for, new/physically altered school facilities; thus, less than environmental impacts would occur in
this regard.
Impact XV. d - e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a residential development that
would result in nominal population growth. Although the project would bring new residents to the general
area, the use of parks and other facilities has been accounted for in the General Plan as the project site is
anticipated to develop with residential dwelling units, similar to the general vicinity. The proposed
residential development would not significantly increase the demand of such services and a less than
significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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; and MGP 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.
OSC-1.2: Require a minimum of five acres of public open space to be provided for every 1,000 City
residents.
OSC-1.3: Locate and distribute parks and recreational facilities throughout the community so that most
residents are within walking distance (one-half mile) of a public open space.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XVI.a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. As specified in MMC the City requires dedication of land
for park or recreation facilities, or payment of fees in-lieu thereof (or a combination of both), incidental to
and as a condition of approval for a tentative or parcel map. MMC specifies that dedication of land/Quimby
Fees for park or recreational purposes shall be at the rate of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
Per City of Menifee Resolution 16-514, single-family residential dwelling units must assume an average
population per dwelling unit of 3.164 to calculate Quimby fees or use the latest U.S. Census data. Based
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 61
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
on 2019 U.S. Census estimates, there are approximately 3.09 persons per household in the City21. That is
approximately 210 persons from the establishment of the new community. Based on this forecast
population growth and the City’s park area target of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, the project would create
a demand for approximately 1.05 acres of park/recreational area. Additionally, the population growth
associated with the project could also incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities,
potentially accelerating their deterioration. Following compliance with MMC Chapter 9.55 requirements,
although the project is not setting land aside for park space, it will be paying the appropriate fees based on
the latest fee for City park improvements. As such, the project would result in a less than significant impact
to park/recreational facilities and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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; Tentative Tract Map No. 36911 Traffic Impact
Analysis, Urban Crossroads, March 9, 2020; see Appendix G.
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.
21 U.S. Census. 2019. QuickFacts, Menifee City, California. Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/menifeecitycalifornia,
accessed on January 16, 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 62
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality,
and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized
travel throughout the City of Menifee.
Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to:
• Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards.
• Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise
experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines.
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses.
• Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on-street bike lanes as our primary paths of
citywide travel and explore the shared use of low-speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe
to do so.
Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas,
businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points.
Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes
consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way and other potential options.
Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic
transportation needs of the transit dependent.
Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays,
and turnouts, as necessary.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XVII.a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The intersection LOS analysis is based
on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in
December 2017.
The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
· Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
· Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data is representative of typical peak hour traffic conditions in
the study area. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in
Appendix 3.1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads in March 9, 2020 (See
Appendix G). The raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited
access, no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic.
Per the direction of City of Menifee staff, a 2.0% ambient growth factor was applied to the 2017 traffic count
data to reflect 2018 conditions. The year 2018 represents the baseline traffic conditions for the traffic study
prepared for the project. Table 8, Project Trip Generation, presents the daily and peak hour trip generation
for the proposed project. As indicated in Table 11, the proposed project is anticipated to generate
approximately 1,643 ADT, including an estimated 56 AM peak hour trips and 74 PM peak hour trips.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 63
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Table 11: Project Trip Generation
Land use Units2 ITE LU
Code
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates1
Single-Family Detached
Residential
DU 210 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.3
7 0.99 9.44
Tentative Tract NO. 36911 75 DU 14 42 56 47 27 74 1,643
Notes:
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (2017) Land Use Code #210.
2. DU= Dwelling Unit
Intersection Analysis
Level of Service (LOS) “D” is generally considered acceptable at intersections within the City of Menifee.
LOS “E” may be allowed in designated Economic Development Corridors to the extent that it would support
transit-oriented development and pedestrian communities. The LOS criteria recognizes the physical and
financial limitations of providing additional infrastructure to satisfy peak hour traffic demands considering
that traffic congestion itself encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. LOS “E” may also
be used at constrained intersections in close proximity to I-215. Hence, this analysis utilizes the following
LOS Standards at each study intersection:
· Valley Boulevard / Chambers Avenue – LOS D
· Valley Boulevard / Connie Way – LOS D
· Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue – LOS D
· Murrieta Road / McCall Boulevard – LOS D
The unsignalized study intersections have been evaluated for signalization based on the peak hour
warrants and procedures contained in the latest editions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD). None of the unsignalized study intersections are forecast to satisfy the MUTCD
peak hour traffic signal warrants for Cumulative (2021) With Project Conditions and therefore would not
warrant a traffic signal in the other scenarios either.
Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
As shown in Table 12, Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary: Existing Conditions Plus Project, all
study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours for
Existing Conditions. Similarly, all study area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project Conditions. Based on agency-
established thresholds of significance, the proposed project is forecast to not result in a significant traffic
impact at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project Conditions.
Table 12: Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary: Existing Conditions Plus Project
Intersection Traffic
Control
Existing Conditions (2018) Existing + Project Conditions Project
Trips
Sig.
Impact?
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS AM PM
1. Valley Boulevard /
Chambers Avenue AWS 7.1 A 7.5 A 7.4 A 8.1 A 56 74 NO
2. Valley Boulevard /
Connie Way CSS 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 28 36 NO
3. Murrieta Road /
Chambers Avenue AWS 13.5 B 14.8 B 14.5 B 16.3 C 56 74 NO
4. Murrieta Road / McCall
Boulevard TS 19.8 B 22.4 C 20.4 C 23.5 C 38 52 NO
Note: TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 64
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (AEP) 2020 Conditions
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAP
conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with the TIA. As shown in Table 13, Study
Intersection LOS Analysis Summary: Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (AEP) Conditions, and
consistent with Existing conditions, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at
acceptable LOS during the peak hours for EAP (2020) traffic conditions. The intersection operations
analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of the traffic analysis.
Table 13: Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary: Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (AEP) 2020 Conditions
Intersection 2Traffic
Control
Existing Conditions (2018) Existing + Project Conditions Project Trips
Sig.
Impact? 3
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay1
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay1
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS AM PM
1. Valley Boulevard
/ Chambers Avenue AWS 7.1 A 7.5 A 7.4 A 8.1 A 56 74 NO
2. Valley Boulevard
/ Connie Way CSS 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 28 36 NO
3. Murrieta Road /
Chambers Avenue AWS 13.5 B 14.8 B 15.3 C 18.1 C 56 74 NO
4. Murrieta Road /
McCall Boulevard TS 19.8 B 22.4 C 20.9 C 24.3 C 38 52 NO
Note:
1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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 TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop
3 Impact is significant if the pre‐project condition is at or better than LOS D (or acceptable LOS) and the project‐generated traffic causes deterioration below acceptable levels,
a deficiency is deemed to occur. However, if the pre‐project condition is already below LOS D (or acceptable LOS), the Project will be responsible for mitigating its impact to a LOS
equal to or better than it was without the Project.
Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions
Roadway Improvements
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes, an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus traffic from pending
and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area. The lane configurations
and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project conditions
are consistent, with the exception of the following:
· Cumulative project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the cumulative
development projects to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year
Cumulative (2020) conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along cumulative
development’s frontage and driveways).
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2020)
With Project are consistent with those shown previously in the TIA.
Without Project Conditions
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Opening
Year Cumulative Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with
Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Roadway Improvements.
As shown in Table 11, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions. The
following study intersection is anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS:
· Murrieta Rd. / Chambers Av. (#3) – LOS E PM peak hour only
With Project Conditions
As shown on Table 14, there are no additional study area intersections anticipated to experience
unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) with the addition of Project traffic during one or more peak hours, in
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 65
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
addition to the intersection previously identified under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project
conditions.
Table 14: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions
Intersection Traffic
Control2
Without Project With Project Project Trips
Sig.
Impact? 3
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay1
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay1
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS AM PM
1. Valley Boulevard /
Chambers Avenue AWS 7.4 A 7.7 A 7.6 A 8.2 A 56 74 NO
2. Valley Boulevard /
Connie Way CSS 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 28 36 NO
3. Murrieta Road /
Chambers Avenue AWS 24.9 C 42.9 E 29.1 D 51.1 F 56 74 YES
4. Murrieta Road /
McCall Boulevard TS 26.1 C 43.1 D 28.5 C 48.2 D 38 52 NO
Note:
1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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 TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop
3 Impact is significant if the pre‐project condition is at or better than LOS D (or acceptable LOS) and the project‐generated traffic causes deterioration below acceptable levels,
a deficiency is deemed to occur. However, if the pre‐project condition is already below LOS D (or acceptable LOS), the Project will be responsible for mitigating its impact to a LOS
equal to or better than it was without the Project.
Measures to address near‐term deficiencies for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) traffic conditions for
intersection #3 are below.
Cumulative Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements
Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersection #3 Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue,
to reduce each location’s peak hour delay and improve the associated LOS grade to an acceptable LOS
(LOS D or better).
Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue (#3):
· Add an eastbound left turn lane
The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategy to address the Opening Year Cumulative
(2020) traffic deficiency is presented in Table 15, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020)
Conditions With Improvements.
Table 15: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions With Improvements
# Intersection Traffic3
Control
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 LOS Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
3
Murrieta Rd. &
Chambers
Without Project
-Without
Improvements AWS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 24.9 42.9 C E
-With
Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 19.3 20.7 B C
With Project
-Without
Improvements AWS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 29.1 51.1 D F
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 66
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
-With
Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 20.2 23.7 C C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
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 for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through
lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Improvement
2 - Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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.
3 - AWS = All‐Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement
As shown on Table 15, payment of fair share for suggested roadway improvements (Mitigation Measure
TRF-1) would bring intersection #3 back to functioning at an acceptable LOS.
Mitigation Measure and Fair Share Contribution:
TRF-1: Applicant shall pay a fair share contribution toward the installation of improvements at intersection
#3 Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue, per City of Menifee Engineering Department Conditions of
Approval.
Fair Share Contribution
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF, and/or
DIF), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future
improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be
eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the
City of Menifee’s discretion).
When off‐site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed
development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the
development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour are provided
on Table 16, Project Fair Share Calculations, for the deficient intersection shown previously on Table 15.
Improvements included in a defined program and constructed by development may be eligible for a fee
credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate.
Table 16: Project Fair Share Calculations
# Intersection Existing Project 2020 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project %
of New
3 Murrieta Rd. & Chambers Ave.
AM:
PM:
855
962
56
74
1,179
1,423
324
461
17.3%
16.1%
*Highest fair share percentage identified in BOLD
Conditions of Approval:
On-Site Roadway and Site Access Required Improvements
Access to the project site will be provided via Chambers Avenue and Connie Way. Regional access to the
project site will be provided by the I‐215 Freeway via McCall Boulevard. As part of the development, the
project will construct improvements on the site adjacent roadway of Valley Boulevard. Roadway
improvements necessary to provide site access and on‐site circulation is assumed to be constructed in
conjunction with site development and are noted below as Conditions of Approval (COA). These
improvements should be in place prior to occupancy.
Conditions of Approval
COA-1: Valley Boulevard is a north‐south oriented roadway located along the Project’s eastern boundary.
Construct Valley Boulevard at its ultimate half‐section width as an arterial (117‐foot right‐of‐way) between
the Project’s northern and southern boundary. Improvements along the Project’s frontage (west side of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 67
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Valley Boulevard) would be those required by final conditions of approval for the proposed Project and
applicable City of Menifee standards.
COA-2: On‐site traffic signing, and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction
plans for the project site.
COA-3: Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard
Caltrans and City of Menifee sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape
and street improvement
COA-4: Valley Boulevard / Driveway 1/Chambers Avenue (#1) – Install a stop control on the eastbound
approach and construct the intersection with the following minimum geometrics:
· Northbound Approach: One shared through‐left turn lane and one right turn lane.
· Southbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Eastbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Westbound Approach: One shared through‐left turn lane and one right turn lane.
COA-5: Valley Boulevard / Driveway 2/Connie Way (#2) – Install a stop control on the northbound
approach and construct the intersection with the following minimum geometrics:
· Northbound Approach: One shared left-through‐right turn lane.
· Southbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Eastbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Westbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the Project, site access points, and site‐adjacent intersections
will be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross‐
sections in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element.
Signal Warrant Analysis
Future unsignalized intersections have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals
based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT‐based signal
warrant analysis worksheets. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized
study area intersections:
· Valley Bl. / Chambers Av.
· Valley Bl. / Connie Wy.
· Murrieta Rd. / Chambers Av.
No study area intersections are anticipated to warrant a traffic signal for Existing Conditions, Existing Plus
Project Conditions, EAP (2020) Conditions, Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project Conditions,
or Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project Conditions.
A signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be
warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular
location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the
signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS.
An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate
below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
The intersection of Murrieta Road and Chambers Avenue is not anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under
either Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions. However, there are no
additional geometric improvements that would accommodate acceptable peak hour operations at this
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 68
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
location. The intersection should be monitored and a traffic signal shall be installed at the City Traffic
Engineer’s discretion.
Transit Service
The study area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) with bus services along
Chambers Avenue via Route 74, McCall Boulevard via Route 61 and Murrieta Road via Route 74 and
Route 61 approximately 0.45-mile east and southeast from the project site. Future transit services are
anticipated along McCall Boulevard and Menifee Road near the vicinity of the project site. Transit service
is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs.
Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced
service where appropriate. As such, it is recommended that the Project Applicant work in conjunction with
RTA to potentially provide bus service to the site.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
On‐street Class II bike lanes are proposed along Valley Boulevard, Chambers Avenue, Murrieta Road and
McCall Boulevard in the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the project site vicinity provides full pedestrian
facilities along Valley Boulevard, Chambers Avenue, Connie Way, McCall Boulevard, and Murrieta Road.
Pedestrian infrastructure is fully provided connecting to the existing transit service stops located
approximately 0.45-mile from the project site.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRF- 1, and the COAs, the project would be consistent with
all applicable traffic thresholds and therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
The project’s traffic impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts XVII.b) Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 provides that for land
use projects, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance may indicate a significant impact. The City of Menifee has not adopted a VMT threshold.
Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing
high-quality transit corridor are presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects
that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions are presumed to
have a less than significant transportation impact. While the City has not yet adopted an VMT threshold,
the project can also be qualitatively analyzed to understand factors such as the availability of transit,
proximity to other destination, etc.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), the project site is within a half-mile of
existing transit stops. The following two transit stops are located in the vicinity of the project site: a transit
stop is located at the intersection of Murrieta Road and Chambers Avenue and Murrieta Road and McCall
Boulevard located approximately 0.45-mile east and southeast from the project site.
Moreover, the proposed project is anticipated to provide appropriate pedestrian facilities including
sidewalks along and within project frontage. Because the project site is located within half-mile of transit
stops, it is not anticipated that the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b); a less than significant impact would occur.
Impact XVII.c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include the use of any
incompatible vehicles or equipment on-site, such as farm equipment. The design features of the proposed
project would create new roadways and/or intersections. The proposed roadways, intersection modification
and off-site improvements are noted in Impact XVII.a. The anticipated on-site and off-site roadway
improvements would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. All on‐site and site‐adjacent
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 69
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
improvements would be constructed as approved by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. Sight
distance at project access points would comply with applicable City of Menifee sight distance standards.
Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Impact XVII.d) Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the site will be provided via one (1)
access points on Valley Boulevard and Chambers Avenue, one (1) access point on Valley Boulevard and
Connie Way. Pedestrian access is proposed via perimeter and internal sidewalks. The RCFD reviews the
project for access requirements concerning minimum roadway width, fire apparatus access roads, fire
lanes, signage, access devices and gates, and access walkways, among other requirements, which would
enhance emergency access to the project site. Following compliance with RCFD access requirements,
adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided. Project impacts concerning emergency
access would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure and Fair Share Contribution:
TRF-1: Applicant shall pay a fair share contribution toward the installation of improvements at intersection
#3 Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue, per City of Menifee Engineering Department Conditions of
Approval.
Fair Share Contribution
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF, and/or
DIF), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future
improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be
eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the
City of Menifee’s discretion).
When off‐site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed
development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the
development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour are provided
on Table 17, Project Fair Share Calculations, for the deficient intersection shown previously on Table 12.
Improvements included in a defined program and constructed by development may be eligible for a fee
credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate.
Table 17: Project Fair Share Calculations
# Intersection Existing Project 2020 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New
3 Murrieta Rd. & Chambers Ave.
AM:
PM:
855
962
56
74
1,179
1,423
324
461
17.3%
16.1%
*Highest fair share percentage identified in BOLD
Conditions of Approval:
On-Site Roadway and Site Access Required Improvements
Access to the project site will be provided via Chambers Avenue and Connie Way. Regional access to the
project site will be provided by the I‐215 Freeway via McCall Boulevard. As part of the development, the
project will construct improvements on the site adjacent roadway of Valley Boulevard. Roadway
improvements necessary to provide site access and on‐site circulation is assumed to be constructed in
conjunction with site development and are noted below as Conditions of Approval (COA). These
improvements should be in place prior to occupancy.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 70
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Conditions of Approval
COA-1: Valley Boulevard is a north‐south oriented roadway located along the Project’s eastern boundary.
Construct Valley Boulevard at its ultimate half‐section width as an arterial (117‐foot right‐of‐way) between
the Project’s northern and southern boundary. Improvements along the Project’s frontage (west side of
Valley Boulevard) would be those required by final conditions of approval for the proposed Project and
applicable City of Menifee standards.
COA-2: On‐site traffic signing, and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction
plans for the project site.
COA-3: Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard
Caltrans and City of Menifee sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape
and street improvement
COA-4: Valley Boulevard / Driveway 1/Chambers Avenue (#1) – Install a stop control on the eastbound
approach and construct the intersection with the following minimum geometrics:
· Northbound Approach: One shared through‐left turn lane and one right turn lane.
· Southbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Eastbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Westbound Approach: One shared through‐left turn lane and one right turn lane.
COA-5: Valley Boulevard / Driveway 2/Connie Way (#2) – Install a stop control on the northbound
approach and construct the intersection with the following minimum geometrics:
· Northbound Approach: One shared left-through‐right turn lane.
· Southbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Eastbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
· Westbound Approach: One shared left‐through‐right turn lane.
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the Project, site access points, and site‐adjacent intersections
will be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross‐
sections in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 71
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
XVIII. TRIBAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is:
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 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; MGP Draft EIR; Riverside County Land Information System; and Phase
I Cultural Resource Assessment for The Menifee Tract 36911 Project, dated September 12, 2017, provided
in Appendix C.
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-5.2: Work with local schools, organizations, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians,
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and other agencies to educate the public about the rich archeological,
historic, and cultural resources found in the City.
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-5.4: Enhance local interest, pride, and sense of place for City residents by making locally
recovered artifacts more easily accessible to students, researchers, and the interested public.
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.
Policy OSC-5.6: Maintain active communication and coordination with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño
Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XVIII.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 Resource (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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 72
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
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 will avoid or minimize impacts to a 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.
Based on the City’s prior experience with and written request from potentially interested Tribes, AB 52
Notices were sent to the following four (4) Tribes October 21, 2015:
· Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
· Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians;
· Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; and
· Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians responded to the City via letter dated October 22, 2015 and requested
consultation. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians responded to the City via letter dated November 19,
2015. City staff consulted with the Soboba and Pechanga Bands of Luiseño Indians and they provided
standard conditions (SC-CUL-1 through SC-CUL-8) that have been added to this document.
Based on consultation with local tribes, Standard Conditions SC-CUL-1 through SC-CUL-8 would ensure
that any impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Overall, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a historical or cultural resource and
a less than significant impact would occur in this regard with implementation of SC-CUL-1 through
SC-CUL-8 as identified in Section V, above.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c) 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?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 73
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Sources: Menifee General Plan; MGP Draft EIR; Menifee Municipal Code; EMWD 2015 UWMP, and
CalRecycle.
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 providers to increase service capacity as demand increases.
Policy LU-3.3: Coordinate public infrastructure improvements through the City's Capital
Improvement Program.
Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project's ability to
secure appropriate infrastructure services.
Policy LU-3.5: Facilitate the shared use of right-of-way, transmission corridors, and other
appropriate measures to minimize the visual impact of utilities infrastructure throughout Menifee.
Goal OSC-7: A reliable and safe water supply that effectively meets current and future user
demands.
Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water resources.
Policy OSC-7.4: Encourage the use of reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses,
public landscaped areas, and other feasible applications as service becomes available from the
Eastern Municipal Water District.
Policy OSC-7.5: Utilize a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that adequately
serves the existing and long-term needs of the community.
Policy OSC-7.7: Maintain and improve existing level of sewer service by improving infrastructure
and repairing existing deficiencies.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impact XIX.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
(EMWD).
Open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and
maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD); smaller
underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City of Menifee Public Works Department.
EMWD provides wastewater treatment to the City of Menifee. Wastewater from most of Menifee – except
the City’s north and south ends – is collected at the Sun City Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 74
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
(RWRF) and sent to the Perris Valley RWRF for treatment. EMWD owns and operates a network of sewer
mains serving Menifee, ranging in diameter from under 10 inches in residential streets to 54 inches.
All wastewater generated by the proposed project’s interior plumbing system would be discharged into the
local sewer system and conveyed for treatment at the Perris Valley RWRF. Wastewater flows would consist
of typical residential wastewater discharges and would not require new methods or equipment for treatment
that are not currently permitted for the facility. The Perris Valley RWRF has a capacity of treating 22 million
gallons per day (mgd).
Wastewater flows associated with the proposed single-family residences would include the same kinds of
substances typically generated by residential uses and no modifications to any existing wastewater
treatment systems or construction of any new ones would be needed to treat the project’s wastewater. As
concluded in Response XIII.a), the project’s forecast population growth is approximately 203 persons.
EMWD anticipates that recycled water supplies will steadily grow from 43,000 acre-feet/year in 2015 to
55,300 acre-feet/year in 2035.22
The net increase in wastewater generation resulting from General Plan buildout is estimated as 100 percent
of indoor residential water use plus 80 percent of commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water use;
the remaining 20 percent of CII water use is assumed to be landscape irrigation and to not enter sanitary
sewers. The water demand factors used are EMWD 2020 target factors. Water use is forecast as gallons
per capita per day. The net population increase due to General Plan buildout compared to the 2010 Census
count is 81,423. The estimated net increase in wastewater generation is about 5.6 mgd, as shown in Table
5.17-2 of the General Plan Draft EIR. The net increase in wastewater generation would be within that used
by EMWD in planning ongoing and future RWRF expansions.
Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be within the Perris Valley RWRF’s treatment
capacity and would thus have a less than significant impact on the Perris Valley RWRF’s ability to operate
within its established wastewater treatment requirements, which are enforced via the facility’s NPDES
permit authorized by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact related to SARWQCB’s wastewater treatment requirements.
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 project impacts. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant
impact as a result of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.
As discussed in Response IX.a), 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 the
three onsite water quality basins proposed along the site. A NPDES permit would be required for the
proposed project, and pursuant to MMC §15.01.015, all construction projects shall apply (BMPs) to be
contained in the project applicant’s submitted SWPPP. The proposed project would also be required to
submit a WQMP in identifying post-construction BMPs that include drainage controls such as infiltration
pits, detention ponds, bioswales, berms, rain gardens, and pervious pavement. Impacts would be less than
significant, following compliance with the existing regulatory framework and implementation of BMPs.
Utilities, including electrical, natural gas, and communications are required to be located underground in
rights-of-way. The undergrounding of these utilities would not create or result in significant environmental
effects.
Impact XIX.b) Less Than Significant Impact. The EMWD provides water service to the City of Menifee.
EMWD has three sources of water supply: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
22 Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. 2015. Utilities and Service Systems, Table 5.17-1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 75
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
California (MWD), local groundwater, and recycled water. Approximately 75 percent of EMWD’s potable
water demand is supplied by imported water from MWD through its Colorado River Aqueduct and
connections to the State Water Project. EMWD forecasts that it would provide water for future growth in its
service area through imported water from MWD. EMWD procures water from MWD that has been treated
at MWD’s Skinner Filtration Plant in Winchester and Mills Filtration Plant in Riverside. In 2010 EMWD
obtained 75,000 acre-feet (af) of MWD water treated at MWD filtration plants before delivery, and 16,600
af of raw MWD water treated at EMWD water filtration plants. EMWD has two water filtration plants, one in
Hemet and one in San Jacinto, with total existing capacity of 32 million gpd or approximately 35,840 acre-
feet per year (afy). Approximately 25 percent of EMWD’s potable water demand is supplied by EMWD
groundwater wells in the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. EMWD’s estimated production of potable
groundwater in 2010 was 18,800 af. EMWD’s production of desalinated groundwater in 2010 was 5,800
af. EMWD’s recycled water production in 2010 was 41,500 af. EMWD’s territory is divided into four
subareas. The City of Menifee is in two service areas: the City is mainly in Sub-Area 41, but the southeast
corner is in Sub-Area 43. Potable water sources for Sub-Area 41 are 1) Imported MWD water treated at
MWD’s Mills Filtration Plant in the City of Riverside, 2) Imported MWD water treated at EMWD’s Perris
Water Filtration Plant, 3) Local potable groundwater, and 4) Local groundwater treated at EMWD’s Menifee
Desalter.
The EMWD would supply water to the project site. EMWD’s 2015 UWMP Tables 7-4 through 7-9 indicate
water supplies would meet water demands for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through
2040. According to the MGP EIR, the projected net increase in water demands by General Plan buildout –
approximately 15 mgd, or 16,800 afy - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water supplies over the
2015-2035 period. EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies would increase by 88,300 afy over that
period. UWMP water demand forecasts are based on adopted General Plans. The project would not
change the site’s land use designation and is consistent with the assumptions of the General Plan buildout,
thus, would not increase water demands associated with the project site beyond what the UWMP
assumed/planned. Thus, EMWD would have adequate water supplies from existing entitlements. Project
impacts concerning water demand would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Further,
EMWD provides conservation programs along with incentives to conserve water in the City. Although the
EMWD service area population is expected to increase, the overall baseline potable demand in acre-feet
per year (AFY) is expected to decrease due to further water use efficiency and recycled water programs.
According to the MGP EIR, the projected net increase in water demands by General Plan buildout –
approximately 15.0 mgd, or 16,800 acre-feet per year - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water
supplies over the 2015-2035 period. EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies would increase by 88,300
acre-feet per year over that period. As part of the UWMP, EMWD was required to update its baseline and
target per capita water use numbers in compliance with SBx7-7. The overall goal of SBx7-7 is to reach a
20 percent statewide reduction of per capita urban water use by 2020. EMWD established a 10-year
baseline period from 1999 to 2008 with a baseline water usage of 197 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).
The 2020 target was calculated using DWR’s Method 2, which uses an efficiency standard with targets for
indoor use, landscape use, and commercial, industrial and institutional use and an optional target for
agricultural use. EMWD’s 2020 target was set at 176 GPCD.23 Based on the target GPCD and the project’s
added population of approximately 203 persons, it is anticipated that the project would have an estimated
water demand of 35,728 GPCD.
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 in this regard.
Impact XIX.c) Less Than Significant Impact. Concerning wastewater facilities, as discussed in the
preceding response, wastewater generated at the project site would be treated at the Perris Valley RWRF.
The proposed project is estimated to have a wastewater generation of approximately 3,481 gpd. This
23 EMWD. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan, page xiii. Available at https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1537303453, accessed on January 21, 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 76
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
generation is well within the existing remaining Perris Valley RWRF’s treatment capacity. Impacts would
be less than significant.
Impact XIX.d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project
would exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violate 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. The City of Menifee utilizes three landfills: Badlands Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill,
and Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 4,800
tons per day and a maximum capacity of 34,400,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 15,748,799
cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2022. 24 El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill has a
maximum daily capacity of 16,054 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 209,910,000 tons. The
remaining capacity is 143,977,170 tons and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2051.25 Lamb
Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day and a maximum capacity of
38,935,653 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 19,242,950 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease
operation in April 2029.26
Based on CalRecyle solid waste generation data, the proposed project would generate approximately 108
tons of solid waste per year. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region to accommodate project-
generated waste. Considering the availability of landfill capacity and the project’s relatively nominal amount
of solid waste generation, project solid waste disposal needs can be adequately met without a significant
impact on the nearest and optional, more distant, landfill capacities. 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.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
XX. WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
24 CalRecycle. 2015. Badlands Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0006). Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/33-AA-
0006/, accessed on January 21, 2020.
25 CalRecycle. 2015. El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217). Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/,
accessed on January 21, 2020.
26 CalRecycle. 2015. Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0007). Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/33-
AA-0007/, accessed on January 21, 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 77
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Sources: Menifee General Plan, Exhibit S-6, “High Fire Hazard Areas,” and Exhibit S-7, “Critical Facilities;”
MGP Draft EIR; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Website - Riverside
County City Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps.
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 S4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas
or mitigate.
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-5.5: Require facilities that handle hazardous materials to implement mitigation measures that
reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal.
Goal S-6: A City that responds and recovers in an effective and timely manner from natural disasters
such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes, and as a result is not impacted by civil unrest that may occur
following a natural disaster.
Policy S-6.1: Continuously review, update, and implement emergency preparedness, response, and
recovery plans that make the best use of the City- and county-specific emergency management
resources available.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance:
Impacts XX.a – XX b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response IX.g
Impact XX.c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes standard infrastructure, including
roadways, utilities, and fire suppression systems. All of this infrastructure is designed to reduce the risk of
fire. Following compliance with the established local and state regulatory framework discussed above, the
project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires and impacts would
be less than significant in this regard.
Impact XX.d) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact VII.a.ii-iv, and VII.c-d. Although the site
elevation ranges from a low of 1,484± feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northern portion of the project
site to a high of 1,560± feet above msl in the southwestern portion of the site, after grading, the project site
would be a flat area. As shown on the Landslides Map, Exhibit S-3, the project is not located in a landslide
prone zone or in an unstable soil area. As such, the potential for slope failure and landslides in the event
of a fire would be negligible. Following site grading, major slopes and retaining walls are not expected. As
such, risks associated with slope instability are considered "low." Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 78
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required
XXI. 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 substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially 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?
Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout the
analyses contained in this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment or result in significant impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to less than
significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., local, state, and federal
regulations), project conditions of approval, and the recommended mitigation measures.
As concluded in Section IV, the project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal following
compliance with the recommended mitigation measures. As concluded in Section V, the project would not
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The City hereby finds that impacts concerning degradation of the environment and biological and cultural
resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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)?
Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project
would result in significant impacts unless mitigated for the following environmental issues: biological
resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and transportation. A Mitigation Program has been
prepared for each of these environmental issue areas to reduce impacts to less than significant. City
conditions of approval would also be imposed upon the project. Other development projects within the City
would also be subject to these requirements, as appropriate.
All other project impacts were determined either to have no impact or to be less than significant following
compliance with the established regulatory framework, without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the
proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts
of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future
projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts and no mitigation is required.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 79
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Therefore, the City hereby finds that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis
of the project’s impacts in the responses to items I thru XVII above, there is no indication that the project
would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary
adverse construction-related effects (e.g., air quality and noise), these would be less than significant or
would be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. Long-term effects include increased
vehicular traffic and traffic-related noise. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect
environmental effects would at worst require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Generally, the project’s environmental effects would be less than significant. Based on the analysis in this
Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
XVIII. 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).
XIX. REFERENCES
Air Quality Impact Analysis (Tract 36911) (Urban Crossroads April 2018).
City of Menifee General Plan and Draft General Plan EIR, Adopted December 2013.
Delineation of Waters of the United States and Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Habitats for
Tentative Tract Map 36911, (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. June 16, 2019).
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report, (Gonzales Environmental
Consulting, LLC. September 26, 2019, Revised March 24, 2020).
Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Tract 36911) (Urban Crossroads April 2018).
Habitat Assessment Including the Results of a Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and MSHCP Consistency
Analysis TTM 36911 Project (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. September 26, 2019).
Limited Engineering Geologic Report, Tentative Tract Map No. 36911 Project (RGS Engineering
Geology, February 27, 2019).
Menifee Union School District. Website located at http://www.menifeeusd.org/. Accessed January 2020.
Noise Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 36911 (Urban Crossroads, April 2018).
Perris Union High School District. Website located at http://www.puhsd.org/puhsd/site/default.asp.
Accessed January 2020.
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for The Menifee Tentative Tract Map 36911 Project, dated
September 12, 2017
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 80
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) General Plan, October 2003.
Riverside County Ordinances: No. 484 (Sand Blowing), No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution), No. 663
(Establishing Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fees), and No. 810 (Regulating the
implementation of Ordinance 663).
Riverside County, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Approved June 7, 2003.
Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2010 Riverside County Congestion Management Program
adopted March 10, 2010. Available online at: http://rctc.org/planning/congestion-management.
Accessed February 2020.
Riverside Transit Agency. 2011 Annual Report. Available online at http://www.riversidetransit.com/home/.
Accessed February 2020.
Riverside Transit Agency. Ride Guides and System Maps. Available online at
http://www.riversidetransit.com/home/. Accessed February 2020.
Romoland School District. Website located at http://www.romoland.k12.ca.us/. Accessed February 2020.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
Southern California Association of Governments, Adopted 2012 Growth Forecast. Available online at
http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm. Accessed February 2020.
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. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/riv08_west.pdf.
Accessed February 2020.
State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control. EnviroStor database. Available online at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed February 2020.
State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control. Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and
Substances Sites database. Available online at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.
Accessed February 2020.
State of California, Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Available online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/. Accessed February 2020.
State of California, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Technical Advisories on Climate Change and
Climate Action Planning. Available online at: http://opr.ca.gov/s_ceqaandclimatechange.php.
Accessed February 2020.
State of California, Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. All Hazards Site Search. Available online
at: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/search/. Accessed February 2020.
Tentative Tract Map No. 36911 Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, March 9, 2020.
United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places over
50,000. Available online at: http://census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. Accessed
February 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
Planning Application No. TTM 2015-211 Page 81
W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593.1
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database. Updated last September 7,
2012. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/cerclis/cerclis_query.html. Accessed
February 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
1
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 During site preparation and grading activity, all
construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower
shall be CARB certified tier 3 or higher.
Project Applicant/
Construction Manager
During
construction
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Burrowing Owl. Pursuant to Objective 6 and Objective
7 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl
included in the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, within 30 days
prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-
construction presence/absence survey for the
burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist and the results of this presence/absence
survey shall be provided in writing to the City of
Menifee Community Development Department. As
long as there are fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls
on or adjacent to the Site, passive or active relocation
of the burrowing owls will occur prior to ground-
disturbing activities onsite and follow standard
protocols. If 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are
detected on or adjacent to the Site, the City and
County will be contacted immediately to discuss
appropriate actions. If construction must occur during
the avian breeding season, pre-construction surveys
shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 10
calendar days prior to the start of work to determine
the presence or absence of nesting birds within 300
feet (500 feet for special-status species and raptors)
of the impact area. If nesting birds are detected, the
City, County, and Wildlife Agencies shall be contacted
Certified Biologist,
applicable resource
agencies
No more than 30
days prior to
ground
disturbance
activities / prior to
construction
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
ISMND RESOULTION "EXHIBIT 2" MMRP TTM 36911
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
2
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
to discuss the potential impact minimization
measures to be implemented.
If construction and/or disturbance of the site is
suspended for a period of days (30) days or more, a
new survey shall be required.
If the 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey
finds burrowing owls on the site, the project biologist
shall notify CDFW and USFWS within two business
days of discovering the occupied burrows, and shall
subsequently prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection
and Relocation Plan for review and approval by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) prior to
initiating any ground-disturbing activities (including
disking and mowing, among others).
BIO-2: Raptors and Nesting Birds. To avoid
impacting raptors, one of the following must be
implemented:
Conduct grading activities from July 1 through
January 31st, when raptors are not likely to be nesting
on the site; OR
Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities
during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June
30), a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet
of the project impact area for the presence of any
active raptor nests (common or special status). Any
nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on
the construction plans. If no active nests are found,
Certified Biologist,
applicable resource
agencies
No more than 7
days prior to
ground
disturbance
activities / prior to
construction
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
3
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
no further mitigation would be required. Results of the
surveys shall be provided to the CDFW. If nesting
activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active
site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended
to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the
California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest
site, the following restrictions to construction activities
are required until nests are no longer active as
determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits
shall be established within a 500-foot buffer around
any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a
qualified biologist, and (2) access and surveying shall
be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest,
unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.
Any encroachment into the buffer area around the
known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist
determines that the proposed activity will not disturb
the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when
the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings
have left the nest. If an active nest is observed during
the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the
raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will flush
any raptor to open space areas. A qualified biologist,
or construction personnel under the direction of the
qualified biologist, shall then remove the nest site so
raptors cannot return to a nest.
If construction is to occur during the MBTA nesting
cycle (February 15-September 15) than a nesting bird
survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist.
Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or
loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or
abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered
take and is potentially punishable by fines or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
4
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
imprisonment. Active bird nests should be mapped
utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS)
and a 300’ buffer will be flagged around the nest (500’
buffer for raptor nests). Construction should not be
permitted within the buffer areas while the nest
continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.).
BIO-3: In Lieu Payment. Applicant shall pay a one-time fee for
2.19 acres for riparian and riverine habitats in-lieu fee
program off-site reestablishment through Riverpark
Mitigation Bank, or any other approved in-lieu fee
program at time of rough grading permit issuance will
be acquired for mitigation of the impacts at a minimum
ratio of 2:1 or greater if required by another agency. If
reestablishment credits are not available then 3.0
acres for riparian and riverine habitats in-lieu fee
program off-site enhancement credits through
Riverpark Mitigation Bank, or any other approved in-
lieu fee program at time of rough grading permit
issuance will be acquired for mitigation of the impacts
if required by another agency. Notification to
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is required regarding which type
of in-lieu fee credits (reestablishment or
enhancement) are being utilized. Mitigation for the
impacts will be at a minimum 3:1 ratio for riverine or
whatever is required1 by California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Should sufficient in-lieu fee credits not be available for
purchase at the time the project is implemented, or
should other agencies not approve in-lieu fee credit
purchase, then the Developer must prepare and
submit for review and approval a Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for a site-specific restoration
project at a minimum 3:1 mitigation to impact ratio. The
Project Applicant,
applicable resource
agencies
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
5
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
plan must meet County of Riverside requirements, as
well as requirements of other resource and wildlife
agencies. Appropriate guarantees for the restoration
project must be in place (e.g., letter of credit, bond,
etc.) prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The Restoration Plan and Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Program (HMMP) will be reviewed and
approved by the Regional Conservation Authority
(RCA) and Wildlife Agencies prior to project
implementation (any vegetation removal, staging
equipment on site, ground disturbance, etc.).
BIO-4: Landscaping. Project-related landscaping shall not
include exotic plan species that may be invasive to
native habitats. Invasive exotic plant species not to
be used include those listed on the California Invasive
Plant Council’s Invasive Plant Inventory and Table 6-
2: Plants that should be avoided adjacent to the
MSHCP Conservation Area,” found in Section 6.1.4 of
the MSHCP.
BIO-5: Best Management Practices: Best Management
Practices and the SWPPP shall specifically include
mandatory measures to prevent any movement of
water, soils, or any material from the site into offsite
areas.
Project Applicant/
Construction Manager
Project
Applicant/Construction
Manager
Following removal
of natural habitat
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
GEOLOGY
GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring A qualified project
paleontologist, that meets qualifications described
in the paleontology report and is approved by the
City of Menifee, should be retained to monitor for
and address incidental discovery during project
construction activities.
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to
construction/during
construction
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
6
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
The project paleontologist retained shall review the
approved development plan and shall conduct
any pre-construction work necessary to render
appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements
as appropriate. These requirements shall be
documented by the project paleontologist in a
Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP). This PRIMP shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit.
Information to be contained in the PRIMP, at a
minimum and in addition to other industry standard
and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards,
are as follows:
i. The project paleontologist shall participate in
a pre-construction project meeting with
development staff and construction
operations to ensure an understanding of any
mitigation measures required during
construction, as applicable.
ii. Paleontological monitoring of earthmoving
activities will be conducted on an as-needed
basis by the project paleontologist during all
earthmoving activities that may expose
sensitive strata. Earthmoving activities in
areas of the project area where previously
undisturbed strata will be buried but not
otherwise disturbed will not be monitored.
The project paleontologist or his/her assign
will have the authority to reduce monitoring
once he/she determines the probability of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
7
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
encountering fossils has dropped below an
acceptable level.
iii. If the project paleontologist finds fossil
remains, earthmoving activities will be
diverted temporarily around the fossil site
until the remains have been evaluated and
recovered. Earthmoving will be allowed to
proceed through the site when the project
paleontologist determines the fossils have
been recovered and/or the site mitigated to
the extent necessary.
iv. If fossil remains are encountered by
earthmoving activities when the project
paleontologist is not onsite, these activities
will be diverted around the fossil site and the
project paleontologist called to the site
immediately to evaluate the significance of
the discovery, recover the remains, if deemed
necessary, in accordance with GEO-2.
v. If fossil remains are encountered,
fossiliferous rock will be recovered from the
fossil site and processed to allow for the
recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test
samples may be recovered from other
sampling sites in the rock unit if appropriate.
vi. Any recovered fossil remains will be prepared
to the point of identification and identified to
the lowest taxonomic level possible by
knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains
then will be curated (assigned and labeled
with museum* repository fossil specimen
numbers and corresponding fossil site
numbers, as appropriate; places in specimen
trays and, if necessary, vials with completed
specimen data cards) and catalogued, an
associated specimen data and corresponding
geologic and geographic site data will be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
8
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
archived (specimen and site numbers and
corresponding data entered into appropriate
museum repository catalogs and
computerized data bases) at the museum
repository by a laboratory technician. The
remains will then be accessioned into the
museum* repository fossil collection, where
they will be permanently stored, maintained,
and, along with associated specimen and site
data, made available for future study by
qualified scientific investigators.
*The City of Menifee must be consulted on the
repository/museum to receive the fossil
material prior to being curated.
vii. A qualified paleontologist shall prepare a
report of findings made during all site grading
activity with an appended itemized list of
fossil specimens recovered during grading (if
any). This report shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for
review and approval prior to building final
inspection as described elsewhere in these
conditions.
All reports shall be signed by the project
paleontologist and all other professionals
responsible for the report's content (e.g.,
Professional Geologist, Professional
Engineer, etc.), as appropriate. Two wet-
signed original copies of the report shall be
submitted directly to the Community
Development Department along with a copy
of this condition, deposit-based fee and the
grading plan for appropriate case processing
and tracking.
NOISE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
9
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
NOI-1 Limit construction activities to daytime hours, Monday
through Saturday, between 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM,
June through September and 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
October through May. No construction activity shall
occur on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays.
NOI-2 Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts. Prior to
Grading Permit issuance, the project applicant shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee
City Engineer that the project plan specifications
comply with the following:
1. During all project site excavation and grading on‐
site, construction contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturer standards.
2. The contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from the noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site.
3. Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle
when not in use.
4. The contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that would create the greatest distance
between construction‐related noise sources and
sensitive receptors nearest the project site during
all project construction as is feasible.
5. The project proponent shall mandate that the
construction contractor prohibit the use of music
or sound amplification on the project site during
construction.
6. The construction contractor shall limit haul truck
deliveries to the same hours specified for
construction equipment.
Project Applicant/
Construction Manager
Project Applicant/
Construction Manager
During
Construction
Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
TTM 36911 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CI TY OF MENIFEE
10
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
7. During construction, the contractor shall ensure
all construction equipment is equipped with
appropriate noise attenuating devices and
equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles
and their loads are secured from rattling and
banging. Idling equipment shall be turned off
when not in use.
NOI- 3 Construction Monitoring. A noise monitoring program
shall be implemented during construction. The
monitoring program will alert construction
management personnel when noise levels approach
the upper limits of the residential noise threshold (80
dBA) at the surrounding residential property line.
Construction activity will cease prior to noise levels
exceeding the residential threshold.
NOI-4 Sound Walls and Windows. A Minimum 6-foot high
sound walls are required around all habitable exterior
backyard and sideyard areas for lots 36 to 68 are
required.
Project Applicant/
Construction Manager
Project
Applicant/Construction
Manager
During
Construction
During
Construction
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
TRAFFIC
TRF-1: Applicant shall pay a fair share contribution toward the
installation of improvements at intersection #3
Murrieta Road / Chambers Avenue, per City of
Menifee Engineering Department Conditions of
Approval.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance
of building permits
City of Menifee
Engineering
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF MENIFEE )
I, Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Planning Commission Resolution No. PC20- was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 12 day of August 2020
by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FDBD835-71AA-40A8-A9CD-FF440DBC7DE2
None
Diederich, Karwin, Phillips, Thomas, Madrid
None
None
516