2020-06-24 Planning Commision Regular MEETING - Agenda PacketVirtual Meeting City of Menifee
Via RingCentral (see below) Planning Commission
Menifee, CA 92586 Meeting Agenda
Randy Madrid, Chair Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Benjamin Diederich, Vice Chair 6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Robert Karwin, Commissioner
Earl Phillips, Commissioner Cheryl Kitzerow, Director
Chris Thomas, Commissioner Stephanie Roseen, Clerk
AGENDA
AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS, AND RESULTING ORDERS AND DIRECTION
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS WELL
AS THE CITY OF MENIFEE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO PHYSICALLY ATTEND THE MENIFEE MEETING TO WHICH THIS AGENDA
APPLIES. YOU MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY:
VIDEO: https://meetings.ringcentral.com/j/1496375960
PHONE: (623) 404-9000, MEETING ID #1496375960
PUBLIC COMMENTS: TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS EMAIL
publiccomments@cityofmenifee.us
FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO http://cityofmenifee.us/621/Virtual-City-Clerk-Services, OR
CONTACT THE CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT AT (951) 672-6777.
REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PRESENTATIONS
None
5. AGENDA APPROVAL OR MODIFICATIONS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1. Approval of Minutes of June 10, 2020
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
None
9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9.1. Haun & Holland Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Agenda
June 24, 2020 Page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Conduct public hearing; and,
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the
findings incorporated in the Initial Study and the conclusion that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and based upon the findings and
conclusions incorporated in the staff report and Resolution.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
10.1. City Attorney Legislative Update
11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
12. COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
13. FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
14. ADJOURN
Decorum Policy Notes
Please use publiccomments@cityofmenifee.us if you wish to address the Commission. The
Commission anticipates and encourages public participation at its meeting, both on agenda items
and during the public comments period. Please use respect by refraining from talking in the
audience or outbursts that may be disruptive. While we encourage participation, we ask there be
a mutual respect for the proceedings.
Staff Reports
Materials related to an item on this Agenda, including those submitted to the Planning
Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, are available for public inspection by
contacting Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk, at (951) 672-6777 during normal business
hours.
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact Stephanie
Roseen, Deputy City Clerk, at (951) 672-6777. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
Virtual Meeting City of Menifee
Via RingCentral Planning Commission
Menifee, CA 92586 Meeting Minutes
Randy Madrid, Chair Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Benjamin Diederich, Vice Chair 6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Robert Karwin, Commissioner
Earl Phillips, Commissioner Cheryl Kitzerow, Director
Chris Thomas, Commissioner Stephanie Roseen, Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Madrid called the meeting to order at 6:05PM.
Chair Madrid provided the email and phone number for the public to participate in the
meeting and allow for public comments by email and phone due to the COVID-19
emergency.
2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Randy Madrid Chair Present
Earl Phillips Commissioner Present
Benjamin Diederich Commissioner Present
Robert P. Karwin Commissioner Present
Chris Thomas Commissioner Present
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Karwin led the flag salute.
4. PRESENTATIONS
None.
5. AGENDA APPROVAL OR MODIFICATIONS
The agenda was approved unanimously (5-0) with no modifications.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
None.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1. Approval of Minutes of May 13, 2020
The minutes were approved unanimously (5-0) with no modifications.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
The consent calendar was approved by the following vote.
7.1
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
0
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2020 Page 2
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Benjamin Diederich
SECONDER: Robert P. Karwin
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
8.1. Cantalena Extensions of Time, 2017-358, 2018-028, and 2019-012
ACTION
1. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-506, adopting an Addendum to the previously
certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 463, based upon the findings
incorporated in the Resolution, the analysis in the Addendum and all other
substantial evidence in the administrative record; and
2. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-507, approving Extension of Time No. 2017-358 for
the First One-Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 33732 subject to
the findings and conditions of approval in the attached resolution; and,
3. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-508, approving Extension of Time No. 2018-028 for
the Second One-Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 33732 subject
to the findings and conditions of approval in the attached resolution.
4. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-509, approving Extension of Time No. 2019-012 for
the Third One-Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 33732 subject to
the findings and conditions of approval in the attached resolution.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9.1. “The Junction” Plot Plan No. 2017-287, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-288,
and Development Agreement No. 2017-291
Community Development Director Cheryl Kitzerow introduced Senior Planner
Ryan Fowler. Mr. Fowler reported on the project location; general plan and land
use; zoning; project description; retail commercial buildings; senior living facility;
background of project; site layout; circulation; landscaping; architecture; phasing;
Development Agreement and public benefits; Baily Farmstead Mitigation;
environmental determination; and staff recommendation.
The Commission asked questions regarding design, hotel height, restaurant pads
and size, senior housing, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) sharing, and the
Development Agreement.
Chair Madrid opened the public hearing at 6:39 PM. Deputy City Clerk Stephanie
Roseen stated the public hearing was legally noticed and correspondence had
been received and was provided to the Commission prior to the meeting. Ms.
Roseen read a public comment submitted by Angela Little in support of the
project.
Applicant Representative Kassen Klein and Applicant Consultant John
Zimmerman commented on the proposed revised language in the Development
Agreement. With the Commissions concurrence, Deputy City Manager Rochelle
Clayton clarified that staff would be working with the applicant on the
Development Agreement verbiage in section 5.2 and 5.3 prior to the City
Council's approval.
7.1
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
0
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2020 Page 3
City Attorney Thai Phan clarified the Commission could move forward with staff
recommendation, and for staff to work on Development Agreement language
(references above) prior to the City Council.
Chair Madrid closed the public hearing at 6:58 PM.
The Commissioners spoke in favor of the proposed project.
ACTION
1. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-510, recommending the City Council adopt an
Addendum to the previously certified Junction at Menifee Valley Final
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2007041062), and
RESULT: Approved [Unanimous]
MOVER: Earl Phillips
SECONDER: Benjamin Diederich
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
2. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-511, recommending the City Council approve
Plot Plan No. 2017-287
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Earl Phillips
SECONDER: Benjamin Diederich
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
3. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-512, recommending the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-288
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Earl Phillips
SECONDER: Benjamin Diederich
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
4. Adopted Resolution No. PC20-513, recommending the City Council approve
Development Agreement No. 2017-291
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Earl Phillips
SECONDER: Benjamin Diederich
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Community Development Director Cheryl Kitzerow introduced Planning Manager Kevin
Ryan.
Ms. Kitzerow thanked the Commission for their patience during the meeting and stated
staff was meeting and working on a plan for opening City Hall. Ms. Kitzerow also
commented on the Krikorian project and Menifee Plaza grading.
Commissioner Karwin requested the public comment email be displayed to the public
throughout the meeting.
7.1
Packet Pg. 5
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
0
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2020 Page 4
12. COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Commissioner Diederich provided an update on the 2020 Census.
13. FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
None.
14. ADJOURN
Chair Madrid adjourned the meeting at 7:11 PM.
______________________________________
Stephanie Roseen, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
7.1
Packet Pg. 6
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
0
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Haun & Holland Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Jason Moquin, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kevin Ryan, Planning Manager
APPROVED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director
APPLICANT: JPN Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Conduct public hearing; and,
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the findings
incorporated in the Initial Study and the conclusion that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2016-185 (TPM 37121) subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval and based upon the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the staff report and Resolution.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2016-185 (TPM 37121) proposes a subdivision of 37.06 gross acres
into six (6) commercial parcels ranging in size from 5.10 to 7.76 acres for the
potential future development of commercial, office, retail and/or industrial uses and dedicate a
portion of the parcels to public streets.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is bound by Interstate 215 (I-215) to the east, Haun Road to the west, Holland
Road to the south, and vacant property to the north with La Piedra Road located beyond (APN
360-130-003). The Project site is vacant, dominated by non-native grassland and field croplands
with disturbed habitats and a drainage ditch that runs west-to-east on the southern portion of the
Project site.
9.1
Packet Pg. 7
City of Menifee Planning Commission
2016-185 (TPM 37121) Haun/Holland Parcel Map
June 24, 2020
Page 2 of 6
The project site is situated in a predominately commercial corridor with vacant commercial
property located to the north, a self-storage facility to the south across Holland Road, the
Paloma Wash to the west beyond Haun Road, and Mt. San Jacinto Community College and
multi-family residential properties to the east located beyond Interstate 215.
General Plan and Zoning
As shown in the figures below, the project site and the properties situated to the north, south
and southwest share the same General Plan and zoning designation of Economic Development
Corridor (EDC) and Economic Development Corridor– Community Core (EDC-CC), respectively
with the project site and the property to the north having an Auto Overlay.
The EDC General Plan land use designation is intended for a variety of commercial,
entertainment, office and industrial uses. The proposed Project, which is designed to
accommodate a variety of commercial, commercial /office or auto related uses, is consistent
with the Economic Development Corridor land use designation.
The EDC-CC zone is intended as the City’s primary activity center and gathering place. Civic
and entertainment uses are envisioned here that are complemented with commercial retail uses
9.1
Packet Pg. 8
City of Menifee Planning Commission
2016-185 (TPM 37121) Haun/Holland Parcel Map
June 24, 2020
Page 3 of 6
and higher density housing options that encourage walkability and reduce the use of the
automobile. This area is intended to function as the ceremonial “heart” or downtown of the City
of Menifee and will serve as a transition from existing rural lots to more concentrated retail and
office development moving east toward I-215.
General Plan
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
1
5
9.1
Packet Pg. 9
City of Menifee Planning Commission
2016-185 (TPM 37121) Haun/Holland Parcel Map
June 24, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Zoning Map
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Historically, the project site has been vacant, dominated by non-native grassland and field
croplands with disturbed habitats and a drainage ditch that runs west-to-east on the southern
portion of the Project site. There are no structures on site; there is a small paved portion of
Holland Road on the southwestern edge of the site.
ANALYSIS
Site Layout
The proposed subdivision is located at the northeast corner of Haun Road and Holland Road,
west of Interstate 215. The project site is relatively flat; however, slopes downward from north to
southwest. Overall, the grading of the project site has been designed to ensure adequate
drainage while maintaining relationship with the adjoining property to the north and the rights-of-
way associated with Haun Road, Holland Road and Interstate 215.
As shown below, the Project proposes six (6) commercial parcels ranging in size from 5.10 to
7.76 acres for the potential future development of commercial, office, retail and/or auto related
uses and dedicate a portion of the parcels to public streets and establishment an easement for
primary and secondary access and utilities.
Project Site
9.1
Packet Pg. 10
City of Menifee Planning Commission
2016-185 (TPM 37121) Haun/Holland Parcel Map
June 24, 2020
Page 5 of 6
The EDC-CC designation prescribes a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and as shown
the lots range in area of 222,156 square feet to 338,025 square feet.
Tentative Parcel Map 37121
Access
Primary access is provided via 56-foot wide signalized intersection at Haun Road and the
project site, which will facilitate full turn movements. The access easement is located at the
center of the project site and bisects Parcels 1-3 and Parcels 4-6. The easement provides for
public ingress and egress and public utilities. A second point of access, a 30-foot wide
easement is provided along the northerly boundary within the northernmost portions of Parcels
4-6 of the project site before turning south and bisecting Parcels 4 and 5. This access is limited
to right-in and right-out where it intersects with Haun Road, and also provides for public
ingress/egress and for public utility purposes. It should be noted, that the applicant is working in
good faith with the property owner to the north regarding a reciprocal agreement for
ingress/egress. The project is conditioned to provide a reciprocal agreement prior to the
recordation of the final map or seek a substantial conformance with the relocation of the entire
60-foot wide access easement upon the project site.
9.1
Packet Pg. 11
City of Menifee Planning Commission
2016-185 (TPM 37121) Haun/Holland Parcel Map
June 24, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Other Site Improvements and Amenities
Sewer and water lines to support the Project site will run in an east-west direction within the
proposed easement. Stubs for sewer and water are proposed to be constructed at the end of
the drive aisle to the south for future development, tying in from the current water and sewer
lines in Haun Road. Stormwater runoff that is not captured onsite will be conveyed by storm
drain to Paloma Wash, located west of the Project site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City of Menifee Community Development Department has determined that the above
project will not have a significant effect on the environment with incorporation of mitigation and
has recommended adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The
30-day public review period for the IS/MND was from May 19, 2020 to June 18, 2020. The
project was required to be transmitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies.
The IS/MND is attached.
FINDINGS
Findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Parcel Map are included in the
resolutions for each.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A 10 day Notice of Public Hearing and intent to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) was published in the Press Enterprise on June 14, 2020 and mailed to
surrounding property owners within 700 feet, stating that copies of the IS/MND were available
for public review at the City of Menifee. As of the preparation of this staff report, staff has not
received any correspondence or comments regarding the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Summary Table
2. IS MND Resolution 2016-185
3. Exhibit 1 - MMRP
4. Initial Study/MND
5. PM 37121 (2016-185) Resolution
6. COA - TPM 2016-185 (PM 37121)
7. TPM 37121 Subdivision Exhibit
8. PN Hearing Notice Package
9. Proof of Publication
9.1
Packet Pg. 12
Project Summary Table
Summary of Pertinent Land Use and Policy Designations for Proposed Project
Category Information
General Plan
General Plan Land Use
Designation Economic Development Corridor
Surrounding General Plan Land
Use Designation
North: Economic Development Corridor
South: Right-of-Way with Economic Development Corridor located beyond
East: Right-of-Way with Residential, 20.1 to 24 du/ac located beyond
West: Right-of-Way with Open Space/Water located beyond
Zoning
Zoning Designation Economic Development Corridor – Community Core/Auto Overlay (EDC-CC/AO)
Surrounding Zoning
Designations
North: Economic Development Corridor – Community Core (EDC-CC/AO)
South: Right-of-Way with Economic Development Corridor (EDC-CC) located beyond
East: Right-of-Way with HDR and Specific Plan located beyond
West: Right-of-Way with Open Space/Water and Specific Plan located beyond
Other Information
Existing Use Vacant land
Surrounding Uses
North: Vacant Land
South: Holland Road – self-storage facility and vacant land beyond
East: I-215 Freeway and multi-family residential and San Jacinto Community College
beyond
West: Haun Road – Palomar Wash beyond
Gross Acreage 37.06 acres
Number of Lots/Size 6 lots proposed; Range in size 5.10 to 7.76 acres
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) N/A
Landscaping Required/Proposed N/A
Parking Required/Proposed N/A
Assessor Parcel Numbers 360-130-003
Environmental Review Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy Areas Mt. Palomar Lighting Influence Area
District Information
School: Menifee Union School District
Water/Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District
Flood Control: Riverside County Flood Control District (flood plain
review not required)
Fees
1. Development Impact Fees (Ord. No. 17-232)
2.. Western Riverside Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP) fee (Ord.
No. 810)
3. Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat fees (Ord. No. 663)
4. Western Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (Ord. No. 824)
(central)
Letters Received No letters have been received as of the writing of this staff report.
Source: Planning case file and GIS system, March 2020
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
T
a
b
l
e
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
RESOLUTION NO. PC 20-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE “JPN HAUN & HOLLAND SUBDIVISION” TO
SUBDIVIDE 37.06 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS FOR
COMMERCAL/RETAIL AND AUTO RELATED USES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAUN AND HOLLAND ROADS AND WEST
OF INTERSTATE 215 (APN: 360-130-003).
Whereas, on August 11, 2016, the applicant, JPN Investments, filed a formal
application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 2016-
185 (PM 37121) a subdivision of 37.06 gross acres into six (6) commercial parcels ranging
in size from 5.10 to 7.76 gross acres (collectively, the “Project”); 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 May 19, 2020 and June 18, 2020, the public review period for
the Draft IS/MND took effect, which was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper
of general circulation, notice to owners and occupants within 700 feet of the Project site
boundaries, notice to related agencies and government agencies, and persons requesting
public notice; and
Whereas, no comments on the Draft IS/MND have been received during the public
review period; and,
Whereas, on June 24, 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 Parcel Map (TPM) 2016-185
(PM 37121), 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 CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and represents
the independent judgment of the City; and
Whereas, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft IS/MND
which would require re-circulation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Menifee resolves as follows:
Section 1: With regard to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. On the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it,
including the IS/MND, and any comments received, that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a
significant effect on the environment.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
S
M
N
D
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
3
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
JPN Subdivision IS/MND
June 24, 2020
2. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (“MMP”), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by reference, will assure
compliance with the mitigation measures required by the IS/MND
during Project implementation and would avoid or mitigate the potential
effects of the Project to a point where no significant effect on the
environment would occur.
3. The adoption of the IS/MND reflects the Planning Commission’s
independent judgment and analysis.
4. The MND, all documents referenced in the IS/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.
Section 2: The City of Menifee Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project, subject to the MMP, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 24th day of June, 2020
_______________________
Randy Madrid, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
V. Thai Phan, Assistant City Attorney
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
S
M
N
D
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
3
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 226
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project (Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121). This MMRP has been
prepared pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring
program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment.” An MMRP is required for the proposed Project because the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has identified
significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts as reflected below.
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Provide information to tenants encouraging trip
reduction strategies such as ride share, carpool, public transit,
etc. The applicant shall submit documentation to the City prior
to occupancy.
Prior to occupancy City of Menifee
MM AQ-2: Any facilities that include heavy-duty trucks shall
post signs informing users of requirements limiting idling to five
minutes or less pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations, Section 2485. The City shall verify signage has
been installed prior to occupancy.
Prior to occupancy City of Menifee
MM AQ-3: High efficiency lighting shall be installed at the
Project site. Building plans shall identify high efficiency lighting
and shall be verified prior to occupancy.
Prior to occupancy City of Menifee
MM AQ-4: As part of the land use application for any gasoline
dispensing facility, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall be
prepared in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1401 and
submitted to the City of Menifee Community Development
Director prior to future discretionary development approval. The
HRA shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD Rule
1401. If the HRA identifies health risk in excess of applicable
SCAQMD thresholds, mitigation measures shall be incorporated
to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
Prior to approval City of Menifee
Community
Development
Director
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, for any construction to take place between February 1st
Prior to issuance of a grading permit Qualified
Biologist
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 227
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
and September 15th, a qualified biologist shall be retained and
required to conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three
(3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence
or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (within
100 feet) to the Project Site. Construction beginning outside the
nesting season (between September 16th and January 31st)
does not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. A report of
the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted
to the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to
construction that has the potential to disturb any active nests
during the nesting season. Any nest permanently vacated for
the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the MBTA.
The nesting bird survey(s) shall focus on identifying any
passerine or raptor nests that would be directly or indirectly
affected by construction activities. If active nests are
documented, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of
the active nest. A minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be
maintained during construction until the young have fledged,
depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the
nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated
with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction
personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey
report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are
present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to
the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to initiation of
grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall
serve as a construction monitor during those periods when
construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure
that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
MM BIO-2: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, a preconstruction survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to
the initiation of construction to ensure protection for the
burrowing owl and compliance with the conservation goals
outlined in the MSHCP. The survey will be conducted in
Prior to issuance of a grading permit City of Menifee
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 228
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
compliance with both MSHCP and CDFW guidelines. A report
of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be
submitted to the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to
any permit or construction activities. If burrowing owls are
detected onsite during the 30-day preconstruction survey, and if
it also occurs during the breeding season (February 1st to
August 31st), then construction activities shall be limited to no
more than 300 feet from active burrows until a qualified biologist
has confirmed that nesting efforts are completed or not initiated.
In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is
proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active
relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl mitigation plan will be
developed based on CDFW and USFWS requirements for the
relocation of individuals to the Lake Mathews Preserve, or as
determined by the above-noted wildlife agencies.
MM BIO-3: Regulatory Permits. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, implementing project shall obtain and provide to the
City, authorizations for impacts to jurisdictional areas regulated
by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Sections 401 of Clean Water
Act), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act), and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (Section 1600 of California Fish and Game Code).
Permits shall include measures to replace any vegetation
removed during construction that is affiliated with the
jurisdictional area. If these regulatory agencies determine that a
permit is not needed, evidence of that finding shall also be
provided to the City.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
MM BIO-4: DBESP. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, any
implementing projects requiring improvements that include
storm drain connections to the Caltrans Ditch, shall prepare a
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior
Preservation (DBESP) report to determine the jurisdictional
limits of the ditch as well as required mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional areas regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Sections 401 of Clean Water Act), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), and
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 229
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1600 of
California Fish and Game Code).
Energy
MM AQ 1 through MM AQ 3 above.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM AQ 1 through MM AQ 3 above.
Noise
MM NOI-1: Prior to the start of construction activities, the
Project contractor shall select construction equipment capable
of performing the necessary tasks with the lowest sound level
and the lowest acoustic height possible. The following
measures shall be incorporated to reduce construction impacts
to the extent feasible:
• Operate diesel equipment with closed engine doors and
equip diesel equipment with factor-recommended mufflers.
• For stationary equipment, designate equipment areas with
appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading
plans. Equipment and shielding should be installed prior to
construction and remain in designated location throughout
construction activities.
• Use electrical power to run air compressors and similar
power tools rather than diesel equipment.
• Require contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain
and tune-up construction equipment to minimize
construction noise emissions.
• Temporary sound barriers that break the line of sight (at
least six feet tall) should be erected along the perimeter of
the project site between active on-site construction work
using heavy equipment and adjacent sensitive receptors
(residences). Such barriers should be of sufficient height
to break the line-of-sight between noise-generating
equipment and the noise-sensitive receptor and should be
Prior to the start of construction
activities
Project contractor
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 230
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or the
ground. Temporary sound barriers may include noise
curtains, sound blankets, or solid temporary barriers with a
Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 20 or
greater based on sound transmission loss data taken
according to ASTM Test Method E90. If an STC-rated
product is not available or not feasible for use, a product
with a similar industry-standard specification, or a product
that would achieve a similar insertion loss based on a
manufacturer or supplier recommendation, would be an
acceptable substitute. A 15 dBA reduction barrier is
feasible through the implementation of such construction
barriers, which should be installed at the project site prior
to beginning construction activities and stay in place for
the entire duration of the construction period.
MM NOI-2: Prior to the start of construction activities, the
Project contractor shall implement alternatives to the standard
backup beepers as feasible, including strobe lights or products
with a lower noise level.
Prior to the start of construction
activities
Project contractor
MM NOI-3: Prior to the start of construction activities, the
Project contractor shall place the laydown area as far as
possible from the closest sensitive noise receptor.
Prior to the start of construction
activities
Project contractor
MM NOI-4: Prior to issuance of building permit, implementing
projects shall provide an acoustical impact analysis for the
individual uses proposed by the implementing project to confirm
the exterior findings, determine building- and/or unit-specific
interior noise levels, and potential mitigation measures including
but not limited to minimum STC window ratings required, to
ensure implementing project does not exceed noise levels
established by the Noise and Vibration Analysis Report
prepared by DBF dated April 17, 2019.
Prior to issuance of building permit
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 231
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
Transportation
MM TRANS-1: The Project applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution for the following roadway segment improvements,
listed by roadway segment number:
1. Bradley Road – Park Avenue to Newport Road – Fair
Share Contribution
4. Haun Road – Newport Road to La Piedra Road – Fair
Share Contribution
▪ Restripe eastbound one right turn lane.
5. Haun Road – La Piedra Road to Holland Road – Fair
Share Contribution
▪ Construction of one additional northbound through
lane.
6. Haun Road – Holland Road to Scott Road – Fair Share
Contribution
▪ Construction of one additional northbound through
lane and one additional southbound through lane
and install a raised median.
8. Newport Road – Bradley Road to Haun Road – Fair
Share Contribution
▪ Restripe of the eastbound approach to
accommodate one additional eastbound through
lane from the Paloma Wash frontage to the I-215
Southbound On-Ramp.
17. Holland Road – Haun Road to Hanover Lane – Fair
Share Contribution
▪ Construction of Overpass.
MM TRANS-2: The Project applicant shall pay a fair share
contribution for the following intersection improvements as
shown in bold:
▪ Intersection of Antelope Road and Newport Road (#6)
– Fair Share Contribution
Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane.
One right-turn lane.
Prior to occupancy
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 232
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane.
One shared through and right-turn lane. One right-turn
lane.
Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through
lanes. Restripe one right-turn lane.
Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes.
One shared through and right-turn lane.
▪ Intersection of Menifee Road and Newport Road (#7)
– Fair Share Contribution
Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes.
One right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes.
Install one right-turn overlap.
Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes.
One through and right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.
One right-turn lane.
▪ Intersection of Bradley Road and Holland Road (#9) –
Fair Share Contribution
Northbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
One right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane.
One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
One right-turn lane.
▪ Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Sherman Road and Holland Road (#11) – Project
Responsibility 1
Northbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane.
One through lane. One right-turn lane.
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 233
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
Westbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane.
One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Note 1: The project is responsible for payment of 100
percent of the improvements at the intersection of
Sherman Road and Holland Road.
▪ Intersection of Haun Road and Holland Road (#15) –
Fair Share Contribution2
Northbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
One shared through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes.
One right-turn lane with overlap.
Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
One right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
One shared through and right-turn lane.
Note 2: The project is responsible for payment of 100
percent of the improvements at the intersection of
Haun Road and Holland Road.
▪ Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Antelope Road and Albion Lane (#22) – Fair Share
Contribution
Northbound: One through lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
Eastbound: Not applicable.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One right-turn lane.
▪ Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Palomar Road and Holland Road (#24) – Fair Share
Contribution
Northbound: One shared left-through and right-turn
lane.
Southbound: One shared left-through and right-turn
lane.
Eastbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 234
Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring
Responsibility
Verification (Date
and Initials)
Westbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.
MM TRANS-3: Implementing projects shall be required to
provide a traffic study or technical traffic memorandum to the
City for review and approval demonstrating that implementing
project traffic levels are consistent with the assumptions in the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates
dated March 2020.
Future implementing projects shall
submit as part of entitlement process
City of Menifee
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measures MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4 See above See above
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
-
M
M
R
P
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
Planning Application No. 2016-185
Tentative Parcel Map No. 37121
Lead Agency
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
(951)462-7353
Contact: Jason Moquin
CEQA Consultant
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951)686-1070
Contact: Melissa Perez
May 18, 2020
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Table of Contents Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .......................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 19
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .................................................... 21
DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................... 22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................................................... 23
ISSUES....................................................................................................................................... 1
I. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................ 1
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ................................................................................ 8
III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 13
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 24
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 41
VI. ENERGY ................................................................................................................... 50
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 59
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................... 69
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................. 77
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................... 83
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................... 96
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 100
XIII. NOISE .................................................................................................................. 102
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................. 122
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 124
XVI. RECREATION ....................................................................................................... 130
XVII. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................ 132
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 202
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................... 209
XX. WILDFIRES ........................................................................................................... 215
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................... 218
EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................................................................................. 221
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 221
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Table of Contents Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
Figures
Figure 1, Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2, Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3, Area Map .................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4, Conceptual Master Plan .............................................................................................10
Figure 5, Tentative Parcel Map .................................................................................................11
Figure 6, Grading Plan ..............................................................................................................12
Figure 7, General Plan Designation ..........................................................................................13
Figure 8, Current Zoning ...........................................................................................................14
Figure 9, Biological Study Area .................................................................................................28
Figure 10, Onsite Plant Communities ........................................................................................29
Figure 11, Site Photos ...............................................................................................................30
Figure 12, Regional Hydrology ..................................................................................................87
Figure 13, Existing Hydrological Condition ................................................................................88
Figure 14, Proposed Hydrological Condition .............................................................................90
Figure 15, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .................................. 114
Figure 16, Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................. 117
Figure 17, City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element .................................................. 136
Figure 18, Study Area Intersections ........................................................................................ 138
Figure 19, Study Area Roadway System ................................................................................. 140
Figure 20, AM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................................... 141
Figure 21, PM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................................... 142
Figure 22, Directional Distribution of Project Traffic (Without Overpass) ................................. 152
Figure 23, Directional Distribution of Project Traffic (With Overpass) ...................................... 153
Figure 24, Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) .................. 154
Figure 25, Project Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) .................. 155
Figure 26, Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) ....................... 156
Figure 27, Project Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) ....................... 157
Figure 28, Cumulative Projects within the Study Area ............................................................. 158
Figure 29, Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) ...... 159
Figure 30, Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) ...... 160
Figure 31, Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) ........... 161
Figure 32, Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) ........... 162
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Table of Contents Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iii
Figure 33, EP (2017) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ..................................................... 167
Figure 34, EP (2017) PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ..................................................... 168
Figure 35, EACP (2021) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) ................. 173
Figure 36, EACP (2021) PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) ................. 174
Figure 37, EACP (2021) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)...................... 179
Figure 38, EACP (2021) PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)...................... 180
Figure 39, Intersection Improvements for Existing Plus Project (2017) .................................... 182
Figure 40, Intersection Improvements for EACP (2021) (Without Overpass) ........................... 185
Figure 41, Intersection Improvements for EACP (2021) (With Overpass) ................................ 188
Tables
Table A – Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................ 15
Table B – Proposed Land Use Summary .................................................................................. 16
Table C – Unmitigated Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ............................... 16
Table D – Phase I LST Results for Daily Off-Site Construction Emissions ................................ 17
Table E – Phase II LST Results for Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ............................ 18
Table F – Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer) ....................... 19
Table G – Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Winter) .......................... 19
Table H – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Operational Emissions ........................................ 20
Table I – Animal Species Observed On-Site ............................................................................. 27
Table J – Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Schedule ................................................................. 32
Table K – Construction Energy Use .......................................................................................... 53
Table L – Annual Fuel Consumption ......................................................................................... 55
Table M – Total Unmitigated Project-Related GHG Emissions .................................................. 71
Table N – Grading Noise Source Levels ................................................................................. 106
Table O – Project-Generated Roadway Noise Without Overpass ........................................... 108
Table P – Project-Generated Roadway Noise With Overpass ................................................. 110
Table Q – Onsite Noise Levels Without Overpass ................................................................... 112
Table R – Onsite Noise Levels With Overpass ........................................................................ 113
Table S – Existing Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity ............................................................ 116
Table T – LOS for Signalized Intersections ............................................................................. 143
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Table of Contents Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv
Table U – LOS for Unsignalized Intersections ......................................................................... 144
Table V – LOS for Roadway Segments ................................................................................... 145
Table W – Intersection LOS – Existing Conditions (2017) ....................................................... 146
Table X – Roadway Segments Levels of Service – Existing Conditions (2017) ....................... 147
Table Y – Trip Generation Rates ............................................................................................. 149
Table Z – Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 149
Table AA – Intersection LOS – EP Scenario ........................................................................... 164
Table BB – Roadway LOS – EP Scenario ............................................................................... 165
Table CC – Intersection LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass) ....................................... 169
Table DD – Roadway LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass) .......................................... 171
Table EE – Intersection EACP With Overpass ........................................................................ 175
Table FF – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass ............................................................. 177
Table GG – Intersection Improvements for EP Scenario ......................................................... 181
Table HH – Roadway Improvements for EP Scenario ............................................................. 183
Table II – Intersection Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario ........................... 184
Table JJ – Roadway Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario ............................. 186
Table KK – Intersection Improvements for EACP With Overpass Scenario ............................. 187
Table LL – Roadway Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario ............................ 189
Table MM – Intersection EP Scenario (With Improvements) ................................................... 190
Table NN – Roadway EP Scenario (With Improvements) ........................................................ 191
Table OO – Intersection EACP Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements) .................. 192
Table PP – Roadway EACP Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements) ...................... 193
Table QQ – Intersection EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements) ....................... 194
Table RR – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements) ........................... 196
Table SS – AB 52 Response Log ............................................................................................ 204
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Appendices Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
v
Appendix A – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Appendix A.1 – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (WEBB-A1)
Appendix A.2 – Energy Tables (WEBB-A2)
Appendix B – Biological Resources
Appendix B.1 – MSHCP Biological Habitat Assessment (CADRE-A)
Appendix B.2 – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys (CADRE-B)
Appendix B.3 – Jurisdictional Delineation (WEBB-B)
Appendix B.4 – Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
(CADRE-C)
Appendix C – Cultural Resources
Appendix C.1 – Cultural Resource Assessment (AE-A)
Appendix D – Geology and Soils
Appendix D.1 – Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report (CWLM)
Appendix D.2 – Paleontological Resource Assessment (AE-B)
Appendix E – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Appendix E.1 – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (AEI-A)
Appendix E.2 – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (AEI-B)
Appendix F – Hydrology and Water Quality
Appendix F.1 – Preliminary Drainage Study (WEBB-C)
Appendix F.2 – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WEBB-D)
Appendix G – Noise
Appendix G.1 – Noise Study (DBF)
Appendix H – Traffic
Appendix H.1 – Traffic Impact Analysis (WEBB-E)
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 6
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Planning Application No. 2016-185 / Tentative Parcel Map No. 37121
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Menifee – Community Development Department,
29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586
3. Contact person and phone number: Jason Moquin, Contract Planner – City of Menifee,
(951)462-7353
4. Project location: Northeast corner of Holland Road and Haun Road, City of Menifee/No address
assigned to this property
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map, Figure 2 – Regional Map, and Figure 3 – Area Map
A. Total Project Area: 37.06 gross/net acres1
Figure 4 – Conceptual Use Plan, 5 – Tentative Parcel Map, and Figure 6 – Grading Plan
Residential Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Units: 0 Projected No. of Residents: 0
Commercial Acres: 26.61 Lots: 4 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 178,100 Est. No. of Employees: 514
Industrial Acres: 5.1 Lots: 1 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 47,200 Est. No. of Employees: 46
Business Park Acres: 5.36 Lots: 1 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 79,000 Est. No. of Employees: 132
Other: 0
Acreages shown in table are in gross acres
B. Assessor’s Parcel No: 360-130-003
C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2010 Page 868, Grid E4
D. Section 3, Township 6S, Range 3W of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian
E. Longitude: 117° 10’ 25” W / Latitude: 33° 40’ 19” N
5. Project Applicant/Owners: JPN Corporation, 11225 W. Bernardo Ct, Suite 100, San Diego, CA
92127
Representative: Jim Nelson – JPN Corporation, 11225 W. Bernardo Ct, Suite 100, San Diego,
CA 92127
6. General Plan Designation: Economic Development Corridor-Community Core (EDC-CC)
Figure 7 – Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
7. Zoning: Industrial Park (I-P). To be consistent with the Project site’s General Plan (GP) land
use designations of EDC-CC, the City is in the process of adopting consistency zoning for the
EDC-CC GP land use areas which would make the Project site’s zoning EDC-CC. This process is
a separate effort from this Project as reflected in Figure 8 – Existing Zoning.
1 Net acreage calculation includes Lot A and Lot B
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 1 – Vicinity MapSource: County of Riverside GIS, 2017Ma
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
A
u
g
.
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
G
:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
m
x
d
Riverside
C
o
.San Die
g
o
C
o
.
LakeMathews
LakePerris
LakeElsinore
CanyonLake Diamond ValleyReservoir
LakeSkinner
RIVERSIDE
PROJECTSITE
^
MORENOVALLEY
PERRIS
HEMET
MURRIETA
LAKEELSINORE
MENIFEE
TEMECULA
SANJACINTO
WILDOMAR
·|}þ79
·|}þ60
·|}þ74§¨¦215
§¨¦15
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
MapArea
0 2 4 6Miles
I
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 2 - Regional MapSources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2018;
ESRI.
ProjectArea
City ofMurrieta
City ofWildomar
City ofLakeElsinore
City ofPerris
City ofMenifee
County ofRiverside
§¨¦215
SCOTT RD
DOM E N I GONI PKWY
MENIFEE
RD
BUNDY CANYO N RD
ROUSE RD
NEWPORT RD
SIMPSON RD
MCCALL B LV DGOETZRD
BRIGGS
RD
MURRIETA
RD
SUN CI T Y BLVD
VALLE
Y
BLVD
LEGEND
Project Boundary
City Boundaries
Economic Development Corridor
G:\2017\17-0196\GIS\Regional.mxd; Map created 14 Dec 2018
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI012Miles
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 3 - Area MapSources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2017;
USDA NAIP, 2016.
ProjectSite
Mt. SanJacinto College
MenifeeLakes
MenifeeTown Center
MenifeeCountrysideMarketplace
Santa RosaAcademy
HANOVER
LN
SHERMAN
RD
HOLLAND RD
LA PIEDRA RD
OLD
WINDMILL
RD
NEWPORT RD
ALBION LN
ANTELOPE
RD
HAUN
RD
TOWN
CENTER
DR
§¨¦215
G:\2017\17-0196\GIS\AreaMap.mxd; Map created 06 Dec 2017
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI05001,000 1,500Feet
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 4 - Conceptual Master Plan
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
7
S
e
p
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
Not to Scale
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
I
Figure 5 - Tentative Parcel Map
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 6 - Grading Plan
Grading Limits forOld Paloma Wash
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
0
5
D
e
c
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
Not to Scale
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 7 - Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation
Sources: City of Menifee, May 2018;
Riverside Co. GIS, 2018.
+.215
HA
U
N
R
D
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
R
D
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
HOLLAND RD
CRAIG AVE
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
R
D
LA PIEDRA RD
ALBION LN
ASPENWOODWAY
HOLLAND RD
LA PIEDRA RD SPSP
EDC
2.1-5 R
SP
EDC
EDC
OS-C
2.1-5 RRR1
RR5
20.1-24 R
2.1-5 R EDC
OS-W
OS-W
LEGEND
RR1 - Rural Residential, 1 ac. min.
2.1-5R - Residential, 2.1-5 du/ac.
20.1-24R - Residential, 20.1-24 du/ac.
EDC - Economic Development Corridor
OS-C - Conservation
OS-W - Water
SP - Specific Plan
Project Site
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
4
D
e
c
2
0
1
8
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI05001,000 1,500Feet
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 8 - Existing ZoningSources: City of Menifee, May 2018;
Riverside Co. GIS, 2018.
+.h
HA
U
N
R
D
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
R
D
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
HOLLAND RD
CRAIG AVE
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
R
D
LA PIEDRA RD
ALBION LN
ASPENWOODWAY
HOLLAND RD
LA PIEDRA RD
R-1
I-P
I-P
I-P
SP ZONE SP ZONE
R-1
R-3
I-PR-A-1
R-A-1
R-A-1
R-R
R-3
R-5
R-1
R-A-1
R-A-1
R-R-1
R-R-1
R-A-5
LEGEND
R-1; R-A-5; R-A-1
R-3
R-5
R-R; R-R-1
I-P
SP ZONE
Project Site
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Z
o
n
i
n
g
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
4
D
e
c
2
0
1
8
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI05001,000 1,500Feet
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 15
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting: The adjacent General Plan Land Use
and Zoning Designation(s) are shown in Figures 7 and 8. The Project site is vacant, dominated
by non-native grassland and field croplands with disturbed habitats and a drainage ditch that runs
west-to-east on the southern portion of the Project site. There are no structures on site; there is a
small paved portion of Holland Road on the southwestern edge of the site. To the north, the
immediately-adjacent parcel is vacant, dominated by field croplands with disturbed habitats; to
the north of the vacant parcel is the Menifee Countryside Marketplace at the southeast corner of
Haun Road and Newport Road, a mixed use center with commercial and restaurant uses. On the
west side of the Project site, west of Haun Road, is the Paloma Wash, a flood control channel
owned and operated by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The
Paloma Wash extends approximately 8,800 linear feet southerly from Salt Creek Channel. Flows
captured and conveyed by Paloma Wash are discharged into Salt Creek Channel, which
discharges into Canyon Lake and ultimately into Lake Elsinore. The Project’s stormwater
drainage will be directed to the Paloma Wash. There is also a separate drainage, Old Paloma
Wash, south of the Project site; The Project site completely avoids the Old Paloma Wash) To the
west of Paloma Wash is a residential development, Lennar South 35, which is currently under
construction. A Caltrans drainage ditch and Interstate 215 (I-215) are directly to the east of the
Project site; east of I-215 are residential land uses. South of the Project site contain a few
commercial land uses (a U-Haul Neighborhood Dealer, a storage vendor), vacant land. These
surrounding land uses are described in Table A – Surrounding Land Uses.
Table A – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Land Use Designation
Zoning
District Existing Land Usage
North EDC-CC I-P Vacant
South EDC-CC I-P Commercial/Storage
East
Interstate 215 (I-215)
2.1 - 5 dwelling unit/acre (du/ac)
Residential further east
I-215
R-1
Caltrans drainage ditch/
I-215
West
Water (OS-W)
Countryside Specific Plan and residential
further west
Specific
Plan (SP)
Residential under
construction
Source: GP
9. Description of Project: The proposed Project consists of one assessor’s parcel number, 360-
130-003, which is currently undeveloped and vacant. The property owner has proposed a
tentative parcel map to subdivide the 37.06 gross acres into six (6) commercial parcels for the
potential future development of commercial, office, retail and/or industrial uses and dedicate a
portion of the parcels to public streets. Refer to Figures 4 through 6, above. The proposed
subdivision is a Schedule E subdivision pursuant to the City’s subdivision Ordinance No. 460.
The Project General Plan land use designation is EDC-CC so must comply with the EDC zoning
in accordance with Menifee Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 9.140. Projects that are proposed
within the EDC designation must also submit a Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) prior to a formal
project application. The CMP will show anticipated uses for the Project and how they relate to
existing or proposed development on adjacent properties. CMP’s are reviewed on an
administrative level by the City’s Community Development Director and are not formally approved
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 16
or adopted. For this project, the CMP is being utilized to establish uses and intensities for the
impact analysis. Only the tentative parcel map will be formally approved. The CMP for this
Project is shown in Figure 4, above with breakdown of future land uses in Table B – Proposed
Land Use Summary, below.
Table B – Proposed Land Use Summary
Parcel Number Net Acreage General Uses
1 6.12 Retail
2 3.89 Industrial
3 4.51 Automobile Sales
4 6.34 Automobile Sales
5 5.36 Office
6 5.21 Retail
Lot A – Haun Rd Dedication 1.28 Public Road
Lot B – Holland Rd Dedication 4.35 Public Road
Total 37.06
Source: Figure 4 – Conceptual Master Plan
Site Preparation
The majority of the Project site is currently undeveloped and there are no structures on-site to be
demolished. A small (0.35 acre) region of the Project site consists of the paved portion of Holland
Road located across the southwest boundary as shown in Figure 3, above. The Project site is
generally flat and will require fill to be brought into the site for grading. Construction is expected to
begin no earlier than fall 2019 and will be built in two phases and is expected to last up to five
years.
Phase I
The first phase of construction will consist of constructing a private internal drive aisle (shown as
a proposed easement, which is a 56-foot wide east-west drive aisle that will allow access to the
interior of the site as reflected on Figure 5, above. In addition, approximately 131,800 cubic yards
(CY) of imported fill will be stockpiled on the Project site for future development of the parcels.
This phase also includes widening of the east side of Haun Road to its ultimate width and
installation of a signal at the intersection of Haun and Holland Roads. The widening of Haun
Road will also include a bus turnout along the Project frontage of Parcel 1. The Holland Road
curb will be matched to the improvements required for the intersection of Haun and Holland
Roads. Water, sewer, and storm drain pipelines will also be installed within the private drive aisle
easement and Haun Road. Phase I will also create a storm drain connection to Paloma Wash
Flood Control Channel (Paloma Wash) to drain onsite runoff. The southern portion of the Project
site that is within the Holland Road Overpass (Overpass) Project footprint (a separate project
being undertaken by the City) will not be graded during this first phase of construction. Figure 5
shows the future Holland Road right-of-way that will be dedicated as part of this Project.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 17
Phase II
The second phase of construction will consist of each parcels’ development that will occur in
subsequent phases as the parcels are sold to individual developers. As each parcel is developed,
the City will require focused CEQA analysis if necessary, as noted in this Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, to include items such as traffic and noise studies, water quality and
drainage studies, and biological preconstruction surveys.
Access and Circulation
Access to the proposed Project site will be available from one driveway and a proposed
signalized intersection that connects to the interior of the Project site. The proposed driveway will
be located on Haun Road from Parcel 6 which will be right-in, right-out access. The driveway
located on Parcel 6 will also provide access to the parcel north of the Project site, serving as a
fire department access point. The Project also proposes to construct an internal, private drive
aisle which will be a signalized east-west private access intersecting with Haun Road to provide
access to the interior of the site, as shown on Figure 5. The Project is proposing also to signalize
the intersection of Holland Road and Haun Road. A bus pull-in will be located along the Project
frontage on Haun Road along Parcel 1.
Signage
All signage installed at the Project site will comply with the applicable City design standards
contained in the MMC, Chapter 9.220.
Other Site Improvements and Amenities
Sewer and water lines to support the Project site will run in an east-west direction within the
proposed easement. Stubs for sewer and water are proposed to be constructed at the end of the
drive aisle to the south for future development, tying in from the current water and sewer lines in
Haun Road. Electricity will be tied into the Project site from the existing infrastructure in Haun
Road. Stormwater runoff that is not captured onsite will be conveyed by storm drain to Paloma
Wash, located west of the Project site, as shown on Figure 5.
Public Services
The following public services are available to the Project:
Fire Protection Services (City contract with the Riverside County Fire Department)
Police Protection Services (City contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department)
Public Schools (Menifee Union School District, Romoland School District, and Perris Union
High School District)
Library Services (Riverside County Library System)
City Administrative Services
Utility Providers
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)
Telephone/Communications (Verizon, or other contract services)
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 18
Offsite Improvements
The proposed Project will include road improvements adjacent to the Project site on Haun Road.
Haun Road will be widened 45 feet east of the centerline along the Project frontage to full width to
function as a Major Road as designated by the GP. The improvements include a curb, gutter and
meandering sidewalk along the Project frontage and landscaping along the sidewalk. The
sidewalk and pedestrian amenities will comply with the applicable City design standards
contained in the MMC Chapter 9.140.040 that defines development standards for projects within
the EDC-CC.
Holland Road is located to the south of the Project site and runs east-west, terminating west of I-
215. The Holland Road Overpass (Overpass) Project is a separate project being undertaken by
the City and will create a freeway overpass at Holland Road and I-215, directly south of the
Project site but will include part of the Project site. The Overpass Project is currently scheduled to
start beyond the planning horizon of this proposed Project. However, the anticipated footprint of
the Overpass and its associated right of way are shown in Figures 4 through Figure 6.
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 required for the Project will likely
include, but are not limited to the following:
Stormwater management, encroachment, and associated permitting will be required
consistent with the provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District.
Permitting required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Permitting may be required by/through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and/or RWQCB for Project impacts to
potentially jurisdictional features, including Paloma Wash.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so,
is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality,
etc.?
As part of the IS/MND process, the City will conduct Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation, including
contacting the appropriate tribes and meeting with tribes that request consultation.
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead
agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and
address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay
and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section
21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California
Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic
Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains
provisions specific to confidentiality.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 19
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the implementation of the proposed Haun
and Holland Mixed Use Center (herein after “proposed Project” or “Project”) which is in the City’s GP
sphere of influence. The analysis in the MND tiers off of the City’s General Plan EIR (GP EIR) and where
applicable, discusses how the Project would not increase the number or severity of significant impacts
already identified in the previously certified GP EIR. The MND also includes additional analysis of Project
impacts where the City requires the analysis as a matter of policy and/or to address potential data gaps
due to the passing of time since the GP EIR was certified in 2013.
The GP EIR was certified in November 2013 pursuant to Section 15168(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15168(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes a “program EIR” as follows:
A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized
as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the
conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority
and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
A program EIR does not address project-specific environmental impacts but addresses policy
interventions and the broad land use changes that could occur as a result of a General Plan. Individual
developments or projects implemented under a General Plan may “tier” off a program EIR and further
reduce and expedite environmental review processing time when actual projects are proposed by private
and/or public entities. Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines defines tiering as follows:
“Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one
prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on
narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and
concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later
project.
Along with the GP EIR, the City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following
significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified for buildout of the GP:
Agricultural Resources – Farmland Conversion, Agricultural Land Rezoning
Air Quality – Air Quality Management Plan Consistency, Construction Emissions, Operational
Emissions, Sensitive Receptors
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions
Noise – Traffic Noise Exposure
Traffic – Congestion Management Plan
The GP EIR serves primarily as a source of environmental information for the City as lead agency for all
development under the GP. The GP EIR describes the potential impacts that could result from the
adoption of the GP. Subsequent development projects within the GP are anticipated, and although the
GP EIR has been prepared as a program EIR, subsequent projects that are within the scope of the GP
EIR may be subject to a more limited “tiered” CEQA documentation (e.g., addendum, negative
declaration, supplemental EIR, etc.) that focuses on the potential environmental impacts that “were not
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 20
examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR” or that could be substantially
reduced or avoided through changes to the individual projects, if deemed necessary by the Community
Development Director.
This MND for the proposed Project was prepared using Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form of
the State CEQA Guidelines. A recent comprehensive update to the State CEQA Guidelines became
effective in December 2018, which includes revisions to Appendix G. This MND includes the most
current Appendix G, as revised by this comprehensive update.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 21
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is “Less than Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 22
The environmental factors checked below (x) would have at least one impact that is considered as “No
Impact” by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name For Cheryl Kitzerow
Community Development Director
Jason Moquin
May 13, 2020
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 23
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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).
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.
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.
"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).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
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.
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.
The information below addresses each of the environmental issues that were analyzed within the
scope of the previously certified GP EIR, and primarily follows Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Numbers: Planning Application No. 2016-185, TPM 37121 Page 24
Where necessary, the conclusions of the previously certified EIR are provided as a reference for
each environmental issue area.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 1
ISSUES
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: CADRE-A, MMC, GP, GP EIR, USC
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.
o Policy C-6.1: Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to
balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating
compatible land uses.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy CD-3.2: Maintain and incorporate the City's natural amenities, including its
hillsides, indigenous vegetation, and rock outcroppings, within proposed projects.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 2
o Policy CD-3.3: Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support
structures through sensitive site design and construction. This include but is not
limited to: appropriate placement of facilities; undergrounding, where possible;
and aesthetic design (e.g., cell tower stealthing).
o Policy CD-3.5: Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually
integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street
scene.
o Policy CD-3.6: Locate site entries and storage bays to minimize conflicts with
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
o Policy CD-3.7: Consider including public art at key gateways, major projects, and
public gathering places.
o Policy CD-3.8: Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well
integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses.
o Policy CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.
o Policy CD-3.10: Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a
sense of quality and permanence.
o Policy CD-3.11 Provide special building-form elements, such as towers and
archways, and other building massing elements to help distinguish activity nodes
and establish landmarks within the community.
o Policy CD-3.12: Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles
and designs that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area.
o Policy CD-3.14: Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and
architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or
fences.
o Policy CD-3.15: Require property owners to maintain structures and landscaping
to high standards of design, health, and safety.
o Policy CD-3.16: Avoid use of long, blank walls in industrial developments by
breaking them up with vertical and horizontal facade articulation achieved
through stamping, colors, materials, modulation, and landscaping.
o Policy CD-3.17: Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual
interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy CD-3.20: Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls.
o Policy CD-3.21: Use open space, greenways, recreational lands, and water
courses as community separators.
o 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 3
o Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape
streets, including coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street
furniture, and hardscaping.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy CD-4.4: Frame views along streets through the use of wide parkways and
median landscaping.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Goal CD-5: Economic Development Corridors that are visually distinctive and vibrant
and combine commercial, industrial, residential, civic, cultural, and recreational uses.
o Policy CD-5.1: Provide comfortable pedestrian amenities-quality sitting areas,
wide paths and shade-along with specialized and engaging design features, such
as interesting fountains or public art, which draw and maintain people’s attention,
as appropriate based on the preferred mix of land uses for each EDC subarea.
o Policy CD-5.4: Locate building access points along sidewalks, pedestrian areas,
and bicycle routes, and include amenities that encourage pedestrian activity in
the EDC areas where appropriate.
o Policy CD-5.5: Create a human-scale ground-floor environment that includes
public open areas that separate pedestrian space from auto traffic, or where
these intersect, give special regard to pedestrian safety.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD I.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR concluded that future development under the GP would alter the visual appearance
of the City but would not substantially degrade the existing scenic vistas. Impacts related to
scenic vistas would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.1-10 – 5.1-11).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 4
Project Impact Discussion
Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways: first, a structure may be
constructed that blocks views of a vista; or secondly, the vista itself may be altered by
development. A small portion of the southwestern edge of the Project site consists of the paved
portion of Holland Road; however, the site is primarily flat, undeveloped land characterized by
non-native grassland/ruderal and field cropland habitats (CADRE-A, pp. 10-11). Therefore, the
site does not itself constitute a scenic vista. The site is located in the Paloma Valley area of
Menifee. The Paloma Valley area is in the southern area of the City and includes a mix of
residential, rural residential and mixed uses within the EDC designation (GP EIR, p. 5.1-11).
The natural mountainous setting of the Menifee area is critical to its overall visual character and
provides scenic vistas for the community. Topography and a lack of dense vegetation or urban
development offer scenic views throughout the City, including to and from hillside areas. Scenic
features include gently sloping alluvial fans, rugged mountains and steep slopes, mountain
peaks and ridges, rounded hills with boulder outcrops, farmland and open space. Scenic vistas
provide views of these features from public spaces. Many of the scenic resources are outside
the City limits and beyond the planning area boundary. Distant 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 lies next to the western City boundary.
According to the GP EIR, development pursuant to the GP would alter the visual appearance of
the City but would not substantially degrade the existing scenic vistas, visual character, or
quality of the City or its surroundings (GP EIR, p. 5.1-10). The proposed Project is consistent
with the zoning2 and land use designations for the Project site and the Project proposes
commercial and light industrial uses in an area generally characterized by commercial
development and vacant land planned for future similar development. According to the GP EIR,
two important scenic resources in the City are Quail Hill and Bell Mountain; these scenic
resources are located approximately 3.6 and 1.5 miles from the Project site to the north and
northeast, respectively. The Project site is generally flat and located adjacent to the I-215
freeway. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact and no mitigation
measures are required on adverse effect on a scenic vista.
THRESHOLD I.B: Less Than Significant. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR stated that there are three Riverside County Eligible Scenic Highways in the City: I-
215 from McCall Boulevard south to the City boundary; McCall Boulevard from I-215 on the
west to Menifee Road on the east; and Menifee Road from McCall Boulevard north to the City
boundary. The portion of State Route 74 (SR-74) that passes through the northern part of the
City is considered an “Eligible State Scenic Highway – Not Officially Designated”. There are no
officially designated state scenic highways within the City’s jurisdiction (GP EIR, p. 5.1-9). New
and/or intensified uses along the County eligible roadways would not fully obstruct visual
resources such as the hillsides or distant mountains and would not require substantial changes
2 The Project site’s current zoning is Industrial Park (I-P). To be consistent with the Project site’s GP land use
designation of EDC-CC, the City is in the process of adopting consistency zoning for the EDC-CC GP land use areas
which would make the Project site’s zoning designation EDC-CC. This process is a separate effort from this Project.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 5
in topography. Allowed uses in these areas would be regulated by City Design Guidelines, MMC
development standards, and proposed GP policies that limit the height and bulk of buildings.
Implementation of the proposed GP would not result in damage to any historic buildings or
significant rock outcroppings within a state scenic highway, since there are no designated state
scenic highways in the City. The GP EIR concluded views from eligible scenic highways within
the City would significantly change because vast open spaces would be developed and views of
low-lying valleys, mountains, and rock formations would be obstructed. However, because these
scenic highways are not officially designated, impacts related to scenic resources are
considered be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.1-11 – 5.1-12).
Project Impact Discussion
No oak or mature trees were documented within or adjacent to the Project site (CADRE-A, p.
17). Additionally, there are no significant rock outcroppings or other unique features of the
Project site that would necessitate protection as a scenic resource.
As shown on Exhibit C-8 – Scenic Highways in the City’s GP, a portion of SR-74 is an “Eligible
State Scenic Highway – Not Officially Designated” and I-215 is an eligible County scenic
highway within the City’s jurisdiction. There are no officially designated state scenic highways
within the City’s jurisdiction (GP EIR, p. 5.1-9). The Project site is located over five miles south
of the state scenic highway-eligible section of Highway 74 and is adjacent to the eligible County
scenic Highway I-215 south of Newport Road; this section of Highway I-215 adjacent to the
Project is also considered a “scenic corridor” by the GP. Scenic Corridors identified in the GP
are the same as eligible county scenic highways. In addition, Haun Road which borders the
west side of the Project site is considered an Enhanced Landscape Corridor. Enhanced
Landscape Corridors are considered important transportation routes that also reinforce the
City’s community identity through streetscape design and preservation of scenic resources. The
City requires special design considerations for Enhanced Landscape Corridors and Scenic
Corridors, with which the Project Applicant is required to comply (GP, Exhibit CD-2).
Therefore, because there are no scenic resources, including, but not limited to, officially
designated state scenic highways, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings at the Project
site, and the Project applicant will be required to comply with the special design considerations
of Enhanced Landscape Corridors, impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
THRESHOLD I.C: Less Than Significant. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR concluded that future development under the GP would alter the visual appearance
of the City but would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the City or its
surroundings. Areas developed under the EDC designation would include a mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. All development, including EDC development,
would need to comply with regulations in the MMC and policies in the GP that protect scenic
vistas, scenic resources, and the intended character of the City. The MMC contains regulations
that require retention of important natural features, preservation of views, and new development
and landscaping that is sensitive to visual resources: In particular, the code’s Siting of Wireless
Communication Facilities (MCC Chapter 9.290) and Administrative Nuisance Abatement
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 6
(Chapter 11.20). Policies of the GP give substantial consideration to the preservation of scenic
vistas, including those that protect undisturbed slopes, hillsides, and other natural landforms
that enhance the City’s environmental setting, found in the Open Space and Conservation
Element. Impacts related to visual character would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.1-10
– 5.1-11).
Project Impact Discussion
Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 21071, an urbanized area is defined as an incorporated city
with a population of at least 100,000 people, or if the population of that city and no more than
two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 people. As of July 1, 2017,
which is the most up-to-date census available, the City had a population estimate of 90,595
(USC), thus meeting the definition of a non-urbanized area. The City borders touch the City of
Perris, the City of Lake Elsinore, the City of Wildomar, and the City of Murrieta, with population
estimates as of July 1, 2017, of 77,879; 66,411; 36,932; and 113,326, respectively (USC). Any
two of those city’s plus the City’s population would add up to more than 100,000 people, thus
Menifee also meets the definition of an urbanized area. To be conservative, impacts to both
urbanized and non-urbanized areas have been analyzed.
According to the City’s GP EIR, development pursuant to the GP would alter the visual
appearance of the City but would not substantially degrade the existing scenic vistas, visual
character, or quality of the City or its surroundings (GP EIR, p. 5.1-10). Therefore, projects
consistent with the City’s GP would accordingly also not substantially degrade the visual
character or quality of the City and its surroundings. The Project site is located in the EDC-CC
adjacent to I-215.
The proposed Project includes commercial and light industrial uses in an area generally
characterized by commercial development and vacant land planned for future similar
development. The adjacent property to the north is zoned Industrial; the property to the south is
developed as a storage facility, the property to the west is Flood Control and the property to the
east is I-215. Since the Project design will comply with all applicable City design-related codes,
standards, and regulations, the design of the site will have a less than significant impact on the
existing visual character for urban or non-urbanized areas and would not conflict with applicable
zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. No mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD I.D: Less Than Significant. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR stated that future development in accordance with the proposed GP would allow for
development of currently undeveloped parcels and alteration, intensification, and redistribution
of some existing land uses. Because the City and surrounding area are largely undeveloped,
the lighting associated with improvements and structures of future development projects could
increase nighttime light and glare within the City. There are portions of the City that would be
developed with more light-intensive land uses under the proposed GP (e.g., conversion of
vacant land or underutilized areas into residential, commercial, or industrial uses). Sources of
light and glare from new development or redevelopment would include lighting needed to
provide nighttime street and building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, sign
illumination, and lighting associated with construction activities.
Additionally, nighttime lighting from the Menifee area has an impact on views from the Mount
Palomar Observatory in San Diego County, which requires darkness for clear nighttime viewing.
Chapter 6.01 of the MMC, Dark Sky; Light Pollution requires restrictions on outdoor lighting,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 7
including low-pressure sodium lighting as the preferred lamp type; shielding of fixtures; and
limited hours of operation of most outdoor lighting. Additionally, all future development projects
that would be accommodated by the proposed GP would be required to comply with California’s
Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part
6, of the California Code of Regulations), which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting
control devices and luminaires. The GP EIR concluded that adherence to County and City
regulations and implementation of the policies of the proposed GP would ensure that light and
glare from new development and redevelopment projects accommodated by the GP would be
minimized and that significant impacts would not occur (GP EIR, pp. 5.1-12 – 5.1-13).
Project Impact Discussion
Nighttime lighting and glare can affect human vision, navigation and other activities as well as
nocturnal wildlife. In particular, excessive night lighting often leads to skyglow and can interfere
with the operation of astronomical observatories, such as the Mount Palomar Observatory in
San Diego County. As part of the Project design features, the Project will include lighting around
the perimeter of the site for security purposes, and on the interior of the site for the operational
safety of the future users of the facility.
To minimize impacts of lighting on the Mount Palomar Observatory, the City implements MMC
6.01 to regulate light pollution. Lighting to be installed at the Project site will be designed in
conformance with this policy and all applicable standards in the MMC to minimize light spillage
to the night sky. The Project site is not adjacent to large habitat areas.
During future construction on the Project, nighttime lighting may be used within the construction
staging areas to provide security for construction equipment. Due to the distance between the
construction area and motorists on adjacent roadways including the I-215, such security lights
may cause a potentially significant impact in the form of glare to motorists. The Project site will
comply with standard City conditions of approval which will ensure that any temporary
construction nighttime lighting will be appropriately placed to minimize light spillage outside of
the staging area/Project site.
The primary source of operational glare at the Project site is anticipated to be windows on the
buildings facing I-215. Specifically, windows facing the east, south, and north sides of the
Project site, which could reflect light from the windows to the vehicle traffic on the I-215. In
addition, its possible motorists traveling on Haun or Holland Road, or development on adjacent
properties to the Project, could potentially experience glare from windows on the Project
buildings. While the Project will strive to reduce glare, the Project could have a significant
impact from glare. Since the proposed Project does not include the exact configuration and
design of the future buildings that may exist on the Project site, future developments on the
Project site will need to comply with City codes MMC 9.205 Lighting Standards, which will
ensure the Project will minimize light pollution and prevent glare. Therefore, compliance with
applicable regulations and conditions of approval will ensure that impacts due to light or glare
will be less than significant.
Conditions of Approval
The following standard conditions of approval are applicable to the Project:
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project developer shall provide evidence to the
City that any temporary nighttime lighting installed for security purposes shall be
downward facing and hooded or shielded to prevent security light spillage outside of the
staging area/Project site or direct broadcast of security light into the sky.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 8
Mitigation Measures
None
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
D. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
E. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Sources: CADRE-A, FMMP, GP EIR, MMC
Applicable General Plan Policies:
Goal OSC-6: High value agricultural lands available for long-term agricultural production
in limited areas of the City.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 9
o 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:
THRESHOLD II.A: Less Than Significant. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
The City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to
urban land uses. The City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that
would serve the growing population. Thus, the GP’s future development emphasizes mixed-use,
commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of
agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable and are unlikely to remain in
agricultural production even without adoption of the GP. However, the GP EIR concluded that
future development under the GP would result in the conversion of 522 acres of designated
Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland to a non-agricultural
use. Since no mitigation measures are available that would reduce mapped farmland impacts,
impacts to state-designated farmland would be significant and unavoidable. (GP EIR, pp. 5.2-12
– 5.2-13, 5.2-16).
Project Impact Discussion
As of 2016, there were 162 acres of Prime Farmland in the City; 218 acres of Farmland of
Statewide Importance; 142 acres of Unique Farmland; 8,327 acres of Farmland of Local
Importance; and 1,181 acres of Grazing Land (GP EIR, Figure 5.2-1). The Prime Farmland
within the City is along the northern and eastern boundaries of the City. Also, the Farmland of
Statewide Importance in the City is primarily in two areas: one on the northwest City boundary
and another on the east City boundary. As such, neither of these Farmland areas are in the
immediate Project site vicinity. It is also notable that the City’s GP EIR explains that “Menifee’s
future development emphasizes mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects
rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less
economically viable” (GP EIR, p. 5.2-13).
The Project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance
is defined as land that has been irrigated for agricultural production within the prior four years of
the date of the most recently-published Farmland of Statewide Importance map and the soil
must meet physical and chemical criteria defined by the United States Department of
Agriculture. The parcels to the north and west are also Farmland of Local Importance, followed
by Urban and Built-Up Land further north and to directly to the east. To the west of Paloma
Wash, the land is defined as Other Land and Urban and Built Up Land. While these parcels are
still listed as Farmland of Local Importance, the GP’s land use designation for area north of the
Project site to La Piedra Road and south to the Menifee Commercial Specific Plan at the
intersection of Scott Road and Interstate 215 is Economic Development Center (EDC) (Figure
3). To the west of the Project site, west of Paloma Wash, the land use designation is
Countryside Specific Plan. It should be noted that Farmland of Local Importance is not
considered Farmland or agricultural lands according to the CEQA Statute and Guidelines
(2019). According to Section 21060.1 of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (2019), “agricultural
land” means Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 10
defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as
modified for California.
Due to the geographic separation between the City’s Prime Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance, the general urbanization of the City and the Project site and surrounding
land use designation as EDC, and the fact that Farmland of Local Important is not considered
agricultural lands as defined by CEQA, development of the Project site will have a less than
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required on Farmland designated by the
Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program (FMMP).
THRESHOLD II.b: No Impact. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
General Plan EIR Summary
The Menifee zoning code includes six separate designations specifically for agricultural land;
the GP only includes one agriculture land use designation (Agriculture (AG)). The zoning code
would remain as is for some time after adoption of the GP, which changes designations for all
but one parcel of agricultural land (dairy/livestock feed yard along eastern edge of city just south
of Newport Road). This would create conflicts between the zoning code and the GP land use
designations on all but one parcel until the zoning code is updated. The Expanded EDC
scenario would not change the acreage on which proposed GP land use designations would
conflict with existing zoning. Thus, impacts will be significant. Since no mitigation measures are
available that would reduce agricultural zoning and GP land use designation conflicts, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 5.2-13 and 5.2-16).
In addition, the GP has designated the existing land in the City under Williamson Act contracts
for EDC designated development. At the time of the GP’s adoption, there were approximately
77 acres of land under Williamson Act contracts. All of these contracts will expire before the
buildout of the GP; therefore, there is no conflict regarding the eventual development of these
77 acres to EDC. No impacts regarding impacts to Williamson Act contracted land would occur
(GP EIR, p. 5.2-13).
Project Impact Discussion
Pursuant to the Williamson Act, property owners commit their land to farming for a minimum of
10 years and in return receive tax benefits based on their agricultural production rather than on
the property’s market value. Within the City, there are 77 acres of land under Williamson Act
contracts, all of which went into nonrenewal status in 2007 and whose contracts expired on
January 1, 2017 (GP EIR, p. 5.2-5). Additionally, as discussed above in Threshold II.A, there is
no land zoned for agricultural use in the Project vicinity as shown on Figure 6. The Project’s
current Zoning is Industrial Park (I-P); to be consistent with the Project site’s General Plan (GP)
land use designations of EDC-CC, the City is in the process of adopting consistency zoning for
the EDC-CC GP land use areas which would make the Project site’s zoning EDC-CC. This
process is a separate effort from this Project (refer to Figure 7 – Current Zoning). Per the MMC
Chapter 9.28 (Economic Development Corridor Zoning Districts), agricultural uses are
conditionally allowed for EDC-CC zoning as plant nurseries, retail sales, and specific personal
cultivation. Per Riverside County Zoning Ordinance (as adopted by the City in its MMC) Article
X (I-P Zone), agricultural uses are not included within the allowed uses.
Further, considering the small size of the areas mapped as Farmland as well as the economic
constraints on agriculture in Western Riverside County, some of the agriculturally-designated
properties would likely not be available for agricultural use in the future (GP EIR, p. 5.2-13).
Therefore, there are no remaining active Williamson Act lands within the City and because
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 11
existing agriculturally-zoned properties are expected to convert to non-agricultural use with
implementation of the City’s GP, construction of the proposed Project will have no impact and
no mitigation measures are required on a Williamson Act contract or land zoned for agricultural
use.
THRESHOLD II.C: Less Than Significant. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
General Plan EIR Summary
Within the City there are three types of forest vegetation types: Southern coast live oak riparian
forest, southern cottonwood/willow riparian forest, and southern sycamore/alder riparian
woodland. Projects under the GP would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and any mitigation identified as
conditions for a SAA, if applicable (if the project impacts Southern cottonwood/willow riparian
forest or southern coast live oak riparian forest in riparian habitats). The GP would change land
use designations on these forested lands, however the density allowed would remain similar,
and thus the GP would not directly impact forest land. Forest land could be impacted by projects
approved pursuant to the GP, potentially up to 30 acres; this is not regionally significant since
the total amount of forests and woodlands in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area is about 34,300 acres. There is no existing forest
zoning within the City. Impacts related to the conversion of forest to non-forest land would be
less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.2-13 – 5.2-14).
Project Impact Discussion
Buildout of the City’s GP would convert Farmland to non-agricultural uses and would place
developed urban uses closer to mapped Farmland. This would subject residents in these areas
to the environmental impacts of farming, such as odors, noise, and water and air pollution, and
would likely contribute to increases in the cost of land in and next to the City. This would create
an economic pressure for owners of agricultural land to convert to non-agricultural uses.
Accordingly, the City’s GP EIR determined that potential conversion of Farmland adjacent to the
City’s boundary would be a significant impact (GP EIR, p. 5.2-14).
The proposed Project site is in the central portion of the City and there is no Farmland in the
immediate Project vicinity. Therefore, patrons and workers at the Project site would not be
subject to the environmental impacts of farming and operation of the Project would not place
urban uses adjacent to farming uses. Accordingly, although the Project would generally
contribute to the urbanization of the City, the proposed Project itself would have a less than
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required with regard to conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use.
THRESHOLD II.D: No Impact. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
General Plan EIR Summary
Refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold II.C.
Project Impact Discussion
Forest communities within the City include Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern
Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest, and Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland;
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 12
however, there is no forest zoning in the City (GP EIR, p. 5.2-6). The Project site does not
contain forest land. The Project site is dominated by non-native grassland/ruderal, field
croplands, and developed/disturbed habitats with no oak or mature trees documented within or
adjacent to the Project site, as described below in Threshold IV.A (CADRE-A, p. 9). Therefore,
the proposed Project will have no impact with regard to forest land and will not result in the
conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD II.E: Less Than Significant. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Areas of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland
of Local Importance abut the City along the north, east, and south boundaries. GP buildout
would place developed urban land uses closer to mapped Farmland. Such potential conflicts
between agricultural and urban land uses would add to pressures on owners of agricultural land
to sell and/or convert the land to non-agricultural uses. Potential conversion of Farmland
adjacent to the City boundary would be a significant impact. Since no mitigation measures are
available that would reduce conversion of Farmland to less than significant, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 5.2-14 and 5.2-16).
Project Impact Discussion
As discussed in Threshold II.A and II.B, above, the Project site is designated as Farmland of
Local Importance and is surrounded by land also designated Farmland of Local Importance and
Urban and Built-Up Land. Farmland of Local Importance is not considered Farmland or
agricultural lands according to the CEQA Statute and Guidelines (2019). According to Section
21060.1 of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (2019), “agricultural land” means Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as defined by the United
States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for
California. Additionally, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within the City. While these
parcels are still listed as Farmland of Local Importance, the GP land use designation for area
north of the Project site to La Piedra Road and south to the Menifee Commercial Specific Plan
at the intersection of Scott Road and Interstate 215 is Economic Development Center (Figure
3). To the west of the Project site, west of Paloma Wash, the land use designation is
Countryside Specific Plan.
The Project’s existing Zoning designation is Industrial Park (I-P). To be consistent with the
Project site’s General Plan (GP) land use designations of EDC-CC, the City is in the process of
adopting consistency zoning for the EDC-CC GP land use areas which would make the Project
site’s zoning EDC-CC. This process is a separate effort from this Project. Refer to Figure 8 –
Existing Zoning, above. Per the MMC Chapter 9.28 (Economic Development Corridor Zoning
Districts), agricultural uses are conditionally allowed for EDC-CC zoning as plant nurseries,
retail sales, and specific personal cultivation. Per Riverside County Zoning Ordinance (as
adopted by the City in its MMC) Article X (I-P Zone), agricultural uses are not included within the
allowed uses.
As such, development of the Project will not significantly impact agricultural land. Forest
communities within the City include Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern
Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest, and Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland;
however, none of these habitat types at the Project site (CADRE-A, p. 9). Therefore, the Project
will result in less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required for changes in
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 13
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.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: CARB 2018, GP, GP EIR, SCAG 2016, SCAQMD 2003, SCAQMD 2005, SCAQMD
2008, SCAQMD 2015, SCAQMD 2016, WEBB-A1
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and
particulate matter.
o Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing
particulate matter emissions from construction activities.
o 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.
o 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 14
o 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
THRESHOLD III.A: Less Than Significant. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
General Plan EIR Summary
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections for a City are typically
based on the current GP. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2012
Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP) includes SCAG’s 2012 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2012 RTP/SCS) and includes population and
employment projections for the City. Although the 2012 RTP/SCS and SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP
consider growth, the City is projected to have less population (and housing) and more
employment. It should be noted that the growth projections in SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS and
associated emissions inventory in SCAQMD’s AQMP do not include the additional growth
forecast in the GP for the post-2035 scenarios since there is no schedule for when this
development would occur. Consequently, the 2012 AQMP also does not consider the additional
emissions associated with the full buildout of the GP in the Post-2035 scenarios. Once the GP is
adopted, SCAG will incorporate the revised growth projections associated with the land uses
identified in the City’s GP in their regional planning projections, and the GP would be consistent
with the future update of the AQMP. However, since full buildout associated with the GP is not
currently included in the emissions inventory for the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB),
impacts related to conflicting with the AQMP would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation
Measure 3-1 was identified to reduce the impact, but with implementation of the mitigation
measure, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 5.3-14 – 5.3-16).
Project Impact Discussion
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (herein after “the Basin”), which is under the
jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD has prepared and regularly updates an Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin to establish a comprehensive program to lead the
Basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards, the most recent of which is
the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2016).
The control measures and related emission reduction estimates included in the AQMP are
based on emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use,
population, and employment estimates defined in consultation with local governments. To do
this, the AQMP utilizes the population and growth estimates compiled by the SCAG in their
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), the most recent of
which is the 2016 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016) (SCAQMD 2016, pp. 4-41 – 4-42). As stated
previously, SCAG’s population and employment projections for the City are based on the City’s
growth projections (SCAG 2016, p. 70), which are outlined in the GP. Thus, since the 2016
AQMP is consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS, the 2016 AQMP is also consistent with the growth
assumptions in the GP. Accordingly, if a project demonstrates compliance with local land use
plans and/or population projections, then the AQMP would have taken into account such uses
when it was developed and the project would not conflict with implementation of such a plan.
The Project site is designated as EDC in the City’s GP, specifically EDC-CC. Land uses
envisioned within EDC are primarily nonresidential uses, with residential playing a supporting
role; allowed land uses are a mixture of residential, commercial, office, industrial, entertainment,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 15
educational, and/or recreational uses (GP, p. 3 - Exhibit LU-3 and Exhibit LU-B2E). The
proposed Project’s future land uses as a mixed use center include commercial, office, retail,
and/or industrial land uses are allowed under the EDC-CC and as reflected in Figure 4 –
Conceptual Master Plan, above. Since the Project’s proposed future land uses are consistent
with the Project site’s EDC-CC GP land use designation, the growth projections from the Project
are consistent with the GP. Mitigation Measure 3-1 from the GP EIR is not applicable to this
Project because the Project construction emissions are below threshold levels, and thus do not
require mitigation as discussed in more detailed under Threshold III.B, below. For these
reasons, the Project will not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified
GP EIR. Since these growth projections from the GP were used in the 2016 AQMP, the Project
will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. Impacts with regard to
conflicts to an air quality management plan are considered to be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD III.B: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the GP would generate short-term and long-term emissions that exceed the daily
SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants except for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nitric Oxide (NOx)
is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). Consequently,
emissions of NOX, PM-10, and PM-2.5 that exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds
would contribute to the particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5) nonattainment designation of the
Basin under the national and state air quality standards. Therefore, operational-related air
quality impacts associated with future development of the GP are significant. Mitigation Measure
3-1 was identified in the GP EIR to reduce the impact, but with implementation of the mitigation
measure, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 5.3-16 – 5.3-19, 5.3-
24 – 5.3-25).
Project Impact Discussion
The portion of the Basin within which the proposed Project site is located is designated as a
non-attainment area for PM-10 under state standards, and as a non-attainment area for ozone
and PM-2.5 under both state and federal standards (CARB 2018). SCAQMD considers the
thresholds for project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same (SCAQMD 2003).
Consequently, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by
SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Project-specific air quality impacts have been
analyzed in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Memorandum prepared by
Albert A. WEBB Associates dated February 5, 2019 (WEBB-A1), as described below.
Air quality impacts can be described in short- and long-term perspectives. Short-term impacts
occur during site preparation and Project construction, whereas long-term impacts are
associated with Project operation. A discussion of the Project’s potential short-term
construction-period and long-term operational-period air quality impacts is provided below.
Construction Emissions. Construction emissions from Project construction were evaluated in
the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 and reflect a worst-case scenario for maximum daily construction
emissions, meaning the Project emissions are expected to be equal to or less than the
estimated emissions. Construction activities associated with the Project may result in emissions
of SCAQMD criteria pollutants VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Construction related
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 16
emissions may result from construction activities involving stockpiling, grading, building
construction, paving, painting (architectural coatings). Based on the Air Quality/Greenhouse
Gas Analysis, peak daily construction emissions from the Project will not exceed any SCAQMD
criteria pollutant thresholds for Phase I or Phase II of the Project’s construction, as shown below
in Table C – Unmitigated Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.
Table C – Unmitigated Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Activity
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily
Construction
THRESHOLDs
75 100 550 150 150 55
Phase 1
Stockpiling 3.40 75.77 15.88 0.17 7.22 3.43
Grading 5.30 62.67 35.05 0.08 3.29 2.35
Paving 2.12 14.32 15.29 0.02 0.94 0.74
Maximum1 7.42 76.99 50.34 0.17 7.22 3.43
Exceeds THRESHOLD? No No No No No No
Phase 2
Grading 6.88 77.48 43.14 0.09 8.84 5.74
Building Construction
(2020)
9.61 81.22 74.55 0.21 10.82 4.99
Building Construction
(2021)
8.72 71.92 71.25 0.21 10.31 4.51
Building Construction
(2022)
7.92 64.16 68.48 0.20 9.88 4.11
Paving (2022) 1.94 11.34 15.12 0.02 0.75 0.57
Architectural Coatings
(2022)
57.82 4.04 8.66 0.02 1.48 0.56
Maximum2 67.68 81.22 92.26 0.24 12.11 5.74
Exceeds THRESHOLD? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 4
Notes:
1 Maximum emissions are the greater of either stockpiling alone or the sum of grading and paving since these
activities overlap. Maximum emission are shown in bold.
2 Maximum emissions are the greater of either grading, building construction in 2020, or building construction in 2021
alone or the sum of building construction in 2022, paving and architectural coatings since these activities overlap.
Maximum emission are shown in bold.
Since the Project will be below SCAQMD daily construction thresholds for all criteria pollutants,
impacts from short-term construction emissions are less than significant and no mitigation is
required (WEBB-A1, pp. 2-4).
Construction-Related Localized Air Quality Impacts. Local significance thresholds (LSTs)
were initially established in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the
public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. SCAQMD
published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, which recommends that
certain air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 17
on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from
project sites that are not expected to result in an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). SCAQMD states that
lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in air quality impact analyses.
This analysis makes use of methodology included in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008).
The Project is in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 24 for the LST. According to the LST methodology,
only on-site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions associated with vendor and worker trips
are mobile source emissions that occur off site. The emissions analyzed under the LST
methodology are NOx, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily
emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized
air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. The LST thresholds are estimated using the
maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive
receptors (in meters). Although the Project site is approximately 37 acres, it is anticipated that
Phase I stockpiling would disturb 1.5 acres per day, Phase I grading will disturb five acres per
day, and Phase II grading will disturb up to 6.5 acres per day during construction of the Project
site. The LST lookup tables only provide thresholds for one-acre, two-acre, or five-acre site, as
larger disturbance areas provide a higher threshold, the smaller of the threshold acreages were
utilized to provide for the most conservative screening-level analysis. Hence, the LST for the one-
acre site was utilized for Phase I and the five acre LST was utilized for Phase II. The closest
existing sensitive receptors to the Project site are the Santa Rosa Academy (approximately 360
feet (110 meters) northwest of the Project and existing residences east of Interstate 215 (I-215)
approximately 375 feet (114 meters) east of the Project site. However, there are planned
residential sensitive receptors located west of Haun Road and the Paloma Wash, approximately
300 feet (91 meters) west of the Project site. The LST lookup tables only present thresholds for
25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, a receptor distance of 50 meters (164 feet) was
used to ensure a conservative analysis. The results are shown in Table D – Phase I LST Results
for Daily Off-Site Construction Emissions and Table E – Phase II LST Results for Maximum
Daily Construction Emissions.
Table D – Phase I LST Results for Daily Off-Site Construction Emissions
Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST THRESHOLD for
1-acre at 50 meters 148 887 12 4
Stockpiling 26.65 8.70 3.52 2.33
Grading 62.39 34.00 3.00 2.27
Paving 14.07 14.65 0.75 0.69
Maximum1 76.46 48.65 3.75 2.96
Exceeds
THRESHOLD? No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 6
Notes:
1 Maximum emissions are the greater of either stockpiling alone or the sum of grading and paving since these activities
overlap.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 18
Table E – Phase II LST Results for Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST THRESHOLD for
5-acre at 50 meters 302 2,178 40 10
Grading 77.19 42.10 8.54 5.65
Building Construction
(2020) 55.07 47.67 2.92 2.74
Building Construction
(2021) 49.31 46.75 2.51 2.35
Building Construction
(2022) 42.90 45.88 2.09 1.96
Paving (2022) 11.12 14.58 0.57 0.52
Maximum1 77.19 60.46 8.54 5.65
Exceeds
THRESHOLD? No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 6
Notes:
1. Maximum emissions are the greater of either grading, building construction in 2020, or building construction in 2021
alone or the sum of building construction in 2022 and paving since these activities overlap. Architectural coatings not
shown because no on-site emissions are generated.
As shown above in Tables D and E, construction emissions will not exceed LSTs. Therefore,
impacts related to construction-related LST emissions are less than significant and no mitigation
is required (WEBB-A1, pp. 5-7).
Operational Emissions. Operational (long-term) emissions are evaluated at build-out of a
project. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project may result in emissions of
SCAQMD criteria pollutants VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Operational emissions
may be expected from area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source
emissions. The Project’s operational emissions are shown in Table F – Unmitigated Estimated
Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer) and Table G – Unmitigated Estimated Daily
Project Operation Emissions (Winter).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 19
Table F – Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer)
Source Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily
THRESHOLDs 55 55 550 150 150 55
Area 7.27 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.17 1.54 1.30 0.01 0.12 0.12
Mobile 38.65 276.70 299.32 1.29 82.79 22.71
Total 46.09 278.24 300.65 1.30 82.91 22.83
Exceeds
THRESHOLD? No Yes No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 5
Notes:
1. Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.
Table G – Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Winter)
Source Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily
THRESHOLDs 55 55 550 150 150 55
Area 7.27 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.17 1.54 1.30 0.01 0.12 0.12
Mobile 32.14 272.55 276.70 1.19 82.81 22.73
Total 39.58 274.09 278.03 1.20 82.93 22.85
Exceeds
THRESHOLD? No Yes No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 5
Note:
1. Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.
As shown on Tables F and G, Project operational-source emissions would not exceed
applicable SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for VOC, CO, SO2, PM-10, and PM-2.5; Project
operational-source emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional daily thresholds of
significance, except for NOx. However, since the Project’s land uses are consistent with what
was analyzed in the GP EIR which concluded that long-term emissions would exceed the daily
SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants except for SO2, and with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3, impacts will not be more significant that what
was previously analyzed in the GP EIR and have been addressed in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (WEBB-A1, pp. 4-5 and 11). Thus, the impact would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operations Localized Significance Analysis. According to the LST methodology, LSTs only
apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources
that may spend long periods of time idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 20
tentative parcel map includes an industrial parcel on 4.77 acres with up to 47,200 square feet
(SF) of industrial park uses. Due to the potential for truck idling associated with this use, a long-
term LST analysis was prepared for this portion of the Project.
As stated above, only on-site emissions need to be analyzed; however, the CalEEMod outputs
do not separate on-site and off-site emissions from mobile sources nor do they identify
emissions for individual land uses. For analysis purposes, the emissions shown in the Table H –
Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Operational Emissions, represent five percent of the total
Project-related mobile sources. Considering that the industrial park comprises less than two
percent of the total daily weekday trips generated by the Project and less than four percent of
the total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the five percent assumption is conservative for the
on-site emissions from the industrial park land use. A receptor distance of 50 meters (164 feet)
was used to ensure a conservative analysis. The results are summarized below (WEBB-A1, p.
7).
Table H – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Operational Emissions
Source Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST THRESHOLD for 5-acre at
50 meters 302 2,178 10 3
On-Site Mobile 13.91 15.03 4.15 1.14
Exceeds THRESHOLD? No No No No
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 7
As indicated in the table above, Project-related long-term operational emissions will not exceed
any SCAQMD operational LST (WEBB-A1, p. 7).
As discussed above, the Project has exceeded significance thresholds only for NOx for
operational emissions. However, for projects that are consistent with the GP, the significance
determination tiers off the GP EIR. The evaluation focuses on whether the project would cause
impacts that are greater than or different from those disclosed and found to be significant and
unavoidable. Since the Project is consistent with the land uses analyzed in the GP EIR, and with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3, operational Project
emissions of NOx are reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD III.C: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
General Plan EIR Summary
The proposed Land Use Plan of the GP would potentially intensify uses surrounding the freeway
at buildout. New development associated with the proposed GP surrounding the I-215 has the
potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from diesel
exhaust. The association of truck-related diesel emissions with adverse health effects is
generally strongest between 300 and 1,000 feet and diminishes with distance. The impact of
traffic emissions is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional
air pollution problem. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends avoiding siting
new sensitive land uses within “500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per
day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.” Because roadway volumes on I-215 would
have more than 100,000 vehicles per day, buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan has the
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 21
potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions if
constructed within 500 feet of this freeway. No other roadways within the City have or are
projected to have more than 100,000 average daily vehicle trips. If new sensitive development
were placed in the vicinity of any of pollutant emissions sources, such as the light and heavy
manufacturing/warehousing located in the northern portion of the City along Ethanac Road, then
sensitive receptors may be exposed to significant concentrations of air pollutants.
In accordance with CEQA, new development would be required to assess the localized air
quality impacts from placement of new sensitive uses within the vicinity of air pollutant sources.
In addition, Policy OSC 9.2 of the GP, calling for adding buffer zones between sensitive land
uses and air pollutant emission sources, would reduce impacts for future development projects
to the extent feasible. However, sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial pollutant
concentrations near major sources of air pollutants in the absence of mitigation. Mitigation
Measure 3-2 was identified in the GP EIR that would ensure placement of sensitive receptors
near major sources of air pollutants would achieve the incremental risk thresholds, reducing
these impacts to less than significant. However, Mitigation Measure 3-3 as identified in the GP
EIR would reduce impacts of air pollutants from mobile sources, however the incremental
increase in health risk associated with individual projects is considered cumulatively
considerable and would contribute to already elevated levels of cancer and noncancer health
risks. Therefore, impacts related to sensitive receptors would be significant and unavoidable
(GP EIR, pp. 5.3-19 – 5.3-21, and 5.3-27).
Project Impact Discussion
Sensitive receptors include residential uses, school playgrounds, childcare facilities, athletic
facilities, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes (SCAQMD 2005). As described
in Threshold III.B, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the Project site are the Santa Rosa
Academy (approximately 360 feet or 110 meters) northwest of the Project and existing
residences east of the I-215 approximately 375 feet (114 meters) east of the Project site. There
are also planned residential sensitive receptors located west of Haun Road and the Paloma
Wash, approximately 300 feet (91 meters) west of the Project site. The construction and
operation LST analysis completed in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for this Project
determined that the Project is not exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations because no pollutant emissions exceed the LST (WEBB-A1, pp. 5-7). The
correlation between project-specific emissions and potential health impacts is complex and the
SCAQMD has determined the attempting to quantify health risks from small projects (such as
this) would not be appropriate because it may be misleading and unreliable for various reasons
including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere the air pollutants interact and
form (SCAQMD 2015, pp.9-15). Notwithstanding, this analysis does include a localized impact
analysis, discussed above, for the immediate vicinity that is based on the potential to exceed the
most stringent ambient air quality standards developed for the most sensitive individuals.
Additionally, no sensitive uses are proposed for the Project site. The Project’s CMP envisions
the Project as a mixed use center containing commercial, office, retail, and/or industrial land
uses; it does not include any residential or otherwise sensitive receptors. In the event that
sensitive receptors occur on the Project site, they would be subjected to GP EIR’s identified
Mitigation Measure 3-2 to reduce impacts. As the Project’s planned land uses are not sensitive
land uses, GP EIR Mitigation Measure 3-2 would not apply, and GP EIR Mitigation Measure 3-3
would be implemented by the Project in the event subsequent development components meet
the criteria of applicable land uses. In addition, mitigation measure MM AQ-4 will also be
implemented in the event that a gas station is developed on the Project site, to ensure any
impacts to sensitive populations from that use will be considered (WEBB-A1, p. 11). The
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 22
evaluation focuses on whether the Project would cause impacts that are greater than or different
from those disclosed and found to be significant and unavoidable. Since the Project is
consistent with the land uses analyzed in the GP EIR, and will incorporate Mitigation Measure 3-
3 as needed, operational Project emissions of NOx are reduced to less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD III.D: Less Than Significant Impact. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
General Plan EIR Summary
Future residential and commercial development associated with buildout of the GP would
involve minor odor-generating activities, such as lawn mower exhaust, application of exterior
paints for building improvement, and cooking odors (e.g., restaurants). However, unlike
industrial land uses, these land uses are not considered potential generators of odor that could
affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from
residential and commercial land uses associated with the GP are considered less than
significant.
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and
architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor
emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally, noxious odors would be
confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions
reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality
concern. Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the
drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. If an individual project under the GP
determined during its environmental review process that the project has the potential to emit
nuisance odors beyond the property line, that project would be required to comply with GP EIR
Mitigation Measure 3-4. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are
considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated (GP EIR, p. 5.3-22 and 5.3-27).
Project Impact Discussion
The human nose is the best means of determining the strength of an odor; however, not all
people are equally sensitive and they do not always agree about the severity of an odor once it
is detected. Therefore, precise documentation of the strength and nature of an odor is generally
unavailable.
It is anticipated that the major potential sources of odor from the proposed Project would occur
during construction, particularly from construction equipment exhaust. However, this impact
would occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site and short-term. The area
immediately surrounding the proposed Project site is dominated by vacant land to the north, a
storage facility to the south, the freeway to the east and Paloma Wash to the west.
Additionally, SCAQMD has developed a Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues
in General Plans and Local Planning that also outlines major common sources of odor
complaints, including sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and petroleum
refineries (SCAQMD 2005, p. 2-2). The Project is proposed to operate a mixed-use commercial
center, which does not include uses that are on SCAQMD’s list of facilities that are known to be
prone to generate odors. Consequently, the Project won’t expose substantial numbers of people
to objectionable odors, because the Project does not propose land uses that create emissions
that result in odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, odor-
related impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 23
Conditions of Approval
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project
include but are not limited to:
1. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC
content of architectural coatings used in the District
2. Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel). The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in
diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur
oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control
devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
3. Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires the implementation of best available dust
control measures (BACM) during active operations capable of generating fugitive
dust.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures from the GP EIR are applicable to the Project:
MM 3-3: New industrial or warehousing land uses that 1) have the potential to generate
100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-
powered transport refrigeration units (TRUs), and 2) are located within 1,000 feet of a
sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured
from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City Community Development Director
prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows
that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), the
appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM-10 or PM-2.5 ambient air
quality standard increment exceeds 2.5 µg/m3, the applicant will be required to identify
and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are
capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level,
including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not
limited to, restricting idling onsite or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel
particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs
identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental
document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
The following Project-specific mitigation measures related to air quality are relevant to the
Project:
MM AQ-1 Provide information to tenants encouraging trip reduction strategies such as ride
share, carpool, public transit, etc. The applicant shall submit documentation to
the City prior to occupancy.
MM AQ-2 Any facilities that include heavy-duty trucks shall post signs informing users of
requirements limiting idling to five minutes or less pursuant to Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section 2485. The City shall verify signage has
been installed prior to occupancy.
MM AQ-3 High efficiency lighting shall be installed at the Project site. Building plans shall
identify high efficiency lighting and shall be verified prior to occupancy.
MM AQ-4 As part of the land use application for any gasoline dispensing facility, a health
risk assessment (HRA) shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD Rule
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 24
1401 and submitted to the City of Menifee Community Development Director
prior to future discretionary development approval. The HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1401. If the HRA identifies health risk in excess
of applicable SCAQMD thresholds, mitigation measures shall be incorporated to
reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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
state or 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?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 25
Sources: CADRE-A, CADRE-B, CADRE-C, GP, GP EIR, MMC, MSHCP, RCA 2017, WEBB-B
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal OSC-8: Protected biological resources, especially sensitive and special status
wildlife species and their natural habitats.
o Policy OSC-8.1: Work to implement the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan in coordination with the Regional
Conservation Authority.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-8.4: Identify and inventory existing natural resources in the City of
Menifee.
o Policy OSC-8.5: Recognize the impacts new development will have on the City's
natural resources and identify ways to reduce these impacts.
o Policy OSC-8.8: Implement and follow MSHCP goals and policies when making
discretionary actions pursuant to Section 13 of the Implementing Agreement.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD IV.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
GP buildout has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to existing biological
resources. This discussion identifies potential impacts that could result from future development
at a programmatic level. Specific potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from individual
future development projects will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as they are submitted to
the City. Impacts that may occur as a result of project implementation vary according to future
proposed projects and include potential habitat loss and diminished habitat quality. Wherever
future projects are implemented, the following impacts have the potential to occur:
Direct loss of sensitive plants and/or communities from construction activities;
Direct loss of disturbance of sensitive wildlife species from construction activities;
Wildlife disturbance caused by the presence of humans, domestic animals, and vehicles
adjacent to directly impacted areas;
Artificial lighting that alters nocturnal wildlife activity;
Alterations in the natural landscape with the placement of impermeable surfaces;
Increased urban runoff, potentially containing herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, and
fertilizer required to maintain turf and landscaping; and
Increased habitat fragmentation with a potential corresponding decrease in species
diversity and abundance.
Proposed planning actions could result in the permanent loss of habitat and species by allowing
future development to occur. In addition, proposed planning actions have the potential to
produce indirect impacts that could adversely modify the composition and value of wildlife and
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 26
habitat adjacent to development areas. These impacts from future projects would need to be
analyzed on a case-by-case basis as such projects are submitted to the City.
As of December 2013, approximately 38 percent of the City’s land was vacant, with
approximately 34 percent developed with residential uses. Future proposed development
projects would be reviewed to ensure that sensitive species are protected and impacts to their
habitats are mitigated.
The City is a permittee of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) and must thereby comply with the Reserve Assembly provisions as well as the
provisions in Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.3.2, and 6.1.4 of the MSHCP for projects proposed within
the City. The implementation of the MSHCP at the project-specific level would minimize direct
and indirect species impacts of future projects proposed in accordance with the GP.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The MSHCP is a
habitat conservation plan (HCP) and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) of which
the City is a permittee. Therefore, implementation of the proposed GP would be subject to the
MSHCP. The City boundaries lie within the MSHCP Area and the southeastern portion of the
City is located in a criteria area, specifically within Criteria Cells 5066 and 5168 that contribute
to the Reserve Assembly for Proposed Core 2 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 17,
respectively. The GP land use designation within Criteria Cells 5066 and 5168 is RR2 – Rural
Residential 2-acre minimum, which permits single-family detached residences on large parcels
of two to five acres. Limited agriculture, intensive equestrian, and animal keeping uses are
expected and encouraged.
Per the MSHCP, projects proposed in the criteria area are subject to the JPR process through
the Regional Conservation Authority. Since the GP EIR is a programmatic level review, there
are no specific projects proposed that would require biological surveys needed for a JPR.
Instead, the City would ensure that future discretionary projects within the MSHCP area conduct
their own MSHCP consistency analyses. For projects specifically within the criteria area, the
City would submit a JPR that would assess how the project affects Reserve Assembly, and
other plan requirements of the MSHCP including Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species
Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool; Section 6.1.3, Protection of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species; Section 6.3.2, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures; and Section
6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface.
Additionally, payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and compliance with all
applicable requirements of the MSHCP provide full mitigation under CEQA, National
Environmental Policy Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered
Species Act for impacts to MSHCP-covered species and habitats. The MSHCP also addresses
indirect impacts through Cores and Linkages, Criteria Cells, and MSHCP fees. Impacts to
MSHCP-covered species would be potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure
4-1 was identified in the GP EIR to reduce impacts of the GP on special status species to less
than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.4-59 – 5.4-61).
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. The City is also subject to the
Stephen’s kangaroo rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). Implementation of the proposed
GP within the City boundaries would be subject to impact fees under the SKR HCP, which are
collected from new development pursuant to County Ordinance 663.10 within the SKR HCP
boundary and applied to a fund that helps to secure and maintain conserved areas (i.e. land
purchased or otherwise secured for this purpose). Payment of fees per the SKR HCP mitigates
for development impacts to the SKR for projects within the SKR HCP boundaries. Impacts
would be less than significant.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 27
Project Impact Discussion
To determine whether the Project will exceed this threshold, the following factors are
considered: whether listed species have been identified on or adjacent to the Project site,
whether the Project site contains habitat suitable for listed species, and whether the Project site
is located within a mapped area designated for focused surveys or other special conditions.
Cadre Environmental prepared both a general MSCHP Habitat Assessment/Compliance
Analysis dated September 4, 2019 (CADRE-A) and a Focused Burrowing Owl Survey dated
September 4, 2019 (CADRE-B) for this Project as shown on Figure 9 – Biological Study Area.
The findings of these reports are summarized below.
The proposed Project is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP.
The Project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area Cell, Group, or Linkage Area;
therefore, conservation of the Project site is not required pursuant to the MSHCP (CADRE-A, p.
1). The Project site does not occur within a predetermined MSHCP Survey Area for narrow
endemic or criteria area plant species (CADRE-A, p. 2). Likewise, the Project site does not
occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibians or mammals (CADRE-A, p. 2).
However, the Project site does occur completely within a predetermined Survey Area for
burrowing owl (BUOW) (CADRE-A, p. 2).
The entire Project site was surveyed on April 26, 2016, January 31, 2019 and August 20, 2019;
the two latter surveys include the offsite connection to Paloma Wash. During the site visits,
sensitive species or those habitats potentially supporting sensitive flora or fauna that would be
essential to efficiently implementing the terms and conditions of the MSHCP were sought.
The majority of the Project site is characterized as “non-native grassland/ruderal” (21.38 acres),
followed with 11.18 acres of “field croplands,” 3.9 acres of “disturbed” lands from recent disking
activities, 0.34 acre of “developed” lands (asphalt-paved portion of Holland Road),0.26 acre of
“agricultural ditch” and approximately 0.08 acre of the off-site Paloma Wash Channel connection
(CADRE-A, p. 9). The offsite connection is also characterized as disturbed/ruderal vegetation
that is primarily dominated by non-native invasive species. Representative distribution of these
habitat types are provided on Figure 10 – Onsite Plant Communities and in photographs
taken of the Project site on Figure 11 – Site Photos.
Animals identified during the Habitat Assessment by sight, call, tracks, nests, scat, remains, or
other signs were recorded in field notes. Table I – Animal Species Observed On-Site
identifies species documented onsite or within the vicinity during the site visit.
Table I – Animal Species Observed On-Site
Species Observed On-Site
Turkey vulture Killdeer European starling
Rock dove Northern mockingbird House sparrow
Mourning dove Black phoebe Western meadowlark
Western kingbird Cliff swallow House finch
California ground squirrel
Source: CADRE-A, p. 11
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 9 - Biological Study Area
Not to Scale
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
B
i
o
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
_
C
a
d
r
e
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
0
5
S
e
p
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
Source: MSHCP Habitat Assessment,
Cadre Environmental, Sept. 2019.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 10 - Onsite Plant Communities
Not to Scale
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
P
l
a
n
t
_
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
0
5
S
e
p
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
Source: MSHCP Habitat Assessment,
Cadre Environmental, Sept. 2019.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Ma
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
9
/
5
/
2
0
1
9
.
G
:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
S
i
t
e
_
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Photograph 1 - Northeast view of Project Site from southwest
corner near Holland Road and Haun Road intersection.
Figure 11 - Site Photos
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Photograph 2 - Northwest view of Project Site from southeast
corner.
Photograph 3 - Southward view of offsite Paloma Wash channel
Study Area
Photograph 4 - Southward view of existing southern tie-in
structure located within the Paloma Wash channel
Source: MSHCP Habitat Assessment,
Cadre Environmental, Sept. 2019.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 31
The Habitat Assessment noted an active red-tail hawk nest within a eucalyptus tree located
immediately adjacent to, and outside of, the southeast Project boundary. The Habitat
Assessment also noted that the vegetation documented onsite and in the offsite study area
represents potential habitat for ground-nesting bird species; however, this vegetation does not
represent suitable habitat for the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western
yellow-billed cuckoo (special-status species) (CADRE-A, p. 2). Therefore, no additional surveys
are required for these particular species (CADRE-A, p. 2).
The Habitat Assessment reported two sensitive bird species on the Project site (CADRE-A, p.
17). They are the grasshopper sparrow, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC), and the
California horned lark, a California Watch List species. The MSHCP has determined that all of
the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table
2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). In light of the
active raptor nest observed adjacent to the Project site, mitigation measure MM BIO-1 shall be
implemented to ensure potential direct/indirect impacts to common and sensitive passerine and
raptor species are reduced to a level below significance, as well as to comply with the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Suitable BUOW burrows potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented
adjacent to the Project site. In addition, foraging habitat was documented within and adjacent to
the Project site (CADRE-A, p. 18). Based on the presence of suitable foraging and nesting
habitat, and known occurrences of the species in close proximity to the Project site, focused
BUOW surveys were conducted in March 2017, April 2019 (for the offsite improvements only),
and August 2019 for the project site and offsite improvements by Cadre pursuant to the MSHCP
Survey Protocol (2006).3
Initial focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted in the spring of 2017; due to the time
lapse between that survey and the publication of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a new focused survey was conducted. Four BUOW focused surveys were
conducted in addition to the Habitat Assessment on August 20, 2019, as shown in Table J –
Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Schedule. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to
allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines
were no more than 20 meters (approximately 66 ft.) apart, and owing to the terrain, the distance
between transects were often much smaller. During visual surveys, all potentially suitable
burrow or structure entrances were investigated for signs of owl occupation, such as feathers,
tracks, or pellets, and carefully observed to determine if BUOWs utilize these features, when
present. All burrows were monitored at a short distance from the entrance, and at a location that
would not interfere with potential owl behavior, when present.
3 http://www.wrc-rca.org/mshcp-species-survey-protocols/
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 32
Table J – Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Schedule
Survey Date Conditions Results
1 August 20, 2019
68°F to 82°F
winds 2-10 mph
no rain
No owls on Project site
Pair of BUOW observed in Paloma Wash
north of offsite improvements
2 August 22, 2019
70°F to 88°F
winds 4-8 mph
no rain
Same as 9/20/19
3 August 27, 2019
70°F to 86°F
winds 2-8 mph
no rain
Same as 9/20/19
4 August 29, 2019
72°F to 90°F
winds 2-8 mph
no rain
Same as 9/20/19
Source: Table 1 of CADRE-B, p. 6; Attachment D – Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map, p. 14
The results of the BUOW focused surveys indicate that no characteristic signs of BUOWs were
found on the Project site, such as white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets (CADRE-B, p. 8). Two
pair of BUOW were documented by Cadre in Paloma Wash, north of the Project’s offsite
improvement area (CADRE-B, p.2). Mitigation measure MM BIO-2 shall be implemented to
reduce potential impacts to BUOW and other ground-nesting bird species that may colonize the
site prior to the start of construction.
Project compliance with the MSHCP and GP EIR mitigation measure 4-1, all relevant
regulations, and Conditions of Approval, and the incorporation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 will
reduce potential impacts to special-status wildlife species to less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
THRESHOLD IV.B: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
GP buildout could have the following impacts to sensitive riparian habitats:
Direct loss of sensitive plants and/or communities from construction activities;
Alterations in the natural landscape with the placement of impermeable surfaces;
Increased urban runoff, potentially containing herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers;
Increased habitat fragmentation with a potential corresponding decrease in species
diversity and abundance.
It is expected that all of the drainages depicted on Figure 5.4-7 of the GP EIR would be
considered jurisdictional to state and federal agencies, requiring impacts to be mitigated through
the regulatory permitting processes.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 33
The drainages in the City are primarily ephemeral and unvegetated which would be considered
riverine resources per the MSHCP. The east–west channel (Drainage 1 on GP EIR Figure 5.4-
7) supports riparian vegetation just upstream of its confluence with Canyon Lake. Riparian scrub
and riparian woodland occur in isolated patches within the other drainages in the southern
portion of the City. Future development projects that affect these riparian resources would be
required to comply with the requirements of Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and prepare a
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) that would outline
the mitigation to reduce impacts. The mitigation measures are required to be biologically
equivalent or superior to existing conditions. Project applicants must obtain the necessary
permits from the RWQCB, the USACE, and CDFW. Riparian habitat impacts would be
significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure 4-2 of the GP EIR was identified to reduce
impacts of the GP on riparian habitat to less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.4-61).
Project Impact Discussion
Onsite plant communities are depicted on Figure 10, above. No sensitive plant communities
were documented onsite or within the offsite Paloma Wash (CADRE-A, p. 17). A sensitive plant
species, Smooth tarplant, was documented within the offsite improvement area. However, the
Project site nor the offsite area are located within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP
criteria area plant species. Thus, focused surveys and/or conservation are not required
(CADRE-A, p. 20). Riparian,4 riverine,5 and vernal pool6 habitat communities are afforded
special protections by the RWQCB, CDFW, and/or USACE. The MSHCP also provides a
process for protection of certain aquatic resources to ensure that the biological functions and
values of these areas are maintained such that habitat values for species inside the MSHCP
conservation area are maintained (i.e. MSHCP Section 6.1.2). The Old Paloma Wash, Caltrans
Ditch, and Paloma Wash are considered MSHCP riverine resources, as well as within the
regulatory jurisdiction of the RWQCB, CDFW and USACE, as discussed below.
A Jurisdictional Delineation Report prepared by Albert A. WEBB dated April 2019 (WEBB-B)
was prepared for the Project sight to determine the potential for jurisdictional features. Old
Paloma Wash, located on the southern portion of the Project site, has been previously
delineated as a potentially jurisdictional feature as part of the Holland Road/I-215 Overcrossing.
That project’s jurisdictional delineation is included in Appendix B of WEBB-B. Regulatory
permitting for impacts to Old Paloma Wash and a portion of the Caltrans Ditch will be done
separate from this Project as part of the development of the Overpass Project. As a Project
Design Feature, Old Paloma Wash and the Caltrans Ditch (located on the east side of the
Project) will be avoided by this Project and no further analysis is needed.
The Paloma Wash and the northerly segment of the Caltrans Ditch have also been delineated
as potentially jurisdictional features. One component of the Project includes construction of a
new storm drain connection from the Project site to the Paloma Wash that will result in
permanent and temporary impacts over an area of 0.08 acre (3,485 SF). Implementation of
mitigation measure MM BIO-3 requires the Project applicant to obtain the appropriate permits
for impacts to potentially jurisdictional aquatic features. If mitigation is required by the regulatory
agencies for said impacts, then mitigation will be negotiated but may consist of an in-lieu fee
payment to an authorized mitigation bank (with a preference for the funds to be used for in-
4 Riparian: Habitats which occur close to or depend on soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source and may
support riparian species.
5 Riverine: Unvegetated, ephemeral channels that transport water supporting downstream resources.
6 Vernal pool: Seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three
parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack
wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 34
watershed rehabilitation or enhancement work in a similar feature as the one impacted by the
Project).
Project compliance with all necessary regulations, the Project Design Feature as described
above, GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-2, the Conditions of Approval issued by the City, and
incorporation of MM BIO-3 will reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitats to less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD IV.C: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Have a
substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
General Plan EIR Summary
Potential development under the GP that may impact protected wetlands includes future private
development, roads, or public facilities projects in and/or adjacent to sensitive habitats, including
southern cottonwood/willow riparian, riparian scrub, open water/reservoir/pond, coast live oak
woodland, and riversidean sage scrub.
Most of the drainages in the City are considered waters of the State under RWQCB jurisdiction.
Drainages in the City as well as riparian vegetation associated with drainages are considered
CDFW jurisdictional streambeds. Both Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore have been determined
by the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be traditional navigable
waters and are under USACE jurisdiction. Any tributaries that have a significant link to Canyon
Lake or Lake Elsinore would also fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE as waters of the U.S.
Future development projects that would directly or indirectly impact these drainages and/or
tributaries would be required to obtain permits from the applicable agencies.
The drainages within the City are primarily ephemeral and unvegetated. However, the east-west
channel (Drainage 1 of GP EIR Figure 5.4-7) supports riparian vegetation just upstream of its
confluence with Canyon Lakes. It is expected that over time, if additional drainage occurs within
these drainages, that more riparian vegetation would occur, requiring mitigation (through the
regulatory permitting process and MSHCP) if impacts occur. Riparian scrub and riparian
woodland occur in isolated patches within the drainages in the southern portion of the City and
may also be included in required mitigation.
If development is in wetland areas, state and federal laws and regulations would be
implemented to protect resources from development through the USACE Section 404 permitting
process, the California Wetlands Conservation Policy, and compliance with applicable MSHCP
policies. The California Wetlands Conservation Policy is intended to ensure no net loss of
wetlands occurs within the State.
Additionally, wetlands are protected under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, which outlines the
requirements and protection of riparian areas and/or vernal pools. Future development projects
would comply with conditions of any required permits from RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW, and
provisions of the MSHCP. Jurisdictional water impacts would be significant without mitigation.
Mitigation Measure 4-2 identified in the GP EIR was identified to reduce impacts of the GP on
riparian habitat to less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.4-61 – 5.4-62).
Project Impact Discussion
A MSCHP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) was
prepared by Cadre Environmental dated April 2019 (referenced as CADRE-C) for the Project. A
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 35
draft of that report was provided to the CDFW and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS) to review and comment. The DBESP findings are summarized below.
The Project site does not contain features exhibiting wetland indicators (i.e., wetland hydrology,
vegetation, or soils) (WEBB-B, p. 21). Likewise, the Project site does not contain a seasonal
depression or vernal pool (CADRE-A, p. 19). Old Paloma Wash located outside the southern
boundary of the Project, and the Caltrans Ditch along the eastern boundary of the Project will be
avoided by the Project as shown on Figure 5 and no impacts to these features will occur. The
Project will impact Paloma Wash during construction of the storm drain outfall structure along
the easterly bank, consisting of a total area of 0.08 acre. Mitigation measure MM BIO-3 shall be
implemented which requires the Project applicant to obtain the appropriate permits for impacts
to potentially jurisdictional aquatic features. If mitigation is required by the regulatory agencies
for said impacts, then mitigation will be negotiated but may consist of an in-lieu fee payment to
an authorized mitigation bank (with a preference for the funds to be used for in-watershed
rehabilitation or enhancement work in a similar feature as the one impacted by the Project).
As previously mentioned, the Project will not connect to the Caltrans Ditch located just to the
east of the site. This ditch is potentially jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies. However, it is
unknown at this time whether the future specific development on the six parcels would
completely avoid the Caltrans Ditch. Should the owner/developer of each parcel decide to
connect their individual storm drain system to the Caltrans Ditch, then mitigation measure MM
BIO-4 requires preparation of a DBESP Report for impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine
resources which will describe the mitigation needed for future projects to meet the criteria of
biologically equivalent or superior preservation. MM BIO-3 would also require authorizations
from the regulatory agencies, as needed. Additional mitigation by the regulatory agencies will be
negotiated but may be required of each applicant that impacts the Caltrans Ditch in order to
issue the authorizations. Therefore, through compliance with applicable regulations which
includes MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4, GP EIR mitigation measure 4-2, and Conditions of Approval
issued by the City, potential impacts to state or federally protected wetlands and waterways,
including waters of the State and waters of the U.S., are less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
THRESHOLD IV.D: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Any proposed project considered for approval according to the GP would be subject to the
MSHCP. As shown on Figure 5.4-3 in the GP EIR, Proposed Core 2 and Proposed Constrained
Linkage 17 traverse the southeastern portion of the City boundary. As projects are proposed in
the City, an evaluation would be performed of how the project might contribute to or conflict with
assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with reserve configuration requirements.
Overall buildout of the GP would affect wildlife movement. However, the majority of the City is
not located within designated or known wildlife corridors or movement areas. A portion of
Proposed Constrained Linkage 17, located in the southeastern portion of the City, is intended to
provide a movement corridor for species. Per the MSHCP, projects proposed in the Criteria
Area are subject to the Joint Power Review (JPR) process through the Regional Conservation
Authority. For projects specifically within Criteria Area, the City would submit a JPR that would
assess how the project affects Reserve Assembly and other plan requirements. Consistency
with the MSHCP will ensure that areas needed to provide a linkage or core for wildlife
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 36
movement are conserved and that the project complies with the Reserve Assembly of the
MSHCP. Migratory wildlife corridor impacts would not be significant (GP EIR, p. 5.4-62).
Project Impact Discussion
The Habitat Assessment prepared by Cadre determined that the Project site does not represent
a wildlife travel route, wildlife crossing, or regional movement corridor between large open
space habitats due to the proximity of busy roads, and developed, and disturbed lands. Also,
the Project site is not located within a MSHCP-designated core, extension of existing core, non-
contiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area (CADRE-A, p. 13). Further, the
Project site is not located adjacent to extensive native open space. The Project site is bordered
by Haun Road to the west, the I-215 to the east, a vacant field followed by multi-use
development to the north. The southern boundary is bounded by Holland Road, industrial
development and undeveloped disturbed lands as reflected on Figure 9. Given that the Project
site is located in an urbanized area surrounded by development, impacts to wildlife movement
will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD IV.E: Less Than Significant Impact. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
General Plan EIR Summary
Development projects may require removal of mature trees that may impact nesting birds. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and
importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession,
import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a
valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with MBTA regulations.
Projects would be required to comply with mitigation measures 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 as identified in
the GP EIR (GP EIR, pp. 5.4-62 – 5.4-63, 5.4-65 – 5.4-66).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project site and offsite Paloma Wash is vacant and dominated by non-native
grassland/ruderal, field croplands, and developed/disturbed habitats. There are no oak or
mature trees documented within or adjacent to the Project site (CADRE-A, p. 17). Therefore, the
proposed Project will not involve the removal of a “Heritage Tree” as defined in the City’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance (MMC, Chapter 9.200). Consequently, the Project will not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
THRESHOLD IV.F: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
General Plan EIR Summary
Refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold IV.A and IV.E.
Project Impact Discussion
The Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) establishes a mechanism
for the long-term conservation of the species. Potential impacts to the SKR are mitigated on a
regional basis through compliance with the SKR HCP. The Project site is located within the Fee
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 37
Area boundary of the SKR HCP and the Project applicant will pay all applicable fees pursuant to
County Ordinance 663.10 to mitigate potential impacts to this species. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with the SKR HCP and no mitigation is required.
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The
Project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP; however, it
is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area. This means that the Project site is not in an area
contemplated to be set aside for conservation. Therefore, the Project site is not subject to the
Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) or Joint Project Review (JPR)
process (CADRE-A, p. 1). The closest Criteria Cell is Cell No. 5066, which is located
approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project will be required to pay the
MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee as established and implemented by the City.
In accordance with the MSHCP, the proposed Project was also reviewed for consistency with
the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and
Vernal Pool), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4
(Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey
Needs and Procedures), and Section 6.4 (Fuels Management). The Project’s consistency with
each of these sections is discussed below.
MSHCP Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools. Riparian/Riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or which depend
upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or
a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that
have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soil, vegetation, and hydrology) during the
wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or
vegetation during the drier portions of the growing season.
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires habitat assessments (and focused surveys where suitable
habitat is present) for riparian bird species with MSHCP survey requirements, including the least
Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo.
No suitable habitat for the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-
billed cuckoo was detected within or adjacent to the Project site, including the offsite Paloma
Wash (CADRE-A, pp. 2-3). The Old Paloma Wash, Caltrans Ditch, and Paloma Wash are
MSHCP riverine resources. Because the Project will impact Paloma Wash for construction of a
storm drain outfall structure (0.08 acre), the DBESP report was prepared and it outlines
proposed mitigation to the regulatory agencies for said impact that is anticipated to meet the
biologically equivalent or superior alternative criteria to comply with the MSHCP Section 6.1.2
(CADRE-C). Mitigation measure BIO-3 shall be implemented which requires the Project
applicant to obtain the appropriate permits for impacts to potentially jurisdictional aquatic
features. Should subsequent development of the six onsite parcels propose impacts to any of
the drainage features described herein, jurisdictional and MSHCP riverine resources may be
impacted. Mitigation measure MM BIO-4 will require that a DBESP is prepared for potential
riverine impacts. With incorporation of MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4, the proposed Project is
consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.
MSHCP Section 6.1.3: Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Under MSHCP
Section 6.1.3, site-specific focused surveys for narrow endemic plant species are required
where appropriate or suitable habitat is present within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Area (NEPSSA). The Project site is not within a predetermined NEPSSA Survey Area;
therefore, no additional surveys are warranted. Consequently, the Project is consistent with
MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 38
MSHCP Section 6.1.4: Guidelines Pertaining to Urban Wildlands Interface. Section 6.1.4
outlines policies intended to minimize the indirect effects associated with locating development
in close proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize these indirect effects,
guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP shall be implemented in conjunction with the review of
individual public and private development projects that are located in proximity to the MSHCP
Conservation Area. The review of such implementing development and infrastructure projects is
required to address drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive species, barriers, and grading/land
development.
The proposed Project site is located over 2.7 miles to the northwest of the closest Criteria Cell
and is separated from this cell by a variety of existing residential, commercial, and industrial
uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with MSHCP Section
6.1.4 and no mitigation is proposed.
MSHCP Section 6.3.2: Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires
additional surveys for certain species if a project is located within areas that have been
identified as having suitable habitat for particularly vulnerable species. The Project site is not
located within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP criteria area plant species, amphibians
or mammals; therefore, no additional surveys are required for plant, amphibian or mammal
species (CADRE-C, p. 18).
The entirety of the Project site occurs within a predetermined Survey Area for BUOW, and
suitable BUOW habitats were identified during the Habitat Assessment conducted by Cadre
initially on April 26, 2016 and subsequently updated on August 20, 2019 (CADRE-A, p. 7). As
discussed above, focused BUOW surveys were performed at the site on three occasions,
consistent with MSHCP approved methodology (CADRE-B). No BUOW or characteristic signs
were detected on Project site during any of the surveys; however, a pair of BUOW were
observed north of the proposed offsite improvements to Paloma Wash in August 2019, during
these focused survey efforts (CADRE-B, p. 2). Mitigation measure MM BIO-2, which requires
30-day preconstruction surveys for BUOWs, will be implemented to reduce impacts to less than
significant. Therefore, the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
MSHCP Section 6.4: Fuels Management. Section 6.4 of the MSHCP focuses on hazard
reduction for human safety in a manner compatible with public safety and conservation of
biological resources. According to the Fuels Management Guidelines of the MSHCP, new
development that is planned adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, or other undeveloped
areas, shall incorporate brush management within the development boundaries and shall not
encroach into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The proposed Project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP
Conservation Area (CADRE-A, p. 21). Therefore, the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section
6.4 and no mitigation is required.
In sum, the proposed Project is consistent with MSHCP Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.4.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-2 to reduce impacts to BUOW to less than
significant, the proposed Project will be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2. With
implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4 to reduce impacts to
biological resources to less than significant, the proposed Project will be consistent with MSHCP
Section 6.1.2.The Project will also implement GP EIR Mitigation Measures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4,
and 4-5. The Project applicant will pay the SKR HCP fees as required to be consistent with this
plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of
the MSHCP or SKR HCP and impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 39
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the GP EIR are applicable to the Project (the Project
has already complied with mitigation measures MM 4-1 and MM 4-2):
MM 4-1: Prior to project approvals, project applicants shall have a habitat assessment
prepared by a qualified biologist for projects on undeveloped sites. The habitat
assessment report shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Community Development
Department prior to project approvals.
o If the findings of the habitat assessment show no sensitive species or suitable
habitat occur on site, then no additional surveys or mitigation measures are
required.
o If the potential for sensitive species exist or suitable habitat exists on site,
focused surveys or mitigation, if identified in the habitat assessment, shall be
completed. Focused surveys conducted in the appropriate season for each
species, as identified in the habitat assessment report, shall be conducted to
determine presence/absence status.
o If no sensitive species are identified through focused surveys, then no additional
surveys or mitigation measures are required.
o If suitable habitat for federal- or state-listed species, or if federal- or state-listed
species are identified on the site, then the biologist conducting the habitat
assessments shall recommend measures to avoid impacts to the affected
species or provide compensatory mitigation for such impacts.
o If suitable habitat for federal- or state-listed species, or if federal- or state-listed
species are identified on the site, then the project applicant must consult with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife regarding avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts to those species.
MM 4-2: Prior to project approvals, project applicants shall have the project site
assessed for potential jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and/or riparian habitat by a
professional biologist qualified to conduct jurisdictional delineations.
o If potential jurisdictional area is identified on the project site, the applicant shall
have a full jurisdictional delineation completed by a qualified professional. The
findings of the delineation shall be presented in a report. The qualified
professional shall recommend mitigation measures in the report for avoiding, or
compensating for, impacts to waters, wetlands, and riparian habitats.
Jurisdictional delineation reports shall be presented to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board or San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or California Department of Fish and
Wildlife for concurrence. Mitigation measures for impacts to jurisdictional waters,
wetlands, and riparian habitat shall be determined by those agencies.
MM 4-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for private development projects or
prior to construction for public agency contracts, during the nesting season, February 1
to August 31, a preconstruction/pre-grading field survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to determine if active nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) or the California Fish and Wildlife Code are present in the
construction zone.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 40
o If active nests are not located within the project area an appropriate buffer shall
be established (i.e., 500 foot radius of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300
foot for other sensitive or protected bird nests (non-listed), or 100 foot for
sensitive or protected songbird nests). Construction may be conducted during the
nesting/breeding season outside the buffer.
o If active nests are located during the pre-activity field survey, no grading or heavy
equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed
species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected species under
MBTA or California Fish and Wildlife Code, bird nests (non-listed), or within 100
feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active
MM 4-4: Within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities,
projects within the mapped Burrowing Owl survey area shall have a preconstruction
survey for resident Burrowing Owls conducted by a qualified biologist. These surveys
shall be required, in addition to the habitat assessment and focused surveys that would
be required under Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. If ground-disturbing activities in these
areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey,
the area shall be resurveyed for owls. Take of active nests shall be avoided. The
preconstruction survey and any relocation activity shall be conducted in accordance with
MSHCP instructions and/or guidelines and coordinated with the Regional Conservation
Authority following accepted protocols.
MM 4-5: The City shall continue to participate in the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan including collection of mitigation fees for future projects.
The following Project-specific mitigation measures related to biological resources are relevant to
the Project:
MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, for any construction
to take place between February 1st and September 15th, a qualified biologist
shall be retained and required to conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than
three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence
of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (within 100 feet) to the Project Site.
Construction beginning outside the nesting season (between September 16th
and January 31st) does not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. A report of
the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of
Menifee for review and approval prior to construction that has the potential to
disturb any active nests during the nesting season. Any nest permanently
vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the MBTA.
The nesting bird survey(s) shall focus on identifying any passerine or raptor nests
that would be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active
nests are documented, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. A
minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction
until the young have fledged, depending on the species and location. The
perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated
with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and
activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying
that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be
submitted to the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to initiation of
grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 41
construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near
active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
MM BIO-2 Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than
30 days prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for the
burrowing owl and compliance with the conservation goals outlined in the
MSHCP. The survey will be conducted in compliance with both MSHCP and
CDFW guidelines. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall
be submitted to the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to any permit or
construction activities. If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the 30-day
preconstruction survey, and if it also occurs during the breeding season
(February 1st to August 31st), then construction activities shall be limited to no
more than 300 feet from active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed
that nesting efforts are completed or not initiated. In addition to monitoring
breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding
season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl mitigation plan will be
developed based on CDFW and USFWS requirements for the relocation of
individuals to the Lake Mathews Preserve, or as determined by the above-noted
wildlife agencies.
MM BIO-3 Regulatory Permits. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, implementing project
shall obtain and provide to the City, authorizations for impacts to jurisdictional
areas regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Sections 401 of Clean Water
Act), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act),
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1600 of California Fish
and Game Code). Permits shall include measures to replace any vegetation
removed during construction that is affiliated with the jurisdictional area. If these
regulatory agencies determine that a permit is not needed, evidence of that
finding shall also be provided to the City.
MM BIO-4 DBESP. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, any implementing projects
requiring improvements that include storm drain connections to the Caltrans
Ditch, shall prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior
Preservation (DBESP) report to determine the jurisdictional limits of the ditch as
well as required mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional areas regulated by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Sections 401 of Clean Water Act), Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1600 of California Fish and Game
Code).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 42
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: AE-A, GP EIR
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal OSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and
integrated into the City's built environment.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-5.3: Preserve sacred sites identified by the Pechanga Band of
Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, such as tribal burial
grounds, by avoiding activities that would negatively impact the sites.
o 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
THRESHOLD V.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
General Plan EIR Summary
Historic structures and sites that are eligible for National Register of Historic Resources listing
may be vulnerable to development activities associated with buildout of the proposed Land Use
Plan. Table 5.5-1 in the GP EIR lists two historic sites that would be eligible for listing on a
historic register. In addition, other structures that could meet the National Register criteria upon
reaching 50 years of age might be impacted by development activity. Three structures in
Romoland over 50 years old are listed on GP EIR Table 5.5-1. Structures in Quail Valley and
Sun City are reaching 50 years or more of age and qualify for consideration as historical
resources. As examples of community planning, they may have local or regional importance. At
the time development or redevelopment projects are proposed, the project-level CEQA
document would need to identify any impacts to known or potential historic sites and structures.
The CEQA Guidelines require a project that will have potentially adverse impacts on historical
resources to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. Historical Resource impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.5-15).
Project Impact Discussion
A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project by Applied
Earthworks dated April 2019 (AE-A). A cultural resources literature and records search were
conducted on May 4, 2016 to determine whether any prehistoric or historic-period resources
had been previously recorded within or near the Project’s 43-acre Area of Potential Effects
(APE) (AE-A, pp. 1 and 37; see Figure 1-2 on p. 3 for Project APE). The scope of the records
search included the Project APE and all the land within a one-mile radius of the Project APE.
Results of this search indicate that no less than 69 cultural resource investigations have been
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 43
conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project APE between 1965 and 2013. One of these
studies, which was completed by CRM Tech in 2007 (RI-07293), involved 100 percent of the
overall Project APE. As a result of these and other similar studies, 21 cultural resources have
been documented within a one-mile radius of the Project APE.
The vast majority of these are prehistoric sites ranging from isolated bedrock outcrops with
milling features (occasionally associated with sparse lithic scatters) to complex residential sites
with middens containing a variety of artifact types, bedrock milling features, and panels of rock
art; these sites invariably occur around the isolated bedrock outcrops, rocky knolls, ridgelines,
inselbergs, and adjacent drainages to the south of the Project APE. Other resources recorded
previously within one-mile of the Project APE include a discontinuous rock wall of unknown age
and function and a historical ranch complex dating to 1907. No cultural resources have been
previously identified, and no other eligible historic properties or landmarks have been recorded
or listed within the boundaries of the Project APE or within a one-mile radius of the Project APE
(AE-A, p. 37).
Historical maps consulted during the cultural resource literature and records search by AE
include the General Land Office survey plat map for Township 6 South/Range 3 West (1860),
Elsinore, CA 30' USGS topographic quadrangle (1901), Murrieta, CA 15' USGS topographic
quadrangle (1942), and the Romoland, CA 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle (1953). In
addition, historical aerial photographs dating back to 1938 were examined to obtain information
on historical land use practices. Examination of historical aerial photographs indicates that
portions of the Project APE were under cultivation as early as 1938. Although no historic period
structures or other features of historical interest are shown within the Project APE, a
channelized drainage is depicted on historical maps and photographs running immediately east
of the Project APE (AE-A, pp. 37, 50).
A cultural resource pedestrian survey of the Project APE was performed by AE on April 29,
2016 and of the offsite connection on February 7, 2019. The Project APE was found to consist
of a gently undulating, open agricultural field that has been allowed to go fallow. The pedestrian
survey was completed using parallel north-south running transects spaced at approximate 39-
50 foot (12-15 meter) intervals. Ground surface visibility varied between the periphery and
central areas of the site. The periphery (approximately 20-25 percent of the Project APE) had
excellent ground surface visibility (90-100 percent ground surface visible) due to recent plowing.
However, the central portions of the Project APE had not been plowed recently and therefore
had poor to moderate ground surface visibility (20-60 percent of ground surface visible).
Agricultural activities appear to have disturbed the upper layer of native sediment throughout the
Project APE. Other man-made disturbances noted during the pedestrian survey include the
installation of underground utilities (Verizon) along the southern and western boundaries of the
Project APE and an above-ground power transmission line has been constructed along the
eastern boundary and eastern half of the southern boundary. Further, what appears to be an
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) monitoring well has been constructed along the
southern edge of the creek drainage at the southeastern corner of the Project APE. Finally, piles
and scatters of modern refuse and construction debris are prevalent along the southern and
western boundaries near the edges of Holland and Haun Roads, respectively (AE-A, pp. 47-50).
For the offsite connection, a supplemental survey conducted by AE on February 7, 2019, found
that the additional acres added to the Project APE (the storm drain connection to Paloma
Wash), is currently a constructed, graded drainage with bike and walking paths on both the east
and west sides of the drainage. The area is entirely disturbed and there is little potential for
archaeological resources. No cultural resources were identified during the supplemental survey
(AE-A, p. 50).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 44
No prehistoric or historical cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey of the
Project APE. Furthermore, extant geological data indicates that the surface soils within the
Project APE are characterized by Pleistocene-aged deposits that have remained relatively
stable for millennia, and that predate human entrance into the area by several thousand years.
As such, the likelihood of finding intact subsurface archaeological deposits within the Project
APE is minimal (AE-A, p. 50).
No prehistoric or historical cultural resources were identified during preparation of the
Assessment. Moreover, it is unlikely that intact subsurface archaeological remains are present
within the Project APE. The parcel has been disturbed extensively by agricultural activities (i.e.,
plowing/disking) and by installation of underground utilities, a transmission line, and a
monitoring well. The off-site improvement area (covered in the supplemental survey) is entirely
disturbed and currently a constructed, graded drainage with bike and walking paths on both the
east and west sides of the drainage. Further, the geological setting indicates that the Project
APE is considered to have a low sensitivity to contain any intact archaeological deposits in
subsurface contexts. Therefore, no further cultural resource management of the Project APE is
recommended by AE (AE-A, p. 51). Through compliance with all applicable regulations and
Conditions of Approval from the City, the Project’s impacts to historical resources are less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD V.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
General Plan EIR Summary
There are over 250 historical resources (prehistoric, historic archaeological, and historical
structures and sites) within the City boundaries. Thus, the potential to uncover significant
archaeological resources within the City during development activities is considered high. This
finding is based on previous finds and the following:
Many archaeological and historical surveys have been conducted within the City;
however, the entire area has not been investigated for cultural resources;
The increase in development and the subsurface grading that ensues would have an
adverse impact to unknown archaeological sites and features. Several sites and isolated
artifacts already have been recorded where previously surface investigations did not
reveal cultural resources. It is anticipated that buried prehistoric sites that date 8,000 to
3,000 years ago also may be found within the City boundaries. Ancient alluvium
sediments could contain very early prehistoric sites;
Professional standards for archaeological and historical resource documentation,
recordation, and interpretation have improved and will continue to improve. Early
archaeological reports did not conduct many of the analyses that are considered
standard today, such as faunal, soils, geomorphology, and palynology studies. New
techniques for dating will reveal new facts about the prehistory of the area.
The entire City is considered sensitive for archaeological resources. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-4 identified in the GP EIR would reduce impacts to less than
significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.5-15 – 5.5-17).
Project Impact Discussion
As a means to evaluate the potential for any archaeological resources that might be known to
local Native American Tribes and not reported in the Eastern Information Center (EIC) records
search, AE also requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the Native American
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 45
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The results of this search indicate that there are no documented
Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project APE listed in the SLF (AE-A, p.
44).
By request of the NAHC , 35 different Native American individuals and organizations were
contacted by AE on May 5, 2016 (with follow-up attempts on May 23, 2016 and May 27, 2016)
to elicit information on Native American resources within the Project APE (AE, p. 44). As of
June 3, 2016, eight responses have been received and their responses are summarized below
(AE-A, pp. 45-46):
Mr. Joseph Ontiveros of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (Soboba) requested: 1)
consultation be initiated between the Project proponent and the lead agency; 2) a
transfer of information to the Soboba regarding the progress of the Project; 3) that
Soboba act as a consulting tribal entity for the Project; 4) that a Native American monitor
be present during any ground disturbing activities; and 5) proper procedures be taken
and the request of the Tribe honored7.
Ms. Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), stated that although the Project APE was not located
within the boundaries of the ACBCI, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area; the
ACBCI stated that they would defer to the Soboba.
Mr. Terry Hughes, Tribal Administrator for the Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
stated that he would defer to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians who are closer to the
Project APE.
Mr. Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator for the Torres-Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians stated that he would defer to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians who
are closer to the Project APE.
The Rincon Band of Mission Indians noted that the Project is not within Rincon’s historic
boundaries and deferred to the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians or the Soboba Band
of Luiseño Indians.
Ms. Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,
stated that the Project is located outside of Tribe’s current reservation boundaries, but
within an area that may be considered a Traditional Use Area. She had no specific
archival information indicating that the Project APE may be a sacred/religious site or
other site of Native American traditional cultural value. However, the Tribe recommends
there be an archaeologist on-site during all ground-disturbing activities to monitor for
unanticipated discoveries.
Ms. Denisa Torres, Cultural Resource Manager for the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians, stated that the Tribe had no concerns regarding the Project.
Mr. Charles Devers, Cultural Committee for the Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians, noted
that the Tribe was not aware of any cultural resources within the area. He requested
subsurface investigations be conducted to ensure that buried archaeological remains
would not be impacted by the Project. In addition, he requested that the Pauma Band of
Luiseño Indians should be contacted if any archaeological remains were identified during
Project construction.
7 All responses are included in an appendix of AE-A, except for the response letter from the Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians, who requests that their response be summarized in the report and not included in the appendix
due to the confidential nature of the letter (AE-A, p. 45).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 46
Details regarding AB 52 consultation is contained in the Tribal Cultural Resources Section of
this MND. Because no archaeological resources were identified from the records searches and
the field survey as identified in the Assessment, and that the disturbed conditions at the site and
geological setting make it unlikely that intact subsurface archaeological remains are present on
the Project site, impacts to archaeological resources are not expected.
However, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the
Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians have made specific requests in regard to the Project, as
outlined above. (AE-A, p. 50). As such, standard Conditions of Approval have been
incorporated into the Project to address the Tribe’s concerns. The Pechanga Band of Mission
Indians engaged in government-to-government consultation through the AB52 process as
outlined in the Tribal Cultural section of this MND.
GP Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-4 identified in the General Plan EIR generally require
preparation of cultural resources investigations and consultation with Native American tribes.
Preparation of additional investigations and NAHC consultation have already been conducted
for the Project, and the results have been incorporated into this analysis. Although it has been
determined that the potential for archaeological deposits to exist at the Project site is low, the
City will apply Standard Conditions of Approval 1 through 8 to the Project to ensure that no
significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur as a result of the Project.
Through compliance with applicable regulations and Conditions of Approval from the City,
Project implementation will have a less than significant impact to the significance of an
archaeological resource.
THRESHOLD V.C: Less Than Significant Impact. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
General Plan EIR Summary
Long-term implementation of the GP would allow development and redevelopment, including
grading, of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal
cemeteries. Existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities.
In addition, review and protection are afforded by CEQA for projects subject to discretionary
action, particularly for activities that could potentially disturb human remains. State Bill 18
requires consultation regarding Native American sites and artifacts, but the potential for project-
level impacts to unidentified and unrecorded tribal cultural places remains moderate to high.
The excavation and grading activities of the Project could result in impacts to human remains.
However, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, mandates the process to be followed in the
event of a discovery of any human remains. Impacts to human remains would be less than
significant (GP EIR, p. 5.5-17).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project APE has been historically used for agriculture and therefore, is not expected to
contain human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Due to the lack of
any indication of a formal cemetery or informal family burial plot, development within the Project
APE will have no impact on known human remains.
In the unlikely event that suspected human remains are uncovered during construction, all
activities in the vicinity of the remains shall cease and the contractor shall notify the County
Coroner immediately pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5, California
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Project standard City of Menifee Conditions of
Approval incorporated herein. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with applicable
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 47
regulations and Conditions of Approval. Consequently, impacts to human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries, will be less than significant.
Conditions of Approval
The following standard cultural conditions of approval are applicable to the Project:
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 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.
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).
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
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 48
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) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner
and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the
archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City
Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development
Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources,
recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural
and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director
shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.”
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.
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
5. 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 49
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.
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 resource evaluation.
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
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 50
or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in
coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
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.
Prior to Final Occupancy
8. Archaeology 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 of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be
submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).
Mitigation Measures
None. As discussed in the analysis above, all mitigation measures from the City’s GP EIR have
been compiled and are included as conditions of approval.
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
A. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
B. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Sources: CARB 2017, CDTFA-D, CDTFA-G, CEC SCE, CEC SCG, CGR 2016, GP EIR,
SCAQMD CEQA, WEBB-A1, and WEBB-A2
Applicable General Plan Policies
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 51
Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy
and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations.
o Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use,
transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design.
o Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate
alternative systems of energy production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell.
o Policy OSC-4.3: Advocate for cost-effective and reliable production and delivery
of electrical power to residents and businesses throughout the community.
Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and
particulate matter.
o 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.
Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing
climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.
o Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent
with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction
initiatives.
o Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of
policies, strategies, and projects.
Goal C-1: A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents,
employees, and visitors to the City of Menifee.
o Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve
resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Goal C-4: Diversified local transportation options that include neighborhood electric
vehicles and golf carts.
o Policy C-4.1: Encourage the use of neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts
instead of automobiles for local trips.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD VI.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Result in
potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
General Plan EIR Summary
This threshold question discussion was omitted from the GP EIR. However, the GP EIR did
discuss energy conservation within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section. The City’s GP
includes policies and measures (GP EIR, Table 5.7-9) for the City to implement in support of
achieving the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and
the statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. These
policies and measures are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 291,050 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) by 2020 and 411,710 MTCO2E by 2035 (GP EIR, Table
5.7-9). Approximately ten percent of the GHG emissions reductions are attributed to building
and energy efficiency measures. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3-1 from the Air Quality section
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 52
of the GP EIR, was identified to reduce GHG emissions impacts related to construction (GP
EIR, p. 5.3-24). However, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after
mitigation (GP EIR, pp. 5.7-29 – 5.7-30).
Project Impact Discussion
The analysis in this section addresses each of the six potential energy impacts identified in
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and utilizes the assumptions from the Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Memorandum prepared by Albert A. WEBB
Associates dated February 5, 2019 (WEBB-A1) for this Project and as evaluated in this MND,
Section III Air Quality and Section VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively. Because the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program used in WEBB-A1 does not display
the amount and fuel type for construction-related sources, additional calculations were
conducted and are summarized below. These calculations are contained in the Energy Tables
compiled by Albert A. WEBB associates (WEBB-A2).
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides for assessing potential impacts that a project
could have on energy supplies, focusing on the goal of conserving energy by ensuring that
projects use energy wisely and efficiently. Pursuant to impact possibilities listed in CEQA
Guidelines Appendix F, an impact with regard to energy consumption and conservation will
occur if implementation of the proposed Project will:
Result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts may
include:
o The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal;
o The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements
for additional capacity;
o The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other
forms of energy;
o The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards;
o The effects of the project on energy resources;
o The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of
efficient transportation alternatives.
The analysis below addresses each of the six potential energy impacts identified in Appendix F
of the CEQA Guidelines.
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or
removal
Construction. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for
grading, paving, stockpiling, and building activities, as well as construction workers and vendors
traveling to and from the Project site (WEBB-A1, pp. 2-4, and 8). Construction equipment
requires diesel as the fuel source as reflected in Table K – Construction Energy Use, below.
Fuel consumption from on-site heavy-duty construction equipment was calculated based on the
equipment mix and usage factors provided in the CalEEMod construction output files as part of
WEBB-A1 included in Appendix B.1 of this Initial Study. The total horsepower was then
multiplied by fuel usage estimates per horsepower-hour included in Table A9-3-E of SCAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA, p. A9-6). Fuel consumption from construction
worker and vendor/delivery trucks was calculated using the trip rates and distances provided in
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 53
the CalEEMod construction output files. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then calculated
for each type of construction-related trip and divided by the corresponding county-specific miles
per gallon factor using CARB’s EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2014 model. EMFAC provides the
total annual VMT and fuel consumed for each vehicle type. Consistent with CalEEMod,
construction worker trips were assumed to include 100 percent gasoline powered vehicles.
Construction vendor trucks were assumed to be medium-duty and heavy-duty diesel trucks
(WEBB-A2, pp. 1-2). Please refer to WEBB-A1 for detailed calculations.
Table K – Construction Energy Use
Fuel Fuel Consumption
Diesel
On-Road Construction Trips1 187,424 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment2 318,588 Gallons
Diesel Total 506,011 Gallons
Gasoline
On-Road Construction Trips1 213,660 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 -- Gallons
Gasoline Total 213,660 Gallons
Source: WEBB-A2, Table 1 – Total Construction-Related Fuel Consumption
Notes
1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from
CalEEMod for construction in 2019 and fleet-average fuel consumption in
gallons per mile from EMFAC2014 web based data for Riverside County.
See Table 2 – On Road Construction Trip Estimates, WEBB-A2, Appendix
A of this Initial Study for calculation details.
2. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons
of diesel per horsepower (HP)-hour, based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, Table A9-3E.
3. All emissions from off-road construction equipment were assumed to be
diesel.
As reflected above, a total of 506,011 gallons of diesel fuel, and 213,660 gallons of gasoline are
estimated to be consumed during Project site construction. The annual fuel usage for on-road
construction trips can be broken down more specifically as follows: 213,660 gallons of gasoline
for worker trips, 135,216 gallons of diesel for vendor trips, and 52,207 gallons of diesel for
hauling (WEBB-A2, p. 2).
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not
represent a significant demand on energy resources. Construction equipment is also required to
comply with regulations limiting idling to five minutes or less (CCR Title 13 § 2449(d)(3)), which
is included in Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2, as described in Section III, Air Quality of this MND.
Furthermore, there are no unusual Project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in other parts of the State. For comparison, the State of California consumed
approximately 15.5 billion gallons of gasoline (CDTFA-G) and 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel
(CDTFA-D) in 2017, which is the most recent published data. Thus, the fuel usage during
Project construction would account for a negligible percent of the existing gasoline and diesel
fuel related energy consumption in the State of California (approximately 0.016 percent for
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 54
diesel8 and 0.001 percent for gasoline9). Furthermore, it is expected that construction-related
fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.
Operation. The Project will promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy
efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen). The Project also reduces vehicle fuel usage due
to compliance with regulatory programs and Project design features that reduce VMT. AB 1493
("the Pavley Standard") requires reduction in GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger
vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. Executive Order S-01-07 went
into effect in 2010 and requires a reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in
California by at least 10 percent by 2020. It imposes fuel requirements on fuel that will be sold in
California that will decrease GHG emissions by reducing the full fuel-cycle and the carbon
intensity of the transportation fuel pool in California. The Advanced Clean Cars program,
introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through
2025.
For operational activities, annual electricity and natural gas consumption were calculated using
demand factors provided in the CalEEMod output as part of the greenhouse gas analysis
included in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this MND. The Project site’s electrical
consumption was estimated to be approximately 5,365,764 kWh of electricity per year; this is
the sum of the building electricity (4,555,855 kWh/year) and electricity related to the Project’s
water consumption (809,879 kWh/year). Additionally, the Project’s natural gas consumption was
estimated to be approximately 5,741,157 kilo-British thermal units (kBTUs) per year (WEBB-A2,
p. 2).
In comparison to the Project, Southern California Edison (SCE) produced approximately 84
billion kWh of electricity in 2017 (CEC SCE) and Southern California Gas (SCG) produced
approximately 5.1 billion therms of natural gas in 2017 (CEC SCG). At full build-out, the Project
site’s electricity demand would be a negligible amount of the existing electricity (approximately
0.006 percent10) and the natural gas demand would be a negligible percent of the existing
natural gas use in SCG’s service area (approximately 0.001 percent11).
Energy impacts associated with transportation during operation were also assessed using the
traffic data contained in the greenhouse gas analysis included in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this Initial Study. Based on the annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), gasoline and
diesel consumption rates were calculated using the Riverside County-specific miles per gallon in
EMFAC2014. As shown below in Table L – Annual Fuel Consumption, a total of 432,762
gallons of diesel fuel, and 922,531 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed each year
from the Project operation. As stated above, the State of California consumed approximately
15.5 billion gallons of gasoline (CDTFA-G) and 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel (CDTFA-D) in
2017. Thus, the annual fuel usage during Project operation would account for a negligible
8 0.016% = 506,011 gallons of diesel from Project construction / 3,100,000,000 gallons of diesel 2017 State of
California consumption
90.001% = 213,660 gallons of gasoline from Project construction / 15,500,000,000 gallons of gasoline 2017 State
of California consumption
10 0.006% = 5,365,764 kWH of electricity per year for the Project’s operation / 84,000,000,000 kWH of electricity
produced by SCE in 2017
11 0.001% = 57,412 therms of natural gas per year for the Project’s operation / 5,100,000,000 therms of natural gas
produced by SCG in 2017. 5,741,157 kBTUs per year x 1,000 BTU = 5,741,157,000 BTUs per year /100,000 BTU
= 57,412 therms per year
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 55
percent of the existing gasoline (approximately 0.006 percent12) and diesel fuel (approximately
0.014 percent13) related energy consumption in California.
Table L – Annual Fuel Consumption
Fuel Type1 Fuel Consumption (gallons/year)
Gasoline 922,531
Diesel 432,762
Source: WEBB-A2, Table 3 - Annual Energy Consumption from
Operation
Notes
1. Mobile source fuel use based on annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
from CalEEMod output (WEBB-A2, Appendix B.2) for operational
year 2022 and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile
from EMFAC2014 web based data in Riverside County.
To summarize, regulations previously identified related to energy conservation and fuel
efficiency include, but are not limited to, Title 24 requirements for windows, roof systems, and
electrical systems, and Pavley standards and Advanced Clean Cars Program. Additionally,
Mitigation Measures in Section III, Air Quality, also serve to reduce energy and fuel
consumption. Specifically, Project Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2, as mentioned previously,
addressed reduction of fuel usage by limiting truck idling times to five minutes on the site. MM
AQ-1 and MM AQ-3 encourage trip reduction strategies and high-efficiency lighting,
respectively, to reduce energy consumption.
Collectively, compliance with regulatory programs and implementation of these Mitigation
Measures would ensure that the Project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or
wasteful consumption of energy with regards to the Project’s energy requirements and its
energy use efficiencies.
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity
As addressed above, the Project’s electricity consumption was minimal in comparison to SCE’s
supply. The Project will comply with applicable state, SCE, and GP goals and policies that
require energy conservation and increase reliance on renewable energy to reduce electricity
demand within the Project site. As discussed above, SCE’s total electricity consumption was
approximately 84 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2017. The Project demand would be a
negligible amount of SCE’s existing electricity use (approximately 0.006 percent). As such, there
will be adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project.
As addressed above, the Project’s natural gas consumption was estimated to be approximately
5,741,157 kBTU’s per year (or 57,412 therms per year). The Project will comply with applicable
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), state, SCG, and GP goals and policies that require
energy conservation to reduce natural gas demand within the Project area. As discussed above,
the Project demand would be a negligible percent of SCG’s existing natural gas use
(approximately 0.001 percent). As the proposed Project’s overall consumption of natural gas use
12 0.006% = 922,531 gallons of gasoline per year of Project operation / 15,500,000,000 gallons of gasoline
consumed by the State of California in 2017
13 0.014% = 432,762 gallons of diesel fuel per year of Project operation / 3,100,000,000 gallons of diesel fuel
consumed by the State of California in 2017
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 56
is comparatively insignificant to existing SCG-wide use and as SCG continuously expands its
network, as needed, to meet the need in Southern California, there will be adequate capacity to
serve the proposed Project. Further, towards this same end, it should also be noted that SCG
projects total gas demand to decline at an annual rate of 0.6 percent from 2016 to 2035 as a result
of modest economic growth, CPUC-mandated energy efficiency standards and programs,
renewable electricity goals, decline in commercial and industrial demand, and conservation
savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (CGR 2016, p. 64). The Project would
therefore not have a significant effect on local and regional energy supplies.
3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other
forms of energy
As described above, SCE produced approximately 84 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2017, and
the Project is expected to have a negligible impact to SCE’s total electricity usage (the Project
would use approximately 0.006 percent of SCE’s total electricity per year). Therefore, it can be
stated that the Project will not have a substantial effect on energy supplies.
The Project will meet Title 24 regulatory standards for windows, roof systems, and electrical
systems. With regard to peak hour demands, purveyors of energy resources, including SCE,
have established long standing energy conservation programs to encourage consumers to
adopt energy conservation habits and reduce energy consumption during peak demand periods.
The proposed Project supports these efforts through implementation of MM AQ-3 and GP
policies identified above that will not only reduce energy consumption during peak hour
demands, but also during the base period. To this end, the Project will not substantially affect
peak and base period demands for electricity or other forms of energy, such as natural gas.
4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards
The proposed Project would be required to comply with City, state and federal energy
conservation measures related to construction and operations. Many of the regulations
regarding energy efficiency are focused on increasing building efficiency and renewable energy
generation, promoting sustainability through energy conservation measures, as well as reducing
water consumption and VMT. As described above, the proposed Project will meet and/or
exceed these regulatory requirements.
The California Energy Code building energy efficiency standards include provisions applicable
to all buildings, residential and non-residential, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency
and design. The proposed Project will comply with Title 24. This would be accomplished through
among other things, implementation of energy reduction measures, such as energy efficient
lighting and appliances. The Project would comply fully with existing energy standards.
In addition, the Project will be consistent with applicable goals and polices within the GP.
Through implementation of energy conservation measures and sustainable practices, the
Project will not use large amounts of energy in a manner that is wasteful or otherwise
inconsistent with adopted plans or policies.
5. The effects of the project on energy resources;
The effects of the Project on energy supplies and resources from a capacity standpoint are
described above in the preceding analysis. In regard to the effects of the Project on energy
resources, the Project is required to ensure that the Project does not result in the inefficient,
unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy. Notable regulatory measures that are
discussed above include compliance with California Title 24 and CalGreen Standards,
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Pavley standards and the Advanced Clean Cars
Program,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 57
Additionally, the Project mitigation measure MM AQ 3 will reduce electricity consumption.
6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of
efficient transportation alternatives.
As stated above, energy impacts associated with transportation during construction and
operation of the Project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption
of energy through adherence to existing regulations and GP policies and implementation of
design features and mitigation measures. With regard to efficient transportation alternatives,
the Project will provide alternative transportation choices because the Project area is served by
the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The nearest bus stop is located on Newport Road at Town
Center Drive approximately 0.75 miles north and Bradley Road at La Piedra Road
approximately one mile northwest. A future bus stop is planned on the southwest corner of
Haun Road and La Piedra Road (WEBB-E, p. 3-11). However, the Project site provides a bus
turnout along its frontage of Haun Road and future implementing development will be required
to provide bike racks to further encourage a variety of transportation choices. Additionally, the
Project will not interfere with the City’s planned Menifee Bikeway and Community Pedestrian
Network, which includes a community off-road neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)/bike trail
(Class I) adjacent to Haun Road along the Project frontage as well as a subregional route/on-
street bike lane (Class II) along Holland Road and connecting to the Project site (GP EIR,
Figure 5.16-8).
THRESHOLD Impact VI.B: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
General Plan EIR Summary
This threshold question discussion was omitted from the GP EIR. However, the GP EIR
contains a discussion within its Greenhouse Gas Emissions section (5.7) that discusses how the
GP is consistent with statewide strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing
energy efficiency and renewable energy. This discussion is applicable to Threshold VI.B and is
summarized below:
CARB Scoping Plan. In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline
the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. Since adoption of the 2008
Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the Scoping Plan, and the
legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide
strategies to reduce GHG emissions through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy
include the California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations; California Building Standards
(i.e., CALGreen and the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards); and 33 percent RPS.
In addition, the statewide measures, the policies and implementation actions related to building
and energy efficiency included as part of the proposed GP and shown on Table 5.7-9 (City of
Menifee Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy and Implementation Strategies) in the GP
EIR would be consistent with the intent of the Scoping Plan.
Implementation Action OSC77 would result in construction of new buildings that are 30 percent
more energy efficient than what is required in the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency standards. In
addition, this implementation action would increase the energy efficiency of new residential
buildings by 5 percent above the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Compliance with
state and local regulations would ensure that the growth under the GP would not conflict with
the Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.7-23 – 5.7-
28).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 58
Project Impact Discussion
The proposed Project would be required to comply with City, state and federal energy
conservation measures related to construction and operations, as discussed above. The
regulations regarding energy efficiency are focused on increasing building efficiency and
renewable energy, promoting sustainability through energy conservation measures, as well as
reducing water consumption and the use of alternative fuels. Through compliance with Menifee
GP energy objectives and policies noted above, the proposed Project will meet and/or exceed
these regulatory requirements.
In addition, the City has outlined several GHG reduction policy and implementation strategies in
its GP (GP EIR, Table 5.7-9) in support of achieving the reduction target of AB 32 and the
statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. The strategies that specifically relate
to energy and transportation efficiency are as follows:
Action C29: Prepare an NEV Plan that supports flexible travel options, promotes vehicle
emission reductions, integrates with other alternative transportation modes, and
incorporates parking standards that recognize the reduced footprint needs inherent with
NEVs and golf carts.
Action OSC65: Establish a reduced permit fee schedule for energy saving projects or
energy efficiency improvements in Menifee homes and businesses.
Action OSC67: Create a Solar Plan that provides incentives and coordinates financing
for city residences and businesses to invest in solar energy.
Action OSC69: Revise the Menifee Municipal Code to include energy efficient light
sources such as LED, LPS (Lower Pressure Sodium), HPS (High Pressure Sodium) and
solar powered signage and regulation of parking lot and building light fixtures require full
cut-off fixtures, except emergency exit or safety lighting. In addition, require that all
permanently installed exterior lighting be controlled by either a photocell or an
astronomical time switch. Prohibit continuous all night outdoor lighting unless required
for security reasons.
Action OSC71: Train all plan check and building inspection staff in appropriate use of
green building materials, techniques, and best practices.
Action OSC74: Work with EMWD to create a public outreach campaign to reduce energy
use and conserve water. Campaign components can include workshops, brochures,
mailers, website links, etc. Topics to highlight include: changes in Menifee's Building
Code, how to implement whole house energy upgrades or other energy efficiency
improvements for residents and businesses, the WRCOG HERO financing program and
other subregional energy conservation efforts, as well as the City's the Solar Plan when
complete.
Action OSC77: Adopt a Green Building Ordinance that requires energy efficient design,
in excess of Title 24 standards, for all new residential and non-residential buildings.
Require 30 percent above the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency standards in Title 24 to
coincide with the Voluntary Tier 2 standards for the 2010 California Green Building Code
(CALGreen).
Moreover, the Project is consistent with the GP land use designation and zoning requirements
for this site, and with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ 1 through MM AQ 3, the
Project will be consistent with the 2017 California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping
Plan Update (CARB 2017).
In summary, the Project will not use energy in a manner that is wasteful or otherwise
inconsistent with adopted plans or policies. Therefore, the Project’s energy impacts related to
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 59
conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency will
be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulations and GP policies, and the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ- 3.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3, as described in the Air Quality section, are
also applicable to this section.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 60
E. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
F. Indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Sources: AE-A, AE-B, AEI-A, CWLMC, GP EIR, RCIT
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal S-1: A community that is minimally impacted by seismic shaking and earthquake-
induced or other geologic hazards.
o Policy S-1.1: Require all new habitable buildings and structures to be designed
and built to be seismically resistant in accordance with the most recent California
Building Code adopted by the City.
Goal S-2: A community that has used engineering solutions to reduce or eliminate the
potential for injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption
caused by geologic hazards such as slope instability; compressible, collapsible,
expansive or corrosive soils; and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal.
o Policy S-2.1: Require all new developments to mitigate the geologic hazards that
have the potential to impact habitable structures and other improvements.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD VII.A.i: Less Than Significant Impact. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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.
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR states that this impact was determined to be less than significant in the GP’s Initial
Study (GP EIR, p. 5.6-25). The Initial Study states that the two closest fault zones to the City are
the San Jacinto Fault to the east, and the Elsinore Fault to the west, neither of which are active
faults. There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the Menifee area. Since there are no active faults or
Alquist-Priolo zones in Menifee, hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault would be
less than significant (GP EIR Appendix A, p. 35).
Project Impact Discussion
There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults within the City and the closest Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone is over three miles to the southwest of the City’s southernmost boundary
in the City of Wildomar (CGS), approximately seven miles southwest of the Project site (RCIT).
The County of Riverside has applied additional special status study zone criteria for additional
fault zones and there is one Riverside County mapped fault within the central-northern portion of
the City, approximately two miles north of the Project site (RCIT). Additional faults in the City’s
vicinity that are active and may generate earthquakes include the Elsinore Fault Zone to the
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 61
southwest of the City and the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast of the City (GP EIR,
Figure 5.6-2).
Although seismic activity is known to exist throughout Southern California, there are no known
faults through or near the site that would result in substantial effects. Additionally, the Project
will be designed to meet or exceed the seismic safety standards set forth in the current
California Building Codes (CBC). Therefore, impacts due to rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map are less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.A.ii: Less Than Significant Impact. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong
seismic ground shaking?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the proposed GP would increase the number of residents and workers and total
development intensity. Thus, GP buildout would increase the numbers of people and structures
that would be exposed to strong ground shaking. Each development project considered for
approval by the City under the proposed GP would be required to comply with seismic safety
provisions of the CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations) and have a
geotechnical investigation conducted for the affected project site. The geotechnical investigation
would calculate seismic design parameters pursuant to CBC requirements and would include
foundation and structural design recommendations, as needed, to reduce hazards to people
and structures arising from ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p.
5.6-25).
Project Impact Discussion
As discussed in Threshold VI.A.i, above, there is one Riverside County mapped fault within the
central-northern portion of the City and additional active faults in the City’s vicinity that may
generate seismic ground shaking include the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest of the City
and the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast of the City. A Geotechnical Investigation for the
Project site was completed on January 17, 2017 by C.W. La Monte Company Inc. (CWLMC). It
states that the Elsinore Fault Zone is the closest to the Project site, located approximately seven
miles away (CWLMC, p. 12). Although seismic activity is known to exist throughout Southern
California, there are no known faults through or near the site that would be anticipated to
generate substantial ground shaking greater than throughout the Southern California region in
general. According to the geotechnical investigation, there are no major faults known to traverse
the Project site (CWLMC, p. 11). The Project will be designed to meet or exceed the seismic
safety standards set forth in the current CBC. Therefore, the Project would not directly or
indirectly cause impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking are less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.A.iii: Less Than Significant Impact. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction?
General Plan EIR Summary
There is a potential for liquefaction in parts of the City and GP area, as shown on Figure 5.6-3 of
the GP EIR. Certain areas of the City are underlain by young, unconsolidated alluvial deposits
and by artificial fill; these sediments are susceptible to seismically induced settlement.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 62
Over excavation and recompaction is the most commonly used method to densify soft soils
susceptible to settlement. Deeper over excavation below final grades, especially at cut/fill,
fill/natural, or alluvium/bedrock contacts may be recommended to provide a more uniform
subgrade. Over excavation should also be performed so that large differences in fill thickness
are not present across individual lots. In some cases, specially designed deep foundations,
strengthened foundations, and/or fill compaction to a minimum standard that is higher than
required by the CBC may be recommended.
Projects developed pursuant to the proposed GP would be required to have geotechnical
investigations of the project sites conducted per state laws and regulations and GP policies.
Compliance with recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports would be required
as conditions of issuance of building and grading permits. Impacts would be less than significant
(GP EIR, pp. 5.6-25 – 5.6-26).
Project Impact Discussion
Liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine- to medium-grained sediments saturated with water are
subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. In particular, liquefaction is more likely to occur
when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface (GP EIR, p. 5.6-11).
Groundwater at the Project site is presumed to be present at an estimated depth of
approximately 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) based on a Preliminary Site Assessment for
a nearby site approximately 350 feet northwest of the Project site (AEI-A, p. 7). Based on the
geotechnical investigation conducted in January 2017, the site is not located in an area where
the geological conditions existing for liquefaction, and based on the site-specific investigation,
the soil density, grain-size distribution and groundwater conditions are not conducive to
liquefaction. Additionally, as discussed above in Threshold VI.A.i, there are no known active
faults in the immediate vicinity of the Project site that would cause substantially stronger ground
shaking than would be expected throughout the seismically active Southern California region in
general.
Further, as shown on the Riverside County Map My County online GIS database, the Project
site is located within an area of low liquefaction potential (RCIT). This confirms that due to site-
specific conditions, potential impacts from the Project to seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.A.iv: Less Than Significant Impact. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR states that hazards from slope instability, including landslides, debris flows, and
rockfalls, are a potential risk in the City, and thus development projects under the GP should
include a geotechnical evaluation of any slope that may impact the future use of the property or
adjacent properties, and projects would be required to implement the geotechnical report’s
recommendations. Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.6-26 – 5.6-27).
Project Impact Discussion
Conditions contributing to such landslides include high earthquake potential; rapid uplift and
erosion resulting in steep slopes and deeply incised canyons; highly fractured and folded rock;
and rock with inherently weak components, such as silt or clay layers. Nonetheless, as shown in
the City’s GP EIR, the Project site is not located within an area where local topographic and
geologic conditions suggest the potential for earthquake-induced landslides (GP EIR, Figure
5.6-3). The Project site is within a generally flat area and not adjacent to any hillsides.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 63
Additionally, it has been determined that due to the level topography of the Project site,
landslides do not present a significant hazard (CWLMC, p. 14).Therefore, the potential for
landslides is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the proposed GP would involve development or redevelopment of large parts of the
City. Grading and construction of development and redevelopment projects could expose large
amounts of soil and could result in soil erosion if effective erosion control measures were not
used. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control are required under National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations pursuant to the federal Clean
Water Act. NPDES requirements for construction projects one acre or more in area are set forth
in the General Construction Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SRWCB; Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ).
Furthermore, demolition, land clearing, grading, and construction activities of projects approved
pursuant to the proposed GP would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.2
regulating fugitive dust emissions, thus minimizing wind erosion from such ground-disturbing
activities. Construction activities would not generate substantial erosion. Soil erosion impacts
would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.6-27 – 5.6-28).
Project Impact Discussion
Short-term erosional impacts, associated with Project construction, will be minimized through
compliance with standard erosional control practices and NPDES permit requirements for
construction. Once operational, the majority of the Project site will be paved and developed with
a multi-use development; therefore, no soil erosion is anticipated with long-term operation of the
site. As shown on Figure 5, above and discussed in more detail in Threshold XVIII.C below,
bioretention facilities will be installed at the Project site to provide on-site water treatment prior
to discharge to the storm drains. Stormwater runoff will be conveyed east to the existing
drainage facility, the Flood Control channel (Paloma Wash). Any increased flows not captured
by these existing facilities will be retained on site in one of the proposed bioretention facilities.
The Project will incorporate BMPs to minimize potential runoff and erosion. Therefore, potential
impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.C: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Various types of potential hazards from soil conditions in the City include the following:
Compressible soils
Collapsible soils
Expansive soils
Corrosive soils
Ground subsidence
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 64
All development under the GP would be required to undergo site-specific investigations to
determine if any hazardous soil conditions occur at the site. All development would be required
to comply with the site-specific recommendations made in any investigation and shall also
comply with the MMC. Impacts related to hazardous soil conditions would be less than
significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.6-28 – 5.6-30).
Project Impact Discussion
Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides at the Project site are less than significant as
discussed above in Thresholds VI.A.iii and VI.A.iv, respectively. Liquefaction in soils can result
in ground failure, including lateral spreading. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading at the
Project site is also low. The on-site geotechnical investigation indicated that the Project site
does not contain ground materials that would be susceptible to liquefaction, including: the
density of the soil, grain-size distributed throughout the soil and the groundwater conditions
(CWLMC, p. 15). Due to the level topography of the Project site, landslides do not present a
significant hazard (CWLMC, p. 14).
Collapsible soils typically occur in areas with young and very young alluvial sediments due to
their low density, rapid deposition in alluvial fans, and the generally dry condition of their upper
soils; however, the Project site is located in an area with old alluvial deposits (GP EIR, Figure
5.6-4). The proposed Project involves developing commercial and industrial uses, which will be
developed pursuant to the most recent versions of the Uniform Building Code and the CBC.
The City’s GP EIR also determined that although GP buildout would increase water demands
within the City, it is unlikely that buildout would result in lowered groundwater levels under the
City, which could cause ground subsidence, because groundwater under the City has a high
dissolved solids content and limited municipal use (GP EIR, pp. 5.6-29 – 5.6-30). Additional
measures within the City to reduce landscape irrigation will further reduce the potential for
ground subsidence. Therefore, because the proposed Project is consistent with the Zoning and
Land Use designation of the site in the City’s GP, water demand from the proposed Project
would have been accounted for and the Project will not contribute to significant levels of
subsidence or be subject to significant risk from subsidence.
Therefore, the Project will not be located on soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the Project, which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Further, the Project will be designed in
compliance with the current CBC to ensure that impacts in this regard are less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.D: Less Than Significant Impact. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
General Plan EIR Summary
Soils in parts of the City may be expansive: valley and canyon areas and weathered old alluvial
fan deposits. Development of projects on sites underlain by expansive soils could subject
people and structures to hazards from expansive soils. Development of projects pursuant to the
GP would require subsurface geotechnical exploration and testing and compliance with
recommendations in project geotechnical investigation reports. All development under the GP
shall also comply with the MMC. Impacts related to hazardous soil conditions would be less
than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.6-28 – 5.6-30).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 65
Project Impact Discussion
Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay
minerals. Soils in parts of the City may be expansive: valley and canyon areas and weathered
old alluvial fan deposits. Development of projects pursuant to the GP would require subsurface
geotechnical exploration and testing and compliance with recommendations in project
geotechnical investigation reports (GP EIR, p. 5.6-29). The recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation related to expansive soils include:
Fill Suitability – On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill.
The on-site materials are anticipated to possess a very low- to low-expansion potential. Any
potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to importation. At least two working days’ notice of a potential import source should be
given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type
of material considered most desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular
material with some silt or clay binder.
Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been
cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified [cut and remove debris] to a
depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, be moisture conditioned , and compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction.
Therefore, with completion of the geotechnical investigation in January 2017 for the Project as
required by the City’s GP, compliance with recommendations in the report to maintain
compliance for expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
if applicable, directly and indirect impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
THRESHOLD VII.E: No Impact. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
General Plan EIR Summary
The City is in the wastewater treatment service area of the Eastern Municipal Water District.
Most development and redevelopment that would be approved pursuant to the GP would
involve sewer connections. However, septic tanks may be used in GP designations permitting
residential densities below two units per acre. Five proposed GP designations would permit
residential development at densities of two units per acre or less: four Rural Residential
designations, RR5 through RR1/2, and the Rural Mountainous (RM) designation. New
developments in GP designations where use of septic tanks would be permitted would be
required to conduct percolation tests before installation of septic systems—as required by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health—to verify that water will percolate into
soil under the site at an adequate rate for the septic system to function. Additionally, septic
systems are required to comply with the California Plumbing Code, California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 5. Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.6-30).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project will connect to the City’s wastewater treatment system and no septic tank will be
used at the Project site. Therefore, no impact is anticipated in this regard and no mitigation
measures are required.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 66
THRESHOLD VII.F: Less Than Significant Impact. Or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
General Plan EIR Summary
The flat-lying alluvial plains (Pleistocene sediments) that are found within the GP area are highly
sensitive for finding significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Fossils from these
sediments may include mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, short-faced bears,
saber-toothed cats, large and small horses, large and small camels, and bison. During
excavation of the Eastside Reservoir Project (Diamond Valley Reservoir), to the east of the City,
numerous Ice Age mammals were found, including mammoths, mastodons, bison, and ground
sloths. Several of these finds were between three to five feet below the surface. As a result, the
possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries (higher
elevation than reservoir) is high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface.
Existing federal, state, and local regulations address the provision of studies to identify
archaeological and paleontological resources; application review for projects that would
potentially involve land disturbance; provide a project-level standard condition of approval that
addresses unanticipated archaeological and/or paleontological discoveries; and requirements to
develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development
activity. Protection of archaeological and paleontological resources is also afforded by CEQA for
individual projects subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the
preferred Land Use Plan. Per Section 21083.2 of CEQA, the lead agency shall determine
whether the project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead
agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological
resources, the EIR shall address those resources and mitigate impacts.
In conclusion, the potential to uncover undiscovered paleontological resources in the City is
high. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-4 identified in the GP EIR would
reduce impacts to less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.5-15 – 5.5-17).
Project Impact Discussion
The proposed Project site is identified within an area of “High B” paleontological sensitivity in the
City’s GP Draft EIR (Figure 5.5-1). Within areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources,
Mitigation Measure 5.2 from the City’s GP Draft EIR requires paleontological monitoring of all
projects during ground disturbing activities (GP EIR, p. 5.5-18). Mitigation measures from the
City’s GP EIR have been subsequently replaced with standard City conditions of approval per
the City revising their approach regarding project mitigation. Consequently, a Paleontological
Resource Assessment (PRA) was prepared for the Project site by Applied Earthworks dated
January 2018 (AE-B). The PRA included a review of published and unpublished literature and
museum collection records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
The purpose of which was to identify the geologic units underlying the Project area and to
determine whether previously recorded paleontological localities occur within the Project
boundary or within the same geologic units located elsewhere. The museum records search
was followed by a field survey, during which the ground surface of the Project area was visually
inspected for exposed fossils and the geologic exposures were evaluated for their potential to
contain preserved fossil material at the subsurface. Using the results of the museum records
search and field survey, the paleontological resource potential of the Project area was
determined in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines (2010).
(AE-B, p. i).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 67
Published geologic mapping indicates that the Project area is immediately underlain by
Quaternary alluvial fan (Qof) deposits (AE-B, p. 9). Museum records found no previously
recorded paleontological localities directly within Project boundaries; however, at least two
previously documented fossil localities have been reported nearby in Riverside County from
within geologic units that are similar to those that underlie the Project area. No paleontological
resources were found by AE during the course of the field survey of the Project site (AE-B, p. i).
The PRA determined the Project site’s likelihood of impacting scientifically significant vertebrate
fossils as a result of Project development is low to high, increasing with depth. Therefore, City
standard conditions of approval as written below will provide a qualified paleontologist be
retained to develop and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) during construction. The mitigation plan describes, in detail, when and where
paleontological monitoring will take place and establishes communication protocols to be
followed in the event that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during project development.
If significant fossil resources are known to occur within the boundaries of the project and have
not been collected, then the plan will outline the procedures to be followed prior to the
commencement of construction (i.e., preconstruction salvage efforts or avoidance measures,
including fencing off a locality). Should microfossils be known to occur in the geologic unit(s)
underlying the project area or suspected to occur, then the plan will describe the methodology
for matrix sampling and screening. The paleontological mitigation plan should be prepared by a
qualified professional paleontologist and developed using the results of the initial paleontological
assessment and survey. Elements of the plan can be adjusted throughout the course of a
project as new information is gathered and conditions change, so long as the lead agency is
consulted and all parties are in agreement.
At the conclusion of all Project-related ground disturbances, all significant fossils found during
the course of on-site monitoring should be permanently curated at the Western Science Center
and a final technical report of findings should be drafted and submitted to the City. Through
compliance with applicable regulations and Conditions of Approval, the Project will reduce
potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.
Conditions of Approval
The Project will be required to comply with all recommendations in the Project-specific
Geotechnical Report, prepared in January 2017. In addition, City standard conditions of
approval related to paleontological resources are included below:
1. Paleontologist Required. This site is mapped as having a high potential for
paleontological resources (fossils) at shallow depth. Therefore, prior to issuance of
grading permits:
The permittee shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City of Menifee to
create and implement a project-specific plan for monitoring site grading/earthmoving
activities (project paleontologist).
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:
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 68
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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 recover the remains.
e) 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.
f) 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 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.
g) 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 69
Mitigation Measures
None. The City has revised their approach on mitigation and now uses all standard conditions
of approval in place of GP EIR mitigation measures.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: BL 2015, CARB 2017, GP EIR, MMC, WEBB-A1
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.
o Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use,
transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design.
o Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate
alternative systems of energy production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell.
Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing
climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.
o Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent
with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction
initiatives.
o Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of
policies, strategies, and projects.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD VIII.A: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the City would contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts through
direct and indirect GHG emissions. The GP EIR concluded that development under the GP
would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions, and
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 70
that while GHG emissions at year 2020 and 2035 would be less than current levels, community-
wide GHG emissions would not meet the 2020 target of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) or the long-
term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05. GP GHG impacts would be
cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure 3-1 (from the Air Quality section) was identified in
the GP EIR to reduce GHG emissions impacts related to construction. However, these impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation (GP EIR, pp. 5.7-15 – 5.7-23).
Project Impact Discussion
GHG emissions for the Project were analyzed in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis to
determine if the Project could have an impact related to GHG emissions. These impacts are
analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2E), measured in metric
tons (MT) or, MTCO2E. They are analyzed for both the construction and operational phases of
the Project. The significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted
quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate
Action Plan). Although the City has not adopted its own GHG Thresholds of Significance for
CEQA, it follows guidance from SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds.
The interim thresholds are a tiered approach; projects may be determined to be less than
significant under each tier or require further analysis under subsequent tiers. Tier 3 is defined as
project GHG emissions below screening thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2E per year (MTCO2E/yr)
for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2E/yr for all residential or commercial projects where the
SCAQMD is the lead agency. Tier 4 is defined as the project achieves performance standards
which may include a) achieving a 30 percent or greater reduction under business-as-usual
methodology, b) the project includes early implementation of measures in the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan, or c) the project achieves efficiency targets of 4.8 and 3.0
MTCO2E/yr per service population for target years 2020 and 2035, respectively. The GHG
analysis prepared for the proposed Project is compared herein to the 3,000 MT CO2E Tier 3
significance standard and the Tier 4 efficiency threshold suggested by SCAQMD for the
purpose of disclosing potential impacts; the City has utilized these SCAQMD tiers in the GP
EIR. The Tier 4 project-level efficiency thresholds are 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO2E/yr per service
population for 2020 and 2035, respectively. Service population is defined as residential and
employment population (WEBB-A1, p. 8-10).
To determine whether GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would directly or
indirectly have a significant impact on the environment, Project emissions are compared to
those associated with implementation of the GP and related significant and unavoidable impacts
disclosed in the GP EIR. Projects that are determined to be consistent with the GP and
associated impacts disclosed in the GP EIR and implement reasonable and feasible mitigation
measures to reduce GHG emissions, are determined to have no greater or different impact than
what was identified in the GP EIR and have been addressed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
GHG Emissions Analysis. The GHG emissions analysis evaluates both short-term
construction and long-term operational emissions. Construction of the proposed Project would
generate temporary GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of construction
equipment and worker trips. The CalEEMod model calculates GHG emissions from fuel usage
by construction equipment and construction-related activities, like construction worker trips, for
the Project. The CalEEMod estimate does not analyze emissions from construction-related
electricity or natural gas, as these are too speculative to quantify. The Air Quality/Greenhouse
Gas Analysis indicates that an estimated 7,168.24 MTCO2E will occur from Project construction
equipment over the course of the estimated construction period. Since the 2008 SCAQMD
guidance document recommends that construction emissions be amortized for a project lifetime
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 71
of 30 years to ensure that GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as
part of the operational reduction strategies, the total GHG emissions from Project construction
were amortized and are included below in Table M – Total Unmitigated Project-Related GHG
Emissions.
Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, and
transportation (mobile sources). CalEEMod estimates long-term GHG emissions associated
with these sources. Area sources include landscape equipment emissions, architectural coating,
and consumer products. Energy-related emissions consist of building electricity and natural gas
usage (non-hearth) for each land use type. Mobile source emissions are from Project-related
vehicle usage, based on trip generation data provided in the Project-specific Traffic Impact
Analysis. Solid waste emissions are associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.
Water-related energy use is electricity used in water supply, treatment, and distribution, as well
as wastewater treatment. The total GHG emissions from these sources, as well as amortized
construction emissions (WEBB-A1, pp. 8-11).
Table M – Total Unmitigated Project-Related GHG Emissions
Source
Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Amortized
Construction -- -- -- 238.94
Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Energy 1,757.97 0.07 0.02 1,764.98
Mobile 15,184.00 1.07 0.00 15,210.77
Solid Waste 34.35 2.03 0.00 85.10
Water 271.96 1.44 0.04 318.68
Total 17,248.29 4.61 0.06 17,618.48
Source: WEBB-A1, p. 11
Note:
1. Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.
As reflected in the table above, the total GHG emissions generated from the Project is
approximately 17,618.48 MTCO2E/yr. This is above SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold level
of 3,000 MTCO2E/yr. Therefore, SCAQMD Tier 4 threshold has been applied. As stated above,
the Tier 4 Project-level efficiency thresholds are 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO2E/year per service
population for 2020 and 2035, respectively. Service population is defend as residential and
employment population. The land uses analyzed generate approximately 692 employees. Thus,
the Project would achieve an efficiency of 25.5 MTCO2E/yr per service population, which
exceeds the Tier 4 thresholds. Therefore, the Project will not meet the efficiency thresholds
under SCAQMD Tier 4 requirements.
The primary source of Project GHG emissions are from mobile sources, and while some trip
reduction strategies can be imposed on employees, the Project cannot reasonably impose
mitigation on private customers and their vehicles to the extent that would fully mitigate the
impact (WEBB-A1, pp. 9-11).
The Project’s impact is further compared to the emissions thresholds and mitigation measures
required in the GP EIR. The Project’s threshold of significance is determined based on the
compatibility with the GP EIR. The Project site is designated as EDC in the City’s GP,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 72
specifically EDC-CC. The proposed Project site is within the 392-acre EDC-CC GP land use
designation. As stated in the GP, development in the community core is anticipated to be a
relatively balanced mix of residential (25 percent), commercial retail (10 percent), commercial
office (35 percent), and business park uses (30 percent). (GP, Land Use Element LU-2, p. 3 of
Exhibit LU-3, and Exhibit LU-B2E). The proposed Project’s potential future land uses as a mixed
use center that would commercial, office, retail, and/or industrial land uses as reflected in Figure
4, above, are allowed uses under the EDC-CC. Since the Project’s proposed future land use is
consistent with the Project site’s EDC-CC land use designation, from a GHG emissions
standpoint, the Project would be consistent with the established GP.
The GP EIR provided an evaluation of GHG emissions associated with build out of the land
uses anticipated in the GP under 2020 and 2035 scenarios. With reduction measures
implemented city-wide, emissions are forecast to be reduced 26 percent in 2020 and 32 percent
in the 2035 GP horizon year. Because transportation related emissions generate the highest
percentage of GHG emissions, reduction measures focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and include improved access to transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. These, as
well as measures to construct housing in proximity to commercial and professional services will
also reduce VMT. Implementation of applicable regulations designed to improve building
efficiencies as well as reduce energy and water consumption would be consistent with GP
policies and related measures intended to reduce energy demand. However, even with the
implementation of the recommended measures, Impact 5.7-1 in the GP EIR states that buildout
of the GP would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing
conditions. While GHG emissions at year 2020 and 2035 would be less than current levels,
community-wide GHG emissions would not meet the efficiency targets. The Project’s GHG
emissions are considered to be within the GHG emissions identified in the GP EIR. As such,
Project-specific GHG emissions are consistent with GP EIR and are not greater than or different
from those disclosed and found to be significant and unavoidable in the GP EIR.
The decision to evaluate Project GHG emission impact based on consistency with the GP and
GP EIR is at the City’s discretion, which the City has chosen to exercise here. The GP EIR is a
programmatic level review of potential impacts associated with build out of the GP. It does not
provide an evaluation of Project-specific impacts. For projects that are consistent with the GP,
the significance determination tiers off the GP EIR, and the evaluation focuses on whether the
project would cause impacts that are greater than or different from those disclosed and found to
be significant and unavoidable. Project’s that are consistent with the effects examined in the
GP’s programmatic EIR would be considered to have less than significant impacts. As
previously stated, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use for the site, and therefore
the impacts for the proposed project have all been integrated into the overall GP development
assumptions. In addition, the Project is consistent with GHG reduction policy and
implementation strategies identified in Table 5.7-9 of the GP EIR. The purpose of these GHG
reduction measures are to reduce GHG emissions city-wide. GHG reduction measures that are
applicable to the Project are listed below:
Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to:
o Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards
o Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational
beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines.
o Be compatible with streetscape and surrounding land uses.
o Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to:
o Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 73
o Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational
beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines.
o Be compatible with streetscape and surrounding land uses.
o Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
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-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters,
transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary.
o Action C13: Encourage developers to provide bikeway and pedestrian
connections between developed land uses, as well as bicycle parking
accommodations for employees and customers.
o Action C29: Prepare an NEV Plan that supports flexible travel options, promotes
vehicle emission reductions, integrates with other alternative transportation
modes, and incorporates parking standards that recognize the reduced footprint
needs inherent with NEVs and golf carts.
o Action OSC75: Create a program to incentivize new and existing commercial,
industrial, public, school and medical facilities/developments to install shared
vehicle parking, carpool parking, additional bike racks, and bus stop shelters.
Components of the plan could include reduced permit fees, expedited
processing, reduced parking requirements, etc.
The Project will be consistent with the above applicable GHG reduction measures in order to
reduce GHG emissions associated with the Project, as described below:
Policy C-1.1 and C-2.1: Consistent. There are no new roads being proposed as part of
this Project; rather, an easement is being provided for a future private drive aisle within
the Project site and access easements for connectivity to the undeveloped parcel to the
north. The Project’s Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Memorandum
(WEBB-A1) assumed construction of the private drive, using assumptions based on a
typical street design for this size of road. The Project will construct Haun Road east of
the centerline to its ultimate width at the Project frontage for it to be a divided, 4-lane
major road as described in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element Exhibit C-3
Roadway Network, which will be consistent with General Plan Policies C-1.1 and C-2.1.
See consistency with Policy C-2.3 (below) for more discussion on meeting the needs of
multiple types of users, compatibility with streetscape and surrounding land uses, and
maintain roadways.
Policy C-2.3: Consistent. As noted above, the Project is to entitle the parcel for
subdivision into six parcels and dedicate portions of Haun and Holland Roads as well as
provide access easements. The Project would be required to install frontage
improvements along Haun Road. These improvements would facilitate safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and from the site and neighboring
destinations. Further, on-site pedestrian improvements would be installed by future
implementing projects to facilitate on-site pedestrian circulation in conformance with the
EDC-CC zoning. The Project would be consistent with Policy C-2.3.
Policy C-3.2: Consistent. The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) includes a bus turnout south
of the Project’s entrance and Holland Road. Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) provides
bus service in the City of Menifee. Upon review of RTA’s Short Range Transit Plan for
FY2018-FY2020, RTA does not have published plans to include a route on Haun Road;
however, the Project will provide infrastructure for a public transportation stop along
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 74
northbound Haun Road which complies with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element
Exhibit C-5 Potential Transit Services and Policy C-3.2. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with Policy C-3.2.
Action C13: Consistent. As shown on the TPM and as discussed under Policy C-2.3
above, the Project frontage complies with the City’s zoning requirements that requires
sidewalks for projects within the EDC-CC; the Project’s sidewalk design matches the
existing design used at the Menifee Countryside Marketplace to provide consistency
between projects within the EDC-CC as provided in MMC 9.140.040. This provides
connectivity to the proposed residential developments to the west as well as the medical
office and assisted living development to the southwest of the Project site at the
southwest corner of Haun and Holland Roads. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with Action C-13.
Action C29: Consistent. The Project is to entitle a parcel to be subdivided into six
parcels with access easements that will provide internal access and access to the
undeveloped parcel to the north. Since the Project is located within the EDC-CC, the
CMP is included in the application to provide a list of anticipated uses on those six
parcels as they are developed; however, the actual use of each parcel is unknown at this
time. At the time of each implementing Project, it is anticipated that in addition to
complying with CalGreen codes, the number of additional EV Tier 1 and Tier 2 stations
to be installed on a voluntary basis will be determined at that time. However, the Project
would provide raceways for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations
consistent with Table 5.106.5.3.3 of the CalGreen Code. The Project will not interfere
with the City’s planned Menifee Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network, which
includes a community off-road neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)/bike trail (Class I)
adjacent to Haun Road along the Project frontage as well as a subregional route/on-
street bike lane (Class II) along Holland Road and connecting to the Project site (GP
EIR, Figure 5.16-8). Thus, the Project would be consistent with Action C-29.
Action OSC75: Consistent. As described in Section III, Air Quality of this MND.
Mitigation Measure MM AQ 1 will encourage future Project tenants to use trip reduction
strategies such as ride share, carpool, and public transit. The Project would provide
carpool/vanpool, clean air vehicle, and bike racks consistent with Sections 5.106.5.2 and
5.106.4 of the CalGreen Code. These measures are intended to reduce dependency on
the automobile which will reduce automobile trips and related GHG emissions. Thus, the
Project would be consistent with Action OSC75.
Examining GHG impacts in terms of a Project’s overall contribution to city-wide emissions is
particularly important because GHG is a fundamentally cumulative impact (not project based).
That means that so long as the City’s overall GHG emissions are not greater than previously
forecast, the determination that “no new effects could occur” can (and should) be made.
Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3 from the Air Quality section are applicable to
reducing GHG emission impacts, and so are included here as well. For the reasons discussed
above, Project impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD VIII.B: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Conflict with
any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
General Plan EIR Summary
CARB Scoping Plan. In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline
the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 75
necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 Business-As-Usual (BAU) GHG emissions and
identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent
from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008
Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light
of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan
baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce
GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without Pavley and the 33 percent RPS or 15.7
percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012c).
Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in
the Plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction
targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations; California Building Standards (i.e.,
CALGreen and the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards); 33 percent RPS; and
changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and California
Advanced Clean Cars [Pavley II]). In addition, the statewide measures, the policies and
implementation actions included as part of the proposed GP and shown on Table 5.7-9 (City of
Menifee Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy and Implementation Strategies) in the GP
EIR would be consistent with the intent of the Scoping Plan.
The Circulation Element policies and implementation actions presented on Table 5.7-9 would
provide an overall VMT reduction of 2.6 percent. This reduction in VMT would therefore reduce
the overall transportation-related GHG emissions. Implementation Action OSC77 would result in
construction of new buildings that are 30 percent more energy efficient than what is required in
the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, this implementation action would
increase the energy efficiency of new residential buildings by 5 percent above the 2013 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards. Compliance with state and local regulations would ensure that the
growth under the GP would not conflict with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.7-23 – 5.7-28).
SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS. SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy
that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in the
Southern California region. The 2012 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and
circulation networks in the cities’ and counties’ general plans. The projected regional
development pattern, including location of land uses and residential densities included in local
general plans, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in
the 2012 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and
achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.
The GP Land Use Plan would intensify development of non-residential land uses and improve
the jobs-housing balance within the City. This land use strategy is consistent with the overall
goal of the 2012 RTP/SCS as improvement in the jobs-housing balance could potentially reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Additionally, Table 5.10-1 (Consistency with SCAG’s 2012–2035
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals) in the GP EIR provides
an assessment of the Project’s relationship to applicable RTP/SCS goals. As identified in this
table, the GP would be consistent with the applicable RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the GP is
consistent with SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS (GP EIR, p. 5.7-28).
Project Impact Discussion
The City has not yet adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan; however, the City has outlined
several GHG reduction policy and implementation strategies in its GP (GP EIR, Table 5.7-9) 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 CBC (Title 24), including
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 76
the California Green Building Standards Code (pursuant to MMC, 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.
In addition, the Project is consistent with the GP land use designation and zoning requirements
for this site, and with the incorporation of mitigation measure MM AQ 1 through MM AQ 3, the
Project will be consistent with the 2017 California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping
Plan Update (CARB 2017).
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 GHG reduction target of 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and supported
by CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies, is on track to
meet the 2020 reduction targets under AB 32 and could achieve the 2030 goals under SB 32
(BL 2015).
The Project reduces its GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible as discussed in this
document. Additionally, the Project applicant would not actively 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 emissions reduction targets, including that established under Executive Order S-
3-05, Executive Order B-30-15, or SB 32.
The Project does not interfere with the state’s implementation of (i) Executive Order B-30-15
and SB 32’s target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030 or (ii) Executive Order S-3-05’s target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050 because it does not interfere with the state’s implementation of GHG
reduction plans described in the CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan, including the state providing for
12,000 MW of renewable distributed generation by 2020, the California Building Commission
mandating net zero energy homes in the building code after 2020, or existing building retrofits
under AB 758. Therefore, the Project’s impacts on GHGs in the 2030 and 2050 horizon years
are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures MM AQ 1 through MM AQ
3.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable plans, policies and regulation for
the purpose of reducing GHG gases, and thus has an impact of less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Conditions of Approval
The Project is required to comply with Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Efficiency Standards or
California Energy Code), as well as Title 24, Part 11 (California Green Building
Standards Code - referred to as CalGreen).
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-3, as described in the Air Quality section, are
also applicable to this section.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 77
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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: AEI-A, AEI-B, CALFIRE, GP, GP EIR, MMC, SCAQMD 2003
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials
contamination.
o 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
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 78
impacted by such activities and areas susceptible to impacts or damage from a
natural disaster.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
THRESHOLD IX.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP involves the designation of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in the City.
Buildout in accordance with the GP would result in an increase in the frequency of transport,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with commercial and industrial growth
within the City. Industrial uses, which are the primary hazardous-waste-generating facilities in
the City, are currently concentrated in the northern portion of the City in the Romoland area near
SR-74. Under the GP, industrial land use designations would remain in these locations. Buildout
of the GP would allow for 28 acres of heavy-industrial development within the City as well as
development of 2,466 acres designated EDC and possibly Expanded EDC, which would permit
a mixture of land uses including industrial land uses. Land in the EDC is along the I-215 and
along Ethanac Road, Newport Road, and Scott Road. An increase in the transport of hazardous
waste from buildout of the GP could result in more accidental events, such as spills, that release
hazardous materials. However, current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and
proposed GP policies would regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential
releases; exposure; and risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous
materials and wastes. Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.8-29 – 5.8-30).
Project Impact Discussion
Construction of the proposed Project would likely involve some transport, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials and waste such as fuels and lubricants for construction machinery and
architectural coating materials. Routine construction control measures and best management
practices for hazardous materials storage, use, and disposal would reduce potential short-term
impacts to less than significant.
Transport and use of hazardous materials at the Project site during operation would generally
be limited to potential auto repair, industrial, and gas station uses at the Project site. Because
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 79
the exact tenants of the potential industrial buildings on-site are unknown at this time, there is
the potential that hazardous materials such as petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizer, and
other household hazardous products (i.e. household cleaning products) may be stored and
transported from the proposed facility. However, these hazardous materials would not be
manufactured at the Project site and would only be stored short-term before transport.
Further, all new development is required to comply with the regulations, standards, and
guidelines established by the federal, state, and local government related to transport, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials and the risk of the public’s potential exposure to hazardous
substances is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD IX.B: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold VIII.A.
Project Impact Discussion
As noted in Threshold VIII.A. above, the Project may involve the use of small amounts of
hazardous materials but shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws pertaining to the
transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous materials, including but not limited
to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Title 13, (motor vehicles) Title 8 (Cal/OSHA),
Title 22 (Health and Safety Code), Title 26 (Toxics) of the California Code of Regulations, and
Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans
and Inventory), which describes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous
materials. Thus, the Project is not expected to result in the use of large amounts of hazardous
materials that would create a hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, potential impacts
are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD IX.C: Less Than Significant Impact. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
General Plan EIR Summary
Refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold VIII.A.
Project Impact Discussion
The Santa Rosa Academy charter school is the closest sensitive receptor which is located
approximately 0.40 mile northwest of the Project site, on the western side of Haun Road and the
proposed Project includes a potential day care facility as one of its potential uses on-site.
The Project will potentially involve use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials
associated with the uses at the Project site. The Project does not include stationary sources and
is not anticipated to attract a large number of mobile sources that may spend long periods of
time idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities (SCAQMD 2003). The Project is not
anticipated to emit hazardous emissions.
As discussed above in Threshold VIII.A, all new development is required to comply with the
regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local governments
related to hazardous materials and the risk of exposure to hazardous emissions from hazardous
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 80
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Although there is a school within 0.40
mile of the site, compliance with existing regulations and the fact that no hazardous emissions
are planned for the Project, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
THRESHOLD IX.D: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
At the time of the GP EIR’s certification (December 2013), there were six reported Significant
Hazardous Materials Sites located in the GP area. An additional 18 sites in Menifee are listed as
leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) cases: eight open cases and 10 closed.
Due to the fact that there are numerous sites undergoing investigation and/or remediation within
the City, impacts from hazardous substance contamination on or adjacent to specific project
developments may occur. Future developments in accordance with implementation of the GP
may be impacted by hazardous substance contamination remaining from historical operations
on a particular site that may pose a significant health risk.
However, properties contaminated by hazardous substances are regulated at the local, state,
and federal level and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for
investigation and remediation. For example, compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and related requirements would remedy
any potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. All environmental
investigations, sampling, and/or remediation for projects within the City would be conducted
under the oversight of a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction. Impacts would be less than
significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.8-30 – 5.8-31).
Project Impact Discussion
In determining if a listed site is a potential environmental concern to the subject property, the
following criteria can generally be used: 1) the site only holds an operating permit (which does
not imply a release), 2) the site’s distance from, and/or topographic position relative to, the
subject property, and/or 3) the site has recently been granted "No Further Action" by the
appropriate regulatory agency. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by
AEI Consultants (AEI-A) for this Project site in October 2016. As part of this assessment, the
following agencies or agency databases were consulted to determine if the Project site is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5:
SCAQMD: No information regarding the Project site was found.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS) and EnviroStor database: No information regarding the Project site was found.
RWQCB GeoTracker website: No information regarding the Project site was found.
The Project site was not identified in the databases reviewed by AEI (AEI-A, p. 21). Therefore,
the Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and will create a less than significant
hazard to the public or the environment and no mitigation measures are required.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 81
The Phase I report recommended additional soils testing since use of the property could not be
verified prior to 2003, so a Phase II Limited Soil Sampling Investigation conducted by AEI in
August 2017 (AEI-B). In addition, prior to any development of the site, the City requires on-site
soil sampling for a property of this size that had previous agricultural uses (AEI-B p.10). The
Phase II Limited Soil Sampling Investigation consisted of boring sites located throughout the
project site. The bore samples revealed no pesticides or herbicides; metals detected were
below regulatory screening limits. Therefore, the Project is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
impacts are less than significant.
THRESHOLD IX.E: No Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
For noise impacts, refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold XIII.C.
Height limits for structures within specified distances of each airport would remain in place and
are enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Regulations of land uses in airport
compatibility zones for Perris Valley Airport are implemented by the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission (RCALUC). Development plans for projects in the part of Airport
Compatibility Zone E for Perris Valley Airport or the parts of Airport Compatibility Zones D or E
for March Air Reserve Base (MARB) in the City would be reviewed by the RCALUC before
being considered for approval by the City.
GP buildout would not alter or interfere with land use compatibility review procedures of the
RCALUC and the FAA. The RCALUC and FAA would review development plans and other land
use plans considered for approval by the City. No conflict with regulations on land uses or
structure heights would occur. Airport impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.8-
31).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project site is over ten miles southeast of the MARB and is approximately six miles
southeast of the Perris Valley Airport. As such, the Project is not 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. Therefore, the Project’s airport proximity would result in no impact, including
a safety hazard or excessive noise, to the safety of people residing or working in the Project
area, and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD IX.F: Less Than Significant Impact. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
General Plan EIR Summary
The emergency response plan in effect in the County is the Riverside County Operational Area
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) adopted in 2006. The EOP defines the roles of various
county agencies in emergency preparedness, emergency response, and hazard mitigation. The
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) Office of Emergency Services is responsible for
planning for and managing emergency responses. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted in
2004, includes assessments of the nature, locations, probabilities, and severities of a wide
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 82
variety of hazards, as well as mitigation goals and strategies and action plans for reducing
disaster risks.
Implementation of the GP would not block emergency evacuation routes and would not interfere
with the operations of emergency response agencies. The GP includes a safety element
containing policies for reducing potential losses from disasters and for emergency responses.
No adverse impact would occur (GP EIR, pp. 5.8-31 – 5.8-32).
Project Impact Discussion
The Riverside County Fire Department Office of Emergency Services is responsible for planning
for and managing emergency responses for the City; specifically, the Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan includes assessments of the nature, locations, probabilities, and severities of a wide
variety of hazards, as well as mitigation goals and strategies and action plans for reducing
disaster risks.
Implementation of the City’s GP would not block emergency evacuation routes or interfere with
the operations of emergency response agencies (GP EIR, pp. 5.8-31 – 5.8-32). The Project site
is currently vacant and does not provide access to evacuation routes or fire roads for the City’s
emergency response agencies, as there are no streets or other infrastructure on site. Further,
the City’s GP Safety Element contains additional policies, shown above, for reducing potential
losses from disasters and for emergency responses. The Project will be designed in compliance
with the California Fire Code as adopted by the MMC, Chapter 8.20 Therefore, because the
proposed Project is consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the Project site, the
Project is consistent with the City’s GP and will have a less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required on impacts on implementation of the City’s adopted emergency
response plan and will not physically interfere with emergency evacuation routes.
THRESHOLD IX.G: Less Than Significant Impact. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
General Plan EIR Summary
The expansive open space areas in the City are susceptible to destructive wildland fires, often
exacerbated by dry weather and Santa Ana winds. The undeveloped areas in the City are
characterized by sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, and other vegetation types that can provide
fuel for wildland fires. A large percentage of the City’s area is designated part of Moderate,
High, and Very High fire hazard severity zones, as mapped by CAL FIRE. The GP would
designate areas for development adjacent to areas that would be designated for open space.
Therefore, risk of wildfire could occur.
Federal, state, and county fire suppression agencies have responsibility areas in the City. To
protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, the City has building and fire codes that
must be followed. The RCFD fire chief may also use their authority to require certain building,
planning, or landscaping requirements.
Using fire-resistant building materials, implementing fuel modification zones, and maintaining
vegetation clearance around structures is required to protect buildings and reduce the potential
loss of life and property. New development in wildland and urban-wildland interface areas must
be consistent with the existing regulations, including the State Fire Code, to meet fire safety
standards for building construction. Additionally, the CBC includes sections on fire-resistant
construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction
requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other
structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Because the State of California,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 83
the County, and the City require adherence to building codes and review by the fire department
to reduce wildland fires, fire hazard impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.8-32).
Project Impact Discussion
The fire hazard of an area is typically based on a combination of several factors. These
conditions include: 1) fuel loads, i.e. the type of fuel or vegetation and its density and continuity,
2) topography, elevation and slope, 3) weather, 4) wildfire history, 5) dwelling density, and 6)
existing local mitigation measures that help reduce the area’s fire hazard, such as fuel
modification zones, fire-rated construction, and fire hydrants.
Vegetation fires are not generally considered a significant hazard in the developed, relatively flat
areas of the City because the low topographic relief and lack of fuel loading due to carefully
maintained and regularly watered landscaping combine to mitigate the potential for wildland
fires (GP EIR, p. 5.8-7). The Project site is within the developed, relatively flat area of the City
and as shown in the City’s GP, the Project site is not within a moderate, high, or very high fire
hazard severity zone (GP, Figure S-6). The City’s GP determination is consistent with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), which identifies areas of Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) within local responsibility areas (LRAs) and State
Responsibility Areas. Mapping of the VHFHSZs is based on data and models of potential fuels
over a 30- to 50-year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior and expected
burn probabilities which quantifies the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure
(including firebrands) to buildings. The Project site is located in a non-VHFHSZ LRA, and not in
a State Responsibility Area (CALFIRE), which is consistent with the City’s GP determination that
the Project site is not within a moderate, high, or very high fire severity zone (GP, Figure S-6).
Additionally, the Project will be constructed in compliance with the current California Fire Code
as adopted by the MMC, Chapter 8.20 to ensure that the building incorporates fire safety
features in the unlikely event of risk from wildfire. Therefore, exposure of people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 84
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
offsite;
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
project inundation?
E. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Sources: AEI-A, CGP, EMWD, FEMA, GP SAF, LID 2011, GP EIR, RBF, WEBB-C, WEBB-D,
WQMP 2012
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards.
o 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.
o Policy S-3.2: Reduce flood hazards in developed areas known to flood.
o Policy OSC-7.8: Protect groundwater quality by decommissioning existing septic
systems and establishing connections to sanitary sewer infrastructure.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac
Wash, Paloma Wash, and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 85
replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper drainage, and prevention of flood
damage.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD X.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
General Plan EIR Summary
During the construction of development projects under the GP, there would be the potential for
short-term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations. After project development, the
quality of storm runoff could be altered. Since the GP does not include a specific development
plan, project-specific WQMPs cannot be developed at this time. Future project-specific WQMPs
would be prepared at the time of project application. Moreover, Low Impact Development (LID)
and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed
to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented by the City. Surface water
quality impacts would be less than significant.
A project-specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by Albert A.
WEBB Associates dated January 2019 (WEBB-C), which analyzes the mass grading and road
improvement portion of the proposed Project. Infiltration BMPs, such as pervious pavement and
infiltration trenches, require a depth of 10 feet or greater to groundwater to minimize the impacts
from stormwater pollutants. For sites with shallow groundwater, infiltration BMPs are not
recommended unless designed with impermeable liners and subdrains. The Project site has
adequate groundwater depth for infiltration BMPs to be effective; however, the Project site
infiltration rates are so low that they are considered not sufficient for infiltration BMPs to be
effective (WEBB-C, p. 13). The use of bioretention BMPs will allow existing soils to infiltrate soils
to their maximum capacity before perforated pipes intercept flows and divert them to the
proposed storm drain system (WEBB-C, p. 7). Based on these design requirements, no
pollutants from project runoff are expected to reach groundwater, and groundwater quality
impacts are expected to be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.9-20 – 5.9-23).
Project Impact Discussion
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would have the potential to result in
discharges from soil disturbance that could violate water quality standards if not adequately
addressed. The Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) statewide Construction General Permit (“CGP,” Order No. 09-09-
DWQ), which includes requirements for discharges of storm water runoff associated with
construction and land disturbance activities. The permit requires preparation of an effective
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which describes erosion and sediment control
BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared by a
Qualified SWPPP Developer and implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (CGP,
pp. 32-33). The project is anticipated to be a “Risk Level 1” construction site. Risk Level 1
SWPPP requirements include the following:
Narrative (and not numeric) effluent standards;
Good Site Management or “housekeeping” measures for construction materials, waste
management, vehicle storage and maintenance, landscape materials, and potential
pollutant sources;
Non-Storm Water Management;
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 86
Erosion Control;
Sediment Controls;
Run-On and Runoff Controls;
Inspection, Maintenance and Repair;
Construction Site Monitoring Program:
o Visual inspections for non-storm water discharges (quarterly), pre-storm event
(baseline), daily during qualifying storm events of BMPs, and post-storm; and
Provide documentation in Annual Report and pay annual fee.
Terminate permit coverage when the site is proven 70 percent stabilized with photos,
computational proof or a custom method.
Through compliance with the regulatory requirements of the NPDES statewide Construction
General Permit, the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during construction.
Operation. Post-construction operations of the proposed Project would also have the potential
to discharge pollutants that could violate water quality standards of downstream waterbodies.
The Project would be required to comply with the municipal storm drain NPDES permit for
Riverside County, of which the City is a co-permittee (“MS4” permit).14 The City is responsible
for preparing and achieving the goals laid out in the MS4 permit to reduce pollutants in urban
runoff, which includes a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for certain new development
and redevelopment projects. The proposed Project meets the threshold of a Priority
Development Project since it proposes more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface.
As shown in Figure 12 – Regional Hydrology, the Project site is tributary to Salt Creek
Channel and Canyon Lake and overlies the Menifee Groundwater Management Zone. Canyon
Lake is an impaired waterbody for historically high levels of nutrients. Therefore, the onsite
stormwater treatment mechanisms are required to target this constituent in particular.
The project-specific PWQMP (WEBB-C) describes the treatment method for stormwater runoff
generated by Phase I. The existing hydrological conditions are shown in Figure 13 – Existing
Hydrological Condition. The BMPs for Phase I will only treat the runoff that is produced by the
widening of Haun Road and interim grading of the proposed parcels. With each future
implementing development (Phase II), the conditions of approval require a project-specific
drainage study and WQMP to be prepared to detail how stormwater runoff will be conveyed and
treated pursuant to the MS4 permit and City requirements that are designed to protect water
resources. The Project proposes three basins to treat the runoff produces by the Project for
water quality. One basin is proposed on-site to treat Street “A”, while the other two basins are
proposed to treat off-site flows associated with the widening of Haun Road. Each basin will treat
the necessary water quality volume and once half a foot of ponding is achieved the flow will
continue to be conveyed in its existing drainage pattern (WEBB-D, pp. 3-4).
14 The City owns and/or operates a portion of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through which
urban runoff is discharged into Waters of the U.S. that are located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana
RWQCB. Section 402(p) of the CWA requires that discharges of urban runoff from MS4 be regulated under a
NPDES permit.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 12 – Regional HydrologySources: NHD, 2017;Riverside Co. GIS, 2018.
Ma
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
6
,
2
0
1
8
.
G
:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
R
e
g
_
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
.
m
x
d
LakeElsinore
CanyonLake
PROJECTSITE
San JacintoRiver
S a lt Creek Channel
·|}þ79
·|}þ74
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
0 2 4 MilesI Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
LEGEND
Project Site
San Jacinto River Watershed
San Jacinto GW Basin
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 13 - Existing Hydrological ConditionSources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2018;
USDA NAIP, 2016.
Pa
l
o
m
a
W
a
s
h
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
D
i
t
c
h
Wash
Paloma
Old
HA
N
O
V
E
R
L
N
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
HOLLAND RD
LA PIE DRA RD
ALBION LN
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
R
D
HA
U
N
R
D
§¨¦215
LEGEND
Project Site
Flow Direction
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
_
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
M
a
r
2
0
1
8
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI05001,000 1,500Feet
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 89
Basin A is designed to hold its respective water quality volume before entering the proposed
outlet structures during larger storm events. Basin A uses a 2.5 foot section of filter media (1.5
feet of engineered soil and 1 foot of gravel) to filter storm water runoff. Basin A is a series of
smaller basins. This basin proposes to connect the underdrains directly into the proposed outlet
structures.
Basin B is designed to hold its respective water quality volume and then convey the storm water
runoff back out during larger storm events. Basin B also uses a 2.5 foot section of filter media
(1.5 feet of engineered soil and 1 foot of gravel) to filter storm water runoff. The underdrains will
connect to into a proposed outlet structure, which will outlet flows into a new proposed storm
drain connection to the Paloma Wash Channel.
Basin C is designed to hold most of its respective water quality volume before entering the
proposed outlet structure during larger storm events. Basin C uses a 4 foot section of filter
media (3 feet of engineered soil and 1 foot of gravel) to filter storm water runoff. This basin also
proposes to connect the underdrains into the proposed outlet structure as identified on Figure
14 – Proposed Hydrological Condition. Basin B will treat flows up to the required water
quality volume. Because of the area needed for the bus turn-out that is a part of the Haun Road
expansion design, Basin C is approximately 200 square feet short of the area that would be
needed to hold its full water quality volume. To reduce this impact, Basin C will be deeper than
required. (WEBB-C, pp. 3-4)
A Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared by Albert A. WEBB Associates dated February
2020 (WEBB-D) for the proposed Project that outlines the necessary drainage improvements
that are required to convey off-site stormwater runoff to the proposed bioretention basins and
ultimately to Paloma Wash to the west of the Project site. The Project’s drainage will completely
avoid Old Paloma Wash, which is to the south of the Project site. In addition to the bioretention
basins, the Project will construct Line A with stub-outs at each parcel, and extend Lateral Line
P. Line A will be sized to carry the ultimate on-site stormwater flow rates from each parcel and
the Phase I area to Paloma Wash; but until Phase II is completed, Line A will collect just the
treated water and overflow from Basin B and outlet that to Paloma Wash through a new outfall
structure (WEBB-D, pp. 1-2). The Project site’s mass grading is considered the interim
condition, and the future buildout of the Project site is considered the ultimate condition (WEBB-
D, p. 1-2). The drainage analysis assumed that 90 percent of the Project site will be impervious
surfaces for the Project buildout condition. If future developments exceed ultimate buildout
conditions, the excess flow will need to be retained onsite; however, it is anticipated that the
ultimate Project buildout conditions assumed will be sufficient (WEBB-D, pp. 2-1 – 2-3). The
new outfall structure will be located on the east bank of Paloma Wash and designed to the
same specifications as the other existing outfall structures in Paloma Wash. As discussed
previously in Section IV – Biological Resources, the proposed outlet structure footprint is
approximately 0.08-acre. The Project will also extend Lateral Line P, which is a Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Master Drainage Plan
facility. Lateral Line P will be extended from its existing location in Haun Road to the outlet of
Basin C, in order for the treated water and overflows from Basin C to outlet into Paloma Wash
through an existing outfall structure. (WEBB-C, pp. 1-2)
In summary, the proposed bioretention basins are designed according to the sizing calculations
found in the LID BMP Handbook (LID 2011), which is based on approved methodologies within
the Riverside County MS4 permit (RB8-2010-0033). The proposed basins will adequately treat
most of the water quality design volume through bioretention, and the proposed outlet structures
will convey flows and provide flood protection for the 100-year flood event. Considering the
additional space and capacity for treatment that is provided by Basin B and Basin C, nutrient
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 14 - Proposed Hydrological ConditionSource: Riverside Co. GIS, 2018.
Pa
l
o
m
a
W
a
s
h
PROP.CATCHBASIN
PROP. LATERAL CONNECTION TOPALOMA WASH
LINE P - EX.CONNECTION TOPALOMA WASH
PROP.SD LINES
EX. 4-CELLBOX CULVERT OLD PALOMA WASH
FLOWLINES
CALTRANS DITCH
PROP.CATCHBASIN
HOLLAND
HA
U
N
R
D
RD
§¨¦215
LEGEND
Study Area
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
_
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
1
D
e
c
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
0 200 400Feet
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 91
removal will still be adequately achieved even though Basin C is undersized due to site
limitations. The Project will address the nutrient impairments in Canyon Lake and will not in and
of itself cause a violation of water quality standards for downstream waters or degrade the
groundwater quality.
Compliance with applicable regulations, Project Design Features, and Conditions of Approval
will reduce impacts to less than significant.
THRESHOLD X.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
General Plan EIR Summary
Over half the land in the City consists of permeable surfaces: 38 percent of the land area is
vacant, 6 percent is in agricultural use, and 4.5 percent is developed with parks or golf courses.
Buildout of the proposed GP would increase impermeable areas in the City and thus could
cause increased stormwater flows into storm drainage systems. The proposed GP would
designate 2,537 acres either for conservation (OS-C, 1,664 acres); water (OS-W, 69 acres); or
for land uses consisting of permeable surfaces, recreation (OS-R, 725 acres) and agriculture
(AG, 79 acres). The remainder of the City—27,276 acres, or 91 percent of the City—would be
designated for land uses in which some part of each lot would be developed with impermeable
land uses. The MS4 Permit for the part of the Santa Ana River Watershed in the County, Order
No. R8-2010-0033 issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB in 2010, requires that urban runoff from
85th-percentile storm events from specific types of development categories be infiltrated, filtered
or treated; an 85th-percentile storm is roughly equivalent to a two-year storm. There are no
percolation basins or other areas in the City used for intentional recharge of groundwater
basins. Thus, GP buildout would not interfere with intentional groundwater recharge, and
impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.9-19).
Project Impact Discussion
Development of Phase I of the Project will not impact groundwater resources since the site will
mostly be left unpaved. The Project site is not an area known to be used for groundwater
recharge. Development of Phase II of the Project will incrementally increase the amount of
impervious surfaces but in a location anticipated by the GP EIR.
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the water provider for the site and relies on three
primary sources of water: imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, local groundwater and recycled water. In its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan,
EMWD indicated that it has sufficient supply to meet customer demand based on existing
demand and projected demand based on land use projections from cities within its service area
(EMWD). Therefore, because the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s GP land use
designation for the site, incremental increases in water demand from development of the
proposed Project has been accounted for in EMWD’s planning efforts and there is sufficient
supply to serve the Project site.
Therefore, because the proposed Project will not increase groundwater pumping beyond what
has already been planned and because the Project will not substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation
measures are required for impacts on decreasing groundwater supplies and would not interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 92
THRESHOLD X.C.i: Less Than Significant Impact. 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: result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold X.A and X.B.
Project Impact Discussion
As discussed previously, the storm drain improvements to be constructed in Phase I and
development of the parcels in Phase II will incrementally increase the impervious area at the
Project site. The Project site drainage is currently conveyed into two separate drainage
channels. Approximately 6.4 acres of the western portion of the site drains toward the Paloma
Wash, which parallels Haun Road to the west of the Project site. The remaining eastern portion
of the Project site drains to a Caltrans drainage ditch, which parallels Interstate 215 to the east
of the Project site. Both of these drainage features drain to the north. The proposed Project will
be designed to drain only to the Paloma Wash; the current drainage pattern towards the
Caltrans drainage ditch will not be maintained (WEBB-D, pp. 1-1 – 1-2). The Project will avoid
draining to the Caltrans drainage ditch because it is under Caltran’s jurisdiction, and thus
improvements that may be needed to this feature to accommodate the Project’s drainage
cannot be implemented by the Project proponent or City. As discussed in Threshold X.C.iii
below, the Project will be designed so that the Paloma Wash will be able to accommodate the
Project’s stormwater flow. Therefore, while it is an alteration of the existing drainage pattern, it is
necessary in order to accommodate the drainage from the Project site Conditions of approval
will require that future development of the onsite parcels will require preparation of drainage
studies and WQMPs to ensure no significant impacts to infrastructure and downstream water
quality.
With implementation of the Project, treatment of the stormwater and incidental runoff from just
Haun Road is proposed with bioretention basins that are highly effective in catching sediment
and reducing the impact of erosion and siltation to downstream waterbodies. Through
compliance with applicable regulations, Conditions of Approval and Project Design Features as
described under Threshold X.A, the Project will not cause a substantial alteration in the existing
drainage pattern and impacts in this regard are less than significant.
THRESHOLD X.C.ii: Less Than Significant Impact. 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:
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
General Plan EIR Summary
As stated previously, over half the land in the City at the time the GP EIR was adopted
(December 2013) consists of permeable surfaces: 38 percent of the land area is vacant, 6
percent is in agricultural use, and 4.5 percent is developed with parks or golf courses. Buildout
of the proposed GP would increase impermeable areas in the City and thus could cause
increased stormwater flows into storm drainage systems. The proposed GP would designate
2,537 acres either for conservation (OS-C, 1,664 acres); water (OS-W, 69 acres); or for land
uses consisting of permeable surfaces, recreation (OS-R, 725 acres) and agriculture (AG, 79
acres). The remainder of the City—27,276 acres, or 91 percent of the City—would be
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 93
designated for land uses in which some part of each lot would be developed with impermeable
land uses.
The MS4 Permit for the part of the Santa Ana River Watershed in the County, Order No. R8-
2010-0033 issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB in 2010, requires that urban runoff from 85th-
percentile storm events from specific types of development categories be infiltrated, filtered or
treated; an 85th-percentile storm is roughly equivalent to a two-year storm.
Development and redevelopment projects built pursuant to the proposed GP would comply with
the MS4 Permit. No substantial impacts to storm drainage capacity would occur. The entire City
is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region RWQCB respecting discharges to municipal
storm drains, pursuant to Order No. R8-2013-0024, and is regulated under Order No. R8-2010-
0033. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.9-17 – 5.9-19).
Project Impact Discussion
Please refer to the previous thresholds for descriptions of the existing drainage pattern of the
site (also see Figure 13 and Figure 14). The bioretention basins are designed for the water
quality storm event, and the outlet structures are designed for the 100-year flood event (WEBB-
C and WEBB-D). In addition, emergency spillways are provided for an event greater than the
100-year flood event. These required sizing considerations will ensure that flooding will not
occur onsite as part of Phase I, and conditions of approval will provide that Phase II will not
contribute to flooding of the site or area. Runoff from the Project site will outlet offsite into the
Paloma Wash, which is a regional flood control facility. Through compliance with applicable
regulations, Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Features described under Threshold
X.A, the Project will not cause a substantial alteration in the existing drainage pattern and
impacts in this regard are less than significant.
THRESHOLD X.C.iii: Less Than Significant Impact. 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: 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold X.C.ii.
Project Impact Discussion
Currently, the Project site sheet flows to the east towards the Caltrans Ditch. The Project will
redirect flows to the west towards Paloma Wash. Both drainage features outlet at Salt Creek
located approximately 1.5 miles north. Neither the Caltrans Ditch nor Paloma Wash were sized
for ultimate build-out of the Project site. Line A (including the proposed outfall structure in
Paloma Wash) and Lateral Line P will be constructed for ultimate design capacity (full buildout
of the site and 100-year flood event). The new Line A connection to Paloma Wash will
contribute a maximum of approximately 87 cfs to Paloma Wash. Paloma Wash has an
estimated flow rate capacity of 4,078 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a 100-year flood event where
it crosses Holland Road. The additional flow contributed to Paloma Wash from development of
this Project through Lateral Line P is approximately 4 cfs in a 100-year flood event. The
contribution of flows from development of the Project is an insignificant proportion of the total
capacity of the channel, and the Project will not cause existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems to exceed capacity. Conditions of approval will ensure that future development meets
the design criteria to avoid downstream impacts. (WEBB-C, p. 147). The volume of runoff held
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 94
onsite in Basin B and Basin C is the required water quality volume that will be treated through
bioretention mechanisms. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff.
Through compliance with applicable regulations, Conditions of Approval and Project Design
Features described in Threshold X.A, the Project will not cause existing or planned drainage
systems to exceed capacity, nor contribute additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts in this
regard are less than significant.
THRESHOLD X.C.iv: Less Than Significant Impact. 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: impede or
redirect flood flows?
General Plan EIR Summary
Two parts of the City are in FEMA 100-year flood zones. One is an east–west band across the
Perris Valley in the northern part of the City, and the second extends east–west along Salt
Creek through the central part of the City and includes tributary areas both north and south of
Salt Creek. Some drainages in the southern part of the City are also in Riverside County Flood
Hazard Zones—in the Paloma Valley and in hills on the south flank of the Paloma Valley.
Future development within the 100-year flood plan must be reviewed by FEMA to determine
whether or not the project meets the criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program and if
revisions will be needed to the FEMA maps as a result of the project’s construction. Projects
developed pursuant to the GP would be required to reduce flood risks by doing one or more of
the following:
Grade project building pads above 100-year flood elevations. For areas in 100-year flood
zones where detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, and thus flood
elevations are not known, project-specific hydrologic studies shall determine flood
elevations for 100-year floods. This requirement applies to the finish floors of buildings
for human occupancy, as well as outdoor areas for use by substantial numbers of
people, such as schoolyards and amphitheaters.
Implement flood control improvements and obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or
Letter of Map Change (LOMC) from FEMA based on the flood control improvements. An
LOMR or LOMC requires a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and approval by FEMA.
All developments and redevelopments approved in accordance with the proposed GP would
comply with provisions governing new construction, modifications of existing structures, and
encroachments into special flood hazard areas. Therefore, impacts related to flood zones are
considered less than significant and would not subject people or structures to substantial
hazards from 100-year floods (GP EIR, pp. 5.9-19 – 5.9-20).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project is within Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map, which corresponds to the area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA Firm Panel
06065C2070H effective 8/18/2014). Paloma Wash is designated as special flood hazard area,
Zone AE regulatory floodway. Because the Project site is outside the special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the 100-year flood, and the offsite storm drain outfall structure proposed
for the bank of Paloma Wash will not impede or redirect flood flows, the Project will not impede
or redirect flood flows and impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 95
THRESHOLD X.D: Less Than Significant Impact. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold X.C.iv for a discussion of flood hazards.
Buildout of the GP would increase the numbers of residents, workers, and structures in parts of
the City subject to flooding due to seiches.
Seiches. Projects proposed under the GP would be subject to independent CEQA review.
CEQA review for projects sited near inland water bodies that could generate seiches, such as
Canyon Lake or artificial lakes at Menifee Lakes Country Club in the east part of the City, would
assess flood hazards from seiches and set forth feasible mitigation measures as required.
Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.9-24).
The GP EIR did not analyze project impacts due to a tsunami. However, the City is roughly 36
miles away from the nearest (Pacific) Ocean, which is far enough away that any impacts from a
tsunami would be nonexistent.
Project Impact Discussion
The Project is not within the FEMA 100-year flood hazard area, as discussed in Threshold
IX.C.iv. Seiches can occur in bodies of water both near and far from the earthquake epicenter.
Menifee Lakes is approximately one-half mile to the northeast of the Project site; however,
water flow is anticipated to be towards the east-southeast (AEI-A, p. 7). Therefore, the Project
site is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by seiche. As stated previously, the City is
roughly 36 miles away from the nearest (Pacific) Ocean, which is far enough away that any
impacts from a tsunami would be nonexistent. Therefore, since the Project has a less than
significant risk of inundation, the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation is less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD X.E: Less Than Significant Impact. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
General Plan EIR Summary
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, updated in February 2008,
establishes water quality standards for groundwater and surface water in the basin; that is,
standards for both beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the water quality levels that must
be maintained to protect those uses. The basin plan includes an implementation plan describing
actions by the Santa Ana RWQCB and others needed to achieve and maintain the water quality
standards. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their
effects on the quality of the region’s groundwater and surface waters. The Basin Plan lists water
quality problems for the region, along with causes, where they are known. Plans for improving
water quality are included for water bodies with quality below the levels needed to enable all the
beneficial uses of the water. (GP, p. 5.9-11).
Part of the southeast corner of the City is in the territory of the San Diego RWQCB; however,
discharges to municipal storm drains throughout the City are regulated by the Santa Ana
RWQCB (GP, p. 5.9-11). Additionally, the GP discusses groundwater recharge in Threshold
HYD-2 and Impact 5.9-2, as follows:
The increase in impermeable surfaces that would occur in the City resulting from GP
buildout is described above under Impact 5.9-1. Requirements for infiltration or other
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 96
treatment of stormwater by new development projects are also described under Impact
5.9-1. There are no percolation basins or other areas in the City used for intentional
recharge of groundwater basins (Daverin 2013). Thus, GP buildout would not interfere
with intentional groundwater recharge.
Project Impact Discussion
Refer to the discussion of groundwater resources in Threshold X.B. Because the proposed
Project will not increase groundwater pumping beyond what has already been planned and
because the Project will not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, the Project would
have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required for impacts on
decreasing groundwater supplies and would not interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management.
Conditions of Approval
1. Site Drainage Plan. As each parcel is processed for entitlement/development, a parcel-
specific site drainage plan is required by the City and will be reviewed by the City
Engineering Department. The final grading and drainage plan will be approved by the
City Engineering Department during plan check review.
2. SWPPP. Erosion and siltation reduction measure BMPs contained in the required
SWPPP will be implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, the
Project will consist of impervious surfaces, landscaped planters, and post-construction
BMPs.
3. WQMP. As each parcel is processed for entitlement/development, a parcel-specific
WQMP for review and approval. The WQMP identifies postconstruction BMPs in
addressing increases in impervious surfaces, methods to decrease incremental
increases in off-site stormwater flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in
off-site discharges as required by the applicable NPDES requirements.
4. Storm Drainage Facilities. The Project applicant shall pay Development Impact Fees
(DIFs) 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.
5. Wastewater. All wastewater associated with the Project’s interior plumbing systems will
be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater
treatment plant.
Mitigation Measures
None
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Physically divide an established
community?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 97
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: GP, GP LU, GP EIR
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate,
that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal
transportation opportunities.
o 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.
o Policy LU-1.8: Ensure new development is carefully designed to avoid or
incorporate natural features, including washes, creeks, and hillsides.
o Policy LU-1.9: Allow for flexible development standards provided that the
potential benefits and merit of projects can be balanced with potential impacts.
o 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.
Goal LU-2: Thriving Economic Development Corridors that accommodate a mix of
nonresidential and residential uses that generate activity and economic vitality in the
City.
o Policy LU-2.1: Promote infill development that complements existing
neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Infill development and future growth in
Menifee is strongly encouraged to locate within EDC areas to preserve the rural
character of rural, estate, and small estate residential uses.
Goal ED-1: A diverse and robust local economy capable of providing employment for all
residents desiring to work in the City.
o Policy ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment
opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and
industries and occupations.
Goal ED-2: A variety of retail shopping areas distributed strategically throughout the City
and regional retail, dining, and entertainment destinations in key locations with freeway
access.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 98
o Policy ED-2.1: Promote retail development by locating needed goods and
services in proximity to where residents live to improve quality of life, retain
taxable spending by Menifee residents, and attract residents from outside the
City to shop in Menifee.
Locate businesses providing convenience goods and services in retail
centers that are on arterials adjacent to neighborhoods and communities
throughout the City but not in rural residential areas.
Encourage comparison goods businesses to locate in larger retail centers
located on major arterials near freeway interchanges, because
businesses that provide comparison goods tend to draw customers from
larger areas.
o Policy ED-2.2: Require regional retail districts to provide entertainment and
dining in addition to retail sales and services to create destinations prepared to
withstand e-commerce's increasing capture of retail spending. These districts
should create a pedestrian-friendly human-scale atmosphere with street furniture,
shading, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping and
socializing.
Local retail centers (primarily intended to serve Menifee residents) need
not necessarily provide dining and entertainment but shall provide street
furniture, shading, pedestrian-circulation, and gathering spaces that
enhance the experience of shopping.
Goal ED-3: A mix of land uses that generates a fiscal balance to support and enhance
the community's quality of life.
o Policy ED-3.1: Incorporate short-term and long-term economic and fiscal
implications of proposed actions into decision making.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XI.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Physically divide an established
community?
General Plan EIR Summary
Implementation of the GP would guide future growth within the City. The changes in existing
land use designations that would occur with implementation of the GP Land Use Plan would not
result in the physical division of an established community. Proposed land use designations
would generally remain similar to those existing. For example, existing residential land uses in
the areas of Menifee Lakes, Quail Valley, Romoland, and Sun City would remain, and the land
use designations of these areas would also be consistent, but with different classification names
(e.g., very low density vs. rural residential).
The biggest change to residential land use designations would occur along the central and
northwestern portions of the City. Some areas currently designated residential would be
changed to Specific Plan (SP). The City has 15 approved specific plans (including the
Countryside SP) covering a total of 6,721 acres, or approximately 22.5 percent of the area of
the City. Combined, the 15 specific plans permit development of up to 19,867 residential units,
approximately 4.72 million SF of retail space, and approximately 5.80 million SF of nonretail
commercial and industrial space. Therefore, development in the areas designated SP, which
includes residential, would be guided based on the approved land use plans and development
standards associated with each specific plan document.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 99
The GP also contains policies that encourage the preservation or enhancement of the existing,
primarily residential communities through infill development, open space opportunities, and
development of compatible uses that would enhance the existing character of the City.
Neighborhood identity and preservation is a key component of the land use and housing
elements. Additionally, the land use element outlines specific policies for compatibility that
would reduce the amount of conflict between contrasting land uses. Implementation of the
pertinent policies of the GP would help ensure the development of cohesive communities while
maintaining the features that make each neighborhood unique. Thus, implementation of the GP
would not divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR,
pp. 5.10-4 – 5.10-5).
Project Impact Discussion
The proposed Project is currently bounded by vacant land to the north, Haun Road followed by
the Paloma Wash and Lennar South 35, a residential development currently under construction
to the west, I-215 to the east, and Holland Road followed by a mix of vacant and commercial
development to the south (Figure 3). The proposed Project is also consistent with the planned
surrounding land uses and will not divide or disrupt an existing or planned community.
Additionally, the Project does not propose construction of any off-site improvements which
would physically divide any portion of the community. Rather, the construction of the proposed
private drive aisle would provide access to the various future uses on the Project site off of
Haun Road. Signalization is also proposed at the Holland Road and Haun Road intersection
that will improve the walkability of the Project site to the surrounding community and vice versa.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not physically divide an established
community. Impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
THRESHOLD XI.B: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP has been prepared in accordance with state planning law; it is meant to be a framework
for guiding planning and development in Menifee for the next 20 or more years and can be
thought of as the blueprint for the City’s growth and development. The GP’s Land Use Plan
would consist of a number of land use designations, including residential (rural to high density),
commercial retail, commercial office, heavy industrial, business park, EDC, SP, agriculture,
conservation, recreation, water, public/quasi-public facilities, and public utilities corridor. The
GP’s Land Use Plan and the goals and policies in the GP strive to preserve and ensure land
use compatibility throughout the City.
The GP is consistent with California Government Code Section 65302 because it addresses the
seven required elements or topics (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space,
noise, and safety) in addition to three optional elements: air quality, community design, and
economic development. The GP also includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines
development goals and policies, exhibits and diagrams, and text setting forth objectives,
principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout the various elements of the GP.
Additionally, the GP is consistent with Assembly Bill 1358 because Complete Streets is one of
the key components in the Circulation Element of the GP. The GP is also consistent with the
applicable RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the GP would not result in significant
land use impacts related to relevant RTP/SCS goals.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 100
Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.10-5 – 5.10-6).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project site is zoned Industrial Park (I-P) and has a General Plan land use designation of
EDC in the City’s GP (see Figure 7 and Figure 8). The EDC designation is intended to provide
economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote economic development along the
City’s major corridors and a variety of uses can be developed either vertically or horizontally
within a single property or multiple properties in EDC designations. Specifically, the Project is
within EDC-CC, which is intended to function as a ceremonial “heart” or downtown of the City
and will serve as a transition from existing rural lots to more concentrated retail and office
development moving east towards I-215 (GP LU, pp. 3 – 4). To be consistent with the GP land
use designation, the City is adopting consistency zoning for the EDC areas which would make
the zoning EDC. This process is separate from this Project.
The proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC-CC. The Project
involves multiple uses and sites retail and office development close to I-215, which are
consistent with the land uses allowed for the EDC-CC designation (GP, Exhibit LU-B2E).
Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect will be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: GP, GP EIR
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.
o 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 101
o 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
THRESHOLD XII.A: No Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
No known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City. The Mineral
Resources Zones (MRZs) mapped in the City include MRZ-1, MRZ-3, and Urban Area. The only
areas in the San Jacinto Basin that have been designated MRZ-2—that is, where significant
mineral resources are known to exist or are considered very likely to exist—are two areas
northwest of Lake Elsinore totaling approximately 465 acres, approximately six miles west of the
City’s western boundary. MRZ-2-designated areas in the San Bernardino P-C Region are in the
Upper Santa Ana River Valley near the Santa Ana River and tributaries of the river flowing
southward from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, and in the San Gorgonio Pass
area east of the City of Banning in the Whitewater River watershed. Therefore, based on current
MRZ designations in the San Jacinto Basin, including the City, it is unlikely that significant
mineral resources would be designated in the City in the foreseeable future. GP buildout would
not cause a loss of availability of known significant mineral resources. Implementation of the GP
would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Impacts would be less
than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.11-5).
Project Impact Discussion
The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the
state that contain regionally significant mineral resources, as mandated by the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint
effort of the state and the local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that
the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four Mineral Resource
Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZ), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs). The
proposed Project site is located within MRZ-3, which is defined as an area containing a known
or inferred mineral occurrence of undetermined mineral resource significance (GP, Exhibit OSC-
3).
No known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City (GP EIR, p. 5.11-5).
The Project site has not been used for previous mining activities. Additionally, it is unlikely that a
mining operation could feasibly function at the Project site if significant resources were
discovered in the future due to the existing and planned developments surrounding the Project
site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on loss or availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and no mitigation
measures are required.
THRESHOLD XII.B: No Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary under Threshold XI.A.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 102
Project Impact Discussion
There is no locally-important mineral resource recovery site on the Project site. Neither the
Riverside County GP nor the City’s GP designate mining sites in the City (including the Project
site). Therefore, the Project will have no impact on loss or availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: DBF, GP NOI, GP EIR, HR215, MMC
Applicable General Plan Policies
Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration
exposure.
o Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise
environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project
applications.
o 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 103
o 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.
o Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table
below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive
receptors:
Table N-1
Stationary Source Noise Standards
Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards
Residential
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
40 Leq (10
minute)
55 Leq (10
minute)
45 Leq (10 minute)
65 Leq (10 minute)
Source: GP, Noise Element N-1.7
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy N-1.11: Discourage the siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in excess of
65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation.
o 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.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XIII.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
Increase in Traffic Noise. The operational phases of individual projects that result from the
proposed Land Use Plan would generate noise from vehicular sources. Future development in
accordance with the GP would cause increases in traffic along local roadways. The increases
would occur due to implementation of the proposed Land Use Plan, implementation of the
circulation plan, and regional growth. The highest roadway noise increase would occur along
areas that are least developed, along roadways that would be improved with additional lanes
and connections currently not implemented, bringing substantial pass-by traffic. Similarly, traffic
noise increases for Post-2035 conditions over existing would range from 0.0 to 18.6 A-weighted
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 104
decibel (dBA) based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and traffic noise
increases for Post-2035 Expanded EDC scenario over existing would range from 0.0 to 19.1
dBA CNEL. Increases over individual projects associated with buildout of the proposed Land
Use Plan would occur over a period of many years, and the increase in noise on an annual
basis would not be readily discernible because traffic and noise would increase incrementally.
Because substantial cumulative increases in the ambient noise environment would occur at
existing uses from buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Traffic Noise Exposure. Siting of new noise-sensitive land uses within a noise environment
that exceeds the normally acceptable land use compatibility criterion represents a potentially
significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the development review
process to determine the level of impacts and required mitigation. To ensure the compatibility of
new development in the City, the Noise Element contains a number of policies to minimize
potential impacts on sensitive land uses. Noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to major roads and
I-215 would be exposed to noise levels above 60 dBA CNEL, which is the normally compatible
ambient noise level for the development of noise sensitive uses such as residential. Goal N1 of
the City’s GP includes several policies to protect noise-sensitive land uses from noise-exposure.
Policy N1.2 of the City’s GP requires new projects to comply with noise standards of local,
regional, and state building code regulations. Policy N1.11 of the City’s GP discourages the
siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation.
Policy N1.17 of the City’s GP prevents construction of new noise-sensitive land uses within the
65 dBA CNEL contours of any public-use or military airports. With implementation of the GP’s
Noise Element policies to reduce noise impacts to sensitive uses, noise impacts from
transportation sources to sensitive uses would be less than significant.
Stationary Source Noise. Noise is regulated by numerous codes and ordinances across
federal, state, and local agencies. In addition, the City regulates stationary-source noise through
the MMC. Many processes and activities in cities produce noise, most notably the operation of
commercial, warehousing, industrial uses, schools, and at-grade railroad crossings. Buildout of
the proposed Land Use Plan would result in an increase in residential, commercial, industrial,
and institutional development within the City. The primary noise sources from residential,
commercial, and institutional land uses are landscaping, maintenance activities, and air
conditioning systems. In addition, future commercial uses may include loading docks. Noise
generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent, and these uses
are not a substantial source of noise. The City requires that noise from new stationary sources
in the City comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits the acceptable noise at the
property line of the impacted property to reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses. The City
Police or Code Enforcement Officer enforces the noise limitation of the MMC. Consequently,
stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase
the noise environment. Noise-sensitive uses would not be exposed to elevated noise levels from
stationary sources, and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.12-16, 5.12-18 –
5.12-27, 5.12-29 – 5.12-30, and 5.12-35).
Temporary Ambient Noise. Implementation of the GP would result in construction of new
residential, commercial, and industrial uses throughout the planning area. Two types of short-
term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and
movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local
access roads. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to demolition, site
preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps,
each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 105
Construction equipment generates high levels of noise ranging from a maximum of 71 dBA to
101 dBA. Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of the proposed
Land Use Plan would temporally increase the ambient noise environment and would have the
potential to affect noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of each individual project. The City
restricts the hours of construction activities that occurs within a 0.25 mile of an inhabited
dwelling to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day. Construction activities within 0.25 mile
of a sensitive uses are prohibited during the evening and nighttime hours, as provided in the
MMC. However, construction activities may occur outside of these hours if the City determines
that the maintenance, repair, or improvement is necessary to maintain public services or cannot
feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or if construction activities comply with the
stationary source noise standards of the MMC.
MMC regulations require construction noise to occur during daytime hours; specifically, the
MMC prohibits construction to occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:30am Monday
through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, which would reduce construction noise
by limiting construction hours to the less sensitive hours of the day (MMC section 9.210.060).
Through the implementation of the GP Noise Element and enforcement of the MMC, the
proposed plan would minimize temporary or periodic impacts to ambient noise levels from
construction activities to the maximum extent feasible. Subsequent projects would be subject to
separate, project-level CEQA review to identify and mitigate associated impacts. Therefore,
implementation of the GP as it relates to construction noise would result in a less than
significant noise impact (GP EIR, pp. 5.12-35 – 5.12-37).
Project Impact Discussion
For the potential uses on the Project site, the City has identified noise levels of up to 67.5 dBA
CNEL as “normally acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL as “conditionally acceptable” for
commercial and business land uses per the GP. Noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL are
considered “normally acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL are considered “conditionally
acceptable” for industrial uses as reflected in Figure 15 – Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments. In both instances, the conditionally acceptable conditions
include conducting an analysis of noise reduction requirements.
Noise impacts generally fall into two broad categories with respect to all types of projects and
noise standards: noise impacts from a project and noise impacts to a project. The first category
is the noise created by the uses or traffic associated with a project. The second category of
noise impacts is noise created offsite that may cause unacceptable levels of noise within
buildings or outdoor areas on a project site.
The Noise Study (DBF, Appendix M) analyzed the potential for noise impacts to exceed the
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies. Results are summarized below.
Construction Noise Impacts. The closest existing residential dwelling units to the Project site
are located approximately 400 feet east of the Project site, east of the I-215 and may be
affected by short-term noise impacts associated with ground clearing, excavation, grading, and
building activities. To the west of Paloma Wash is a residential development, Lennar South 35,
which is currently under construction (the site has been graded), which is about the same
distance west of the Project site (400 feet) as the closest existing residential units. Construction
of the Project would generate a short-term temporary increase in noise in the Project area. The
increase in noise level would be primarily experienced close to the noise source. The magnitude
of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, noise level generated by various
pieces of construction equipment, duration of the construction phase, acoustical shielding and
distance between the noise source and receiver.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 106
Construction activity and delivery of construction materials and equipment to and from the
Project site would be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday
per the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.210.060. No construction is permitted on nationally
recognized holidays (DBF, p. 12). Hours of construction are also regulated by the City’s MMC
Section 8.01.010, which states that any construction within the City located within one-fourth
mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally
recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; there shall be no construction permitted on Sunday
or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or
City Engineer.
Site grading is expected to produce the highest sustained construction noise levels. Sound
levels of typical construction equipment range from approximately 65 – 95 dBA at 50 feet from
the source (DBF, p. 28). Worst-case noise levels are typically associated with grading. Noise
sources associated with grading of the proposed Project are shown in Table N – Grading
Noise Source Levels. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes
the use of one scraper, a bulldozer, one backhoe, one roller and a water truck operating
continuously within the boundary of the Project site (DBF, p. 30). The construction was modeled
without a correction for downtime for equipment maintenance, breaks, or similar situations,
presenting a worst-case scenario.
Table N – Grading Noise Source Levels
Noise Source Noise Level (at 50 feet) Pieces of Equipment
Bulldozers 85 dBA 1
Scrapers 85 dBA 1
Backhoe 85 dBA 1
Water Truck 85 dBA 1
Roller 75 dBA 1
Source: DBF, Table 12, p. 30
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
The calculations assumed point source acoustical characteristics. Using standard point source
calculations (i.e. the source and location of the noise is identified), the combined level of 91 dBA
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) at 50 feet would attenuate to approximately 73 dBA Leq at the
residences across I-215.
Consistency with Applicable Standards. Construction is anticipated to occur during the
permissible hours according to the MMC. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic
increase in the ambient noise levels above existing within the Project vicinity. The construction
noise levels are anticipated to be 73 dBA and below at the closest residences to the proposed
Project site. As stated earlier, any construction activities that occur outside the allowable time
would be considered significant. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary (DBF, p. 31). Regardless, implementation of mitigation
measures MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-3 will ensure impacts from construction noise remain
less than significant.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 107
Project-Generated Traffic Noise Impacts. As discussed above, it is widely accepted that the
average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA; that a change of 5 dBA is readily
perceptible; and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud. This
definition is recommended by the California Department of Transportation’s Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol for New Highway and Reconstruction Projects (2011). A doubling of the
energy of a noise source, such as a doubled traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3
dBA. Therefore, Project generated trips would need to result in a doubling of the traffic volumes
on a road segment in order to result in an audible increase in ambient noise levels.
The Holland Road overcrossing is a separate project in the City that involves constructing an
overpass at I-215 and Holland Road, located at the southern boundary of the Project site
(HR215). This Project evaluated the noise for two conditions – with and without the Holland
Road overpass. For each condition, there was not a doubling of traffic on any of the study area
roadway segments.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 108
Without Overpass Conditions. As demonstrated in Table O – Project-Generated Roadway Noise Without Overpass, Project
generated vehicle trips (Existing Conditions + Cumulative Conditions + Project) are not anticipated to result in an audible or a
substantial increase in noise levels because the Project will not double traffic volumes on any roadways in the Project vicinity. The
largest increase in CNEL is the segment of Haun Road between La Piedra Road and Holland Road, which is an increase of 1.5 dBA
CNEL. The remaining study roadways saw no change or an increase of between 0.1 – 0.9 dBA CNEL.
Table O – Project-Generated Roadway Noise Without Overpass
Roadway Roadway Segment Speed Limit
Existing
+
Cumulative
ADT
Existing
+
Cumulative
(Baseline)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
+
Cumulative
+
Project
ADT
Existing
+
Cumulative
+
Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Generated
Noise Level
Increase
(dBA
CNEL) Impact
Bradley
Road
Park Avenue to Newport
Road 45 mph 18,214 71.0 18,734 71.1 0.1 No
Newport Road to
La Piedra Road 45 mph 13,741 70.5 13,949 70.6 0.1 No
La Piedra Road to
Holland Road 45 mph 9,439 68.8 9,959 68.9 0.1 No
Haun Road
Newport Road to
La Piedra Road 45 mph 23,930 72.9 31,949 73.8 0.9 No
La Piedra Road to
Holland Road 45 mph 14,094 70.4 22,633 71.9 1.5 No
Holland Road to
Scott Road 45 mph 13,764 70.1 15,012 70.4 0.3 No
Newport
Road
Murrieta Road to Bradley
Road 50 mph 41,287 76.2 42,327 76.3 0.1 No
Bradley Road to
Haun Road 50 mph 51,445 77.2 53,005 77.3 0.1 No
Haun Road to
I-215 SB Ramps 50 mph 59,580 77.9 65,416 78.2 0.3 No
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 109
Table O – Project-Generated Roadway Noise Without Overpass
Roadway Roadway Segment Speed Limit
Existing
+
Cumulative
ADT
Existing
+
Cumulative
(Baseline)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
+
Cumulative
+
Project
ADT
Existing
+
Cumulative
+
Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Generated
Noise Level
Increase
(dBA
CNEL) Impact
I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road 50 mph 74,964 78.7 76,982 78.8 0.1 No
Antelope Road to
Menifee Road 45 mph 44,535 75.4 45,991 75.4 0.0 No
La Piedra
Road
Sherman Road to
Haun Road 40 mph* 5,253 63.9 5,773 64.3 0.4 No
Scott Road
Haun Road to
I-215 SB Ramps 50 mph* 29,702 74.9 30,638 75.0 0.1 No
I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road 50 mph* 45,788 76.4 46,204 76.4 0.0 No
Holland
Road
Bradley Road to
Sherman Road 50 mph 13,084 71.4 14,123 71.6 0.2 No
Sherman Road to
Haun Road 50 mph 14,331 71.6 15,371 71.8 0.2 No
Source: DBF, Table 8, p. 24
Noise levels estimated at a reference distance of 50 feet.
Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel.
* unmarked; assumed speed limit
Mph = miles per hour; ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 110
With Overpass Conditions. As demonstrated in Table P – Project-Generated Roadway Noise With Overpass, Project
generated vehicle trips (Existing Conditions + Cumulative Conditions + With Overpass) are not anticipated to result in an audible or a
substantial increase in noise levels because the Project will not double traffic volumes on any roadways in the Project vicinity. The
largest increase in CNEL is the segment of Haun Road between La Piedra Road and Holland Road, which is an increase of 1.7 dBA
CNEL. The remaining study roadways saw no change or an increase of between 0.1 – 1.1 dBA CNEL.
Table P – Project-Generated Roadway Noise With Overpass
Existing Plus Cumulative
Roadway
Roadway
Segment
Speed
Limit ADT
(Baseline)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Plus
Project
ADT
Plus
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Project
Generated Noise
Level Increase
(dBA CNEL) Impact
Bradley
Road
Park Avenue to
Newport Road 45 mph 17,814 70.9 18,334 71.0 0.1 No
Newport Road to
La Piedra Road 45 mph 14,429 70.7 14,637 70.7 0.0 No
La Piedra Road to
Holland Road 45 mph 10,127 69.0 10,647 69.2 0.2 No
Haun Road
Newport Road to
La Piedra Road 45 mph 22,098 72.6 29,077 73.7 1.1 No
La Piedra Road to
Holland Road 45 mph 15,044 70.8 22,543 72.5 1.7 No
Holland Road to
Scott Road 45 mph 14,732 70.3 15,772 70.5 0.2 No
Newport
Road
Murrieta Road to
Bradley Road 50 mph 40,070 76.1 41,110 76.2 0.1 No
Bradley Road to
Haun Road 50 mph 48,586 77.0 50,146 77.1 0.1 No
Haun Road to
I-215 SB Ramps 50 mph 55,316 77.7 60,112 78.1 0.4 No
I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road 50 mph 69,631 78.4 70,879 78.5 0.1 No
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 111
Table P – Project-Generated Roadway Noise With Overpass
Existing Plus Cumulative
Roadway
Roadway
Segment
Speed
Limit ADT
(Baseline)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Plus
Project
ADT
Plus
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Project
Generated Noise
Level Increase
(dBA CNEL) Impact
Antelope Road to
Menifee Road 45 mph 41,350 75.1 42,286 75.1 0.0 No
La Piedra
Road
Sherman Road to
Haun Road 40 mph* 5,253 63.9 5,773 64.3 0.4 No
Scott Road
Haun Road to
I-215 SB Ramps 50 mph* 26,002 74.4 26,730 74.5 0.1 No
I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road 50 mph* 41,088 75.9 41,296 75.9 0.0 No
Holland
Road
Bradley Road to
Sherman Road 50 mph 13,218 71.4 14,257 71.7 0.3 No
Sherman Road to
Haun Road 50 mph 16,531 72.0 17,571 72.3 0.3 No
Haun Road to
Hanover Lane 45 mph 13,733 69.6 14,981 69.9 0.3 No
Hanover Lane to
Palomar Road 45 mph 9,271 68.2 9,791 68.4 0.2 No
Palomar Road to
Menifee Road 45 mph 8,299 67.8 8,819 68.0 0.2 No
Source: DBF, Table 10, p. 26
Notes:
Mph = miles per hour; ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.
Noise levels estimated at a reference distance of 50 feet.
Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel.
* unmarked; assumed speed limit
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 112
Consistency with Applicable Standards. Project generated vehicle trips are not anticipated
to result in an audible or substantial increase in ambient noise levels for the two conditions,
without and with the Holland Road Overpass; therefore, this impact is less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
Operational Noise Impacts to the Project. There are four main categories of land uses
proposed on the Project site: retail, office, automobile sales, and industrial. The City has
identified noise levels of up to 67.5 dBA CNEL as “normally acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA
CNEL as “conditionally acceptable” for business and commercial land uses; also, noise levels of
up to 70 dBA CNEL are classified as “normally acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL as
“conditionally acceptable” for industrial uses (see Figure 14).
Roadways that may generate enough traffic noise under buildout conditions to affect the
proposed Project include Haun Road and Holland Road. Both of these roadways are classified
as Major roadways in the City’s GP Circulation Element. Per City’s traffic impact analysis
guidelines, future buildout noise levels associated with these roadways were modeled using
Average Daily Trip (ADT) Level of Service (LOS) “E” design capacities (also known as future
build-out daily traffic volumes) for roadway segments and LOS “D” for all intersections other
than those identified as constrained intersections, which may be permitted to operate at LOS
“E”. Haun Road and Holland Road are both expected to accommodate up to 30,700 vehicles
per day at LOS D, which includes traffic travelling in two directions (WEBB-E, p. 3-9).
Federal Highway Administration modeling was conducted as part of the Noise Study (DBF)
prepared for the Project to calculate noise levels associated with buildout vehicle traffic noise
from each of these roadways, with and without the Holland Road Overpass. It was determined
that buildout noise levels at the property lines of the proposed Project are expected to be lower
than 75 dBA CNEL with and without the Holland Road Overpass as shown in Table Q – Onsite
Noise Levels Without Overpass and Table R – Onsite Noise Levels With Overpass.
As shown in Table 16, for the Without Overpass condition, traffic from I-215 would be
approximately 70 dBA CNEL at 235 lateral feet west of the centerline of the highway, which is
approximately 80 feet west of the eastern Project site boundary. On the east side of the Project
site, the proposed land use is auto dealerships, which would be within the commercial land use
subject to acceptable noise levels up to 75 dBA. On Haun Road, the 65 – 70 dBA CNEL stays
mostly within the right-of-way for Haun Road; the 70 dBA CNEL encroaches less than 20 feet
on the Project site at the frontage.
Table Q – Onsite Noise Levels Without Overpass
Roadway
Peak-Hour
Traffic Volume
(vehicles)
Speed
Limit
Approximate Distance from Centerline
to Noise Level
70 dBA
CNEL
67.5 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
I-215 10,800* 65 mph 235 feet 370 feet 565 feet
Haun Road 2,360** 45 mph 85 feet 120 feet 185 feet
Holland Road N/A - - - -
Source: DBF, Table 5, p. 20
mph = miles per hour; dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
*The maximum capacity at the roadway design speed was analyzed.
**The Existing + Ambient (2021) + Cumulative + Project traffic condition was analyzed
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 113
In the With Overpass condition, the 70 dBA CNEL from vehicle traffic on I-215 would be
approximately 235 feet from the centerline of the roadway, which is approximately 80 feet west
of the eastern Project site boundary. The 70 dBA CNEL from vehicle traffic on Haun Road
would be approximately 85 feet from the centerline of the roadway, which is approximately 10
feet east of the western Project site frontage. On the south side of the site, the 70 dBA CNEL
from vehicle traffic on the Holland Road overpass would be approximately 70 feet from the
centerline of the roadway, which is within the proposed right-of-way for Caltrans and does not
spill onto the proposed Project site.
Table R – Onsite Noise Levels With Overpass
Roadway
Peak-Hour
Traffic
Volume
(vehicles)
Speed
Limit
Approximate Distance from
Centerline to Noise Level
70 dBA
CNEL
67.5 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
I-215 10,800* 65 mph 235 feet 370 feet 565 feet
Haun Road 2,360** 45 mph 85 feet 120 feet 185 feet
Holland Road 1,556** 50 mph 70 feet 105 feet 165 feet
Source: DBF, Table 6, p. 21
mph = miles per hour; dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
*The maximum capacity at the roadway design speed was analyzed.
**The Existing + Ambient (2021) + Cumulative + Project traffic condition was analyzed
Consistency with Applicable Standards. The proposed mixed use center would not exceed
the City’s Land Use Compatibility Criteria of noise levels of up to 67.5 dBA CNEL as “normally
acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL as “conditionally acceptable” for business and
commercial land uses; also, noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL are classified as “normally
acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL as “conditionally acceptable” for industrial uses.
Therefore, noise levels at the proposed Project would comply with the GP and no mitigation is
required.
Operational Noise Impacts from the Project. To the north, the immediately-adjacent parcel is
vacant; to the north of the vacant parcel is the Menifee Countryside Marketplace at the corner of
Haun Road and Newport Road, a mixed use center with commercial and restaurant uses. On
the west side the Project site, west of Haun Road, is the Paloma Wash. Further west of Paloma
Wash is a residential development, Lennar South 35, which is currently under construction and
approximately 400 feet to the west of the Project site. A Caltrans drainage ditch and I-215 are
directly to the east of the Project site; east of I-215 are residential land uses. A storage facility is
located immediately to the south of the Project site. As shown in Figure 15 – Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, the City has identified noise levels of up
to 60 dBA CNEL as “normally acceptable” and of up to 65 dBA CNEL as “conditionally
acceptable” for residential land uses. Noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL are considered
“normally acceptable” and of up to 75 dBA CNEL are considered “conditionally acceptable” for
industrial uses. Because the topography of the Project site and its vicinity is relatively flat and
because noise dissipates with greater distances from the source, noise-related impacts from the
Project site would be worst at the sensitive receptors closest to the Project site. Therefore, for
purposes of this analysis, impacts at the residences located west of Paloma Wash (Lennar 35,
which is under construction as of the writing of this IS/MND), and those 400 feet east of the
Project site, east of the I-215 freeway are discussed in detail below. These two closest sensitive
receptors are located equidistance from the proposed Project, to the east and west of the site.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
L
a
n
d
u
s
e
_
N
o
i
s
e
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
1
4
D
e
c
2
0
1
8
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 15 - Land Use Compatibilty for
Community Noise Environments
Source: City of Perris GP EIR, The
Planning Center, 2013.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 115
In general, noise sources associated with commercial, office, retail, and industrial land uses
typically include truck deliveries, loading dock activities (including trash compactors), outdoor
mechanical equipment (such as air compressors, pumps, fans and cooling towers), and
maintenance activities (such as parking lot sweepers and trash collection trucks). Other noise
sources associated with these uses may include shop tools and forklifts.
The sizes and locations of the Project buildings, and the mechanical equipment plans, layouts,
and operations were not finalized at the time of this analysis; the Conceptual Master Plan is
shown on Figure 4. The noise levels generated by the Project parcels would vary depending
upon the specific use. Variables include size of equipment, location and orientation of
equipment, and number and location of loading docks, parking areas, etc. Although the exact
noise levels generated cannot be specifically quantified at this time because of the many
variables involved, typical noise levels associated with these land uses generally range from
approximately 50-75 dBA Leq at 50 feet (source: various sound level measurements performed
by DBF Associates, Inc. and manufacturers’ specifications for similar projects). The noise
analysis included modeling auto dealerships located on the eastern portion of the Project site,
which included HVAC units and repair bays. These noise levels, along with those from vehicle
and truck traffic, generate up to approximately 44 / 42 dBA Leq (daytime / nighttime) at the
apartments located 400 feet east of the Project site (DBF, p. 29).
Consistency with Applicable Standards. Policy N-1.7 of the GP states that exterior noise
levels are not to exceed 65 dBA Leq at residential land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors
are approximately 400 feet east of the Project site; the modeled operational noise level at this
sensitive receptor as well as all other nearby sensitive receptors is well below 65 dBA CNEL at
44 dBA Leq. Therefore, the Project is consistent with applicable GP standards and the MMC,
and impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
As outlined above, the City’s noise standards will not be exceeded during Project construction
or operation as a consequence of operations or increased traffic in the Project site vicinity due
to visitors to the Project site. Additionally, surrounding land uses will not generate noise in
excess of City standards, which could have an effect on individuals at the Project site. However,
since the Project site does not show the location of buildings and parking lots, as each
implementing project parcel is developed, they shall comply with MM NOI-4 to ensure noise
levels are within acceptable City standards.
Permanent Ambient Noise Impacts from the Project. The term “substantial” as it is used to
describe “a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels” is not defined in most
environmental compliance guidelines; however, for the purposes of this section, a substantial
permanent increase at a sensitive receptor location is defined using the methodology outlined in
the GP EIR (GP EIR, p. 5.12-17), as follows:
Based on local noise criteria as established in the policy plan and MMC the following
would be considered significant:
o Project-related traffic would increase the CNEL at any noise-sensitive receptor by
an audible amount of 5 dBA. In community noise, an immediate 5 dB change in
noise levels is considered readily perceptible.
o Noise generated by buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan would result in
stationary (non-transportation) noise which exceeds the City’s sound level
standards at noise sensitive receptors.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 116
Ambient Noise Measurements. Ambient noise measurements were conducted on October
11, 2017 by DBF Associates at seven locations to document the existing ambient noise levels
using an American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section Type 1) RION Model NA-28
noise monitor. As shown on Figure 16 – Ambient Noise Measurement Locations, the seven
locations were situated to the west, east and north of the Project site and included
measurements near the Santa Rosa Academy School, a house of worship, and the Cantabria
Apartment Homes. Table S – Existing Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity provides a
summary of the short-term ambient noise data taken by DBF Associates. Ambient noise levels
ranged between 53.2 and 69.5 dBA Leq.
Table S – Existing Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity
Measurement Location Time
Leq
(dBA)
ML1 Project site, northeast corner
~ 160 feet west of I-215 centerline
10:35 a.m. –
10:45 a.m. 67.3
ML2 Project site, southwest corner
~ 55 feet east of Haun Road centerline
11:00 a.m. –
11:15 a.m. 62.7
ML3
Southeast corner of Santa Rosa Academy school
grounds
~ 275 feet west of Haun Road centerline
11:25 a.m. –
11:40 a.m. 53.6
ML4 Southeast corner of Holland Road and Sherman Road
~ 50 feet south of Holland Road centerline
11:55 a.m. –
12:05 p.m. 65.8
ML5 Parking lot of Abundant Life Church
~50 feet east of Haun Road centerline
12:20 p.m. –
12:30 p.m. 68.8
ML6 Cantabria Apartment Homes, Buildings G / H
~ 235 feet east of I-215 centerline
12:45 p.m. –
12:55 p.m. 69.5
ML7
Mt. San Jacinto College, Menifee Valley Campus
Near Building 700
~ 660 feet east of I-215 centerline
1:10 p.m. –
1:25 p.m. 53.2
Source: DBF, Table 4, p. 17
Notes:
ML = Measurement Location; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; dBA = A-weighted decibel.
Measurements conducted on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.
As discussed above, there are no sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the Project site. The
nearest sensitive receptors are attached residential dwelling units (Cantabria Apartment Homes)
located approximately 400 feet east of the Project site on the east side of the I-215 freeway and
the single family residential (Lennar 35) located 400 feet west of the Project site. Based on
ambient noise measurements taken by DBF Associates in October 2017, the Leq at this location
is approximately 69.5 dBA. The Project could generate noise levels up to 44 dBA Leq daytime
and 42 dBA Leq nighttime at these apartments, which does not exceed the 65 dBA Leq
standards.
Because noise dissipates with increasing distance and because the topography of the Project
site and its vicinity is relatively flat, noise impacts to sensitive receptors would be greatest at this
location because it is closest to the noise sources at the Project site. Thus, the Project would
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Figure 16 - Ambient Noise Measurement
Locations
Source: dBF Associates, April 2019.Ma
p
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
D
e
c
.
1
0
,
2
0
1
9
.
G
:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
N
o
i
s
e
_
M
e
a
s
_
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d
LennarSouth 35
I Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Not to Scale
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 118
not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project because:
Operational noise levels will not be greater than 60 dBA; and,
Operational noise levels will not result in an increase of 5 dBA or more from existing
noise levels.
Additionally, as reflected above, the incremental increase in noise associated with Project-
generated traffic will not be audible because a doubling of traffic volumes would be necessary to
produce an audible change in ambient noise levels. Since the Project is not anticipated to
double traffic volumes on any roadways in the Project vicinity, the incremental increase in
Project-generated traffic noise is not audible.
Temporary Ambient Noise Impacts. Construction noise is considered a short-term, temporary
impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are undertaken outside the
allowable times as described by the MMC Section 9.09.030 and MMC Section 8.01.010. The
Noise Code does not regulate noise levels produced by construction activities provided it occurs
doing the authorized timeframes. Construction activities will occur only during the daytime hours
and would result in an increase in ambient noise; however, the degree of construction noise will
vary depending on the phase of construction, type of construction activity, and type of
equipment being used. As discussed above, the Noise Study (DBF) prepared for the Project
determined that worst-case construction noise levels at the property line of the nearest sensitive
receptors (Cantabria Apartment Homes, located 400 feet east of the Project site across the I-
215, and Lennar 35 400 feet to the west) are anticipated to be 73 dBA and below.
However, at this time only a tentative parcel map is being processed. The construction noise
analyzed includes Phase 1 grading and roadwork. Therefore, since the Project site plan has not
identified specific locations for buildings and parking lots, mitigation measures MM NOI-1
through MM NOI-3 would minimize disturbance from construction noise. Therefore, the Project
will not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project and impacts will be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
In conclusion, impacts from permanent ambient noise are less than significant; impacts from
temporary ambient noise are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures
MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-3, and impacts to noise level standards are less than significant
with the incorporation of mitigation measure MM NOI-4.
THRESHOLD XIII.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
General Plan EIR Summary
Transportation-Related Vibration Impacts-On-Road Mobile-Source Vibration Impacts.
Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and
notes “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of
normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along
freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders
(five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per
second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. This level coincides with the maximum
recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).” Typically,
trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel on rubber wheels and do not
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 119
have vertical movement, which generates ground vibration. Vibrations from trucks may be
noticeable if there are any roadway imperfections such as potholes. Because of setbacks,
vibration-sensitive structures are not and will not be sited within five meters (approximately 16
feet) of the centerline of the nearest lane of I-215, or any major truck route. Potential for
significant vibration impacts is less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.12-37).
Project Impact Discussion
The primary source of vibration at the Project site would be from vehicles and stationary
mechanical equipment. The modeled vehicle mix at the Project site would generate vibration
levels less than those perceptible by humans, which is approximately 0.01 in/second of peak
particle velocity (PPV). For stationary mechanical equipment, any on-site equipment would be
located well over 25-feet from the closest sensitive receptor. Since the equipment will be cited at
least 25-feet away, vibration levels would be lower than the Caltrans threshold for perceptibility,
which is 0.3/in sec PPV. Consequently, no significant vibration impacts would occur from
vibration generated by Project site uses. (DBF, p. 31)
Vibration generated by construction equipment produces its highest levels during grading,
specifically the vibratory roller. The closest it would operate to sensitive receptors would be 400
feet; at this distance, vibration levels of 0.01 in/sec PPV would be generated, which is not
perceptible by humans. Overall, vibration impacts related to construction would be short-term,
temporary, and generally restricted to the areas in the immediate vicinity of active construction
equipment (DBF, p. 32). As such vibration impacts from construction would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XIII.C: No Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
According to guidelines included in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, areas
exposed to aircraft noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL are considered clearly unacceptable for
new residential land uses, schools, libraries, and hospitals. For churches, auditoriums, concert
halls, and amphitheaters, noise levels above 70 dBA CNEL are clearly unacceptable. In
addition, the maximum, aircraft-related interior noise level that shall be considered acceptable
for sensitive land uses near airports is 45 dBA CNEL.
The Perris Valley Airport and the March Air Reserve Base have portions of their Airport
Influence Area within or in the vicinity of City limits.
March Air Reserve Base (MARB). The MARB is an active military base that operates a wide
range of military aircraft including fighters, tankers, and transport airplanes. The main tenant is
the California Air National Guard; there is also civilian aircraft activity under a joint use
agreement. Most operations are related to transport and refueling planes, and most activities
occur during the daytime, but approaches and departure also occur in the evening and
nighttime. According to the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, the MARB’s 65 dBA
CNEL is well outside the City boundaries; however, the 60 dBA CNEL contour extends through
a portion of the City limits, generally north of Watson Road and east of Sherman Road (Citizen’s
brochure for the MARB, 2005). Affected land uses are low density residential uses. Since the
future noise contours are outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the GP
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 120
would not propose noise-sensitive uses that would be incompatible with operations of the
MARB.
Perris Valley. The Perris Valley Airport, located approximately one mile northwest of the City,
is a specialized facility catering predominantly to skydivers and ultralight aircraft enthusiasts.
The airport operator estimates that the airport services an annual total of 34,000 aircraft
operations (averaging 94 operations per day), excluding ultralight aircraft flights. Twin-engine
piston and turboprop aircraft account for approximately 80 percent of these operations.
According to the Perris Valley ALUCP (RCALUC 2010), portions of the airport influence area
(AIA) are located within City limits, in the northwestern portion of the City. Affected land uses
within the AIA would be EDC land uses, and residential land uses located north of Rouse Road
and west of Barnett Road. However, the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for future operations are
outside City limits. Since the future noise contours are outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour,
implementation of the GP would not propose noise-sensitive uses that would be incompatible
with operations of the Perris Valley airport.
In summary, no portions of the City are located with the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of any
airport. The GP Noise Element Policy N1.17 would prohibit new residential land uses within the
65 dB CNEL contours of any public-use or military airports, as defined by the Riverside County
Airport Land Use Commission. Implementation of the GP would not expose noise-sensitive land
uses to noise levels that are incompatible with aircraft noise. Aircraft overflights will be heard in
the City. However, noise impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.12-28 – 5.12-
29).
Project Impact Discussion
The Project site is over ten miles southeast of the MARB and is approximately six miles
southeast of the Perris Valley Airport. The Perris Valley Airport, located in the City of Perris, is
privately owned and used for skydiving. The south end of the runway is one mile north of the
Menifee city boundary. As such, the Project is not 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. Therefore, airport-generated noise would have no impact on
people residing or working in the Project area, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project contractor shall limit the delivery of
material to the construction hours in the City of Menifee Municipal Code 9.210.060.
Mitigation Measures
There are no applicable GP EIR mitigation measures. The following Project-specific mitigation
measures related to noise are relevant to the Project.
To further reduce impacts associated with due to construction noise, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
MM NOI-1 Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project contractor shall select
construction equipment capable of performing the necessary tasks with the
lowest sound level and the lowest acoustic height possible. The following
measures shall be incorporated to reduce construction impacts to the extent
feasible:
Operate diesel equipment with closed engine doors and equip diesel
equipment with factor-recommended mufflers.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 121
For stationary equipment, designate equipment areas with appropriate
acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding
should be installed prior to construction and remain in designated location
throughout construction activities.
Use electrical power to run air compressors and similar power tools rather
than diesel equipment.
Require contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain and tune-up
construction equipment to minimize construction noise emissions.
Temporary sound barriers that break the line of sight (at least six feet tall)
should be erected along the perimeter of the project site between active on-
site construction work using heavy equipment and adjacent sensitive
receptors (residences). Such barriers should be of sufficient height to break
the line-of-sight between noise-generating equipment and the noise-sensitive
receptor and should be continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or
the ground. Temporary sound barriers may include noise curtains, sound
blankets, or solid temporary barriers with a Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of at least 20 or greater based on sound transmission loss data taken
according to ASTM Test Method E90. If an STC-rated product is not available
or not feasible for use, a product with a similar industry-standard
specification, or a product that would achieve a similar insertion loss based
on a manufacturer or supplier recommendation, would be an acceptable
substitute. A 15 dBA reduction barrier is feasible through the implementation
of such construction barriers, which should be installed at the project site
prior to beginning construction activities and stay in place for the entire
duration of the construction period.
MM NOI-2 Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project contractor shall implement
alternatives to the standard backup beepers as feasible, including strobe lights or
products with a lower noise level.
MM NOI-3 Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project contractor shall place the
laydown area as far as possible from the closest sensitive noise receptor.
To further reduce impacts associated with due to operational noise, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented for any implementing project on the proposed Project site (the
proposed Project has already complied with MM NOI-4):
MM NOI-4 Prior to issuance of building permit, implementing projects shall provide an
acoustical impact analysis for the individual uses proposed by the implementing
project to confirm the exterior findings, determine building- and/or unit-specific
interior noise levels, and potential mitigation measures including but not limited to
minimum STC window ratings required, to ensure implementing project does not
exceed noise levels established by the Noise and Vibration Analysis Report
prepared by DBF dated April 17, 2019.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 122
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: GP LU, GP EIR
Applicable General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policies for this topic.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XIV.A: Less Than Significant Impact. 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)?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP EIR assumed an increase of 63,754 housing units and an associated population growth
of 158,942 residents, equating to a person-to-household ratio of approximately 2.49. Future
housing and population projections in the GP EIR reflected the 15 Specific Plans that had
already been adopted/approved by the County prior to creation of the City. The cumulative total
housing unit count for all areas designated SP in the GP EIR is 19,867; the cumulative total
population associated with the cumulative housing projection is 51,378 residents. This equates
to persons-per-household ratio of approximately 2.58 for buildout of the Specific Plans. The GP
allows for development of up to 170 single-family dwelling units on the Project site, generating
approximately 439 residents. The GP EIR concluded that although buildout of the GP would
directly and indirectly increase population growth, this growth would not be substantial, and
impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.13-8 – 5.13-13).
Project Impact Discussion
The proposed Project does not propose homes; therefore, it will not directly induce population
growth. As discussed in Threshold XI.B, above, the Project site is within one of the City’s EDC
areas. In general, areas designated EDC are envisioned to be developed primarily as
nonresidential uses, with residential uses playing a supporting role (GP LU, p. 4). Therefore,
businesses proposed for the Project site are intended to serve the existing and planned
residences in the Project site vicinity and will not induce substantial population growth beyond
what was already planned in the City’s GP.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 123
Although the proposed Project may indirectly contribute to population growth within the City
during construction and operation by creating jobs, it is anticipated that the majority of new jobs
would be filled by individuals who already reside in the Project vicinity and that the Project would
not attract a significant number of new residents to the City. The City’s 2013-2021 Housing
Element noted that according to the 2010 Census, the vacancy rates were 4.1 percent for
homeowners and 6.8 percent for rental units; these are higher than the surrounding cities,
allowing for ample opportunity for housing of any new individuals. Further, infrastructure
improvements associated with the proposed Project will not indirectly induce population growth
because they are intended to only serve new development at the Project site. Therefore,
because the Project is consistent with the land use anticipated in the GP which already
addresses population growth, the Project will have a less than significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XIV.B: No Impact. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP changed the designations of some areas of the City that were previously developed
with residential land use designations to EDC, permitting a mixture of residential, commercial,
office, industrial, entertainment, educational, recreational, or other uses. In addition, the GP
changed residential land use designations in the central and northwestern portions of the City,
where some areas currently designated residential would be changed to SP. Neither would
displace existing housing. Each development or redevelopment project would be subject to
independent CEQA review. Impacts on displacement of housing and/or residents would be
assessed and mitigated to the extent feasible, as part of CEQA review for each respective
project. Impacts of GP approval would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.13-13 – 5.13-14).
Project Impact Discussion
There are no individuals currently residing at the Project site because the Project site is
currently undeveloped. Further, the Project site is designated EDC in the City’s GP and was not
planned for future residential development. Construction of the proposed Project with a variety
of non-residential uses will not affect the planned amount of housing within the City (Figure 7
and Figure 8). Therefore, the Project will have no impact in regard to displacing substantial
numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 124
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Fire protection?
B. Police protection?
C. Schools?
D. Parks?
E. Other public facilities?
Sources: DOF, GP EIR, MMC, PE, RCGP EIR, VN
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
THRESHOLD XV.A: Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the GP would result in an increased number of persons within the City, subsequently
resulting in an increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services. Buildout of the GP
would increase the population of the City by an estimated 81,423 over the 2010 Census count
and would increase employment in the City by a net 71,257, a nearly 10-fold increase over
current employment in the City. Buildout would increase the number of residential units by a net
30,895 units and would increase nonresidential land uses by a net of about 42.1 million SF (this
net increase does not including public facilities and institutional land uses). GP buildout would
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 125
require development of several new fire stations; locations of the fire stations have not been
identified and would be determined during station planning by the RCFD.
Each engine company can service about 2,000 calls per year; one station, depending on its
size, can accommodate two to three engine companies. Approximately 8,000 residential units
would generate 2,000 calls per year. GP Buildout would create a need for about four additional
fire stations based on the estimated net increase of 30,895 residential units due to GP buildout.
Two additional fire stations are planned in the City, and one in Perris that would serve both the
City and Perris. Therefore, the City would be served by a total of eight stations in the City and in
adjacent cities. Development of planned stations is contingent on development of planned
projects in the City and is not currently assured.
Along with the existing five and three planned, approximately three additional engine companies
would be needed to serve the City at GP buildout, based on the service capacity per engine
company. It is unknown how many stations would be needed to house the additional engine
companies; two or more engine companies can be housed in one station if there is sufficient call
demand in that station’s service area.
Funding for the RCFD is obtained from various sources, including the County’s general fund,
city general and benefit assessment funds, and other sources. RCFD capital funding is mostly
provided by DIFs collected by Riverside County or by cities; major developments can also enter
development agreements with RCFD as an effort to fund improvements responding to the
developments’ fair share of impacts.
In compliance with the City’s development mitigation fees, each project developer would be
required to pay DIFs to offset the project-related demand on existing fire services. The fees
would ensure that as each future project is developed, adequate fire protection and
emergency/medical services would be provided. In addition, each project would be required to
be constructed consistent with current fire regulations and provide fire safety features.
Compliance with the applicable design requirements and payment of its full, fair share of
infrastructure costs would ensure that the Project would not adversely impact the current fire
protection services. Impact fees levied on the Project would be utilized to fund construction of
this new station and/or to expand the existing facilities to reduce fire services impacts.
Development fees would also be used to purchase required fire trucks and equipment and/or to
hire additional fire fighters.
Therefore, the Project would not increase the number or severity of significant impacts already
identified in the previously certified EIR (GP EIR, pp. 5.14-3 – 5.14-4).
Project Impact Discussion
The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire services and there
are four RCFD stations within the City, and one outside the City limits that serves the City (GP
EIR, p. 5.14-1). The closest fire station to the Project site is the Menifee Lakes Station #76,
which is located approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Project site at 29950 Menifee Road.
The City’s GP EIR does not provide thresholds for providing fire protection services for the
commercial and industrial land uses the Project contains, so the Project defers to the County of
Riverside’s GP EIR. The County of Riverside’s GP EIR states that one fire station can serve 3.5
million square feet of commercial (the “business park” land designation is included within
commercial) or industrial land uses (this is references as the “generation factor” per fire station)
(RCGP EIR, p. 4.17-19). The City had 3,369,613 square feet of commercial and 8,612,896
square feet of industrial as of the City GP EIR’s certification in 2013 (GP EIR p. 3-11), adding up
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 126
to 11,982,509 square feet. Thus, the City would need 4 fire stations to serve this existing
amount of commercial and industrial uses. As stated above, The Project contains the
development of approximately 178,100 square feet of commercial, 79,000 square feet of
business park, and 47,200 square feet of industrial, adding up to a total of 304,300 square feet
of commercial and industrial land uses, which generates less than one additional fire station.
However, since the Project is consistent with the land uses anticipated in the City’s GP, the
square footage created from the Project was considered within the square footage of these land
uses calculated at buildout of the City’s GP. Per the GP, additional fire services would be
needed to serve the GP buildout (GP EIR, pp. 5.14-3 – 5.14-4).
Even though the increase of the Project’s non-residential square footage does not meet the
threshold of needing an additional fire station, the additional square footage from the
development of the Project site will contribute to the City’s GP buildout. In order to account for
this impact, the Project developer will pay DIFs for fire protection services. Funding for the
RCFD is obtained from various sources; however, RCFD capital funding is mostly provided by
DIFs collected by Riverside County or by cities, but major developments can also enter
development agreements with RCFD as an effort to fund improvements responding to the
developments’ fair share of impacts. The Project developer will be required to pay DIFs to offset
the Project-related demand on existing fire services. These fees will ensure that as the
proposed Project and each future project is developed, adequate fire protection and
emergency/medical services would be provided.
The Project will also be designed in compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by the
MMC. The City has adopted the 2016 California Fire Code that lists the minimum required fire-
flow and flow duration for buildings of different floor areas and construction types. This includes
compliance with all applicable fire code and RCFD requirements and standards for construction,
access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants. Prior to any site development or future project
approvals, all plans are required to be submitted to the fire marshal for review and verification
that they conform to all pertinent fire standards and requirements. (GP EIR, p. 5.14-4).
Because the Project is consistent with the land uses anticipated in the GP will be required to
pay applicable DIFs to ensure adequate fire services are provided, and conform to pertinent fire
standards, implementation of the Project will have a less than significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required for fire services.
THRESHOLD XV.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection?
General Plan EIR Summary
At full buildout, the estimated Riverside County Sheriff’s department staff needed to provide
police protection to the City would be 177 personnel, including the following:
138 sworn officers, including 24 management, 14 investigators, 54 patrol officers, and 10
motor officers and motor sergeants.
39 classified employees, including community service officers, accident investigators,
and administrative staff.
The estimated 64 sworn patrol officers, motor sergeants, and motor officers needed at GP
buildout would be an increase of 31 over the number of sworn officers currently assigned to
comparable positions in the City. The City would be responsible for costs for all personnel
serving the City, including contract support personnel. The sheriff’s department would provide
all needed equipment, such as police vehicles, for the number of officers contracted for by the
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 127
City. The City would be responsible for all ensuing costs. An estimated 176 total vehicles would
be needed, including 155 patrol units and plain cars, 4 vans, 9 stealth units, and 8 motorcycles.
The sheriff’s department could continue serving the City from the Perris Station if needed;
however, the preferred option would be for the City to provide a facility funded by DIFs.15
As the City grows additional police equipment, facilities, and personnel would be required to
provide adequate response times, acceptable public service ratios, and other performance
objectives for law enforcement services. The City would provide increased personnel and
vehicles needed to service the growing population by development of a Menifee Sheriff’s
station, or expansion of the Perris Sheriff’s Station.
The physical impacts cannot be analyzed in this EIR because the locations and sizes of future
facilities are unknown. Future projects would be reviewed by the City on an individual basis and
would be required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued
(i.e., payment of impact fees). The need for additional structures and personnel would be
financed through the General Fund, and the impacts of the GP on police services would be less
than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.14-5 – 5.14-6).
Project Impact Discussion
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff to provide police services for the City. The
City anticipates that they will transition from contracting with the RCSD to operating their own
City police department in July 2020; since this is not yet in operation, this Draft EIR will consider
the current police protection services provided by the RCSD (NMPD). The closest police station
to the Project site is Menifee Police Department (137 North Perris Boulevard Suite A),
approximately 9 miles north. In May 2017, the City approved a police substation to be located in
the Sun City section of the City (GP EIR, p. 5.14-6). A new substation has opened in the Sun
City section in the City of Menifee, which employs two community services officers (PE and VN).
This new substation does not satisfy the staffing need for police protection services at full GP
buildout. As the City grows, additional police equipment, facilities, and personnel would be
required to provide adequate response times, acceptable public service ratios, and other
performance objectives for law enforcement services. The City would provide increased
personnel and vehicles needed to service the growing population by development of a Menifee
Sheriff’s station, or expansion of the Perris Sheriff’s Station. (GP EIR, p. 5.14-6).
The City does not provide a deputy-to-population ratio (GP EIR, p. 5.14-5); in its absence, the
Project will reference the County of Riverside’s ratio as stated in its GP EIR: one sworn officer
per 1,000 population; (RCGP EIR, p. 4.17-26). At the current City population of 91,902 as of
January 2018 (DOF), the City is in need of 91 sworn officers; the addition of approximately 692
employees from the Project’s development (514 from commercial land uses, 46 from industrial,
and 132 from business park) would require less than one additional sworn officers. Thus, with
the Project, the City will need 92 sworn officers. Since the City has only 33 officers (GP EIR, p.
5.14-6), plus two additional community services officers at the new Sun City substation (PE and
VN), the City does not meet the threshold of required officers with or without the Project, and
Project impacts are potentially significant.
As stated in the City’s GP EIR, “The sheriff’s department could continue serving Menifee from
the Perris Station if needed; however, the preferred option would be for the City to provide a
facility funded by Development Impact Fees” (GP EIR, p. 5.14-6). The Project developer will be
15 It should be noted that in May 2017, the City approved development of a police substation to be located in the
Sun City section of the City. The substation is now operational.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 128
required to pay DIFs to offset the Project-related demand on existing police services, per the
MMC 8.02. These fees will ensure that as the proposed Project is developed, adequate police
protection will be provided.
In addition, the Project will be designed to minimize safety hazards at the Project site, including
appropriate security night lighting. Also, the Project will not result in any unique or more
extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources.
Therefore, through payment of applicable DIFs, the Project will have a less than significant
impact and no mitigation measures are required on police services.
THRESHOLD XV.D: Less Than Significant Impact. Schools?
General Plan EIR Summary
The net increase in residential units due to GP buildout would be 30,895. Student generation
rates differ between single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily residential
units; thus, unit type was included in estimating student generation. Student generation by
single-family detached units is higher than for the other two unit types. The following
assumptions were used in apportioning future residential units between the three unit types.
All residential units in SP and EDC proposed land use designations are assumed to be
single-family detached units, since it is unknown what types of units that would be
developed in these designations.
All proposed units at densities of 0 to 7 units per acre are assumed to be single-family
detached units; all units at higher densities are assumed to be either single-family
attached or multifamily units.
Thus, it was assumed that 26,885 of the future units would be single-family detached units and
the remaining 4,010 units would be single-family attached or multifamily units.
Buildout of the GP would generate a total of approximately 4,419 students, which would attend
schools within the Menifee Union School District, the Romoland School District, and/or the
Perris Union High School District. However, all new development under the GP would be
required to pay developer fees in accordance with State Bill 50 to the relevant school district.
Payment of developer fees constitutes full mitigation of impacts of a project on school services.
Therefore, impacts related to school services would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.14-
11 – 5.14-13).
Project Impact Discussion
The Menifee Union School District (MUSD) serves Menifee with one preschool, three middle
schools, and nine elementary schools as well as plans to build one additional elementary and
one additional middle school that would serve students from Menifee. The Perris Union High
School District provides public high school education to the City at two traditional high schools
as well as alternative and continuation high school options (GP EIR, pp. 5.14-7 – 5.14-8).
State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926) allows school districts to collect impact fees from
developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space and California Senate
Bill 50 (SB 50) also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may
be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased
enrollment.
The proposed Project does not include residential housing and as discussed in Threshold XIII.A,
above, the Project will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. Because
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 129
the Project is consistent with the land uses anticipated in the GP, therefore, the Project will not
attract large numbers of new students to the area and incremental impacts will be offset through
payment of applicable fees. Project-related impacts to schools will be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XV.D: Less Than Significant Impact. Parks?
General Plan EIR Summary
Refer to the GP EIR Summary section under Threshold XV.A and XV.B.
Project Impact Discussion
The City provides over 600 acres of parks and recreation uses. Menifee’s active parks offer an
array of facilities, including playgrounds, sports courts, as well as barbeque facilities with picnic
benches and Menifee’s passive parks primarily provide space for outdoor activities. Valley-Wide
Recreation and Parks District administers Menifee’s parks east of I-215; the City administers the
parks west of I-215. Development pursuant to the GP would result in the construction of new or
expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City to serve the City’s expanding population.
As discussed in Threshold XIII.A, above, the Project will not directly or indirectly induce
substantial population growth. Incremental indirect impacts to park facilities will be offset
through payment of applicable DIFs that are administered through the Planning Division.
However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval,
impacts to parks from GP buildout would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.15-7). Since the
proposed Project is consistent with the City’s GP, impacts to parks will be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XV.E: Less Than Significant Impact. Other public facilities?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the GP would result in an increase in demand for library services in the City. At GP
buildout the City would have a population of 158,942. Net increases of about 48,000 SF of
library space, 162,486 items, and 24 full-time-equivalent staff would be needed to adequately
serve the population at GP buildout. However, additional City and County tax revenues
generated from new dwelling units and businesses in the City would contribute toward the
financing of additional library space and services in the City. Implementation of policies and
implementation measures in the proposed GP would ensure that the City and the County’s
Library System provide library services that meet local needs. Residents of the City also have
access to the entirety of the County’s library system and its materials. Buildout of the GP is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on library services (GP EIR, p. 5.14-15).
Project Impact Discussion
The Riverside County Library System operates three branches which serve the residents of the
City: Sun City Library, Paloma Valley Library, and Romoland Library. The existing facilities and
collections are not adequate to serve the current population in Menifee; however, no new or
expanded library facilities are currently planned in the City (GP EIR, p. 5.14-14).
The proposed Project will primarily serve existing residents of the City and is not anticipated to
significantly increase demand on libraries serving the City. Nonetheless, part of the funds raised
through DIFs leveed per the MMC 8.02 are used to construct library facilities, including land
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 130
acquisition. Therefore, payment of applicable fees will ensure that Project impacts to library
facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
Payment of applicable City Development Impact Fees (DIFs) per the City’s Municipal
Code (see City Municipal Code section 8.02).
Mitigation Measures
None
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Sources: GP 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.
o Policy OSC-1.1: Provide parks and recreational programs to meet the varied
needs of community residents, including children, youth, adults, seniors, and
persons with disabilities, and make these facilities and services easily accessible
and affordable to all users.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XVI.A: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
GP buildout would result in an increase of the City’s population by 81,423 more than the 2010
Census count to a total of 158,942. Future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of the
GP would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 131
The Quimby Act, California Government Code Section 66477, requires the dedication of land
and/or fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or
parcel map. The Quimby Act establishes procedures that can be used by local jurisdictions to
provide neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities and services for new
residential subdivisions. New developments in City involving a tentative map or parcel map
would pay fees, dedicate land, or both, to the City for park and recreation purposes in accord
with the Quimby Act.
The City has a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, and the Valley-Wide
Recreation and Parks District has a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. GP
buildout would create demand for 407 acres of new parkland at a ratio of five acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. The proposed GP designates 725 acres for parks. As a result, under the
GP, development of park facilities keep pace with the anticipated increase in population, and no
significant impacts would occur (GP EIR, p. 5.15-6).
Project Impact Discussion
Residential land uses would have the greatest impact on use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities if they were to increase the population in close
proximity to these recreational resources. However, the Project proposes to operate as a
potential multi-use commercial and industrial site that does not include residential uses and will
not directly increase use of recreational facilities. Although the proposed Project may indirectly
affect recreational facilities by creating new jobs and attracting new consumers to the area, it is
anticipated that the majority of site workers and patrons would be individuals already residing in
the Project vicinity as discussed in Threshold XIII.A, above.
Incremental indirect impacts to park facilities will be offset through payment of applicable DIFs
that are administered through the Planning Division (GP EIR, p. 5.15-6). Therefore, any
increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a
result of the proposed Project will be incremental and indirect, will result in less than significant
impact, and no mitigation measures are required for physical deterioration of park facilities.
THRESHOLD XVI.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
General Plan EIR Summary
The GP guides growth and development within the City and is not a development project,
therefore it does not include or require the construction of recreational facilities that would result
in any environmental impacts. However, development pursuant to the GP would result in the
construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City. Development and
operation of new recreational facilities may have an adverse physical effect on the environment,
including impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, lighting, noise, and traffic. It is
speculative to determine the location of proposed park facilities in the City and impacts arising
from development of individual park projects. Goals, policies, and actions in the GP, along with
existing federal, state, and local regulations, would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the
environment that may result from the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and trails
pursuant to buildout of the GP’s Land Use Plan. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review
would be required for development of park projects under the GP’s Land Use Plan.
Consequently, the GP would not result in significant impacts relating to new or expanded
recreational facilities (GP EIR, pp. 5.15-6 – 5.15-7).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 132
Project Impact Discussion
Residential land uses, which directly bring new residents to any given area, would have the
greatest impact on use of existing recreational facilities and would be the most likely to
necessitate construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Although the proposed Project
does not involve construction of multi-modal roadways, the Project will not interfere with the
City’s planned Menifee Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network, which includes a
community off-road NEV/bike trail (Class I) adjacent to Haun Road along the Project frontage as
well as a subregional route/on-street bike lane (Class II) along Holland Road and connecting to
the Project site (GP EIR, Figure 5.16-8). As discussed in Threshold XIII.A, it is anticipated that
the Project site would not attract a significant number of new residents to the area. Additionally,
the proposed Project is consistent with the planned land use in the City’s GP and the Project
developer will be required to pay applicable DIFs. Payment of applicable fees will offset any
incremental, indirect impacts that the Project may cause; therefore, impacts to recreational
facilities will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required; the Project will not
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
Conditions of Approval
Incremental indirect impacts to park facilities will be offset through payment of applicable
development impact fees that are administered through the Planning Division of the City of
Menifee.
Mitigation Measures
None
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
B. 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: GP EIR, RCTC CMP, WEBB-E
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 133
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus
shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary.
Goal C-4: Diversified local transportation options that include neighborhood electric
vehicles and golf carts.
o Policy C-4.1: Encourage the use of neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts
instead of automobiles for local trips.
Goal C-5: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits
and minimizes negative impacts.
o Policy C-5.3: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the negative environmental
impacts of goods movement.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 134
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XVII.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Conflict with a
program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
General Plan EIR Summary
The Circulation Element of the GP would introduce and implement various strategies and
approaches to accommodate, improve, enhance, and maintain multiple modes of travel
throughout the City. The Circulation Element accounts for the implementation and
enhancements of several travel modes including automobile, walking, bicycling, transit, and the
use of NEVs/golf carts. The GP identifies the layered transportation networks, discusses their
respective roles in personal mobility, and provides a framework for a cohesive and
comprehensive transportation system. Various modal layers, including a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Network, Transit Network, and potential NEV/golf cart routes, provide the framework for the
Circulation Element. Environmental impact considerations, personal preference, and economic
situations all drive the need to accommodate “layered” networks. The GP would not conflict with
policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation, and no impacts would occur in
relation to them (GP EIR, pp. 5.16-50 – 5.16-59).
All freeways and selected arterial roadways in the County are designated elements of the
Congestion Management Program (RCTC CMP) system of highways and roadways. There are
two RCTC CMP system roadways in the City, I-215 and SR-74. Traffic impacts to these two
roadways that would result from GP buildout were analyzed in response to Checklist Question
16a. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has adopted a minimum level of
service threshold of LOS “E” for RCTC CMP facilities.
All segments on SR-74 currently operate and would continue to operate at acceptable LOS E or
better. However, three of the study area freeway mainline segments on the I-215 (from McCall
Boulevard to south of Scott Road) currently operate and would continue to operate at LOS F at
2035 and Post-2035 conditions. Buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan would result in
additional traffic volume that would significantly cumulatively contribute to mainline freeway
segment impacts. According to the RCTC CMP plan, when a deficiency is identified, a
deficiency plan must be prepared by the local agency (in this case Caltrans). Other agencies
identified as contributors to the deficiency, which include the City and the County, are also
required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation
measures, including consideration of Transportation Demand Management strategies and
transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating deficiency. Without specific policies requiring
the City to contribute to the deficiency plan, this would be a significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measures 16-3 identified in the GP would reduce impacts but not to
a less than significant level. The impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (GP EIR, p.
5.16-49).
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan is projected to accommodate approximately 63,754
dwelling units and 158,948 people (approximately 80 percent increase in population over
existing conditions). The buildout scenarios may potentially increase employment by more than
80,000 jobs (a fivefold increase over existing conditions), greatly improving the jobs/housing
balance within the City.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 135
GP buildout would result in significant level of service (LOS) impacts at the following
intersections:
Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard
Haun Road at Newport Road
Menifee Road at SR-74 (Pinacate Road)
Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 16-1 and 16-2, impacts related to
intersection LOS would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.16-29 – 5.16-49).
Project Impact Discussion
Public transit, bicycles, or pedestrian facilities. For the purpose of addressing the potential
for the Project to conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing public transit,
bicycles, or pedestrian facilities, the City’s Circulation Element of the GP provides for various
strategies and approaches to accommodate, improve, enhance, and maintain multiple modes of
travel throughout the City. Mode choice is influenced by sidewalk connectivity and proximity of
buildings, bike accommodations, transit stop density and service characteristics, and availability
of interconnected low speed routes. Although the proposed Project does not involve
construction of multi-modal roadways, the Project will contribute to the walkability and bikeability
of the Project site vicinity by providing a variety of businesses in proximity to existing
residences. Additionally, the Project will not interfere with the City’s planned Menifee Bikeway
and Community Pedestrian Network, which includes a community off-road NEV/bike trail (Class
I) adjacent to Haun Road along the Project frontage as well as a subregional route/on-street
bike lane (Class II) along Holland Road and connecting to the Project site (GP EIR, Figure 5.16-
8). A Traffic Impact Analysis dated May 2020 has been prepared by Albert A. Webb
Associates. (WEBB-E). The Project area is served by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) route 40
(Lake Elsinore to Sun City), route 61 (South Perris Metrolink Station, Sun City – Menifee –
Murrieta – Temecula), and route 71 (San Jacinto – Hemet – Sun City – Perris). The nearest
bus stop is located on Newport Road at Town Center Drive and Bradley Road at La Piedra
Road. A future bus stop is planned on the southwest corner of Haun Road and La Piedra Road
(WEBB-E, p. 3-11). In addition, a design feature of this Project is to provide a bus turnout along
the Haun Road frontage at Parcel 1, the southwest area of the site. Further, the RTA provides
Dial-A-Ride services for seniors within the City. Therefore, the Project will have a less than
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required on adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and will not significantly
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Circulation system. For the purpose of addressing the potential for the Project to conflict with
a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, a conflict with an
established measure of effectiveness related to circulation will be considered “substantial” if the
proposed Project contributes, either individually or cumulatively, to an exceedance of level of
service (LOS) established by the City. The City GP vehicular circulation system is shown in
Figure 17 – City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
G
P
_
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 17 - City of Menifee General Plan
Circulation Element
Source: The Planning Center/City of
Menifee General Plan, 2013
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 137
STUDY AREA
Intersections. The study area includes the following intersections, whose locations are shown
on Figure 18 – Study Area Intersections (WEBB-E, p. 3-2):
1. Murrieta Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
2. Bradley Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
3. Haun Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
4. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
5. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
6. Antelope Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
7. Menifee Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
8. Bradley Road (NS) / La Piedra Road (EW)
9. Bradley Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
10. Sherman Road (NS) / La Piedra Road (EW)
11. Sherman Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
12. Haun Road (NS) / Village-Market Drive (EW)
13. Haun Road (NS) / Countryside Market Place (EW)
14. Haun Road (NS) / La Piedra Road (EW)
15. Haun Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
16. Haun Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
17. I-215 SB Ramps / Scott Road (EW)
18. I-215 NB Ramps / Scott Road (EW)
19. Antelope Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
20. Haun Road (NS) / Driveway 1 (RIRO)
21. Haun Road (NS) / Driveway 2 (Proposed Signal)
22. Antelope Road (NS) / Albion Lane (EW)16
23. Holland Road (NS) / Hanover Lane (EW)16
24. Holland Road (NS) / Palomar Road (EW) 16
25. Holland Road (NS) / Menifee Road (EW) 16
16 Future intersection are only analyzed in scenarios that have considered the Holland
Overpass.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
_
S
i
t
e
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 18 - Study Area IntersectionsSource: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 139
Roadway Segments. The study area includes the roadway segments identified below. Figure
19 – Study Area Roadway System, identifies the existing intersection traffic controls (i.e.
signals and signage), intersection geometrics, and the number of through traffic lanes within the
study area. (WEBB-E, pp. 3-2 – 3-3):
1. Bradley Road from Park Avenue to Newport Road
2. Bradley Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
3. Bradley Road from La Piedra Road to Holland Road
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
5. Haun Road from La Piedra Road to Holland Road
6. Haun Road from Holland Road to Scott Road
7. Newport Road from Murrieta Road to Bradley Road
8. Newport Road from Bradley Road to Haun Road
9. Newport Road from Haun Road to I-215 Southbound Ramps
10. Newport Road from I-215 Northbound Ramps to Antelope Road
11. Newport Road from Antelope Road to Menifee Road
12. La Piedra Road from Sherman Road to Haun Road
13. Scott Road from Haun Road to I-215 Southbound Ramps
14. Scott Road from I-215 Northbound Ramps to Antelope Road
15. Holland Road from Bradley to Sherman Road
16. Holland Road from Sherman Road to Haun Road
17. Holland Road from Haun Road to Hanover Lane17
18. Holland Road from Hanover Lane to Palomar Road17
19. Holland Road from Palomar Road to Menifee
Existing Traffic Volumes. The existing AM peak period and PM peak period intersection
turning movement counts were conducted by Counts Unlimited, Inc. on August 29, 2017.
Average daily traffic (ADT) counts were collected on March 13, 2018 (roadway segments 3, 4,
5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19). In addition, the City provided counts that were collected on
November 16, 2016 (roadway segments 1, 2, 4, 7, and 11), January 26, 2017 (roadway
segments 8 and 9), February 9, 2017 (roadway segment 14) and February 16, 2017 (roadway
segment 13). The traffic count data has been provided in Appendix C of WEBB-E. The AM and
PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 20 – Existing
(2017) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Figure 21 – Existing (2017) PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes, respectively (WEBB-E, p. 3-3).
17 Future roadway segments are only analyzed in scenarios that have considered the
Holland Overpass.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
_
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 19 - Study Area Roadway SystemSource: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
_
A
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 20 - Existing (2017) AM Peak
Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
_
P
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 21 - Existing (2017) PM Peak
Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 143
METHODOLDOGY
Level of Service. The City requires that the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity
Manual 2010 (HCM 2010) be used to analyze Level of Service (LOS). Quality of service
describes how well a transportation facility or service operates from the traveler’s perspective.
Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures that
represent the quality of service. LOS is measured on a familiar A to F scale where LOS A
represents the best conditions from a traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.
Intersections – Acceptable LOS. HCM 2010 evaluates the LOS of intersections based upon
the control delay per vehicle. Control delay is defined as the delay associated with vehicles
slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an intersection approach, the
time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed for vehicles to accelerate to
their desired speed. The methodology used to evaluate the intersection level of service differs
on whether the intersection is signalized or unsignalized. Levels of service at signalized and
unsignalized intersections have been evaluated using PTV Vistro 5.00, which is based on HCM
2010 methodologies. (WEBB-E, p. 3-7).
Signalized Intersections. Signalized intersections have been evaluated using the Operational
Method as described in Chapter 18 of the HCM 2010. According to this methodology, the level
of service for signalized intersections is based upon the weighted average control delay, in
seconds per vehicle, of all vehicles passing through the intersection. Table T – LOS for
Signalized Intersections shows the criteria used to determine the level of service for signalized
intersections (WEBB-E, p. 3-7)
Table T – LOS for Signalized Intersections
LOS
Control
Delay
(sec/vehicle) Description
A ≤ 10
Minimal delay and primarily free-flow operation. Most vehicles do not
stop because they arrive during the green indication or only stop for a
brief amount of time as the signal changes.
B > 10 - 20
Short delay and reasonably unimpeded operation. Many vehicles do
not stop because they arrive during the green indication or only stop for
a short amount of time as the signal changes. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A.
C > 20 - 35
Moderate delay and stable operation. Individual cycle failures (i.e. when
queued vehicles do not clear the signal during the next green
indication) may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection
without stopping
D > 35 - 55
Less stable operation in which small increases in vehicles may cause
substantial increases in delay. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
failures are noticeable.
E > 55 - 80 Significant delay and unstable operation. Most vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are frequent.
F > 80 Considerable delay and extensive queuing. Almost all vehicles stop and
most cycles fail to clear the queue.
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-1
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 144
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersections have been evaluated using Chapters
19-20 of the HCM 2010. According to this methodology, the level of service for all-way stop
intersections is based upon the weighted average control delay, in seconds per vehicle, of all
vehicles passing through the intersection. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the level of
service is based on the highest control delay of all controlled movements for the intersection.
Table U – LOS for Unsignalized Intersections shows the criteria used to determine the level
of service for unsignalized intersections (WEBB-E, pp. 3-7 – 3-8).
Table U – LOS for Unsignalized Intersections
LOS
Control
Delay
(sec/vehicle) Description
A ≤ 10 Minimal delay. Usually no conflicting traffic.
B > 10 - 15 Short delay. Occasionally some conflicting traffic.
C > 15 - 25 Noticeable delay, but not inconveniencing. Usually some conflicting
traffic.
D > 25 - 35 Noticeable delay and irritating. A significant amount of conflicting traffic.
Increased likelihood of risk taking.
E > 35 - 50 Significant delay approaching tolerance level. Lots of conflicting traffic,
but with some gaps of suitable size. Risk taking behavior likely.
F > 50 Considerable delay exceeding tolerance level. Lots of conflicting traffic,
with not enough gaps of suitable size. High likelihood of risk taking.
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-2
As the project lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Menifee and Caltrans, acceptable LOS for
study area intersections is discussed for each jurisdiction below.
City of Menifee. According to the City GP, 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.
Per discussions with City staff and to be consistent with the City’s GP Policy C-1.2, LOS “E” has
been considered acceptable for the following study area intersections as they are considered
“constrained intersections” due to their proximity to the I-215 freeway:
3. Haun Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
6. Antelope Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
16. Haun Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
19. Antelope Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
All other study area intersections would be required to meet acceptable LOS D or better in
accordance with the City’s guidelines and GP goals.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 145
Caltrans. Region-wide goal for acceptable LOS on all Caltrans facilities is D. The acceptable
LOS for Caltrans facilities is based on the Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies Section II (WEBB-E, p. 3-8):
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS
“D” on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not
always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consults with Caltrans to
determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at
less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measures of effectiveness (MOE)
should be maintained.
Roadway Segment – Acceptable LOS. Roadway segments are evaluated based on a
roadway daily volume and its capacity. Roadway segment analysis compares the daily volume
with the capacity to arrive at a volume to capacity ratio (v/c). The Project’s Traffic Impact
Analysis follows the “v/c” ratio stipulated by the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis roadway segment
thresholds, shown in Table V – LOS for Roadway Segments. The target LOS for roadway
segments will be considered “D” for consistency with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis
guidelines (WEBB-E, pp. 3-8 – 3-9).
Table V – LOS for Roadway Segments
Roadway
Classification
Number of
Through Lanes
Two-Way Traffic Volume
(ADT)
Service
Level A
Service
Level B
Service
Level C
Service
Level D
Service
Level E
Collector 2 7,300 8,800 10,400 11,700 13,000
Secondary 2 7,300 8,700 10,350 11,650 12,900
Arterial 2 10,500 12,500 14,800 16,700 18,500
Major 2 9,500 11,500 13,650 15,350 17,050
Urban Arterial 2 10,500 12,600 15,000 16,870 18,770
Major 3 14,500 17,300 20,500 23,000 25,500
Secondary 4 14,500 17,500 20,700 23,300 25,900
Major 4 19,000 23,000 27,300 30,700 34,100
Arterial 4 21,000 25,000 29,600 33,400 37,000
Urban Arterial 4 21,200 25,300 30,000 33,730 37,530
Urban Arterial 6 31,500 37,900 45,000 50,600 56,300
Urban Arterial 8 48,700 58,500 69,000 78,000 87,000
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-3
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 146
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Intersections. The LOS for existing (2017) intersection conditions are reflected in Table W –
Intersection LOS – Existing Conditions (2017).
Table W – Intersection LOS – Existing Conditions (2017)
Intersection Jurisdiction
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
1. Murrieta Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 37.6 D
PM 38.3 D
2. Bradley Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 31.4 C
PM 32.4 C
3. Haun Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) City of Menifee E AM Signal 43.0 D
PM 39.2 D
4. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) Caltrans D AM Signal 12.9 B
PM 17.1 B
5. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) Caltrans D AM Signal 16.4 B
PM 20.1 C
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) City of Menifee E AM Signal 34.4 C
PM 41.2 D
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 40.4 D
PM 29.1 C
8. Bradley Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 25.2 C
PM 12.9 B
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 43.4 D
PM 31.0 C
10. Town Center-Sherman Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM AWSC 10.0 B
PM 8.3 A
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM TWSC 57.6 F
PM 32.4 D
12. Haun Road (NS) /
Village-Market Drive (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 13.6 B
PM 19.5 B
13. Haun Road (NS) /
Countryside Market Place (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 8.8 A
PM 25.5 C
14. Haun Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM Signal 19.8 B
PM 18.3 B
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW) City of Menifee D AM AWSC 29.1 D
PM 25.5 D
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW) City of Menifee E AM Signal 36.3 D
PM 23.9 C
17. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW) Caltrans D AM Signal 30.6 C
PM 27.7 C
18. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) / Caltrans D AM Signal 27.6 C
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 147
Table W – Intersection LOS – Existing Conditions (2017)
Intersection Jurisdiction
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Scott Road (EW) PM 40.0 D
19. Antelope Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW) City of Menifee E AM Signal 37.5 D
PM 34.7 C
20. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 1 (EW)
City of
Menifee D AM Does Not Exist PM
21. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 2 (EW)
City of
Menifee D AM Does Not Exist PM
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-4
TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under existing conditions with the exception of
the following due to school traffic generated by Paloma Valley High School and Santa Rosa
Academy under the AM peak hour period (WEBB-E, pp. 3-9 – 3.11):
11. Sherman Road / Holland Road
Roadway Segments. The LOS for existing (2017) roadway segment conditions are reflected in
Table X – Roadway Segments LOS – Existing Conditions (2017).
Table X – Roadway Segments Levels of Service – Existing Conditions (2017)
Existing Without Project
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport Road Secondary 2 12,950 14,980 1.16 F
2. Newport Road to La Piedra
Road Major 4 34,100 12,390 0.36 A
3. La Piedra Road to Holland
Road Major 4 34,100 8,470 0.25 A
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La Piedra
Road Major 4 34,100 22,820 0.67 B
5. La Piedra Road to Holland
Road Major 3 25,575 12,140 0.47 A
6. Holland Road to Scott Road Major 2 17,050 10,860 0.64 B
Newport Road
7. Murrieta Road to Bradley Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 34,450 0.61 B
8. Bradley Road to Haun Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 43,700 0.78 C
9. Haun Road to I-215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 8 87,000 55,820 0.64 B
10. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope
Road Urban Arterial 8 87,000 66,580 0.77 C
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 148
Table X – Roadway Segments Levels of Service – Existing Conditions (2017)
Existing Without Project
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
11. Antelope Road to Menifee
Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 38,570 0.69 B
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road to Haun Road Secondary 4 25,900 2,410 0.09 A
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 2 18,770 26,110 1.39 F
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope
Road Urban Arterial 2 18,770 40,170 2.14 F
Holland Road
15. Bradley Road to Sherman Road Major 2 17,050 12,360 0.72 C
16. Sherman Road to Haun Road Major 3 25,575 11,630 0.45 A
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-5
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. V/C – volume-to-capacity ratio
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
All roadway segments operate at an acceptable LOS of LOS C or better in existing conditions
with the exception of the following (WEBB-E, p. 3-11):
1. Park Avenue to Newport Road
13. Haun Road to I-215 SB Ramps
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope Road
PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
Method of Projection. The method of traffic projection is based on the following criteria:
Existing traffic conditions (2017);
Ambient growth projections;
Project generated traffic; and
The cumulative project-generated traffic.
This report uses a Project buildout year of 2021 for analysis purposes (WEBB-E, p. 4-1).
Ambient Growth. In order to evaluate traffic conditions for the study year, area-wide growth on
existing roadways must be projected. The majority of the anticipated growth within the study
area is accounted for with other cumulative project traffic. Per discussion with City staff, this
study utilized a 2 percent per year growth rate (WEBB-E, p. 4-1).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 149
Project Generated Traffic
Trip Generation Rates. Trip generation represents the amount of traffic traveling to and from
the proposed Project. The traffic generation figures used in this study are based upon the
development of land uses including retail, light industrial and commercial. Table Y – Trip
Generation Rates shows the peak hour and daily trip generation rates for the proposed Project.
Table Y – Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Shopping Center TSF 4.27 2.65 1.62 14.13 6.78 7.35 168.13
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant TSF 10.81 5.95 4.86 9.85 5.91 3.94 127.15
Supermarket TSF 3.40 2.11 1.29 9.48 4.83 4.65 102.24
General Office Building VFP 11.84 6.04 5.80 13.86 7.07 6.79 152.84
Day Care Center TSF 12.18 6.46 5.72 12.34 5.80 6.54 74.06
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through
Window TSF 45.42 23.16 22.26 32.65 16.98 15.6
7 496.12
Automobile Sales TSF 1.92 1.44 0.48 2.62 1.05 1.57 32.30
General Office Building TSF 2.00 1.76 0.24 2.11 0.36 1.75 13.89
Industrial Park TSF -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Passenger Cars 0.65 0.53 0.12 0.71 0.15 0.56 3.61
Trucks (2 Axle) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.38
Trucks (3 Axle) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.46
Trucks (4+ Axle) 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.60 0.13 0.47 8.22
1.10 0.90 0.90 1.42 0.30 1.12 12.67
Source: WEBB-E, Table 4-1
Notes: TSF = 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions
Project Trip Generation. The daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Project are
reflected in Table Z – Project Trip Generation, below. The proposed Project is anticipated to
generate approximately 10,827 daily trip-ends, including 904 trip-ends during the AM peak hour
and 1,083 trip-ends during the PM peak hour (WEBB-E, p. 4-3).
Table Z – Project Trip Generation
Land Use Qty Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Shopping Center 7.5 TSF 32 20 12 106 51 55 1,261
Pass-by Trips (PM: 34%) -- -- -- (32) (16) (16) (386)
High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 13.3 TSF 144 79 65 131 79 52 1,691
Pass-by Trips (PM: 43%) -- -- -- (50) (25) (25) (654)
Supermarket 39 TSF 133 82 51 370 189 181 3,987
Pass-by Trips (PM: 36%) -- -- -- (120) (60) (60) (1,292)
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 150
Table Z – Project Trip Generation
Land Use Qty Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Gasoline/Service Station with
Convenience Market and Car
Wash
16 VFP 189 96 93 222 113 109 2,445
Pass-by Trips (AM: 62%, PM: 59%) (104) (52) (52) (118) (59) (59) (1,298)
Day Care Center 4.5 TSF 55 29 26 56 26 30 333
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-
Through Window 4.8 TSF 218 111 107 157 82 75 2,381
Pass-by Trips (AM: 49%, PM: 50%) (97) (49) (49) (56) (28) (28) (1,071)
Automobile Sales 105 TSF 202 151 51 275 110 165 3,392
General Office Building 79 TSF 158 139 19 167 28 139 1,097
Industrial Park 47.2 TSF -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Passenger Cars (PCE = 1.0) 31 25 6 34 7 26 170
Trucks (2 Axle, PCE = 1.5) 3 2 1 4 1 3 18
Trucks (3 Axle, PCE = 2.0) 3 2 1 5 1 4 22
Trucks (4+ Axle, PCE = 3.0) 54 44 10 85 18 67 388
Industrial Park Net PCE Trips 90 74 17 127 27 101 598
Trip Generation 1,221 781 441 1,611 705 907 17,187
Internal Trips1 (116) (73) (43) (152) (69) (84) (1,659)
Driveway Volume2 1105 708 398 1459 636 823 15,529
Pass-by Trips3 (201) (101) (101) (376) (188) (188) (4,702)
Project Total 904 607 297 1,083 448 635 10,827
Source: WEBB-E, Table 4-2
Notes:
1. Internal trip capture of 10 percent was applied.
2. Driveway Volume = Trip Generation – Internal Trips.
3. Pass-by trips are only applicable to trips that enter or exit the site, not internal trips.
TSF = 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions
Net Total Trip Generation = Trip Generation – Internal Trips – Pass-by Trips
Project Trip Distribution. The trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to
and from the Project site. Trip distribution is influenced by the geographical location of the site,
type of land use in the study area, such as shopping centers and recreational sites, and
proximity to the regional freeway system.
Per discussion with the City, the I-215 Holland Overpass project (Overpass) will be considered
as a cumulative project. The project is assumed to not generate traffic but will reroute the
existing, cumulative, and project traffic from surrounding streets such as Newport Road and
Scott Road to use the overpass instead. The analysis includes traffic conditions with and without
the Holland Overpass. The Traffic Impact Analysis for this Project was conducted in accordance
the Holland Road/I-215 bridge Overcrossing Project conducted by Iteris, submitted September
23, 2014.
The trip directional orientation of traffic for the proposed Project was determined based upon the
existing roadway system, existing traffic patterns, and existing and future land uses. The
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 151
directional distribution for the proposed Project traffic assumed in this study is shown in Figure
22 – Directional Distribution of Project Traffic (Without Overpass) and Figure 23 –
Directional Distribution of Project Traffic (With Overpass), without the proposed Holland
overpass and with the proposed Holland overpass. Per discussion with the City, the Holland
overpass was considered as a cumulative project, rerouting traffic in the cumulative project
scenarios of the Traffic Impact Analysis (WEBB-E, p. 4-4).
Project Modal Split. The traffic-reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in
this study. Therefore, the traffic projections provided in this report are considered conservative
since public transit could reduce traffic volumes in the Project area (WEBB-E, p. 4-4).
Project Trip Assignment. The trip assignment is the result of assigning the previously-
discussed trip generation numbers to the circulation system using the previously-discussed trip
distribution. The Project related AM peak hour and PM peak hour intersection turning
movement volumes for scenarios where the overpass was not considered are shown in Figure
24 – Projects Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) and Figure 25
– Projects Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass), respectively.
Figure 26 – Projects Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) and
Figure 27 – Projects Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) show AM
peak hour and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for scenarios where the
overpass was considered (WEBB-E, p. 4-4).
Cumulative Project Generated Traffic. Cumulative project traffic from within the study area is
expected to have an impact on levels of service. The location of these projects is shown in
Figure 28 – Cumulative Projects within the Study Area. The AM and PM peak hour
intersection turning movement volumes for cumulative projects without overpass conditions are
shown in Figure 29 – Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Without
Overpass) and Figure 30 – Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
(Without Overpass), respectively. The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement
volumes for cumulative projects without overpass conditions are shown in Figure 31 –
Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) and Figure 32 –
Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass), respectively
(WEBB-E, p. 4-11).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 22 - Directional Distribution of
Project Traffic (Without Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 23 - Directional Distribution of
Project Traffic (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 24 - Project Only Without Overpass
AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 25 - Project Only Without Overpass
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 26 - Project Only With Overpass
AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
_
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 27 - Project Only With Overpass
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
C
u
m
u
l
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 28 - Cumulative Projects within the Study AreaSource: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
C
u
m
u
l
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 29 - Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass )
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
C
u
m
u
l
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 30 - Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
C
u
m
u
l
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 31 - Cumulative Projects AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
C
u
m
u
l
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 32 - Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 163
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Design Features. Project Design Features (PDF’s) are improvements included as part
of the Project. The proposed Project will include improvements as discussed in the Traffic
Impact Analysis and listed below (WEBB-E, pp. 6-14 – 6-15).
Intersections PDF’s. The project will improve intersection geometrics by including the
following improvements as part of the project include:
Intersection of Haun Road (NS) / Driveway 1 (EW) (#20)
o Intersection Control: Install a stop sign.
o Northbound: Construct a second through lane.
o Westbound: Construct a right-turn lane. Stop controlled.
Intersection of Haun Road (NS) / Driveway 2 (EW) (#21)
o Intersection Control: Install a traffic signal.
o Northbound: Construct a second through lane.
o Southbound: Construct two left-turn lanes.
o Westbound: Construct one left-turn lane. Construct one right-turn overlap.
Roadway Segment PDF’s. Roadway improvements provided as part of the Project include:
Construct full-width improvements on all internal roadways.
Construct half width improvements on the easterly side of Haun Road at its ultimate
cross-section as a Major Road adjacent to Project boundary line. All roadways
designated as major under the GP are required to have a median constructed. The
Project would contribute toward the construction of the median on Haun Road at the
Project frontage.
Dual left-turn lanes would be provided at the main project access (Haun Road and
Driveway 2), the standard cross-section of Haun Road is proposed as 90’ (which
includes two 8 foot bike lanes, four 12 foot through lanes, two 11 foot left-turn lanes, and
one 4 foot median). A conceptual striping exhibit has been provided in Appendix I of the
Traffic Impact Analysis (WEBB-E).
Scenario Descriptions. The TIA analyzes the impacts resulting from the proposed project
utilizing different scenarios including Existing plus Project (EP) and Existing plus Ambient plus
Cumulative plus Project (EACP).
EP Scenario. The EP scenario includes existing 2017 traffic and Project traffic. Table AA –
Intersection LOS – EP Scenario and Table BB – Roadway LOS – EP Scenario provide the
projected delay and levels of service at the study intersections and roadways under existing
plus Project conditions without off-site improvements. These levels of service vary from LOS A
to F. The existing plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
are shown in Figure 33 – Existing plus Project AM Peak Intersection Volumes and Figure
34 – Existing plus Project PM Peak Intersection Volumes, respectively. The levels of service
are based on the existing geometrics for the study intersections.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 164
Table AA – Intersection LOS – EP Scenario
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
1. Murrieta Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 37.6 D Signal 38.2 D
PM 38.3 D 39.3 D
2. Bradley Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 31.5 C Signal 33.0 C
PM 32.4 C 33.5 C
3. Haun Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 43.0 D Signal 53.7 D
PM 39.2 D 43.5 D
4. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 12.9 B Signal 14.6 B
PM 17.1 B 18.2 B
5. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 16.4 B Signal 17.4 B
PM 20.1 C 20.7 C
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 34.4 C Signal 36.4 D
PM 41.2 D 45.6 D
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 40.4 D Signal 45.6 D
PM 29.1 C 30.2 C
8. Bradley Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 25.2 C Signal 25.8 C
PM 12.9 B 14.0 B
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM Signal 43.4 D Signal 48.3 D
PM 31.0 C 32.0 C
10. Town Center-Sherman Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM AWSC 10.0 B AWSC 10.2 B
PM 8.3 A 8.3 A
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC 57.6 F TWSC 70.0 F
PM 32.4 D 38.8 E
12. Haun Road (NS) /
Village-Market Drive (EW)
AM Signal 13.6 B Signal 15.0 B
PM 19.5 B 23.1 C
13. Haun Road (NS) /
Countryside Market Place (EW)
AM Signal 8.8 A Signal 9.4 A
PM 25.5 C 20.9 C
14. Haun Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 19.8 B Signal 21.8 C
PM 18.3 B 21.6 C
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM AWSC 29.1 D AWSC 45.8 E
PM 25.5 D 49.6 E
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 36.3 D Signal 46.0 D
PM 23.9 C 26.0 C
17. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 30.6 C Signal 30.6 C
PM 27.7 C 28.0 C
18. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 27.6 C Signal 27.9 C
PM 40.0 D 40.0 D
19. Antelope Road (NS) / AM Signal 37.5 D Signal 37.8 D
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 165
Table AA – Intersection LOS – EP Scenario
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Scott Road (EW) PM 34.7 C 34.8 C
20. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 1 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist OWSC 11.4 B
PM 14.9 B
21. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 2 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist Signal 26.0 C
PM 25.9 C
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-1
Notes:
EP= Existing Plus Project; OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All
Way Stop Controlled; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
With implementation of the proposed Project, the following study area intersections are
expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS for both AM and PM conditions under the EP
scenario:
11. Sherman Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
15. Haun Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
Table BB – Roadway LOS – EP Scenario
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Without Project With Project
Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to
Newport Road Secondary 2 12,950 14,980 1.16 F 520 15,500 1.20 F
2. Newport Road to
La Piedra Road Major 4 34,100 12,390 0.36 A 208 12,600 0.37 A
3. La Piedra Road
to Holland Road Major 4 34,100 8,470 0.25 A 520 8,990 0.26 A
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to
La Piedra Road Major 4 34,100 22,820 0.67 B 8,826 31,650 0.93 E
5. La Piedra Road
to Holland Road Major 3 25,575 12,140 0.47 A 9,346 21,490 0.84 D
6. Holland Road to
Scott Road Major 2 17,050 10,860 0.64 B 1,248 12,110 0.71 C
Newport Road
7. Murrieta Road to
Bradley Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 34,450 0.61 B 1,040 35,490 0.63 B
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 166
Table BB – Roadway LOS – EP Scenario
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Without Project With Project
Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
8. Bradley Road to
Haun Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 43,700 0.78 C 1,560 45,260 0.80 D
9. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 8 87,000 55,820 0.64 B 6,642 62,470 0.72 C
10. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope Road Urban Arterial 8 87,000 66,580 0.77 C 2,288 68,870 0.79 C
11. Antelope Road to
Menifee Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 38,570 0.69 B 1,456 40,020 0.71 C
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road to
Haun Road Secondary 4 25,900 2,410 0.09 A 520 2,930 0.11 A
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 2 18,770 26,110 1.39 F 936 27,040 1.44 F
14. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope Road Urban Arterial 2 18,770 40,170 2.14 F 416 40,590 2.16 F
Holland Road
15. Bradley Road to
Sherman Road Major 2 17,050 12,360 0.72 C 1,040 13,400 0.79 C
16. Sherman Road to
Haun Road Major 3 25,575 11,630 0.45 A 1,040 12,670 0.50 A
Source: WEBB-E, Table 3-5
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
The following study area roadway segments are expected to operate at unacceptable LOS in
the EP scenario:
1. Bradley Road from Park Avenue to Newport Road
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
13. Scott Road from Haun Road to I-215 Southbound Ramps
14. Scott Road from I-215 Northbound Ramps to Antelope Road
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
1
7
_
A
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 33 - Existing Plus Project (2017)
AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
1
7
_
P
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 34 - Existing Plus Project (2017)
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 169
EACP Scenario. The EACP scenario includes existing traffic, an ambient growth of two percent
per year for four years to 2021 (eight percent total ambient growth), other projects in the study
area as provided by the City, and Project traffic. This scenario provides analysis both without
the Overpass and with the Overpass. LOS is based upon the existing geometrics for the study
intersections and roadway segments.
EACP Without Overpass. This scenario assumes there is no overpass at Holland Road in the
cumulative condition. Table CC – Intersection LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass)
and Table DD – Roadway LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass) provide the projected
delay and levels of service at the study intersections and roadways under the EACP scenario
without off-site improvements. These levels of service vary from LOS B to F for intersections
and A to F for roadway segments. The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement
volumes in the EACP scenario are shown on Figure 35 – EACP (2021) AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass) and Figure 36 – EACP (2021) PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (Without Overpass), respectively.
Table CC – Intersection LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass)
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
1. Murrieta Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 43.4 D Signal 44.2 D
PM 45.3 D 47.0 D
2. Bradley Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 43.4 D Signal 47.3 D
PM 42.3 D 44.8 D
3. Haun Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 37.9 D Signal 58.1 E*
PM 50.2 D 78.5 E*
4. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 20.9 C Signal 23.1 C
PM 23.9 C 26.3 C
5. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 22.4 C Signal 23.8 C
PM 29.2 C 31.6 C
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 57.5 E* Signal 66.7 E*
PM 91.9 F 104.0 F
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 97.2 F Signal 109.4 F
PM 43.1 D 47.6 D
8. Bradley Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 27.9 C Signal 28.4 C
PM 19.1 B 20.0 C
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM Signal 62.6 E Signal 68.5 E
PM 46.5 D 48.8 D
10. Town Center-Sherman Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 26.6 C Signal 28.4 C
PM 30.9 C 32.2 C
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC OFL F TWSC OFL F
PM 62.5 F 84.0 F
12. Haun Road (NS) /
Village-Market Drive (EW)
AM Signal 15.4 B Signal 16.9 B
PM 27.0 C 31.3 C
13. Haun Road (NS) / AM Signal 9.7 A Signal 10.1 B
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 170
Table CC – Intersection LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass)
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Countryside Market Place (EW) PM 21.3 C 21.0 C
14. Haun Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 34.1 C Signal 35.2 D
PM 38.5 D 44.6 D
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM AWSC 92.6 F AWSC 136.2 F
PM 99.1 F 146.8 F
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 147.5 F Signal 165.3 F
PM 73.1 E1 83.1 F
17. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 11.1 B Signal 10.9 B
PM 11.7 B 11.5 B
18. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 20.3 C Signal 20.8 C
PM 20.1 C 21.1 C
19. Antelope Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 44.4 D Signal 44.9 D
PM 41.0 D 41.2 D
20. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 1 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist OWSC 13.6 B
PM 21.8 C
21. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 2 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist Signal 25.5 C
PM 29.7 C
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-7
Notes:
1. Classified as a “constraint intersection”. Acceptable LOS E in consistency with the City’s GP Policy C-1.2.
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; OFL =
Overflow conditions; Delay > 200 sec; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
With implementation of the proposed Project and assuming no Overpass is constructed, the
following study area intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS under this
EACP scenario:
6. Antelope Road (NS) /Newport Road (EW) – AM and PM
7. Menifee Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW) – AM only
9. Bradley Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW) – AM only
11. Sherman Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW) – AM and PM
15. Haun Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW) – AM and PM
16. Haun Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW) – AM only
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 171
Table DD – Roadway LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass)
Without Project With Project
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
EAC3
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to
Newport Road Secondary 2 12,950 3,230 19,410 1.50 F 520 19,930 1.54 F
2. Newport Road to
La Piedra Road Major 4 34,100 1,352 14,730 0.43 A 208 14,940 0.44 A
3. La Piedra Road to
Holland Road Major 4 34,100 970 10,120 0.30 A 520 10,640 0.31 A
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to
La Piedra Road Major 4 34,100 1,109 25,760 0.76 C 8,826 34,580 0.99 F
5. La Piedra Road to
Holland Road Major 3 25,575 1,953 15,070 0.59 A 9,346 24,410 0.95 E
6. Holland Road to
Scott Road Major 2 17,050 2,906 14,630 0.86 D 1,248 15,880 0.93 E
Newport Road
7. Murrieta Road to
Bradley Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 6,839 44,040 0.78 C 1,040 45,080 0.80 D
8. Bradley Road to
Haun Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 7,749 54,940 0.98 E 1,560 56,500 1.00 F
9. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 8 87,000 3,756 64,050 0.74 C 6,642 70,690 0.81 D
10. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope Road Urban Arterial 8 87,000 8,110 80,020 0.92 E 2,288 82,310 0.95 E
11. Antelope Road to
Menifee Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 5,969 47,620 0.85 D 1,456 49,080 0.87 D
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road to
Haun Road Secondary 4 25,900 2,842 5,450 0.21 A 520 5,970 0.23 A
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 4 36,530 4,160 32,360 0.86 D 936 33,290 0.89 D
14. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope Road Urban Arterial 4 36,530 5,618 49,000 1.31 F 416 49,420 1.32 F
Holland Road
15. Bradley Road to
Sherman Road Major 2 17,050 728 14,070 0.83 D 1,040 15,110 0.89 D
16. Sherman Road to
Haun Road Major 3 25,575 2,700 15,260 0.60 B 1,040 16,300 0.64 B
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 172
Table DD – Roadway LOS – EACP Scenario (Without Overpass)
Without Project With Project
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
EAC3
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-8
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. EAC = Cumulative Projects
4. V/C = volume to capacity ratio
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
With implementation of the proposed Project and assuming no Overpass is constructed, the
following study area roadway segments are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS under
this EACP scenario:
1. Bradley Road from Park Avenue to Newport Road
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
5. Haun Road from La Piedra Road to Holland Road
6. Haun Road from Holland Road to Scott Road
8. Newport Road from Bradley Road to Haun Road
14. Scott Road from I-215 Northbound Ramps to Antelope Road
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
o
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 35 - EACP (2021) AM Peak HourIntersection Volumes (Without Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
o
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 36 - EACP (2021) AM Peak HourIntersection Volumes (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 175
EACP With Overpass. This scenario assumes there is an overpass at Holland Road in the
cumulative condition. Table GG – Intersection EACP With Overpass, and Table HH –
Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass provide the projected delay and LOS at the study
area intersections and roadways without off-site improvements. The AM and PM peak hour
intersection turning movement volumes for this scenario are shown on Figure 37 – EACP
(2021) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass) and Figure 38 – EACP (2021)
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (With Overpass), respectively. LOS varies from LOS B
to F for intersections and from LOS A to F for roadway segments and is based upon the
geometrics proposed after the completion of the overpass for the study area.
Table EE – Intersection EACP With Overpass
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
1. Murrieta Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 43.4 D Signal 44.1 D
PM 43.8 D 45.7 D
2. Bradley Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 48.6 D Signal 52.0 D
PM 43.8 D 43.5 D
3. Haun Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 36.0 D Signal 39.7 D
PM 45.2 D 54.4 D
4. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 20.5 C Signal 21.9 C
PM 21.9 C 23.7 C
5. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 21.0 C Signal 22.4 C
PM 25.6 C 26.7 C
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 50.4 D Signal 51.6 D
PM 61.7 E* 64.3 E*
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 67.0 E Signal 75.6 E
PM 42.9 D 45.5 D
8. Bradley Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 27.7 C Signal 28.2 C
PM 19.8 B 20.8 C
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM Signal 74.4 E Signal 82.7 F
PM 55.5 E 57.3 E
10. Town Center-Sherman Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 27.6 C Signal 29.0 C
PM 29.9 C 31.0 C
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC OFL F TWSC OFL F
PM OFL F OFL F
12. Haun Road (NS) /
Village-Market Drive (EW)
AM Signal 15.6 B Signal 17.5 B
PM 28.9 C 32.9 C
13. Haun Road (NS) /
Countryside Market Place (EW)
AM Signal 13.6 B Signal 10.6 B
PM 28.9 C 31.6 C
14. Haun Road (NS) /
La Piedra Road (EW)
AM Signal 28.8 C Signal 35.3 D
PM 32.2 C 43.9 D
15. Haun Road (NS) / AM Signal 56.0 E Signal 63.7 E
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 176
Table EE – Intersection EACP With Overpass
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Holland Road (EW) PM 55.3 E 67.9 E
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 73.5 E1 Signal 84.7 F
PM 75.7 E1 87.4 F
17. I-215 SB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 12.2 B Signal 12.0 B
PM 12.8 B 12.6 B
18. I-215 NB Ramps (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 20.5 C Signal 21.0 C
PM 20.9 C 21.1 C
19. Antelope Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 38.8 D Signal 40.6 D
PM 37.0 D 36.4 D
20. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 1 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist OWSC 13.2 B
PM 17.1 C
21. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 2 (EW)
AM Does Not Exist Signal 24.4 C
PM 28.0 C
22. Antelope Road (NS) /
Albion Lane (EW)
AM OWSC 71.1 F OWSC 91.3 F
PM OFL F OFL F
23. Hanover Lane (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM Signal 20.1 C Signal 26.4 C
PM 17.7 B 23.9 C
24. Palomar Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC 126.9 F TWSC 158.4 F
PM OFL F OFL F
25. Menifee Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM AWSC 14.0 B AWSC 13.9 B
PM 13.1 B 13.1 B
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-13
Notes:
1. Classified as a “constrained intersection.” LOS E acceptable consistent with the City’s GP Policy C-1.2.
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; OFL =
Overflow conditions; Delay > 200 sec; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
With implementation of the proposed Project and assuming a completed Overpass, the
following study area intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS under this
EACP scenario:
7. Menifee Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
9. Bradley Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
11. Sherman Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
15. Haun Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
16. Haun Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
22. Antelope Road (NS) / Albion Lane (EW)
24. Palomar Road (NS) / Holland Road (EW)
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 177
Table FF – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass
Without Project With Project
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2 Roadway
Capacity
EAC3
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to
Newport Road Secondary 2 12,950 2,830 19,010 1.47 F 520 19,530 1.51 F
2. Newport Road
to La Piedra
Road
Major 4 34,100 1,686 15,450 0.45 A 208 15,660 0.46 A
3. La Piedra Road
to Holland Road Major 4 34,100 1,304 10,830 0.32 A 520 11,350 0.33 A
Haun Road
4. Newport Road
to La Piedra
Road
Major 4 34,100 641 23,820 0.70 B 7,786 31,600 0.93 E
5. La Piedra Road
to Holland Road Major 3 25,575 1,039 16,160 0.63 B 8,306 24,470 0.96 E
6. Holland Road to
Scott Road Major 2 17,050 4,268 15,570 0.91 E 1,040 16,610 0.97 E
Newport Road
7. Murrieta Road to
Bradley Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 5,978 42,800 0.76 C 1,040 43,840 0.78 C
8. Bradley Road to
Haun Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 6,315 51,970 0.92 E 1,560 53,530 0.95 E
9. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 8 87,000 1,875 59,590 0.68 B 5,603 65,190 0.75 C
10. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope
Road
Urban Arterial 8 87,000 6,229 74,700 0.86 D 1,248 75,950 0.87 D
11. Antelope Road
to Menifee Road Urban Arterial 6 56,300 4,906 44,270 0.79 C 936 45,200 0.80 D
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road
to Haun Road Secondary 4 25,900 2,842 5,450 0.21 A 520 5,970 0.23 A
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-
215 SB Ramps Urban Arterial 4 36,530 3,414 28,420 0.76 C 728 29,150 0.78 C
14. I-215 NB Ramps
to Antelope
Road
Urban Arterial 4 36,530 4,872 43,990 1.17 F 208 44,190 1.18 F
Holland Road
15. Bradley Road to
Sherman Road Major 2 17,050 862 14,210 0.83 D 1,040 15,250 0.89 D
16. Sherman Road
to Haun Road Major 3 25,575 4,900 17,460 0.68 C 1,040 18,500 0.72 C
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 178
Table FF – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass
Without Project With Project
Roadway
Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2 Roadway
Capacity
EAC3
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
17. Haun Road to
Hanover Road Major 4 34,100 6,500 14,310 0.42 A 1,248 15,560 0.46 A
18. Hanover Road
to Palomar
Road
Major 2 17,050 3,217 9,760 0.57 A 520 10,280 0.60 B
19. Palomar Road
to Menifee Road Major 2 17,050 2,245 8,780 0.51 A 520 9,300 0.55 A
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-14
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study
3. EAC = Cumulative projects
4. V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
With implementation of the proposed Project and assuming a completed Overpass, the
following study area roadway segments are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS under
this EACP scenario:
1. Bradley Road from Park Avenue to Newport Road
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
5. Haun Road from La Piedra to Holland Road
6. Haun Road from Holland Road to Scott Road
8 Newport Road from Bradley Road to Haun Road
14. Scott I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope Road
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
A
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 37 - EACP (2021) AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
_
P
M
P
e
a
k
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 38 - EACP (2021) Pm Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 181
IMPROVEMENTS
The following discussion identifies improvement measures necessary to achieve satisfactory LOS with implementation of the
proposed Project.
EP Scenario Improvements. Proposed improvement measures to achieve a satisfactory level of service at the study area
intersections in the EP scenario are presented in Table GG – Intersection Improvements for EP Scenario and Figure 39 –
Intersection Improvements for Existing Plus Project (2017).
Table GG – Intersection Improvements for EP Scenario
Intersection Scenario
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic
Control L T R L T R L T R L T R
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
Existing S 1 S S 1 S S 1 1 S 1 1 TWSC
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 Signal
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
Existing 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 S AWSC
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 S Signal
20. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 1 (EW)
Existing NA 1 NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PDF NA 2 S NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 OWSC
21. Haun Road (NS) /
Driveway 2 (EW)
Existing NA 1 NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PDF NA 2 S 2 2 NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1OL Signal
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-1
Notes:
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; NA = Not Applicable; S = Lane is shared with
through movement; LR = Lane shared by left-turn and right-turn movements; d = Defacto right-turn lane; OL = Overlapping right-turn; F = Free right-turn
movement; A = Lane shared by left-turn, through and right-turn movements; PDF = Project Design Features
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
S
u
m
m
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
1
7
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 39 - Intersection Improvements for
Existing Plus Project (2017)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 183
Proposed improvement measures to achieve a satisfactory level of service at the study area
roadway segments in the EP scenario are presented in Table OO – Roadway Improvements
for EP Scenario.
Table HH – Roadway Improvements for EP Scenario
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Lanes
Existing Improved
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport Road2 Secondary 2 4
2. Newport Road to La Piedra Road3 Major 4 4
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-215 SB Ramps4 Urban Arterial 2 4
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope Road4 Urban Arterial 2 6
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-2
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in City
2. Roadway is failing under existing conditions project and will contribute fair share toward the proposed improvement.
3. Roadway is built to its ultimate condition; no further improvements have been proposed in accordance with the City’s
GP. Therefore, fair share would be collected toward the failing roadway segment.
4. Future near term improvement of the Scott Interchange prior to the project’s opening year would result in the
widening of this failing segment, which would improve existing conditions.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 184
EACP Without Overpass Improvements. Proposed improvement measures to achieve a satisfactory LOS at study area
intersections in the EACP scenario without completion of the Overpass are presented in Table II – Intersection Improvements for
EACP Without Overpass Scenario and Figure 40 – Intersection Improvements for EACP (2021) (Without Overpass).
Table II – Intersection Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario
Intersection Scenario
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic
Control L T R L T R L T R L T R
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
EAC No
Overpass 2 1 1 2 2 S 2 3 S 2 3 S Signal
Improvements 2 1 1 2 2 S 2 3 1 2 3 S Signal
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
EAC No
Overpass 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 S 2 3 1 Signal
Improvements 2 2 1 1 2 1OL 1 3 S 2 3 1 Signal
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC No
Overpass 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 1 1d Signal
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1d Signal
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC No
Overpass S 1 S S 1 S S 1 1 S 1 1 TWSC
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 Signal
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC No
Overpass 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 S AWSC
Improvements 2 2 S 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 S Signal
16. Haun-Zeiders Road
(NS) / Scott Road
(EW)
EAC No
Overpass 1 1 1 1 A NA 1 2 S 1 2 1 Signal
Improvements 1 1 1 1 A NA 1 2 S 1 2 1OL Signal
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-1
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; NA = Not Applicable; S = Lane is shared with
through movement; LR = Lane shared by left-turn and right-turn movements; d = Defacto right-turn lane; OL = Overlapping right-turn; F = Free right-turn
movement; A = Lane shared by left-turn, through and right-turn movements; PDF = Project Design Features
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
S
u
m
m
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
o
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 40 - Intersection Improvements for
EACP (2021) (Without Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 186
Proposed improvement measures in order to achieve a satisfactory LOS at study roadway
segments in the EACP without completion of the Overpass are presented in Table JJ –
Roadway Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario.
Table JJ – Roadway Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Lanes
Existing Improved
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport Road Secondary 2 4
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La Piedra Road2 Major 4 4
5. La Piedra Road to Holland Road Major 3 4
6. Holland Road to Scott Road Major 2 4
Newport Road
8. Bradley Road to Haun Road3 Urban Arterial 6 6
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road to Haun Road2 Secondary 4 4
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-215 SB Ramps4 Urban Arterial 2 4
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope Road4 Urban Arterial 2 6
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-4
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in City
2. Roadway is built to its ultimate conditions. However the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service,
therefore the roadway segments are also considered to be operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections
in between are the driving factors of traffic flow
3. Segment’s fair share contribution would be used toward the Newport Road eastbound approach re-striping from
Paloma Wash to the I-215 SB NB On-Ramp.
4. Phase II improvement of the Scott Interchange prior to the project’s opening year would result in the widening of this
failing segment, which would improve conditions. Also, Phase I of the Scott Road Interchange project improves the
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, therefore the roadway segments are also considered to be
operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 187
EACP With Overpass Scenario Improvements. Proposed improvements measures in order to achieve a satisfactory LOS at study
area intersections in the EACP with completion of the Overpass as presented in Table KK – Intersection Improvements for EACP
With Overpass Scenario and Figure 41 – Intersection Improvements for EACP (2021) (With Overpass).
Table KK – Intersection Improvements for EACP With Overpass Scenario
Intersection Scenario
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic
Control L T R L T R L T R L T R
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
EAC With
Overpass 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 S 2 3 1 Signal
Improvements 2 2 1 1 2 1OL 1 3 S 2 3 1 Signal
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC With
Overpass 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 1 1d Signal
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1d Signal
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC With
Overpass S 1 S S 1 S S 1 1 S 1 1 TWSC
Improvements 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 Signal
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC With
Overpass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Signal
Improvements 2 2 S 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
24. Palomar Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
EAC With
Overpass S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 1 TWSC
Improvements S 1 S S 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S Signal
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-5
Notes:
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; NA = Not Applicable; S = Lane is shared with
through movement; LR = Lane shared by left-turn and right-turn movements; d = Defacto right-turn lane; OL = Overlapping right-turn; F = Free right-turn
movement; A = Lane shared by left-turn, through and right-turn movements; PDF = Project Design Features
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
G:
\
2
0
1
7
\
1
7
-
0
1
9
6
\
G
I
S
\
T
I
A
_
S
u
m
m
_
E
x
i
s
t
P
l
u
s
2
0
2
1
_
w
_
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
m
x
d
;
M
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
2
6
A
p
r
2
0
1
9
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Figure 41 - Intersection Improvements for
EACP (2021) (With Overpass)
Source: Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis, Oct. 2018, Webb Assoc.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 189
Proposed improvements measures in order to achieve a satisfactory LOS at study area
roadway segments in the EACP with completion of the Overpass as presented in Table LL –
Roadway Improvements for EACP With Overpass Scenario.
Table LL – Roadway Improvements for EACP Without Overpass Scenario
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Lanes
Existing Improved
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport Road Secondary 2 4
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La Piedra Road2 Major 4 4
5. La Piedra Road to Holland Road Major 3 4
6. Holland Road to Scott Road Major 2 4
Newport Road
8. Bradley Road to Haun Road3 Urban Arterial 6 6
La Piedra Road
12. Sherman Road to Haun Road2 Secondary 4 4
Scott Road
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope Road4 Urban Arterial 2 6
Source: WEBB-E, Table 6-6
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in City
2. Roadway is built to its ultimate conditions. However the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service,
therefore the roadway segments are also considered to be operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections
in between are the driving factors of traffic flow
3. Segment’s fair share contribution would be used toward the Newport Road eastbound approach re-striping from
Paloma Wash to the I-215 SB NB On-Ramp.
4. Phase II improvement of the Scott Interchange prior to the project’s opening year would result in the widening of this
failing segment, which would improve conditions. Also, Phase I of the Scott Road Interchange project improves the
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, therefore the roadway segments are also considered to be
operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 190
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The following discussion provides LOS and level of significance after implementation of
improvements for each scenario.
EP Scenario With Improvements. The projected delay and LOS at the study intersections and
under this scenario with improvements are provided in Table MM – Intersection EP Scenario
(With Improvements), below. Table only reflects intersections demonstrated to operate at an
unacceptable LOS with implementation of the Project in the EP scenario.
Table MM – Intersection EP Scenario (With Improvements)
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Improvements With Improvements
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC 70.0 F Signal 13.9 B
PM 38.0 E 12.5 B
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM AWSC 45.8 E Signal 41.7 D
PM 49.6 E 36.8 D
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-3
Notes:
TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; OFL = Overflow conditions; Delay >
200 sec; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
With the implementation of improvements all study area intersections would operate at an
acceptable LOS D or better. With implementation of conditions of approval, PDF’s, GP
mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-3, impacts are
less than significant.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 191
The projected delay and LOS at study area roadway segments under the EP scenario with implementation of improvements are
provided in Table NN – Roadway EP Scenario (With Improvements), below. Table only reflects intersections demonstrated to
operate at an unacceptable LOS with implementation of the Project in the EP scenario.
Table NN – Roadway EP Scenario (With Improvements)
Without Improvements With Improvements
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport
Road4 Secondary 2 12,950 15,500 1.20 F 4 25,900 520 15,500 0.60 B
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La Piedra
Road Major 4 34,100 31,650 0.93 E 4 34,100 8,826 31,650 0.93 E
Scott Road
13. Haun Road to I-215 NB
Ramps6 Urban Arterial 2 18,770 27,040 1.44 F 4 36,530 936 27,040 0.74 C
14. I-215 NB Ramps to Antelope
Road Urban Arterial 2 18,770 40,590 2.16 F 6 56,300 416 40,590 0.72 C
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-4
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
4. Roadway is failing under existing conditions. However, the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the roadway segments are also
considered to be operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow. Project would contribute fair share toward
future improvements.
5. Roadway is built to its ultimate condition; however the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, therefore, the roadway segments are also considered to be
operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow
6. Future near term improvement of the Scott Interchange prior to the project’s opening year would result in the widening of this failing segment, which would improve
existing conditions. Phase I of the Scott Road Interchange project improves the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service; therefore the roadway
segments are also considered to be operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 192
With the implementation of recommended improvements the following study area roadways
would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better with the exception of the following study area
roadway segment:
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
This roadway segment is failing under existing conditions. However, the intersections operate
at acceptable LOS so the roadway segments are also considered to be operating at acceptable
conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow. With
implementation of conditions of approval, PDF’s, GP mitigation measures and mitigation
measure MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-3, impacts are less than significant.
EACP Scenario Without Overpass With Improvements. The projected delay and LOS at the
study intersections under the EACP without overpass scenario with improvements are provided
in Table OO – Intersection EACP Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements), below.
Table OO – Intersection EACP Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements)
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Improvements With Improvements
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
6. Antelope Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 66.7 E1 Signal 64.8 E1
PM 104.0 F 61.1 E1
7. Menifee Road (NS) /
Newport Road (EW)
AM Signal 109.4 F Signal 46.1 D
PM 47.6 D 33.2 C
9. Bradley Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM Signal 68.5 E Signal 44.4 D
PM 48.8 D 47.3 D
11. Sherman Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM TWSC OFL F Signal 34.4 C
PM 84.0 F 15.5 B
15. Haun Road (NS) /
Holland Road (EW)
AM AWSC 136.2 F Signal 41.2 D
PM 146.8 F 41.9 D
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 165.3 F Signal 72.7 E1
PM 83.1 F 64.9 E1
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-9
Notes:
1. Classified as a “constrained intersection.” LOS E acceptable consistent with the City’s GP Policy C-1.2.
TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled; OFL = Overflow conditions; Delay >
200 sec; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
With implementation of recommended improvements, the study area intersections would
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the exception of the following:
6. Antelope Road (NS) / Newport Road (EW)
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
However, while these intersections would operate at LOS E, these have been classified as
constrained intersections with LOS E being an acceptable LOS. With implementation of
conditions of approval, PDF’s, GP mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM TRANS-1
through MM TRANS-3, impacts are less than significant.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 193
EACP Scenario Without Overpass With Improvements. The projected delay and LOS at the study area roadway segments under
the EACP without completion of the Overpass with implementation of improvements are presented in Table FF – Roadway EACP
Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements), below.
Table PP – Roadway EACP Scenario Without Overpass (With Improvements)
Without Improvements With Improvements
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Cumulative
Project
ADT
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Project
Only
ADT
Total
ADT V/C3 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport
Road Secondary 2 12,950 3,230 19,930 1.54 F 4 25,900 520 19,930 0.77 C
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La
Piedra Road4 Major 4 34,100 1,109 34,580 0.99 F 4 34,100 8,826 34,580 0.99 F
5. La Piedra Road to Holland
Road Major 3 25,575 1,953 24,410 0.95 E 4 34,100 9,346 24,410 0.72 C
6. Holland Road to Scott
Road Major 2 17,050 2,906 15,880 0.93 E 4 34,100 1,248 15,880 0.47 A
Newport Road
8. Bradley Road to Haun
Road5 Urban Arterial 6 56,300 7,749 56,500 1.00 F 6 56,300 1,560 56,500 1.00 F
Scott Road
14. I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road Urban Arterial 4 36,530 5,618 49,420 1.32 F 6 56,300 416 49,420 0.88 D
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-10
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
4. Roadway is built to its ultimate condition; however the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, therefore, the roadway segments are also considered to be
operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
5. Segment’s fair share contribution would be used toward the Newport Road eastbound approach re-striping from Paloma Wash to the I-215 SB NB On-Ramp.
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 194
With the implementation of recommended improvements, the study area intersections would
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the exception of the following roadway segments:
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra
8. Newport Road from Bradley Road to Haun Road
However, with respect to roadway segment #4, the roadway is built to its ultimate conditions, but
the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. Hence, the roadway segments are
also considered to be operating at acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are
the driving factors of traffic flow. With respect to roadway segment #8, the Project would pay a
fair share contribution which would be used toward the Newport Road eastbound approach re-
striping from Paloma Wash to the I-215 SB NB On-Ramp. With implementation of conditions of
approval, PDF’s, GP mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM TRANS-1 through MM
TRANS-3, impacts are less than significant.
EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements). The projected delay and LOS at the
study area intersections with completed Overpass under this scenario with improvements is
presented in Table QQ – Intersection EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements),
below.
Table QQ – Intersection EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements)
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Without Improvements With Improvements
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(sec) LOS
7. Menifee Road (NS) / Newport
Road (EW)
AM Signal 75.6 E Signal 37.7 D
PM 45.5 D 34.9 C
9. Bradley Road (NS) / Holland
Road (EW)
AM Signal 82.7 F Signal 51.1 D
PM 57.3 E 54.5 D
11. Sherman Road (NS) / Holland
Road (EW)
AM TWSC OFL F Signal 26.3 C
PM OFL F 20.8 C
15. Haun Road (NS) / Holland
Road (EW)
AM Signal 63.7 E Signal 37.9 D
PM 67.9 E 38.6 D
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) /
Scott Road (EW)
AM Signal 84.7 F Signal 59.9 E1
PM 87.4 F 51.8 D
22. Antelope Road (NS) / Albion
Lane (EW)
AM OWSC 91.3 F Signal 15.4 B
PM OFL F 14.0 B
24. Palomar Road (NS) / Holland
Road (EW)
AM TWSC 158.4 F Signal 13.4 B
PM OFL F 17.9 B
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-15
Notes:
1. Classified as a “constrained intersection” and LOS E is acceptable consistent with the City’s GP Policy C-
1.2.
OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled; OFL = Overflow conditions; Delay >
200 sec; Bold text = Exceeds LOS Standard
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 195
With implementation of recommended improvements, the study area intersections would
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the exception of the following:
16. Haun-Zeiders Road (NS) / Scott Road (EW)
However, while this intersection would operate at LOS E, this has been classified as
constrained intersections with LOS E being an acceptable LOS. With implementation of
conditions of approval, PDF’s, GP mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM TRANS-1
through MM TRANS-3, impacts are less than significant.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 196
EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements). The projected delay and LOS for study area roadway segments with
completed Overpass with improvements is presented in Table RR – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass (With
Improvements), below.
Table RR – Roadway EACP Scenario With Overpass (With Improvements)
Roadway Segment1
Roadway
Classification
Without Improvements With Improvements
Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
EAC3
ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS Lns2
Roadway
Capacity
Project
Only ADT
Total
ADT V/C4 LOS
Bradley Road
1. Park Avenue to Newport
Road Secondary 2 12,950 2,830 19,530 1.51 F 4 25,900 520 19,530 0.75 C
Haun Road
4. Newport Road to La
Piedra Road5 Major 4 34,100 641 31,600 0.93 E 4 34,100 7,786 31,600 0.93 E
5. La Piedra Road to Holland
Road Major 3 25,575 1,039 24,470 0.96 E 4 34,100 8,306 24,470 0.72 C
6. Holland Road to Scott
Road Major 2 17,050 4,268 16,610 0.97 E 4 34,100 1,040 16,610 0.49 A
Newport Road
8. Bradley Road to Haun
Road6 Urban Arterial 6 56,300 6,315 53,530 0.95 E 6 56,300 1,560 53,530 0.95 E
Scott Road
14. I-215 NB Ramps to
Antelope Road Urban Arterial 4 36,530 4,872 44,190 1.18 F 6 56,300 208 44,190 0.78 C
Source: WEBB-E, Table 5-16
Notes:
1. Roadway segment is in the City.
2. Lns = Number of through lanes based on the City Circulation Element Traffic Study.
3. EAC = Cumulative projects
4. V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
5. Roadway is built to its ultimate condition; however the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, therefore, the roadway segments are also considered to be operating at acceptable
conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
6. Segment’s 8 fair share contribution would be used toward the Newport Road eastbound approach re-striping from Paloma Wash to the I-215 SB NB On-Ramp.
Bold text = Roadway segment is expected to exceed its capacity based on the GP Roadway Classification
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 197
With implementation of recommended improvements, the study area roadway segments would
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the exception of the following:
4. Haun Road from Newport Road to La Piedra Road
8. Newport Road from Bradley Road to Haun Road
However, these roadways have built to their ultimate conditions, but the intersections operate at
acceptable LOS. Hence, the roadway segments are also considered to be operating at
acceptable conditions since the intersections in between are the driving factors of traffic flow.
With implementation of conditions of approval, PDF’s, GP mitigation measures and mitigation
measure MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-3, impacts are less than significant.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Project is responsible to provide mitigation for those intersections and roadway
segments that operate at an unacceptable LOS due to the implementation of the Project.
However, as stated above, no intersections that currently operate at an acceptable LOS will
operate at an unacceptable level of service because of the Project. Traffic mitigation is typically
in the form of physical improvements to the intersection or roadway segment that are
engineered to enable more cars and trucks to pass through an intersection or along a roadway.
Traffic mitigation may also be in the form of fair share contributions towards funds that will be
available at a future date to the responsible jurisdiction to make physical improvements. The
proposed Project will be required to provide both physical improvements and fair share
contributions. With implementation of conditions of approval, GP mitigation measures, PDF’s,
and mitigation measures MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-3, the Project’s traffic impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD XVII.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
General Plan EIR Summary
This threshold question was not discussed in the GP EIR because this threshold did not exist at
the time of the GP EIR’s certification.
Project Impact Discussion
Senate Bill 743 (SB743) was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by
Governor Brown in 2013. SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research and the
California Natural Resources Agency to develop alternative methods of measuring
transportation impacts under CEQA. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources
Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA Guidelines, which included SB743. Section
15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in
general, best measured by evaluating the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Automobile
delay (often called Level of Service) will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact
under CEQA. Automobile delay can, however, still be used by agencies to determine local
operational impacts.
The provisions of this section are not mandatory until July 1, 2020; however, local agencies may
choose to opt in before that date. At the time of preparation of this report, the City of Menifee
has not updated their procedures to analyze VMT; thus, this Project is not currently subject to
section 15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines. This MND and the Project’s Traffic Impact
Analysis (WEBB-E) follows current guidelines with regards to state and City requirements. In the
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 198
interest of full disclosure, per CalEEMod, the Project will generate approximately 40,606 annual
VMT per capita18. The proposed Project will have a less than significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XVII.C: Less Than Significant Impact. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
General Plan EIR Summary
Buildout of the GP would result in some changes to the City’s circulation network but would not
increase hazards or impact emergency access due to design features. Several modifications to
the currently adopted County highway cross-sections were recommended in order to
accommodate a broader array of traffic volume conditions and modes; to provide appropriate
lane capacities within limited right-of-way (ROW); and to provide more detailed information on
lane configurations, shoulders, medians, etc. Higher volume streets were designed with
shoulders to accommodate exclusive bike lanes or share neighborhood electric vehicles
(NEV)/bike lanes. Sidewalks may be curb-adjacent or separated from the roadway by a
landscaped parkway or on-street parking, subject to approval. All future roadway system
improvements associated with development and redevelopment activates under the GP would
be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have
also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the GP.
In addition to functional classifications, the plan identifies “enhanced intersection” locations
(additional lanes/right-of-way required within 600 feet of the intersection) and “connectivity
analysis zones” (roadway alignments, intersections geometrics and traffic control features
subject to future assessment). The proposed City wide roadway network identifies four
connectivity analysis zones that may be subject to review and future consideration by the City.
These areas have been highlighted to recognize that additional evaluation of the roadway
alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features are needed. The traffic study
identified a connectivity analysis zone for the State Route 74/Ethanac Road convergence area.
Matthews Road (SR-74) currently turns into SR-74 (Pinacate Rd.) just east of Antelope Road,
as it does not currently have a connection south of Ethanac Road/SR-74. When the direct
connection of Ethanac Road to SR-74 occurs in the future, the current diagonal alignment of
Matthews Road (SR-74) is proposed to “T” into Antelope Road north of Ethanac Road/SR-74.
This area is identified as one of the connectivity analyses zones, acknowledging that additional
review of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features are
needed.
The Circulation Element includes policies that require the City to comply with federal, state, and
local design and safety standards when designing roadways and on-street and off-street
pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Impacts to the circulation system and to emergency access as
a result of implementation of the GP would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.16-49 – 5.16-
50).
18 28,099,134 annual VMT generated by the Project / 692 employees generated by the Project = 40,606
annual VMT per capita generated by the Project (rounded to the nearest whole number).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 247
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 199
Project Impact Discussion
The Project will be required to signalize the intersection of proposed private drive aisle and
Haun Road. The Project will contribute an in-lieu fee rather than construct this signal, as it is
being completed as part of the City Capital Improvement Program. Additionally, the proposed
private drive aisle will be designed to meet the GP Circulation Element Policy C-1.1 that
requires roadways to comply with federal, state, and local designs and safety standards.
The Project is consistent with the existing and proposed surrounding land uses and will not
create traffic hazards by introducing incompatible uses. Additionally, compliance with any of the
recommendations in the Project’s forthcoming traffic study will ensure that the Project will result
in a less than significant and no mitigation measures are required for an increase of hazards
due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
THRESHOLD XVII.D: Less Than Significant Impact. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary under Threshold XVII.C.
Project Impact Discussion
As discussed in Threshold XV.A, the Project is required to comply with all applicable fire code
and RCFD requirements and standards for construction (including a construction traffic
management plan), access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants. The Project will comply
with the GP Safety Element S-4, Fire Hazards policies S-4.1 through S-4.4. Prior to any site
development or future project approvals, all plans will be required to be submitted to the fire
marshal for review and verification that they conform to all pertinent fire standards and
requirements (GP EIR, p. 5.14-4).
Through compliance with applicable fire codes, construction and operation of the proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required impact
on emergency access.
Conditions of Approval
The Project will participate in the cost of off-site improvements through the payment of
“fair share” improvement fees, including the following:
o Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), current at the time of
construction.
o Menifee Valley Road & Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee, Zone C, current at
the time of construction.
o City of Menifee Development Impact Fee (DIF), current at the time of
construction.
These fees will be collected and utilized as needed by the City of Menifee City to
construct the improvements necessary to assist in maintaining the required level of
service.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the GP EIR are applicable to the Project:
MM 16-1: As development occurs, the City of Menifee shall implement intersection
improvements identified below. When applicable, implementation of transportation
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 248
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 200
improvements shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans and/or the County of
Riverside. The intersection improvements are ultimately subject to the review, approval,
modification, and implementation of the City. Further environmental review may be
required on a project-specific basis for certain intersection improvements.
o Bradley Road at McCall Blvd
add a second northbound right-turn lane
add a third eastbound through lane
add a third westbound through lane
o Haun Road at Newport Road
add a fourth eastbound through lane
add a fourth westbound through lane
remove both the northbound (east leg) and southbound (west leg)
crosswalks
o Menifee Road at SR-74 (Pinacate Rd.)
add a second northbound right-turn lane
o Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard
add a southbound right-turn overlap phase
add a second westbound right-turn lane
MM 16-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Impact and
TUMF fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer in amounts determined by the
City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.
MM 16-3: The City of Menifee shall contribute to the preparation of the deficiency plan,
which will consider mitigation measures, including Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating deficiency to
reduce impacts at the I-215 mainline segments. Once the need for improvements has
been identified by Caltrans for a particular freeway mainline segment and a program for
implementing the required improvements has been developed, the City will coordinate
with Caltrans, as appropriate. Contributions may be in the form of developer fees,
freeway improvements, development in lieu of fees, state or federal funds, or other
programs, as appropriate. Contributions required of individual development projects will
be determined on a project-by-project basis at the time of development application
review and will be based on a traffic analysis undertaken for individual development
project applicants.
The following mitigation measures related to transportation and traffic are relevant to the Project:
MM TRANS-1 The Project applicant shall pay a fair share contribution for the following roadway
segment improvements, listed by roadway segment number:
1. Bradley Road – Park Avenue to Newport Road – Fair Share Contribution
4. Haun Road – Newport Road to La Piedra Road – Fair Share Contribution
Restripe eastbound one right turn lane.
5. Haun Road – La Piedra Road to Holland Road – Fair Share Contribution
Construction of one additional northbound through lane.
6. Haun Road – Holland Road to Scott Road – Fair Share Contribution
Construction of one additional northbound through lane and one
additional southbound through lane and install a raised median.
8. Newport Road – Bradley Road to Haun Road – Fair Share Contribution
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 201
Restripe of the eastbound approach to accommodate one additional
eastbound through lane from the Paloma Wash frontage to the I-215
Southbound On-Ramp.
17. Holland Road – Haun Road to Hanover Lane – Fair Share Contribution
Construction of Overpass.
MM TRANS-2 The Project applicant shall pay a fair share contribution for the following
intersection improvements as shown in bold:
Intersection of Antelope Road and Newport Road (#6) – Fair Share
Contribution
Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane. One right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. Restripe one
right-turn lane.
Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One shared
through and right-turn lane.
Intersection of Menifee Road and Newport Road (#7) – Fair Share
Contribution
Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. Install one right-
turn overlap.
Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One through and
right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn
lane.
Intersection of Bradley Road and Holland Road (#9) – Fair Share
Contribution
Northbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane. One through
lane. One right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Sherman Road and
Holland Road (#11) – Project Responsibility 1
Northbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.
Southbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane. One through
lane. One right-turn lane.
Westbound: Restripe to provide one left-turn lane. One through
lane. One right-turn lane.
Note 1: The project is responsible for payment of 100 percent of the
improvements at the intersection of Sherman Road and Holland Road.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 202
Intersection of Haun Road and Holland Road (#15) – Fair Share Contribution2
Northbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One shared
through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane
with overlap.
Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One right-turn lane.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane.
Note 2: The project is responsible for payment of 100 percent of the
improvements at the intersection of Haun Road and Holland Road.
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Antelope Road and
Albion Lane (#22) – Fair Share Contribution
Northbound: One through lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.
Eastbound: Not applicable.
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One right-turn lane.
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Palomar Road and
Holland Road (#24) – Fair Share Contribution
Northbound: One shared left-through and right-turn lane.
Southbound: One shared left-through and right-turn lane.
Eastbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.
Westbound: Construct one left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.
MM TRANS-3 Implementing projects shall be required to provide a traffic study or technical
traffic memorandum to the City for review and approval demonstrating that
implementing project traffic levels are consistent with the assumptions in the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates dated March
2020.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 California Native American tribe, and
that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 203
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 Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American Tribe.
Sources: AE-A, CADRE-A, GP EIR
Applicable General Plan Policies
There are no applicable regulations, policies, or program goals specific to tribal cultural
resources in the City’s GP. However, the GP addresses local regulations specific to
archeological resources in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City’s GP, which are
sometimes also considered tribal cultural resources. The following goals and policies are
considered applicable to the proposed Project:
Goal OSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and
integrated into the City's built environment.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
THRESHOLD XVIII.A: Less Than Significant Impact. 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)?
General Plan EIR Summary
There are no applicable regulations, policies, or program goals specific to tribal cultural
resources in the City’s GP. However, the GP addresses local regulations specific to cultural
resources in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City’s GP, which are sometimes also
considered tribal cultural resources as noted above in the Applicable GP Policies. These
policies include the preservation and protection of archeological and sacred sites, including
those sites identified by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians.
Project Impact Discussion
AE reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Office of Historic Preservation
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the Office of Historic Preservation Historic
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 204
Property Directory (HPD) as part of their Assessment. One resource, a historical ranch complex
(P-33-007698), is listed in the NRHP and the HPD. No other eligible historic properties or
landmarks have been recorded or listed within the Project APE, or within a one-mile radius of
the Project APE. (AE-A, p. 37).
Pursuant to AB 52, the City notified the Tribes listed in Table SS – AB 52 Response Log.
Letters were sent on August 16, 2016 notifying of the proposed Project and requesting
consultation. Responses to the AB 52 consultation letters were received from the following
tribes listed below.
Table SS – AB 52 Response Log
Native American Group
(Individual Responding) Comment
Pechanga Band of Luiseño
Indians
(Anna Hoover)
In a response dated September 13, 2016, Ms. Hoover
provided comments on the draft cultural resource report.
She noted that the use of the area by the Cahuilla dates to
the historic period and that prehistoric resources of concern
have been documented as Luiseño. As such, she
recommends that Luiseño tribes of interest should be the
primary contacts for information on Tribal Cultural
Resources
Pechanga representatives met with City staff on November
3, 2017 to discuss the project. The standard conditions of
approval (noted below) where recommended, including the
requirement for Native American monitoring of the site.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians - ACBCI (Hannah
Feeney)
In response dated August 30, 2016, Ms. Feeney deferred
consultation to Soboba.
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
(Joseph Ontiveros)
Joseph Ontiveros met with City staff on November 8, 2017
to discuss the project. It was recommended that the City
apply the standard conditions to the project (listed below),
including the requirement for Native American monitoring of
the site.
As a result of AB 52 consultation efforts with the tribes listed in the Table above, the City’s
standard conditions for cultural and tribal cultural resources will be included to protect any
cultural resources and human remains that may be found within the Project site; these
measures are also in Section V. Cultural Resources of this IS/MND.
Based on the responses received from the Tribes, a sacred place or object with cultural value to
a California Native American Tribe is not known to exist on or adjacent to the Project site;
however, they are nearby.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, have also provided the following information
regarding the Project area:
The Project site area is part of the Luiseño and therefore, is the Pechanga Tribe’s
aboriginal territory. The Project site is culturally sensitive and is affiliated with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, because of the Tribe’s cultural ties to the area. The
Pechanga Tribe’s knowledge of its ancestral boundaries is based on information passed
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 205
down from elders; published academic works in the areas of anthropology, history, and
ethno-history; and through recorded ethnographic and linguistic accounts.
The Project site is located within one-half mile of a known village complex, “Tàawila.”
The Project site is also located less than two miles east of the Audie Murphy Ranch site.
The village sites and habitation areas contain sacred/ceremonial resources, which
include human remains, of which Pechanga has been named the most likely descendant
(MLD) for these resources, Luiseño villages were often spread over the landscape for
several miles. Because of the proximity to known sensitive and sacred cultural resources
the Tribe believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface resources during ground-
disturbing activities for the Project is very high.
In consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the City
developed conditions that will be applied to the Project (listed below as Conditions of Approval 1
through 8) to ensure that the Project would not result in any significant impacts related to tribal
cultural resources.
Because a TCR has not been identified on the Project site, and that no sites, features, places,
or landscapes are present that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register
within a one-mile radius of the Project site, the proposed Project will have less than significant
impacts to a TCR and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XVIII.B: Less Than Significant Impact. 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
General Plan EIR Summary
See Threshold XVIII.A.
Project Impact Discussion
The reader is referred to the response for the previous threshold that indicates, based on
consultation with Native American Tribes pursuant to AB 52, that the Project will not cause an
adverse change in the significance of a TCR as none has been identified on the Project site.
Conditions of Approval 1 through 8 included in this section would lessen potential future impacts
in the event that unknown tribal cultural resources are discovered below the surface at the
Project site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
Conditions of Approval
The following standard cultural conditions of approval are applicable to the Project:
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 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.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 206
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).
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) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner
and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the
archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City
Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development
Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources,
recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural
and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director
shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.”
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:
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 207
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.
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
5. 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.
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)
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 208
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 resource evaluation.
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.
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.
Prior to Final Occupancy
8. Archaeology 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
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 209
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 of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be
submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).
Mitigation Measures
None. As discussed in the analysis above, all mitigation measures from the City’s GP EIR have
been complied with and included in the conditions of approval.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 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?
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: EMWD, GP EIR, MMC, CalRecycle
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 210
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.
o 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.
o Policy LU-3.2: Work with utility provides to increase service capacity as demand
increases.
o Policy LU-3.3: Coordinate public infrastructure improvements through the City's
Capital Improvement Program.
o Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the
project's ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water
resources.
o 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.
o Policy OSC-7.5: Utilize a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system
that adequately serves the existing and long-term needs of the community.
o 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
THRESHOLD XIX.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation. 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 of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
General Plan EIR Summary
Wastewater Treatment. The net increase in wastewater generation resulting from GP 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 GP buildout compared to the 2010 Census count is 81,423. The
estimated net increase in wastewater generation is about 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd). The
net increase in wastewater generation would be within that used by EMWD in planning ongoing
and future Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) expansions.
At completion of the ongoing expansion of the Perris Valley RWRF in 2013, the Perris Valley
and Temecula Valley RWRFs will have combined capacity of 40 mgd. Existing flows through the
Perris Valley RWRF are 12.5 mgd, and through the Temecula Valley RWRF are 14 mgd. Thus,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 211
total residual capacity at the two plants is 13.5 mgd, sufficient for the forecast net increase in
wastewater generation of about 5.6 mgd. No further expansions of wastewater treatment
capacity would be required other than those already planned by EMWD.
The need for additional sewers will be determined through plans of service coordinated by
EMWD’s New Business Department as required by development and by EMWD’s Master Plan.
Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.17-7).
Water Treatment. GP buildout is forecast to create a net increase in water demand of about
21.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The two Metropolitan Water District (MWD) treatment plants
that treat water supplied to EMWD have combined capacity of 850 mgd. EMWD’s two water
filtration plants will have capacity of 36 mgd when the expansion of the Perris Water Filtration
Plant is completed. When the Perris II Desalter is completed, EMWD’s three desalters will have
total capacity of 12.1 mgd. The water treatment plants, water filtration plants, and desalters that
treat EMWD water supplies will have total capacity of almost 900 mgd after completion of the
Perris II Desalter and the expansion of the Perris Water Filtration Plant. There is sufficient water
treatment capacity in the region for the forecast increase in water demand due to GP buildout.
Impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.17-4).
Storm Water Drainage. Residential, commercial, and industrial development associated with
buildout of the GP would increase the amount of impervious hardscape throughout the City,
thus decreasing permeable surfaces. During rainfall events, this increases the amount of
stormwater runoff. Developments in certain categories would be required to infiltrate, filter, or
treat urban runoff from 85th-percenctile storms, that is, approximately a two-year storm. Buildout
of the GP would require construction of new storm drainage facilities, including proposed
RCFCWCD facilities shown on the Homeland-Romoland Area Drainage Plan (ADP) and the
Romoland Master Drainage Plan, as well as new City storm drains. Impacts are less than
significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.17-10 – 5.17-11).
Electricity. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity and maintains a distribution
network for Menifee. The net increase in electricity demands due to GP buildout is about 709
million kWh per year (that is, 709 GWh per year). Forecast electricity consumption in Menifee
due to GP buildout is well within total estimated electricity consumption in SCE’s service area,
and GP buildout would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies. Impacts
would be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 5.17-14 and 5.17-17).
Natural Gas. The Southern California Gas Company (Gas Company) provides natural gas
service to the citizens and businesses of Menifee. The estimated net increase in natural gas
demands due to GP buildout is about 1.21 billion kBTU per year, or 1.17 billion cubic feet per
year. Estimated natural gas consumption by GP buildout would be well within forecast Gas
Company natural gas supplies, and GP buildout would not require the Gas Company to acquire
new or expanded natural gas supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. (GP EIR, pp.
5.17-14 and 5.17-17 – 5.17-18).
Telecommunications. Telephone service to the Menifee area is provided by Verizon. Cable
television service is provided by Mediacom and Verizon FiOS. There are currently adequate
telecommunication facilities available to serve the needs of the City (GP EIR, pp. 5.17-14).
Impacts of telecommunication services were not analyzed in the GP for buildout.
Project Impact Discussion
EMWD provides potable water, recycled water, and sewer services to the Project site.
Development of Phase I will extend a potable water pipeline and a sewer pipeline into the
Project site from the existing water and sewer pipelines located within Holland Road and Haun
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 212
Road, respectively. Lateral stub-outs from the proposed water and sewer lines will be provided
to each parcel. (A stub-out is a pipe put in place and capped for a future connection.) Currently,
the Project is a recycled water candidate. In the event EMWD requires the provision of recycled
water for the Project, the nearest point of connection is a recycled water line located in La
Piedra Road (north and west of the Project). If required, the Project will construct a recycled
water pipeline extension from La Piedra Road, south in Haun Road to reach the site.
EMWD’s current Urban Water Management Plan and planned infrastructure for sewer and
potable water are based on land use projections from jurisdictions within its service area.
Because the proposed Project will not change the existing land use designation of the site, the
potable water demand and wastewater generation from the proposed Project would have been
accounted for by EMWD in their planning efforts (EMWD) and the impact to water supplies and
wastewater treatment facilities is less than significant.
Phase I will include construction of underground storm drain pipelines that drain to a proposed
storm drain outfall structure in Paloma Wash (i.e. Line A). Stub-outs for future connections to
the storm drain system will be provided for each parcel. Also, the Project will extend the existing
Lateral Line P located in Haun Road to the proposed Basin C in order to convey Basin C flows
to Paloma Wash through an existing storm drain outfall structure. The Project’s biological impact
of constructing the outfall structure in Paloma Wash is discussed and mitigated for in Threshold
IV.B (MM BIO-3). In the event the Caltrans Ditch located outside of the eastern Project
boundary will be affected as part of Phase II development, mitigation measures MM BIO-3 and
MM BIO-4 will reduce impacts to biological resources related to stormwater runoff to less than
significant. Likewise, conditions of approval from Section X of this MND (Hydrology and Water
Quality) require that each implementing project in Phase II will provide a drainage study and
WQMP to ensure no adverse impacts to storm drain infrastructure.
Natural gas is provided to the site by Southern California Gas Company; electricity is provided
by Southern California Edison, and telephone is provided by Verizon. Since the Project is
consistent with the land uses and zoning assumed in the GP, impacts from the provision of
electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services are the same as analyzed in the GP
and GP EIR. Therefore, potential impacts related to construction of new storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, are less than significant
with mitigation.
THRESHOLD XIX.B: Less Than Significant Impact. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
General Plan EIR Summary
The net increase in water demands due to GP Buildout is forecast to be approximately 5.9 mgd.
Water demands are estimated using baseline and 2020 target water demand use estimates
from EMWD. The baseline water use estimate is 212 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) based
on gross water use divided by service area population between 1999 and 2008. Target 2020
water use is calculated as the sum of four water use targets: one for residential indoor use, one
for landscape irrigation, one for commercial, industrial, and institutional demands, and one for
agricultural use. Target water use in 2020 – the total of the four aforementioned types of uses –
is 184 gpcd. The forecast net increase in population due to GP buildout compared to the 2010
US Census count is 81,423 to a total of 158,942. Thus, the net increase in water demands due
to GP buildout is estimated as 17.3 million gallons per day using baseline water use of 212
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 213
gpcd, and 15.0 mgd using target 2020 water use. The analysis here assumes the net increase
in water demands at GP buildout to be 15.0 mgd, as compliance with 2020 targets will be
mandatory by the time of GP buildout.
The projected net increase in water demands by buildout of the GP – about 15.0 mgd, or 16,800
acre-feet per year - is within EMWD forecasts of increases in its water supplies over the 2015-
2035 period. EMWD forecasts that its total water supplies will increase by 88,300 acre-feet per
year over that period. There are adequate forecast water supplies in the region for GP buildout,
and no additional water supplies would be needed. Impacts of GP buildout would be less than
significant (GP EIR, p. 5.17-4).
Project Impact Discussion
As stated in the City’s GP EIR, the projected net increase in water demands by buildout of the
City’s GP, about 15.0 mgd, or 16,800 acre-feet per year, is within EMWD forecasts of increases
in its water demands over the 2015-2035 period (GP EIR, p. 5.17-2). Therefore, because the
proposed Project is consistent with the City’s GP land use and zoning designation for the site,
EMWD’s planning efforts for securing adequate water supplies to meet expected water demand
would have taken into account the incremental increase in water demand associated with
construction and operation of the proposed Project.
The anticipated water supplies and water demand for EMWD during normal, single-dry, and
multiple dry years are projected for the next 20 years in the current UWMP. In all three
scenarios, EMWD will have sufficient water supplies to meet demand from 2020 to 2040. During
periods of increased demand, EMWD would be able to utilize stored groundwater or import
more water from MWD, if needed. As a member agency of MWD, EMWD is assured its
anticipated demand for imported water supplies will be met through 2040 (UWMP, p. 6-6).
Details on funding to offset any potential incremental impacts from the proposed Project will be
developed with the plan of service for the proposed Project site. Therefore, because the
proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and through payment of
applicable fees, impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XIX.C: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
At completion of the ongoing expansion of the Perris Valley RWRF in 2013, the Perris Valley
and Temecula Valley RWRFs will have combined capacity of 40 mgd. Existing flows through the
Perris Valley RWRF are 12.5 mgd, and through the Temecula Valley RWRF are 14 mgd. Thus,
total residual capacity at the two plants is 13.5 mgd, sufficient for the forecast net increase in
wastewater generation of about 5.6 mgd. No further expansions of wastewater treatment
capacity would be required other than those already planned by EMWD. The need for
additional sewers will be determined through plans of service coordinated by EMWD’s New
Business Department as required by development and by EMWD’s Master Plan. Impacts would
be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.17-7).
Project Impact Discussion
The City’s GP EIR determined that the net increase in wastewater generation would be within
that used by EMWD in planning ongoing and future RWRF expansions (GP EIR, p. 5.17-6).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 214
Therefore, EMWD, the wastewater provider for the site, has sufficient capacity to serve the
proposed Project because the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s GP. Impacts to
wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments, is less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
THRESHOLD XIX.D: Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
The forecast net increase in solid waste generation by GP buildout is 794,151 pounds per day,
or 397.1 tons per day. The residual capacity in tons per day—that is, maximum permitted daily
disposal less actual disposal amount—at the two landfills accepting the vast majority of solid
waste from the City (i.e., Badlands Sanitary landfill and El Sobrante landfill) is 11,143 tons per
day. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region for solid waste that would be generated by
buildout of the GP, and GP implementation would not require new or additional landfills (GP
EIR, p. 5.17-13).
Project Impact Discussion
Waste Management, Inc. (WM) provides solid waste services to the City of Menifee, including
the Project site. An estimated 54,166 tons of solid waste was generated by the City in 2017,
with a majority (68 percent) disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill. The remainder was disposed
at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill (30 percent), and Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (2 percent)
(CalRecycle). The El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of 145,530,000 tons
(approximately 79 percent) and is anticipated to cease operation in 2045; similarly, the
Badlands Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cubic yards as of January
2015 and is anticipated to operate through January 2022. The remaining 3 percent of the City’s
solid waste is sent to Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill, Sycamore
Landfill, and Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center. The lowest capacity landfill (Lamb Canyon)
has a remaining capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards and is anticipated to operate until April 2029
(CalRecycle).
The City’s GP EIR determined that there is adequate landfill capacity in the region for solid
waste that would be generated by buildout of the GP, and GP implementation would not require
new or additional landfills (GP EIR, p. 5.17-13). The proposed Project is consistent with the
City’s GP and there are no unique characteristics of the proposed Project which would create
waste in excess of what was previously analyzed in the GP EIR. Therefore, the Project will be
served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs and will have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are
required to landfill capacity.
THRESHOLD XIX.E: Less Than Significant Impact. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
General Plan EIR Summary
This threshold question discussion was omitted from the GP EIR.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 215
Project Impact Discussion
Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport,
and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in
solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and
efficient transport of solid waste. The proposed Project would be required to develop a collection
program for recyclables, such as paper, plastics, glass and aluminum, in accordance with local
and state programs such as the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted
by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any
other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste management regulations. AB 939 requires
all counties to prepare a County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County of Riverside
adopted its Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in 1998. The CIWMP
includes the Countywide Summary Plan; the Countywide Siting Element; and the Source
Reduction and Recycling Elements, the Household Hazardous Waste Elements, and
Nondisposal Facility Elements for Riverside County and each city in Riverside County. In
summary, the proposed Project would comply with all regulatory requirements regarding solid
waste management and reduction. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
Conditions of approval from the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this MND are also
applicable here.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4, as described in the Biological Resources
section, are also applicable to this section.
XX. WILDFIRES
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 a
wildfire?
C. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
resources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 216
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: CALFIRE, GP, GP EIR
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Policy S-4.3: Encourage owners of non-sprinklered high-occupancy structures to
retrofit their buildings to include internal sprinklers.
o Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and
compatibility with fire areas or mitigate.
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 in not impacted
by civil unrest that may occur following a natural disaster.
o 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.
o Policy S-6.4: Locate new essential or critical facilities away from areas
susceptible to impacts or damage from a natural disaster.
Goal LU-3: A full range of public utilities and related services that provide for the
immediate and long-term needs of the community.
o 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.
o Policy LU-3.2: Work with utility providers to increase service capacity as demand
increases.
o Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the
project’s ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services.
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance
THRESHOLD XX.A: No Impact. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
General Plan EIR Summary
The expansive open space areas in the City are susceptible to destructive wildland fires, often
exacerbated by dry weather and Santa Ana winds. The undeveloped areas in the City are
characterized by sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, and other vegetation types that can provide
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 217
fuel for wildland fires. A large percentage of the City’s area is designated part of Moderate,
High, and Very High fire hazard severity zones, as mapped by CAL FIRE. The GP would
designate areas for development adjacent to areas that would be designated for open space;
therefore, risk of wildfire could occur.
Federal, state, and county fire suppression agencies have responsibility areas in the City. To
protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, the City has building and fire codes that
must be followed. The RCFD fire chief may also use their authority to require certain building,
planning, or landscaping requirements.
Using fire-resistant building materials, implementing fuel modification zones, and maintaining
vegetation clearance around structures is required to protect buildings and reduce the potential
loss of life and property. New development in wildland and urban-wildland interface areas must
be consistent with the existing regulations, including the State Fire Code, to meet fire safety
standards for building construction. Additionally, the CBC includes sections on fire-resistant
construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction
requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other
structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Because the State of California,
the County, and the City require adherence to building codes and review by the fire department
to reduce wildland fires, fire hazard impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 5.8-32).
Project Impact Discussion
Cal Fire identifies areas of VHFHSZs within LRAs and State Responsibility Areas. Mapping of
the VHFHSZs is based on data and models of potential fuels over a 30- to 50-year time horizon
and their associated expected fire behavior and expected burn probabilities which quantifies the
likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. The Project
site is located in a non-VHFHSZ LRA, and not in a State Responsibility Area (CALFIRE), which
is consistent with the City’s GP determination that the Project site is not within a moderate, high,
or very high fire severity zone (GP, Figure S-6).
Since the Project is not in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as VHFHSZ, the
thresholds concerning wildfires are not applicable to this Project, there are no impacts and no
mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XX.B: No Impact. 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 a wildfire?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold XX.A.
Project Impact Discussion
See Project Impact Discussion under Threshold XX.A. Since the Project is not in or near a state
responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, there are no
impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XX.C: No Impact. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 218
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold XX.A.
Project Impact Discussion
See Project Impact Discussion under Threshold XX.A. Since the Project is not in or near a state
responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, there are no
impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
THRESHOLD XX.A: No Impact. 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?
General Plan EIR Summary
See GP EIR Summary for Threshold XX.A.
Project Impact Discussion
See Project Impact Discussion under Threshold XX.A. Since the Project is not in or near a state
responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, the Project would
not expose people or structures to significant risks, such as downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, there are no impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
Conditions of Approval
None
Mitigation Measures
None
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?
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 219
B. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Source: Above Checklist
THRESHOLD XXI.A: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in
Threshold IV in this MND, development of the Project site would have an impact of less than
significant with mitigation incorporated related to biological resources. The biological resources
include the burrowing owl and MBTA-protected species which will be mitigated through
implementation of biological measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2. Therefore, impacts to
sensitive species from development of the proposed Project are less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
The presence of any previously recorded or potential cultural or tribal cultural resources was not
found on the proposed Project site. Further, the site has been previously disturbed and it is
highly unlikely that any cultural or tribal cultural resources exist. However, in order to provide
protection in the unlikely event that cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction,
conditions of approval applicable to Cultural Resources (see Section V of this MND) and Tribal
Cultural Resources (see section XVIII of this MND) will reduce potential impacts to less than
significant.
Thus, the proposed Project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts are less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD XXI.B: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in
response to Checklist Question III(c), regarding cumulative air quality impacts, the Project would
contribute significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. However, these
cumulative impacts are not greater than those analyzed and discussed in the City’s GP,
therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Potential cumulative impacts related
to the remaining CEQA Appendix G thresholds are as follows:
Agriculture: Agriculture in the City is decreasing due to market forces and general
restrictions on farming throughout the City and County. Additionally, the Project is
consistent with the City’s GP and will not create cumulatively considerable impacts.
Geology: Each development project within the City is required to complete a site-specific
geotechnical report to identify site-specific design considerations. The proposed Project
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 220
will not destabilize soil in the Project vicinity and will not cause cumulatively considerable
impacts.
Greenhouse Gas: The proposed Project is consistent with the GP and associated
impacts disclosed in the GP EIR and implementing reasonable and feasible mitigation
measures to reduce GHG emissions, which were determined to have no greater or
different impact than what was identified in the GP EIR and addressed in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, therefore cumulative impacts will not be considerable.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials: The proposed Project is consistent with regulations
regarding compliance with hazardous waste laws and not creating a significant hazard.
Therefore, cumulative impacts will not be considerable.
Mineral Resources: There are no significant mineral resources within the City; therefore,
development of the proposed Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact
on mineral resources.
Population/Housing: The proposed Project is consistent with the City’s GP and is
intended to serve existing and planned residences in the Project vicinity. Therefore, the
proposed Project will not create a cumulatively considerable impact to population and
housing.
Public Services: The City has planned to accommodate all growth pursuant to the City’s
GP. This involves collection of DIFs on a project-by-project basis to offset the
incremental impacts of each project. Therefore, cumulative impacts will not be
considerable.
Recreation: The City collects DIFs to offset incremental impacts from each development
project; therefore, cumulative impacts will not be considerable.
Transportation: The City collects Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF),
Menifee Valley Road & Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee for zone C as well as the City
DIF to offset incremental impacts from each development project; therefore, cumulative
impacts will not be considerable.
Utilities: Agencies which provide utilities to the City have sufficient capacity to meet the
needs of the City’s planned development pursuant to the GP. Additionally, the City
collects DIFs to offset incremental impacts from each development project; therefore,
cumulative impacts will not be considerable.
Wildfire: The Project will not be located within an area that is subject of Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones within local responsibility areas (LRA) and State Responsibility
Areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to wildfire impacts will not be considered.
Thus, the Project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable with implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
THRESHOLD XXI.c: Less than significant impact with mitigation. Effects on human beings
were evaluated as part of this analysis of this IS under the air quality, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic thresholds.
Based on the analysis and conclusions in this IS, the proposed Project will not cause substantial
adverse effects directly or indirectly to human beings with incorporation of mitigation measures
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-4, MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-4, MM TRANS-1 through MM
TRANS-3, and condition of approval from this MND’s Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings that result from the proposed
Project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 221
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).
REFERENCES
AE-A Applied Earthworks, Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor’s Parcel No.
360-130-003 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, February 2019.
(Appendix C)
AE-B Applied Earthworks, Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Mixed Use
Development Project, Assessor’s Parcel No. 360-130-003, City of Menifee,
Riverside County, California, January 2018. (Appendix D)
AEI-A AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, October 2016.
(Appendix E)
AEI-B AEI Consultants, Phase II Limited Soil Sampling Investigation, August 4, 2017.
(Appendix E)
BL 201 California’s Policies Can Significantly Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions through
2030, January 22, 2015. (Available at
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californias-policies-can-significantly-cut-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-2030/, accessed January 8, 2019).
CADRE-A Cadre Environmental, General MSHCP Habitat Assessment/Compliance
Analysis for the 37.06 Acre Haun & Holland Road Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
No. 37121 Project Site, City of Menifee, California, September 4, 2019.
(Appendix B)
CADRE-B Cadre Environmental, Updated MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys for the
37.06-Acre Haun & Holland Road Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37121 Project
Site, City of Menifee, California, September 4, 2019. (Appendix B)
CADRE-C Cadre Environmental, MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or
Superior Preservation, Haun & Holland – TPM 37121 Project (APN 360-130-
003), City of Menifee, Western Riverside County, California, January 2020.
(Appendix B)
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CALFIRE, December 21, 2009.
(Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5916/menifee.pdf, accessed
December 2019).
CARB 2017 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,
November 2017. (Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed
January 8, 2019).
CARB 2018 California Air Resources Board, Area Designations Maps / State and National,
December 28, 2018. (Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm,
accessed January 2, 2019).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 222
CDTFA-D California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Taxable Diesel Gallons 10
Year Report. (Available at https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/Diesel-10-
Year-Report.pdf, accessed February 6, 2019).
CDTFA-G California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Net Taxable Gasoline
Gallons. (Available at https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-
Report.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2019).
CEC SCE California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by Entity. (Available at
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx, accessed March 25, 2019).
CEC SCG California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by Entity. (Available at
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx, accessed March 25, 2019).
CGP State Water Resources Control Board. Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit
(and Waste Discharge Requirements) for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. Adopted September 2, 2009.
(Available at
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml,
accessed February 7, 2018),
CGR 2016 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2016 California Gas Report. (Available at
https://socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2016-cgr.pdf, accessed April 30,
2019).
CGS California Department of Conservation, Data Viewer. (Available at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/, accessed March 2019).
CWLMC C.W. La Monte Company Inc., Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 37121, Northeast Corner of Haun Road and Holland
Road, Menifee, CA 92584, January 17, 2017. (Appendix D)
DBF DBF Associates, Inc., Noise and Vibration Analysis Report for Haun and Holland
Mixed Use Center, April 2019. (Appendix G)
DOF Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing
Estimates, January 1, 2018. (Available at
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed
September 6, 2018).
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June
2016. (Available at https://www.emwd.org/home/showdocument?id=1506,
accessed July 2017).
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act, FEMA Flood Map Center, 2014. (Available
at https://msc.fema.gov/portal, accessed July 2017).
FMMP California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, Riverside County Important Farmland 2016 West. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/riv16_w.pdf, accessed April
2019).
GP EIR City of Menifee, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, September
2013. (Available at https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report, accessed April 2019).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 223
GP LU City of Menifee, Land Use Background Document & Definitions. (Available at
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/3654, accessed July
2017).
GP NOI City of Menifee, Noise Background Document & Definitions. (Available at
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1008, accessed July
2017).
GP SAF City of Menifee, Safety Background Document & Definitions. (Available at
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1009, accessed July
2017).
GP City of Menifee, General Plan, Adopted December 2013. (Available at
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan, accessed April 2019).
HR215 City of Menifee, Holland Road/Interstate 215 Overcrossing Project, County of
Riverside EA 1F980, PN 0815000087, Initial Study with Mitigated Negative
Declaration, August 2016. Available at the City of Menifee.
LID 2011 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Design
Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. September
2011. (Available at
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/NPDES/LIDBMP.aspx, accessed
February 6, 2018).
MMC City of Menifee, Municipal Code, current through December 2018. (Available at
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/menifee_ca/cityofmenifeeca
liforniacodeofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:menifee
_ca, accessed March 2019).
MS4 State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS 618033, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Count of
Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana
Region, Area-Wide Urban Runoff Management Program. Adopted January 29,
2010. (Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orde
rs/2010/10_033_RC_MS4_Permit_01_29_10.pdf, accessed February 7, 2018).
MSHCP County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available at http://wrc-
rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/, accessed
September 1, 2017).
NMPD City of Menifee, New Menifee Valley Police Department. (Available at
https://cityofmenifee.us/510/New-Menifee-Police-Department, accessed
November 18, 2019).
PE The Press Enterprise, Menifee Sets Grand Opening for New Police Substation,
February 21, 2018. (Available at https://www.pe.com/2018/02/21/menifee-sets-
grand-opening-for-new-police-substation/, accessed September 10, 2018).
RBF RBF Consulting, Hydrologic Basis of Design: Paloma Channel Extension,
Countryside (Tract 33647), County of Riverside, California. Prepared for Pardee
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 224
Homes, June 2006. Available from Riverside County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District.
RCA 2017 Riverside Conservation Authority, RCA MSHCP Information Map. (Available at
http://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a6
4d41c29ebd3acd67467abd, accessed July 2017).
RCIT Riverside County Informational Technology, Map My County. (Available at
http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public, accessed
RCTC CMP Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2011 Riverside County
Congestion Management Program adopted December 2011. (Available at
http://www.rctcdev.info/uploads/media_items/congestionmanagementprogram.ori
ginal.pdf, accessed July 2017).
SCAG 2016 Southern California Association of Governments, The 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016. Available at
(http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf, accessed
December 20, 2018).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential
2003 Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August
2003. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-
group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf, accessed December 18, 2018).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for
2005 Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, May 6, 2005.
(Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-
guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf, accessed December 19, 2018).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance
2008 Thresholds, 2008. (Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/localized-significance-thresholds, accessed December 19, 2018).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South
2015 Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in
Support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae, April 13, 2015.
(Available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-
air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf, accessed April 29, 2019).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality
2016 Management Plan, March 2017. (Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/cover-
and-opening.pdf?sfvrsn=6, accessed December 19, 2018).
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality
CEQA Handbook, November 1993. Available from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
USC United States Census, Quick Facts: Murrieta city, California; Wildomar city,
California; Lake Elsinore city, California, Menifee city, California. (Available at
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/murrietacitycalifornia,wildomarcityca
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case No. 2016-185, TPM37121 Page 225
lifornia,lakeelsinorecitycalifornia,perriscitycalifornia,menifeecitycalifornia/PST045
218, accessed January 2019).
VN Valley News, Menifee Opens New Police Substation, March 30, 2018. (Available
at https://www.myvalleynews.com/story/2018/03/30/news/menifee-opens-new-
police-substation/60212.html, accessed January 30, 2019).
WEBB-A1 Albert A. Webb Associates, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Haun
and Holland Mixed Use Center Project, City of Menifee, February 5, 2019.
(Appendix A)
WEBB-A2 Albert A. Webb Associates, Energy Consumption Calculations, January 22,
2019. (Appendix A)
WEBB-B Albert A. Webb Associates, Jurisdictional Delineation Report for TPM 37121,
Northeast Corner of Haun Road and Holland Road, City of Menifee, California,
February 2019. (Appendix B)
WEBB-C Albert A. Webb Associates, Preliminary Drainage Study for JPN – TPM 37121,
City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, February 2020. (Appendix F)
WEBB-D Albert A. Webb Associates, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for
JPN – TPM 37121, January 2019. (Appendix F)
WEBB-E Albert A. Webb Associates, Revised Traffic Impact Analysis JPN Haun and
Holland Road Commercial Center Project, May 2020. (Appendix H)
WQMP 2012 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Water Quality
Management Plan: A Guidance Document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside
County. Approved October 22, 2012. (Available at
http://rcflood.org/NPDES/SantaAnaWS.aspx, accessed February 7, 2018).
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
N
D
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
RESOLUTION NO. PC 20-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
37121 (PLANNING APPLICATION TPM 2016-185) FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF 37.06 ACRES INTO SIX (6) PARCELS LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAUN AND HOLLAND ROADS
AND WEST OF INTERSTATE 215 (APN: 360-130-003).
Whereas, on August 11, 2016, the applicant, JPN Investments, filed a formal
application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
2016-185 (PM 37121) a subdivision of 37.06 gross acres into six (6) commercial parcels
ranging in size from 5.10 to 7.76 gross acres (collectively, the “Project”); and
Whereas, on June 24, 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 Parcel Map
(TPM) 2016-185 (TPM 37121) 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 700 feet of the Project boundaries and to persons requesting
public notice; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Menifee makes the following Findings:
Section 1: Consistency with the General Plan. The tentative parcel map is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and applicable General
Plan objectives, policies, and programs.
The General Plan land use of the site is Economic Development Corridor
(EDC). The intent of the designation is to identify areas where a mixture
of residential, commercial, office, industrial, and entertainment uses are
planned. Areas designated EDC are envisioned to develop primarily as
nonresidential uses.
The proposed subdivision creates six parcels capable of facilitating the
establishment of commercial, retail and auto related uses on vacant and
undeveloped property and is consistent with the intent of the EDC land
use designation.
Section 2: Consistency with the Zoning Code. The Tentative Parcel Map is
consistent with the zone designation map, and applicable development
standards within the zone designation:
The map has been analyzed for consistency with the Economic
Development Corridor – Community Core, zoning designation. As
prescribed by Section 9.140.040-2 of the City’s zoning code, a minimum
lot area of 15,000 square feet. The project is consistent with the design
guidelines, zoning and development standards of the EDC-CC and
overlay as each of the six parcels exceed the 15,000 square foot
minimum lot area prescribed by the EDC-CC zone as the parcels range in
area from 5.10 to 7.76 acres. The proposal which includes the subdivision
of land for future commercial/retail, office use, or automotive related
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
(
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
)
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
PM 37121 / Planning Case PM 2016-185
June 24, 2020
enterprises which are allowed with approval of a plot plan or conditional
use permit applications.
Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the properties located to the
north and south of the project site, with the property located to the south
partially developed with a self-storage facility, to the west across Haun
Road, the Paloma Wash which is designated Open Space with residential
development located beyond further west and to the east the Interstate
215 right-of-way.
Section 3: Consistency with Title 7, Subdivisions Regulating the Division of Land.
The proposed subdivision of 37.06 acres into six (6) commercial parcels
has been reviewed and conditioned for consistency with the requirements
for streets, domestic water, fire protection, sewage disposal, fences, and
electrical communication facilities.
Section 4: The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the
proposed land use of the development.
The Project is for a subdivision of land; The subject site is relatively flat
with a drainage course situated at the southerly boundary which has been
properly delineated and therefore would not be incompatible with the
proposed development. The site is bounded by Interstate 215 to the east,
Holland Road and Haun Road to the south and west, respectively and
vacant commercial property to the north. Therefore, the site is considered
physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed land use
of the site.
Section 5: Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or
injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the
project vicinity.
The uses in closest proximity to the project site include partially
developed commercial property with a self-storage facility located south
of the project site beyond Holland Road and the Paloma Wash located to
the west beyond Haun Road while the remaining surrounding properties
are vacant and designated the same as the project site.
The project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, General Plan
land use designations, and zoning classifications. The project is not
anticipated to create conditions materially detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other
properties or land uses in the project vicinity.
Section 6: Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the tentative parcel
map application are in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
An IS/MND pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
was prepared for the Project. In the IS/MND, it was found that with
implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
(
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
)
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
PM 37121 / Planning Case PM 2016-185
June 24, 2020
significant impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
was prepared and identifies all mitigation measures that will be required
for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee
resolves and orders as follows:
1. The Findings set out above are true and correct.
2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 37121 (Planning Case No. 2016-185), is
approved subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Exhibit “1”
to this Resolution; and
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 24th day of June, 2020
_________________________
Randy Madrid, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Thai Phan, Assistant City Attorney
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
(
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
)
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Page 1 of 47
EXHIBIT “1”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2016-185 (TPM37121)
Project Description: Tentative Parcel Map No. (PM) 2016-185 proposes to
subdivide 37.06 gross (31.44 net acres) into six (6)
commercial parcels. The parcels range in size from 5.10 to
7.76 gross acres and 3.89 to 6.34 net acres, respectively.
The project site is bound by Interstate 215 (I-215) to
the east, Haun Road to the west, Holland Road to the
south, and vacant property to the North within the City
of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California.
Assessor's Parcel No.: APN 360-130-003
MSHCP Category: Commercial
DIF Category: Commercial/Retail
TUMF Category: Commercial/ Retail – (Applicant should contact WRCOG to
determine fee category)
Quimby Category: N/A
Approval Date: June 24, 2020
Expiration Date: June 24, 2023
Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project
1. Filing Notice of Determination (ND/MND). The applicant/developer shall
deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made
payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred
Fifty Six Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,456.75) which includes the Two
Thousand Four Hundred Six Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,406.75) fee,
required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars
($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public
Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section
15075. Per Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)(3), a project shall not be
operative, vested or final and local government permits for the project shall
not be valid until the filling fees required are paid.
2. Indemnification. Applicant/developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 278
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 2 of 47
harmless the City of Menifee and its elected city council, appointed boards,
commissions, committees, officials, employees, volunteers, contractors,
consultants, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses,
fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses
and attorney’s fees, arising out of either the City’s approval of the Project or
actions related to the Property or the acts, omissions, or operations of the
applicant/developer and its directors, officers, members, partners, employees,
agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising
the applicant/developer with respect to the ownership, planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of the Project and the Property for which the
Project is being approved. In addition to the above, within 15 days of this
approval, the developer/applicant shall enter into an indemnification
agreement with the City. The indemnification agreement shall be substantially
the same as the form agreement currently on file with the City.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 279
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 3 of 47
Section I: Conditions applicable to All Departments
Section II: Community Development Conditions of
Approval
Section III: Engineering/Grading/Transportation
Conditions of Approval
Section IV: Fire Department Conditions of Approval
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 280
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 4 of 47
Section I:
Conditions Applicable to all
Departments
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 5 of 47
General Conditions
1. Definitions. The words identified in the following list that appear in all capitals
in the attached conditions of Tentative Parcel Map No. 37121 shall be
henceforth defined as follows:
TENTATIVE MAP = EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map No. 2016-185 (PM
37121), dated May 6, 2020, (TPM 37121)
FINAL MAP = Final Map or Parcel Map for the TENTATIVE MAP whether
recorded in whole or in phases.
2. 90 Days. The developer/owner has 90 days from the date of approval of these
conditions to protest, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government
Code Section 66020, the imposition of any and all fees, dedications,
reservations and/or other exactions imposed on this project as a result of the
approval or conditional approval of this project.
3. Newly Incorporated City. The City of Menifee is a new City, incorporated on
October 1, 2008; the City is studying and adopting its own ordinances,
regulations, procedures, processing and development impact fee structure. In
the future the City of Menifee will identify and put in place various processing
fees to cover the reasonable cost of the services provided. The City also will
identify and fund mitigation measure under CEQA through development impact
fees. Such fees may include but are not limited to processing fees for the costs
of providing planning services when development entitlement applications are
submitted, which fees are designed to cover the full cost of such services, and
development impact fees to mitigate the impact of the development proposed
on public improvements. To the extent that Menifee may develop future
financing districts to cover the costs of maintenance of improvements
constructed by development, Permitee agrees to petition for formation of,
annexation to or inclusion in any such financing district and to pay the cost of
such formation, annexation or inclusion.
The permitee acknowledges it is on notice of the current development fees and
understands that such fees will apply at the levels in effect at the time the fee
condition must be met as specified herein.
4. Comply with MMC Title 7, Subdivisions. This land division shall comply with
the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all requirements of Title 7,
unless modified by the conditions listed herein.
5. Expiration Date. The conditionally approved TENTATIVE MAP shall expire
three (3) years after the Planning Commission’s original approval date, unless
extended as provided by Municipal Code Section 7.20.130 or state law. Action
on a minor change and/or revised map request shall not extend the time limits
of the originally approved TENTATIVE MAP. If the TENTATIVE MAP expires
before the recordation of the final phase the LMS no further FINAL MAP
recordation shall be permitted.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 6 of 47
6. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any
modifications or revisions to the approval of this project.
7. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The developer shall comply with the mitigation
monitoring plan prepared for the project.
8. No Grading or Building Permits. Planning Application 2016-185 Tentative
Parcel Map (TPM 37121) is for a commercial subdivision. No grading or building
permits shall be issued pursuant to this subdivision until such time a PLOT
PLAN is approved.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 7 of 47
Section II:
Community Development
Department Conditions of
Approval
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 284
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 8 of 47
General Conditions
9. Outside Lighting. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not
to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way and so as to
prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky.
10. No Outdoor Advertising. No outdoor advertising display, sign or billboard (not
including on-site advertising or directional signs) shall be constructed or
maintained within the property subject to this approval.
11. Reclaimed Water. The permittee shall connect to a reclaimed water supply for
landscape watering purposes when secondary or reclaimed water is made
available to the site as required by Eastern Municipal Water District.
12. No Permanent Occupancy. No permanent occupancy shall be permitted
within the property approved under this parcel map as a principal place of
residence. No person shall be entitled to vote using an address within the
premises as a place of residence.
13. No Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed within or upon the site.
No storage lockers, sheds, metal container bins, or metal shipping containers
will be allowed to be stored outside unless first reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department.
ARCHEOLOGY
14. Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the
Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin.
Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall
be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment
and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the
remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall
be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely
descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations
and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
15. 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).
16. Inadvertent Archeological Find.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 285
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 9 of 47
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. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred
method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural
resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the
significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources,
these issues will be presented to the City Community Development
Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall
make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources,
recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account
the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe.
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of
the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City
Planning Commission and/or City Council.”
17. 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:
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 286
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 10 of 47
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.
18. Inadvertent Paleontological Find. Should fossil remains be encountered
during site development:
1) All site earthmoving shall be ceased in the area of where the fossil remains
are encountered. Earthmoving activities may be diverted to other areas of
the site.
2) The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the County
of Riverside.
3) The paleontologist shall determine the significance of the encountered
fossil remains.
4) Paleontological monitoring of earthmoving activities will continue thereafter
on an as-needed basis by the 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 supervising
paleontologist will have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 287
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 11 of 47
determines the probability of encountering any additional fossils has
dropped below an acceptable level.
5) If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the
paleontologist is not onsite, these activities will be diverted around the fossil
site and the paleontologist called to the site immediately to recover the
remains.
6) 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 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.
LANDSCAPING
19. Interim Landscaping. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a
condition so as to prevent a dust and/or blow sand nuisance and shall be either
planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion
control measures as approved by the Community Development Department
and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
20. Viable Landscaping. All plant materials within landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition throughout the life of this permit. To
ensure that this occurs, the Community Development Department shall require
inspections in accordance with the Building Permit landscaping install and
inspection condition.
21. Landscape Plans. All landscaping plans shall be prepared in accordance with
the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MMC 15.04) and the Park
Design, Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance (MMC 9.86). Such
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department, and the appropriate maintenance authority.
22. Maintenance of Landscaping. All private landscaping shall be maintained by
a property owners association or individual property owner. All landscaping, and
similar improvements not properly maintained by a property owners association
or individual property owners must be annexed into a Community Facilities
District (CFD), or other mechanism as determined by the City of Menifee.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 288
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 12 of 47
FEES
23. Subsequent Submittals. Any subsequent submittals required by these
conditions of approval, including but not limited to final map, grading plan,
building plan or mitigation monitoring review, shall be reviewed on an hourly
basis (research fee), or other such review fee as may be in effect at the time of
submittal, as required by Resolution No. 18-741 (Cost of Services Fee Study),
or any successor thereto. Each submittal shall be accompanied with a letter
clearly indicating which condition or conditions the submittal is intended to
comply with.
Prior to Final Map
24. Final Map. After the approval of the TENTATIVE MAP and prior to the
expiration of said map, the developer/owner shall cause the real property
included within the TENTATIVE MAP, or any part thereof, to be surveyed and
a FINAL MAP thereof prepared in accordance with the current Engineering
Department requirements, the conditionally approved TENTATIVE MAP, and in
accordance with Title 7 of the City of Menifee Municipal Code.
25. Surveyor. The FINAL MAP shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or
registered civil engineer.
26. Reciprocal Access. Prior to map recordation, reciprocal access shall be
established across all lots for appropriate on-site circulation, access for the
project site and to allow shared parking across parcels. Furthermore, a
reciprocal ingress/egress easement shall be obtained from the property owner
located north of the project site. In the event reciprocal ingress/egress cannot
be obtained, the applicant’s proposal shall submit a substantial conformance
application in which the 60-foot wide access easement is located solely upon
the applicants property.
27. ECS. The developer/owner shall prepare an Environmental Constraints Sheet
(ECS) in accordance with Section 7.65.070 of the City of Menifee Municipal
Code, which shall be submitted as part of the plan check review of the FINAL
MAP.
28. Dark Sky Ordinance. The following Environmental Constraints Note shall be
placed on the ECS:
"This property is subject to lighting restrictions as required by the Menifee
Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, the “Dark Sky Ordinance”, which are intended to
reduce the effects of night lighting on the Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall be in conformance with the Dark Sky
Ordinance.”
29. ECS Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The following Environmental Constraints
Note shall be placed on the ECS
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 289
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 13 of 47
“This property is subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project on file
with the Community Development Department.”
RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
FEES
30. Fees. Prior to recordation, the Planning Department shall determine if the
deposit based fees for the TENTATIVE MAP are in a negative balance. If so,
any unpaid fees shall be paid by the developer/owner and/or the
developer/owner's successor-in-interest.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 290
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 14 of 47
Section III: Public
Works/Engineering Conditions of
Approval
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 291
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 15 of 47
The following are the Public Works (PW)-Engineering Department Conditions of Approval
for this development, which shall be satisfied at no cost to the City or any other
Government Agency. All questions regarding the intent of the following conditions shall be
referred to the PW Engineering Department, Land Development Section. The developer /
property owner shall use the standards and design criteria stated in the following
conditions, and shall comply with all applicable City of Menifee standards and ordinances.
Should a conflict arise between City of Menifee standards and design criteria, and any
other standards and design criteria, those of the City of Menifee shall prevail.
A. General Conditions
1. Subdivision Map Act - The developer / property owner shall comply with the State
of California Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 7).
2. Proposed Parcel Map – The property owner is proposing to subdivide a 37.06
acres of land into six (6) Parcels: Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 3, Parcel 4, Parcel 5,
and Parcel 6. The proposed parcel map is a proposal to develop the land into
Commercial use.
3. Tentative Parcel Map. It is understood that the tentative parcel map correctly
shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways and
drainage courses with appropriate Q’s, and that their omission or unacceptability
may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. All questions
regarding the true meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the PW
Department.
4. Bond Agreements, Grading and Improvement Security – To guarantee the
construction of all required grading and improvements, the developer/property
owner shall enter into Bond Agreements and post security or bonds in accordance
with applicable City policies and ordinances. The improvements shall include, but
not limited to: onsite/offsite grading, erosion control, street improvements, street
lights, traffic signals, signing and striping, public landscape improvements,
recreational paseos, parks, water/sewer/recycled water improvements, water
quality BMPs, and storm drainage facilities. If map recordation is required, bond
agreements shall be executed and bonds/security posted prior to final map
recordation. Otherwise, bond agreements and bond posting shall be required prior
to grading, building, or construction permit issuance whichever is applicable. It
should be noted that, with the exception of grading bond agreements, all other
bond agreements require Council approvals. Therefore it shall be the responsibility
of the developer/property owner to coordinate their project timing with City Council
calendar when requesting City approvals of bond agreements.
5. Bond Replacement, Reductions and Releases – All requests for bond
replacements (such as in changes of property ownerships), reductions (such as in
partial completion of improvements), releases (such as in completion of
improvements), shall conform to City policies, standards and applicable City
ordinances. It shall be the responsibility of the developer/property owner to notify
the City in time when any of these bond changes are necessary. The City shall
review all changes in Bond Agreements and the accompanying bonds or security.
Similarly, with the exception of grading bond agreements, all other agreement
changes require Council approvals. Therefore, it shall be the responsibility of the
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 292
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 16 of 47
developer/property owner to coordinate their project timing with City Council
calendar when requesting changes to bond agreements.
6. Existing and Proposed Easements - The submitted tentative tract map shall
correctly show all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses. Any
omission or misrepresentation of these documents may require said tentative tract
map to be resubmitted for further consideration.
7. Engineered Plans - All street improvement plans and required grading plans shall
be drawn on twenty-four (24) inch by thirty-six (36) inch Mylar and signed, dated
and stamped by a registered civil engineer or other registered / licensed
professional as required.
8. Plan Check Submittal Process – Improvement plans and grading plans shall be
submitted with necessary supporting documentation and technical studies
(hydrology, hydraulics, traffic impact analysis, geotechnical studies, etc.) to the PW
Engineering Department for review and approval. All submittals shall be signed,
and date stamped by the Engineer of Record. The plans must receive PW approval
prior to final map recordation; or issuance of any construction permit, grading
permit, or building permits as applicable or as determined by the PW Director. All
submittals shall include a completed City Fee or Deposit Based Worksheet and
the appropriate plan check fees paid.
9. Plan Approvals – The developer/property owner shall submit improvement plans
prior to final map recordation. These shall include plans for the construction of all
required improvements required for bonding prior to final map recordation (such
as street improvements, drainage improvements, landscape improvements, traffic
signals, streetlights). Required improvement plans and grading plans must be
technically approved, or received a substantial completion letter from the Public
Works Engineering Department prior to final map recordation, issuance of any
construction and/or grading permit as determined by PW Director/ City Engineer.
Prior to final approvals, the developer / property owner shall submit to the Public
Works / Engineering Department CAD layers of all improvements to be maintained
by the City (pavement, sidewalk, street lights, etc.). A scanned image of all final
approved grading and improvement plans on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive,
also known as a “flash” drive or “thumb” drive, shall be submitted, in one of the
following formats: (a) Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shape file (made up of ESRI
extensions .shp, .shx and .dbf) or (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension
.gdb). CAD files created with the latest version shall only be accepted if approved
by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.
10. Encroachment Permits – The developer / property owner shall obtain all required
encroachment permits and clearances prior to start of any work within City, State,
or local agency right-of-way. This also includes coordination and all work required
to obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Perris, for any and all
improvements that fall within the City of Perris’ jurisdiction.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 293
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 17 of 47
11. As-Built Plans – Upon completion of all required improvements, the
developer/property owner shall cause the civil engineer of record to as-built all
project plans, and submit project base line of work for all layers on a USB drive to
the Public Works / Engineering Department, in one of the following formats: (a)
Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shape file (made up of ESRI extensions .shp, .shx and
.dbf) or (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension .gdb). If the required files
are unavailable, the developer/property owner shall pay a scanning fee to cover
the cost of scanning the as-built plans. The timing for submitting the as-built plans
shall be as determined by the Public Works Director.
12. Construction Activities and Times of Operation. The developer / property
owner shall monitor, supervise, and control all construction and construction
related activities to prevent them from causing a public nuisance including, but not
limited to, strict adherence to the following:
a. Any construction within the City limits located within 1/4 of a mile from an
occupied residence shall be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, except on nationally recognized holidays in
accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.01.020. Construction on
Sunday or nationally recognized holidays are not permitted unless prior
approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer / PW
Director.
b. All spoils, debris, or other construction materials deposited on any public
street shall be removed no later than the end of each working day.
c. The construction site shall accommodate the parking of all motor vehicles
used by persons working at or providing deliveries to the site. Violation of
any condition or restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions shall
subject the developer / property owner to remedies as set forth in the City
Municipal Code. In addition, the City Engineer / PW Director or the Building
Official may suspend all construction related activities for violation of any
condition, restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions until such a
time that it has been determined that all operations and activities are in
conformance with these conditions.
d. A Pre-Construction meeting is mandatory with the City’s PW Inspector prior
to start of any construction activities for this site.
13. Dry Utility Installations - Electrical power, telephone, and cable television lines
shall be placed underground in accordance with current City ordinances, or as
approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. This applies also to existing
overhead lines which are 33.6 kilovolts or below along the project frontage and
within the project boundaries which includes between the nearest poles offsite in
each direction of the project site. Interpretation of “nearest poles offsite” shall be
at the discretion of the PW Director/City Engineer. Other utility lines such as
telephone cables, telecommunication cables that are collocated with high voltage
poles shall be placed underground even when the high voltage lines (such as
115kV) are exempt from being placed underground. Exemption from
undergrounding low voltage lines shall only be by the Public Works Director / City
Engineer or as directed by the City Council. A disposition note describing the
above undergrounding and/or relocation shall be reflected on design improvement
plans whenever those plans are required. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 18 of 47
Occupancy, the developer/property owner shall submit to the PW Engineering
Department, written proof from the pertinent utility company that the required utility
work has been completed
B. GRADING
General Conditions
14. Grading Regulations Chapter 8.26 - Any construction activity such as over-
excavation, re-compaction, cut, fill, base or paving which require a grading permit
and shall conform to the requirement of City Grading Regulations Chapter 8.26.
Additionally, grading permits are subject to the Public Works Department
conditions of approval stated herein.
15. Regulations and Ordinance on Grading within the City. All grading activities
shall conform to City Ordinances, City design standards and specifications, City
General Plan, applicable sections of California Building Code, and all other
relevant laws, rules and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee. Prior
to commencing any grading, clearing, grubbing or any topsoil disturbances, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Engineering
Department. Grading activities that are exempt from a grading permit as outlined
by the City ordinance may still require a grading permit by the City Engineer when
deemed necessary to prevent the potential for adverse impacts upon drainage,
sensitive environmental features, or to protect property, health, safety, and welfare.
16. Dust Control. All necessary measures to control dust shall be implemented by
the developer during grading. Fugitive dust shall be controlled in accordance with
Rule 403 of the California Air Quality Control Board. A watering device shall be
present and in use at the project site during all grading operations.
Prior to Grading Permit
Geotechnical Report - A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by
C.W. La Monte Company, Inc., dated January 17, 2017, was submitted to the City.
The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was reviewed in conformance with the
latest edition of the Riverside County Technical Guidelines for Review of
Geotechnical and Geologic Reports and was approved by the City. This Report
was approved on May 8, 2017. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, two copies
of the City-approved Geotechnical Engineering Investigation shall be submitted to
the PW-Engineering Department. The developer / property owner shall comply
with the recommendations of the report, and City standards and specifications. All
grading shall be done in conformance with the recommendations of the approved
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation.
17. Grading Permit for Clearing and Grubbing – A grading permit is required from
the PW-Engineering Department prior to any clearing, grubbing, or any topsoil
disturbances related to construction grading activities.
18. Erosion Control Plans – All required grading plans shall require erosion control
plans prior to approval. Graded but undeveloped land shall provide, in addition to
erosion control measures, drainage facilities deemed necessary to control or
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 19 of 47
prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are required year round in
compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction
General Permit (CGP). Additional erosion protection may be required during or
before an anticipated rain event.
19. Compliance with NPDES General Construction Permit – The developer /
property owner shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) CGP from the SWRCB. Prior to approval of the grading plans or
issuance of any grading permit, the developer / property owner shall obtain a CGP
from the SWRCB. Proof of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and monitoring plan, shall
be submitted to the City; and the WDID number issued by the SWRCB shall be
reflected on all grading plans prior to approval of the plans. For additional
information on how to obtain a CGP, contact the SWRCB.
20. SWPPP - Prior to approval of the grading plans, the developer / property owner
shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the
development. The developer / property owner shall be responsible for uploading
the SWPPP into the State’s SMARTS database system, and shall ensure that the
SWPPP is updated to constantly reflect the actual construction status of the site.
A copy of the SWPPP shall be made available at the construction site at all times
until construction is completed. The SWRCB considers a construction project
complete once a Notice of Termination has been issued by SWRCB.
21. SWPPP for Inactive Sites – The developer / property owner shall be responsible
for ensuring that any graded area that is left inactive for a long period of time has
appropriate SWPPP BMPs in place and in good working conditions at all times
until construction is completed.
22. Grading Bonds – Prior to commencing any offsite grading, the applicant shall
obtain a grading permit from the PW-Engineering Department. Prior to issuance of
the permit, adequate performance grading security shall be posted by the
developer / property owner with the PW-Engineering Department.
23. Import / Export – Prior to issuance of a grading permit, grading plans involving
import or export of dirt shall require approval of the import / export locations from
the PW-Engineering Department. For projects importing soil, if the source locations
for proposed import were not previously approved with an Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) that includes an assessment of the property of soil being
imported, a Soils Report/Geotechnical Report for the soil being imported shall be
submitted for review and approval by the PW-Engineering Department prior to
issuance of any grading permit. A haul route must be submitted for approval by the
PW-Engineering department prior to grading operations.
24. Offsite Grading Easements - Prior to recordation of a final map phase, or the
issuance of a grading permit within a phased map whichever occurs first, the
developer/property owner shall obtain all required easements and/or permissions
to perform offsite grading, from affected land owners. Notarized and recorded
agreement or documents authorizing the offsite grading shall be submitted to the
Public Works Engineering Department.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 20 of 47
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
25. 2:1 Maximum Slope - Graded slopes shall be limited to a maximum steepness
ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless otherwise approved by the PW-
Engineering Department.
26. Slope Stability - A slope stability report shall be submitted and approved by the
PW-Engineering Department for all proposed cut or fill slopes steeper than 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or over 30 feet in vertical height - unless addressed in a
previously City approved report.
27. Slope Landscaping and Irrigation – All manufactured slopes shall be irrigated
and landscaped with grass or approved ground cover, and shall have some type
of drainage swale at the toe of the slope to collect runoff. Slopes exceeding 15 feet
in vertical height shall be irrigated and planted with shrubs and/or trees per
applicable City ordinances. Drip irrigation shall be used for all irrigated slopes.
28. Control Measures for Slopes Greater than 3 feet in Vertical Height - Erosion
control and/or landscape plans are required for manufactured slopes greater than
3 feet in vertical height. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a registered
landscape architect, and bonded per applicable City ordinances.
29. Temporary Erosion Control Measures - shall be implemented immediately
following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties
or drainage facilities. Plans showing these measures shall be submitted to the PW-
Engineering Department for review and approval.
30. Dust Control - During actual grading, all necessary measures to control dust shall
be implemented by the developer / property owner in accordance with Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) requirements. A watering device shall be present
and in use at the project site during all grading operations.
31. Use of Maximum and Minimum Grade Criteria – Actual field construction grades
shall not exceed the minimum and maximum grades for ADA and approved project
grading design, to allow for construction tolerances. Any improvement that is out
of the minimum and maximum values will not be accepted by the City Inspector,
and will need to be removed and replaced at the expense of the developer /
property owner.
32. Cross Lot Drainage: Prior to or concurrent with parcel map recordation, cross lot
drainage easement will be recorded on all parcels affected by the approved
drainage study.
Prior to Building Permit
33. No Building Permit without Grading Permit - Prior to issuance of any building
permit, the developer / property owner shall obtain a grading permit and / or
approval to construct from the PW-Engineering Department.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 21 of 47
34. Final Rough Grading Conditions – Prior to issuance of each building permit, the
developer / property owner shall cause the Civil Engineer of Record and Soils
Engineer of Record for the approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet
stamped rough grade certification and compaction test reports with 90% or better
compaction. The certifications shall use City approved forms, and shall be
submitted to the PW-Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
35. Conformance to Elevations / Geotechnical Compaction - Rough grade
elevations for all building pads and structure pads submitted for grading plan check
approval shall be in substantial conformance with the elevations shown on
approved grading plans. Compaction test certification shall be in compliance with
the approved project geotechnical / soils report.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
36. Final Grade Certification – The developer / property owner shall cause the Civil
Engineer of Record for approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet stamped
final grade certification on City approved form, for each building requesting a
certificate of occupancy. The certification shall be submitted to the PW-
Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
37. Conform to Elevations - Final grade elevations of all building or structure finish
floors submitted for grading plan check approval shall be in substantial
conformance with the elevations shown on the approved grading plans.
C. DRAINAGE
38. 10 YR Curb – 100 YR ROW: The 10 year storm flow shall be contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow shall be contained within the street right of way.
When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be
installed. The property shall be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an
adequate outlet.
39. 100 YR Sump Outlet: Drainage facilities outletting in sump conditions shall be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency
escape shall also be provided.
40. Coordinate Drainage Design: Development of this property shall be coordinated
with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain
unobstructed and storm waters are not diverted from one watershed to another.
This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite
construction and grading. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the
affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows.
A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the PW-
Engineering Department for review.
41. BMP – Energy Dissipators: Energy Dissipators, such as rip-rap, shall be installed
at the outlet of a storm drain system that discharges runoff flows into a natural
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 22 of 47
channel or an unmaintained facility. The dissipators shall be designed to minimize
the amount of erosion downstream of the storm drain outlet.
42. Trash Racks: Trash Racks shall be installed at all inlet structures that collect
runoff from open areas with potential for large, floatable debris.
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
43. Perpetual Drainage Patterns (Easements) - Grading shall be designed in a
manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns and conditions with
respect to tributary drainage areas and outlet points. Where these conditions are
not preserved, necessary drainage easements shall be obtained from all affected
property owners for the release onto their properties of concentrated or diverted
storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
PW-Engineering Department for review.
44. Protection of Downstream Properties - The developer / property owner shall
protect downstream properties from damages that can be caused by alteration of
natural drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall
be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging
existing facilities and securing necessary drainage easements.
45. Drainage Study - The developer / property owner submitted a Preliminary
Drainage Study, prepared by Albert A. Webb, dated July, 2019. The PW-
Engineering Department has reviewed the Preliminary Drainage Study, and has
granted conditional approval, pending the developer / property owner addressing
the following remaining Engineering comments during the Final Engineering
phase: An additional hydraulic analysis must be provided in the final engineering
drainage study to demonstrate that the existing storm drain system in Menifee
Road has the capacity to convey the additional offsite storm flow
46. Final Drainage Studies – The Drainage Study that has been submitted and
approved by the City of Menifee is only approved for the interim on-site conditions
and the off-site conditions. As each parcel is processed for
entitlement/development, either a parcel specific hydrology report and/or hydraulic
analysis (i.e. drainage study) will be prepared and submitted to the City for review
and approval, or a master drainage study for the entire development must be
modified and submitted to the city for review and approval. The drainage study
shall analyze how development of the project parcel(s) will impact the pertinent
storm drain infrastructure within and around the parcel(s), and describe whether
additional improvements will be required. Any additional infrastructure that may be
required from the development of the parcel(s) will be the responsibility of the
developer/owner.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
47. Offsite Easements or Redesign: Offsite drainage facilities shall be located within
dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owner(s).
Document(s) shall be recorded and a copy submitted to the PW-Engineering
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 23 of 47
Department prior to recordation of the final map. If the developer cannot obtain
such rights, the map should be redesigned to eliminate the need for the easement.
48. Written Permission for Grading: Written permission shall be obtained from the
affected property owners allowing the proposed grading and / or facilities to be
installed outside of the tract boundaries. A copy of the written authorization shall
be submitted to the PW-Engineering Department for review and approval.
49. Onsite Storm Drain Lines: The developer shall construct the proposed onsite
storm drain lines. These storm drains are to be maintained by the property owners,
which should be clearly stated in the established Property Owners Association
(POA). The proposed storm drains shown on the Approved Tentative Parcel Map
are to be adequate for the ultimate improvements. However, if parcel-specific
studies show the need for additional storm drain improvements in order to maintain
an acceptable drainage, the developer will be responsible for both submitting plans
for these additional improvements for approval, and the construction of said
improvements.
50. Offsite Storm Drain Lines: The developer shall construct the proposed offsite
storm drain lines. These storm drains are to be maintained by the established City
of Menifee citywide Community Facilities Maintenance District (Services), which
shall be either CFD 2015-2 or CFD 2017-1, as determined by the Public Works
Direct/City Engineer.
51. Connection to the Paloma Wash Channel: Project proposes the extension of
Lateral Storm Drain Line P, and new onsite storm drains that connects to a lateral
connection to drain to the Paloma Wash Channel. The Developer shall construct
this storm drain line prior to any building permit issuance. Prior to construction of
this storm drain connection, developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from
Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC). If a cooperative agreement is required,
the agreement must be executed and recorded prior to any approval of storm drain
improvement plans.
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT
52. AB 341. AB 341 focuses on increased commercial waste recycling as a method
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The regulation requires businesses
and organizations that generate four or more cubic yards of waste per week and
multifamily units of 5 or more, to recycle. A business shall take at least one of the
following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert
commercial solid waste from disposal:
a) Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid
waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities.
b) Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler.
c) Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multi-family
complex).
d) Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of
Regulations Title 14.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 300
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 24 of 47
For more information please visit:
www.rivcowm.org/opencms/recyclying/recycling_and_compost_business.html#mand
atory
53. AB 1826. AB 1826 (effective April 1, 2016) requires businesses that generate
eight (8) cubic yards or more or organic waste per week, to arrange for organic
waste recycling services. The threshold amount of organic waste generated
requiring compliance by businesses is reduced in subsequent years. Businesses
subject to AB 1826 shall take at least one of the following actions in order to divert
organic waste from disposal:
Source separate organic material from all other recyclables and donate or self-
haul to a permitted organic waste processing facility.
a) Enter into a contract or work agreement with gardening or landscaping
service provider or refuse hauler to ensure the waste generated from
those services meet the requirements of AB 1826.
b) Consider xeriscaping and using drought tolerant / low maintenance
vegetation in all landscaped areas of the project.
Effective January 1, 2019, the above requirements will be applicable to businesses
that generate four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and one (1) or
more cubic yards of organic waste per week. Additionally, effective January 1,
2019, a 3rd trash bin will be required for organics recycling, which will require a
larger trash enclosure to accommodate three (3) trash bins.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance:
54. Recyclables Collection and Loading Area Plot Plan. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for each building, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a
Recyclables Collection and Loading Area plot plan to the City of Menifee
Engineering/Public Works Department for review and approval. The plot plan shall
show the location of and access to the collection area for recyclable materials,
along with its dimensions and construction detail, including elevation/façade,
construction materials and signage. The plot plan shall clearly indicate how the
trash and recycling enclosures shall be accessed by the hauler.
55. Waste Recycling Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
building, a Waste Recycling Plan (WRP) shall be submitted to the City of Menifee
Engineering/Public Works Department approval. Completion of Form B, “Waste
Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program
may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as determined by the PW Director/City
Engineer. At a minimum, the WRP must identify the materials (i.e., concrete,
asphalt, wood, etc.) that will be generated by construction and development, the
projected amounts, the measures/methods that will be taken to recycle, reuse,
and/or reduce the amount of materials, the facilities and/or haulers that will be
utilized, and the targeted recycling or reduction rate. During project construction,
the project site shall have, at a minimum, two (2) bins; one for waste disposal and
the other for the recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D)
materials. Additional bins are encouraged to be used for further source separation
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 301
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 25 of 47
of C&D recyclable materials. Accurate record keeping (receipts) for recycling of
C&D recyclable materials and solid waste disposal must be kept. Arrangements
can be made through the franchise hauler.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
56. Waste Management Clearance. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for
each building, evidence (i.e., receipts or other type of verification) shall be
submitted to demonstrate project compliance with the approved WRP to the
Engineering and Public Works Department in order to clear the project for
occupancy permits. Receipts must clearly identify the amount of waste disposed
and Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials recycled. Completion of Form
C, “Waste Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion
Program along with the receipts may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as
determined by the PW Director/City Engineer
E. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
57. Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The development shall comply with all the
mitigation measures identified to be constructed or provided in the approved traffic
impact analysis (TIA), dated May 2020 prepared by Albert A Webb Associates.
PW-Engineering – Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the TIA and has
concurred with its findings. The developer / property owner shall be responsible
for all improvements, such as but not limited to; right-of-way frontage
improvements, traffic signal construction or mitigation, fair share fees, required or
identified in the approved traffic study and according to these Conditions of
Approval. All required improvements identified in the study shall be included in all
improvement plans for review and approval by PW-Engineering. The
recommendations/mitigation measures outlined in the approved TIA are as
discussed below. Additional improvements may be required to address public
safety and welfare, as determined by the City Engineer / PW Director.
58. Focused Traffic Study – With the development of each Parcel in the Parcel Map,
a traffic study may be required and shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval.
59. Paving or Paving Repairs. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the
paving inspections required from the Public Works Engineering Department.
Paving and/or paving repairs for utility street cuts shall be per City of Menifee
Standards and Specifications and as approved by the Public Works Director/City
Engineer.
60. Concrete Work. All concrete work including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways,
cross gutters, catch basins, manholes, vaults, etc. shall be constructed to meet a
28-day minimum concrete strength
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 302
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 26 of 47
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
61. Street Improvements Prior to building permit issuance, any necessary street
improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with City
Design Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, any City adopted
ordinances, and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street
construction in the city.
62. Signing and Striping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, any necessary
signing and striping plan shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer in
accordance with City ordinances, standards and specifications, and with the latest
edition of the CAMUTCD. Signing and striping plans may include a striped bike
lane per City General Plan requirements.
63. Driveway Geometrics. Final driveway geometrics may be modified in final
engineering as approved by the City Engineer / PW Director. Driveways shall meet
current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches
used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all
City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.
64. Sight Distance Analysis. Sight distance analysis shall be conducted at all project
roadway entrances for conformance with City sight distance standards. The
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the PW Director, and shall be
incorporated in the final grading plans, street improvement plans, and landscape
improvement plans.
65. Traffic Signal Control Devices. All new traffic signals and traffic signal
modifications required for construction by this development shall include traffic
signal communication infrastructure, network equipment, and Advanced Traffic
Management System (ATMS) license software. Said traffic signal control devices
shall be submitted with the traffic signal design plans, and shall be approved by
the PW Director, prior to testing of new traffic signal. Traffic signal poles shall be
placed at ultimate locations when appropriate.
66. Traffic Signal Timing Plans. Traffic signal timing plans for new and or modified
signalized intersections shall be submitted with the traffic signal design plans and
shall be approved by the PW Director prior to installation and testing of new signal.
67. Intersection Geometrics. All temporary/final intersection geometrics may be
modified in final engineering as approved by the PW Director.
68. Construction Traffic Control Plan - Prior to start of any project related
construction, the developer / property owner shall submit to the PW-Engineering
Department for review and approval, a Construction Traffic Control Plan in
compliance with all applicable City ordinances, standards and specifications, and
the latest edition of the CAMUTCD. This traffic control plan shall address impacts
from construction vehicular traffic, noise, and dust and shall propose measures to
mitigate these effects. The traffic control plan shall include a Traffic Safety Plan for
safe use of public roads right-of-way during construction. The plan shall specify
mitigation measures to address the following:
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 303
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 27 of 47
a) Dust and dirt fallout from truck loads and gets entrained onto City
roadways: (1) Biweekly street sweeping during construction activity,
and daily during all grading operations. (2) Approved BMPs shall be
installed at all approved construction entrances as part of the SWPPP.
b) Noise from construction truck traffic: Include construction time and
operation of vehicles through surrounding residential streets.
c) Traffic safety within the road right-of-way: Include temporary traffic
control measures and devices.
69. Fair Share Cost Estimates - This project is required to contribute fair share costs
for associated intersection and roadway geometric improvements with respect to
ultimate roadway improvements. The fair share cost estimates for geometric
improvements shall be based on conceptual exhibits. The conceptual exhibits
shall show the proposed improvements overlaid onto the existing roadway to
determine the construction cost of said improvement.
70. Cost Participation through Payment of TUMF, DIF and RBBD for Offsite
Improvements. The developer/property owner’s TUMF, DIF and RBBD payment
obligations shall be considered as cost participation for Project’s required offsite
improvements only when the offsite improvements for which credits are claimed,
are eligible TUMF, DIF and RBBD facilities at time of TUMF, DIF and RBBD
payments. Determination for TUMF credits shall be at the discretion of the
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the governing authority,
which shall include entering into a three party TUMF Credit Agreement with the
developer, WRCOG and the City of Menifee.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
71. Haun Road Frontage Street Improvements. The developer / property owner
shall construct the required half width street improvements along Haun Road from
Holland Road to the projects Northern Boundary at its ultimate cross-section as a
modified Major Roadway. The required improvements shall include construction of
4 lanes (2 northbound, 2 southbound), raised landscape median, left turn pockets,
bike lanes, landscaped parkways, and sidewalk along the project frontage. A
raised landscape median shall be installed within Haun Road from Holland Road
to the northern project boundary. At the end of the median at the northern project
boundary, a striped median transitioning to the existing roadway shall be installed.
The Right of Way for Haun Road shall be 132’ from Holland Road to Driveway 2
with a 21’ parkway on the west side, 94’ curb to curb, and 17’ minimum parkway
on the east side. A bus stop with an appropriately designed bus turn out shall be
installed between this segment.
The Right of Way for Haun Road shall be 130’ from Driveway 2 to the northern
project boundary with a 21’ parkway on the west side, 90’ curb to curb, and 21’
minimum parkway.
The improvements along Haun Road shall include safe transitions and
terminations as approved by the PW Director.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 304
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 28 of 47
72. Merging Pavement Taper – Haun Road. The developer shall construct a
minimum 50’:1 pavement taper merging north of the Project Boundary to merge
the proposed improvements along Haun Road to the existing roadway conditions,
as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map.
73. Commercial Driveways. The developer / property owner shall construct
driveways at both Driveway 1 and Driveway 2 (as indicated in the Traffic Impact
Analysis) per City of Menifee Standard Plan No. 208 for Commercial Driveway
Approach.
74. Intersection of Project Driveway 1 at Haun Road. The developer/property owner
shall construct the northern project Driveway 1 at Haun Road with following
geometrics:
a. Northbound: One through lane. One shared through/ right-turn lane.
b. Southbound: Two through lanes.
c. Eastbound: Not Applicable.
d. Westbound: One right-turn lane. Stop controlled.
75. Traffic Signal at Project Driveway 2 and Haun Road. The developer/property
owner shall install a new traffic signal at the southern project Driveway 2 and Haun
Road with following geometrics:
a. Northbound: One through lane. One shared through/right turn lane.
b. Southbound: Two left-turn lanes (minimum 375’ pocket). Two through
lanes.
c. Eastbound: Not Applicable.
d. Westbound: One left-turn lane. One right-turn lane with overlap phasing.
76. Traffic Signal at Haun Road and Holland Road. The developer/property owner
shall install a new traffic signal at Haun Road and Holland Road with the following
geometrics:
a. Northbound: Two left turn lanes (minimum 300’ pocket). One through lane.
One shared through/right turn lane.
b. Southbound: Two left turn lanes (minimum 300’ pocket). Two through
lanes. One right turn lane with overlap phasing.
c. Eastbound: Two left turn lanes (minimum 200’ pocket). One through lane.
One right turn lane (minimum 100’ pocket).
d. Westbound: One left turn lane (minimum 230’ pocket). One through lane.
One shared through/right turn lane.
77. Traffic Signal at Sherman Road and Holland Road. The developer/property
owner shall install a new traffic signal at Sherman Road and Holland with the
following geometrics:
a. Northbound: One left turn lane (minimum 150’ pocket). One shared
through/right turn lane.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 305
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 29 of 47
b. Southbound: One left turn lane (minimum 200’ pocket). One shared
through/right turn lane.
c. Eastbound: One left turn lane (minimum 250’ pocket). One through lane.
One right turn lane (minimum 150’ pocket).
d. Westbound: One left turn lane (minimum 150’ pocket). One through lane.
One right turn lane (minimum 150’ pocket).
78. Cost Participation through Payment of Fair Share. The developer / property
owner shall pay fair share costs for offsite improvements determined as follows:
a. Bradley Road between Park Avenue and Newport Road. The
developer/property owner shall pay fair share to widen Bradley Road
between Park Avenue and the Newport Road to a four lane with two-way-
left turn lane at a fair share cost of 11.43% of the total cost of the
improvement. The improvement shall accommodate 4 lanes (2 northbound
lanes, 2 southbound lanes), two-way-left turn lane, and left turn pockets at
intersections.
b. Haun Road between La Piedra Road and Holland Road. The
developer/property owner shall pay fair share to widen Haun Road between
La Piedra Road and the Holland Road to a four lane with raised landscape
median at a fair share cost of 79.37% of the total cost of the improvement.
The improvement shall accommodate 4 lanes (2 northbound lanes, 2
southbound lanes), raised landscape median, and left turn pockets at
intersections.
c. Haun Road between Holland Road and Scott Road. The
developer/property owner shall pay fair share to widen Haun Road between
Holland Road and Scott Road to a four lane with raised landscape median
at a fair share cost of 24.85% of the total cost of the improvement. The
improvement shall accommodate 4 lanes (2 northbound lanes, 2
southbound lanes), raised landscape median, and left turn pockets at
intersections.
d. Holland Road Overcrossing. Improve roadway geometrics as part of the
Holland Road Overpass Project at a fair share cost to be determined later.
This improvement would allow for the construction of the Holland Road
Overpass from Haun Road to Hanover Lane.
e. Antelope Road and Newport Road. Improve intersection geometrics at
Antelope Road and Newport Road at a fair share cost of 14.2% of the total
cost of the improvement. The intersection improvements are as follows:
i. Eastbound: Restripe to add one right turn lane.
f. Menifee Road and Newport Road. Improve intersection geometrics at
Menifee Road and Newport Road at a fair share cost of 16.8% of the total
cost of the improvement. The intersection improvements are as follows:
i. Southbound: Add right turn overlap phasing.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 30 of 47
g. Bradley Road and Holland Road. Improve intersection geometrics at
Bradley Road and Holland Road at a fair share cost of 17.9% of the total
cost of the improvement. The intersection improvements are as follows:
i. Eastbound: Restripe to add one right turn lane.
h. Antelope Road and Albion Lane. Improve intersection geometrics at
Antelope Road and Albion Lane at a fair share cost of 11.7% of the total
cost of the improvement. The intersection improvements are as follows:
i. Install a traffic signal
i. Palomar Road and Holland Road. Improve intersection geometrics at
Bradley Road and Holland Road at a fair share cost of 8.3% of the total
cost of the improvement. The intersection improvements are as follows:
i. Install a traffic signal
ii. Eastbound: Construct one left turn lane.
iii. Westbound: Restripe to add one left turn lane.
E. STREET STANDARDS, DEDICATIONS, AND VACATIONS
79. Improvements - Street improvements shall conform to all applicable City Design
Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, applicable City Ordinances,
and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street construction in
the City.
80. Soils and Pavement Report – Street pavement structural designs shall comply
with the recommendations in the City approved Project soils and pavement
investigation report, and must meet minimum City standards and specifications, as
approved by the PW Director.
81. Street Improvement Plan Profile – Unless specifically required by the approved
traffic study, improvement plans shall be prepared based upon a design profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond project boundaries at grade and
alignment approved by PW-Engineering Department.
82. Streetlight Plan – Street light construction plans shall be prepared as separate
plans or combined with the public street improvement plans as approved by the
PW Director.
83. Streetlight Design as LS-3 Rate Lights – All streetlights, other than traffic signal
safety lights, shall be designed as LS-3 rate lights in accordance with approved
City standards and specifications, and as determined by the PW Director.
84. Public Streetlights Service Points – All proposed public streetlights shall be
provided with necessary appurtenances and service points for power, separate
from privately owned streetlights. The developer/property owner shall coordinate
with the PW Department and with Southern California Edison the assignment of
addresses to streetlight service points. Service points for proposed public
streetlights shall become public and shall be located within public right of way or
within duly dedicated public easements.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 31 of 47
85. Street Name Sign - If applicable, the developer / property owner shall install street
name sign(s) in accordance with applicable City Standards or as directed by the
PW-Engineering Department.
86. Easement for Public Utility Purposes – A commercial driveway is proposed on
the north boundary of the project. Half of the proposed driveway falls within the
boundaries of the adjacent property to the north. Prior to approval of any grading
plan, the owner shall obtain the necessary easement from the adjacent property
to build the full commercial driveway. If the owner is unable to obtain the necessary
easement, the full driveway width shall be built within the proposed limits of this
project.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
87. Holland Overpass Right of Way (ROW). Acquisition of all right of way required
for the future Holland Road Overcrossing at Interstate 215 must be complete prior
to any building permit issuance.
88. Onsite Overhead Lines within Dedicated ROW Boundaries (IF APPLICABLE)
– Portions of existing right of ways (ROW) within project boundaries may be
proposed for vacation with the recordation of the final map phase containing the
ROW. If this situation applies to this development, then prior to recordation of the
final map phases that have existing overhead lines, the developer / property
owners shall coordinate the undergrounding, relocation or removal of said lines
with appropriate agencies. ROWs with existing overhead lines shall not be vacated
without the utilities being first removed, relocated or replaced.
89. Acceptance of Public Roadway Dedication and Improvements – Onsite
easements and right-of way for public roadways shall be granted to the City of
Menifee through the final map, or other acceptable recordable instrument. Any off-
site rights-of-way required for access road(s) shall be accepted to vest title in the
name of the public if not already accepted. Any shared access roads necessary
for the adequate circulation of the proposed project, shall be dedicated for
reciprocal access by acceptable recordable instrument prior to any permit
issuance.
90. Encroachment Permits – The developer / property owner shall obtain all required
encroachment permits and clearances prior to start of any work within City, State,
or local agency right-of-way.
91. Onsite Roadways – The developer has proposed easements for public utility
purposes onsite. Prior to approval of any parcel development, the city shall review
and approve any internal roadway that may be proposed each parcel.
G. WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER
92. Meet Minimum Standards - All water, sewer and recycled water improvements
shall be designed per the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) standards and
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 32 of 47
specifications, including required auxiliaries and appurtenances. The final design,
including pipe sizes and alignments, shall be subject to the approval of EMWD.
93. Utility Improvement Plans – Public Water, Sewer and Recycled Water
improvements shall be drawn on City title block for review and approval by the PW-
Engineering Department and EMWD.
94. Onsite and Offsite Sewer, Water and Recycled Water Improvements – All
public onsite and offsite sewer, water and recycled water improvements shall be
guaranteed for construction prior to final map recordation. Improvements shall be
constructed prior to building permit issuance.
H. NPDES AND WQMP
95. All City of Menifee requirements for NPDES and Water Quality Management Plans
(WQMP) shall be met per City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01 for
Stormwater / Urban Runoff Management Program unless otherwise approved by
the Public Works Director/City Engineer. This project is required to submit a project
specific WQMP prepared in accordance with the latest WQMP guidelines
approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
96. Trash Enclosures Standards and Specifications – Storm runoff resulting in
direct contact with trash enclosure, or wastewater runoff from trash enclosure are
prohibited from running off a site onto the City MS4 without proper treatment. Trash
enclosures in new developments and redevelopment projects shall meet new
storm water quality standards including:
a) Provision of a solid impermeable roof with a minimum clearance height
to allow the bin lid to completely open.
b) Constructed of reinforced masonry without wooden gates. Walls shall
be at least 6 feet high.
c) Provision of concrete slab floor, graded to collect any spill within the
enclosure.
d) All trash bins in the trash enclosure shall be leak proof with lids that are
continuously kept closed.
e) The enclosure area shall be protected from receiving direct rainfall or
run-on from collateral surfaces.
f) The trash enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use with
a 2-inch or larger brass resettable combination lock. Only employees
and staff authorized by the enclosure property owner shall be given
access.
.
Any standing liquids within the trash enclosures without floor drain must be cleaned
up and disposed of properly using a mop and a bucket or a wet/dry vacuum
machine. All non-hazardous liquids without solid trash may be put in the sanitary
sewer as an option, in accordance with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)
criteria.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 33 of 47
An alternate floor drain from the interior of the enclosure that discharges to the
sanitary sewer may be constructed only after obtaining approval from EMWD. This
option requires the following:
a) The trash enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use with
a 2-inch or larger brass resettable combination lock. Only employees
and staff authorized by the enclosure property owner shall be given
access. This requirement may not be applicable to commercial
complexes with multiple tenants.
b) A waterless trap primer shall be provided to prevent escape of gasses
from the sewer line and save water.
c) Hot and cold running water shall be provided with a connection nearby
with an approved backflow preventer. The spigot shall be protected and
located at the rear of the enclosure to prevent damage from bins.
97. SWRCB, TRASH AMENDMENTS. The State Water Resources Control Board
(State Board) adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean
Waters of California and the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters,
Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries – collectively referred to as the “Trash
Amendments.” Applicable requirements per these amendments shall be adhered
to with implementation measures, prior to building permit issuance. Projects
determined to be within Priority Land Uses as defined in the Trash Amendments,
shall provide trash full capture devices to remove trash from all Priority Land Use
areas that will contribute storm water runoff to the City of Menifee’s MS4. All trash
full capture devices shall be listed on the State Board’s current list of certified full
capture devices posted on their website
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_imple
mentation.shtml), or otherwise approved by State or Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff. Storm water runoff from privately owned Priority Land Use
areas shall be treated by full capture devices located within privately owned storm
drain structures or otherwise located on the privately owned property, whenever
possible. Runoff from Priority Land Use areas created or modified by the project,
and which are proposed to be City owned, shall be treated by full capture devices
located within city-owned storm drains or otherwise located within the public right
of way.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit
98. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Plan Check Comments
– A Preliminary WQMP, prepared by Albert A. Webb & Associates, dated January,
2019,_was approved by the PW-Engineering Department. However, this
Preliminary WQMP only proposes BMPs designed to treat the runoff produced
from the public street flows within Haun Rd. Prior to grading permit issuance, each
individual parcel is required to submit its own Water Quality Analysis to propose
and implement BMPs within that lot, tailored for the parcel in question.
99. Parcel Specific Final Water Quality Management Plan (Final WQMP): Prior to
Issuance of a grading permit for the individual parcels, a FINAL WQMP, either
parcel specific or a modification to a master WQMP for the development, in
substantial conformance with the approved PRELIMINARY WQMP shall be
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 310
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 34 of 47
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Department. Final
construction plans shall incorporate all of the structural BMPs identified in the
approved FINAL WQMP. The final Developed Project shall implement all structural
and non structural BMPs specified in the Approved Final WQMP. Once copy of
each the approved Final WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to
the Public Works Engineering Department. The FINAL WQMP submittal shall
included at a minimum, the following reports / studies.
i. Final Drainage Study
ii. Soils Report that includes soil infiltration capacity
iii. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, as maybe
required by the approved Phase I ESA
Final construction plans shall incorporate all of the structural BMPs identified
in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement
all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL
WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format
shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department.
100. Revising The Final WQMP: In the event the Final WQMP requires design
revisions that will substantially deviate from the approved Prelim WQMP, a revised
or new WQMP shall be submitted for review and approval by the PW-Engineering
Department. The cost of reviewing the revised/new WQMP shall be charged on a
time and material basis. The fixed fee to review a Final WQMP shall not apply, and
a deposit shall be collected from the applicant to pay for reviewing the substantially
revised WQMP.
101. WQMP Right of Entry and Maintenance Agreement: Prior to, or
concurrent with the approval of the FINAL WQMP, the developer / property owner
shall record Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s), or enter into an
acceptable Right of Entry and Maintenance Agreement with the City to inform
future property owners of the requirement to perpetually implement the approved
FINAL WQMP.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
102. Implement Project and Parcel Specific WQMPs: All structural BMPs described
in the project-specific and parcel-specific WQMPs shall be constructed and
operational in conformance with approved plans and specifications. It shall be
demonstrated that the developer / property owner is prepared to implement all
BMPs described in the approved project specific WQMP and that copies of the
approved project-specific WQMP are available for the future owners/occupants.
The City will not release occupancy permits for any portion of the project, or any
proposed map phase prior to the completion of the construction of all required
structural BMPs, and implementation of non-structural BMPs.
103. WQMP / BMP Education: Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,
the developer / property owner shall provide the City proof of notification to future
occupants, of all BMPs and educational and training requirements for said BMPs
as directed in the approved WQMP. At a minimum, acceptable proof of notification
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 311
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 35 of 47
must be in the form of a notarized affidavit. The developer must provide to the
PW-Engineering Department a notarized affidavit stating that the distribution of
educational materials to future homebuyers has been completed prior to issuance
of occupancy permits.
NPDES Public Educational Program materials may be obtained from the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) - NPDES Section
by accessing the District's website at www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us.
I. CITYWIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Annexation
Prior to Final Map Recordation
104. Annexation to the Citywide Community Facilities District (CFD)– Prior to final
map recordation, the developer/property owner shall complete the annexation of
the proposed development, into the boundaries of a City of Menifee citywide
Community Facilities Maintenance District (Services), as determined by the Public
Works Direct/City Engineer. The citywide CFD shall be responsible for:
The maintenance of public improvements or facilities that benefit this development,
including but not limited to, public landscaping, streetlights, traffic signals, streets,
drainage facilities, water quality basins, graffiti abatement, and other public
improvements or facilities as approved by the Public Works Director.
The developer/property owner shall be responsible for all cost associated with the
annexation of the proposed development in the citywide CFD. If the developer /
property owner does not record a final map, but instead does a Plot Plan, then the
annexation shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.
105. CFD Annexation Agreement - In the event timing for this development’s schedule
prevents the developer / property owner from complying with the conditions of
approval for CFD annexation, the developer shall enter into a CFD annexation
agreement to allow the annexation to complete after the final map recordation or
after the Building Permit Issuance if no final map being processed, but prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The developer shall be responsible for all
costs associated with the preparation of the CFD annexation agreement. The
agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to final map recordation, or
prior to Building Permit Issuance if no final map is being processed.
106. Landscape Improvement Plans for CFD Maintenance – Landscape
improvements within public ROW and/or areas dedicated to the City for the
citywide CFD to maintain shall be prepared on a separate City CFD plans for
review and approval by the PW Engineering Department. The plans may be
prepared as one plan for the entire development as determined by the PW
Director. When necessary as determined by the PW Director, a separate WQMP
construction plan on City title block maybe required for review and approval by the
PW Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 312
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 36 of 47
107. Parkway Landscaping Design Standards - The parkway areas behind the street
curb within the public’s right-of-way, shall be landscaped and irrigated per City
standards and guidelines.
108. CFD Landscape Guidelines and Improvement Plans – All landscape
improvements for maintenance by the CFD shall be designed and installed in
accordance with City CFD Landscape Guidelines, and shall be drawn on a
separate improvement plan on City title block. The landscape improvement plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the PW Engineering Department prior to
issuance of a construction permit.
109. Maintenance of CFD Accepted Facilities – All landscaping and appurtenant
facilities to be maintained a citywide shall be built to City standards. The developer
shall be responsible for ensuring that landscaping areas to be maintained by the
CFD have its own controller and meter system, separate from any private
controller/meter system.
J. FEES, DEPOSITS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
110. Fees and Deposits – Prior to approval of any grading plans, improvement plans,
issuance of building permits, and/or issuance of certificate of occupancy, the
developer/property owner shall pay all fees and deposits applicable to this
development including TUMF and RBBD fees as applicable. Said fees and
deposits shall be collected at the rate in effect at the time of collection as specified
in current City resolutions and ordinances.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
111. Zone C of the RBBD. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupany,
the project proponent shall pay fees in accordance with Zone C of the Menifee
Valley Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fees approved for deferral shall be based
upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of construction.
112. TUMF Fees. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the
developer/property owner shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance,
pursuant to adopted City Ordinance governing the TUMF program.
K. Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs)
113. Common Area Maintenance. Any common areas identified in the
Tentative parcel Map, or in future maps developing any parcels within the Tentative
parcel Map shall be owned and maintained as follows:
a) A permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for
the tentative tract map area, to assume maintenance responsibility for
all common recreation, open space, circulation systems and landscaped
areas. The organization may be public (City CFD, or another agency) or
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 313
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 37 of 47
private (e.g., homeowners’ association). Merger with an area-wide or
regional organization shall satisfy this condition provided that such
organization is legally and financially capable of assuming the
responsibilities for maintenance. When necessary, property dedication
or easement dedications shall be granted to the maintenance
organization through map dedication, or separate recordable instrument,
and shall be in a form acceptable to the city. If the organization is a
private association, then neighborhood associations shall be established
for each residential development, where required, and such associations
may assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for
neighborhood common areas.
b) Unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approval, common
open areas shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as
implementing development is approved or any subdivision, as recorded.
c) The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or concurrent
with the recordation of the first land division.
114. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (Public Common Areas). If
the permanent master maintenance organization referenced in the condition
entitled "Common Area Maintenance" is a public organization, the applicant shall
convey to the public organization (anticipated to be CFD) dedication or necessary
easements for all designated publicly maintained open space areas, free and clear
of all liens, taxes, assessments, leases (recorded or unrecorded) and easements
(except those easements which in the sole discretion of the public organization are
acceptable) in order to access and perform needed maintenance. At the time of
each Development Construction Phase, as defined in these conditions of approval,
the developer/property owner shall submit to the PW Engineering Department for
review and approval proposed common areas and responsible maintenance entity.
As a condition precedent to the City accepting easements or dedications to such
areas, the developer / property owner shall submit the CC&Rs and supporting
documents along with the current fee to the Public Works / Engineering
Department for review and approval.
115. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (Private Common Areas). In
the event that the Community Facilities District will not maintain all common areas,
the establishment of a property owner or homeowner association (POA or HOA)
shall be the mechanism to maintain such common areas.
116. CC&R Content, Submittal Process and Timing. Prior to development of
any parcel within this final map, the developer/property owner shall submit to the
Public Works / Engineering Department for review and approval CC&R documents
consisting of the following:
a) One hard copy and an electronic version of the CC&R’s. A completed
application form to review the CC&Rs, available at the PW Engineering front
counter. There is a fee associated with the application and required backup
documents to review. The declaration of CC&R’s shall:
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 314
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 38 of 47
i. provide for the establishment of a property owner's or home owner’s
association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants
in common,
ii. provide for the ownership of the common area by either the property or
home owner's association or a permanent public master maintenance
organization,
iii. contain provisions approved by the Public Works/ Engineering Department,
Community Development Department and the City Attorney
iv. Contain provisions with regards to the implementation of post development
Water Quality Best Management Practices identified in the project’s
approved WQMP.
v. Contain provisions notifying initial residents, occupants, or tenants of the
project of their receipt of educational materials on good housekeeping
practices which contribute to the protection of storm water quality. These
educational materials shall be distributed by the properties owners'
association and/or the developer.
vi. Contain provisions for allowing the City a Right of Entry to maintain BMPS
that are otherwise not maintained by responsible property owners. If a
separate Right of Entry Agreement has been executed, this provision is not
necessary to be in the CC&Rs.
b) As part of the CC&R document submittal, exhibit(s) identifying the areas or
improvements that will be maintained by the POA, the CFD or other entities
shall be provided. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
c) Once approved, the developer / property owner shall provide a hard copy of
the CC&R’s wet-signed and notarized to the Public Works / Engineering
Department. The Public Works / Engineering Department shall record the
original declaration of CC&R’s prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the
final map.
d) A deposit to pay for the review of the CC&Rs pursuant to the City’s current fee
schedule at the time the above-referenced documents are submitted to the
Public Works / Engineering Department.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 315
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 39 of 47
Section IV:
Fire Department
Conditions of Approval
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 316
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 40 of 47
General Conditions
1. The Fire Department emergency vehicular access road shall be (all weather
surface) capable of sustaining an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. GVW, based on
street standards approved by the Public Works Director and the Office of the Fire
Marshal.
2. The approved fire access road shall be in place during the time of construction.
Temporary fire access roads shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(CFC 501.4)
3. A secondary access other than the proposed public street may be required
dependent on the proposed use, construction type and occupancy type. To be
determined and as required by the City of Menifee Engineering and Traffic
divisions in conjunction with the Riverside Fire Department Office of the Fire
Marshal.
4. Fire hydrants and fire flow: Provide or show there exist fire hydrant(s) capable of
delivering fire flow as required by California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire
Department standards within 300 feet of all portions of all structures.
5. Water plans: If fire hydrants are required to be installed, applicant/developer shall
furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to the Office of the Fire
Marshal for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
6. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type,
location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by
the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department
for review and approval.
7. Blue Dot Reflectors: Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be installed to
indicate the location of fire hydrants.
8. Fire Department Access: Fire Department apparatus access shall be provided to
within 300 feet of all portions of the proposed buildings.
9. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be
designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. If access
exceeds the above requirements an approved fire apparatus turnaround is
required. Access roads shall be a minimum of 24’ wide.
10. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant/developer shall furnish one
copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans
shall:
11. Be signed by a registered civil engineer or a certified fire protection engineer;
Contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and Conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing of new and existing hydrants and minimum fire flow
required as determined by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 317
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 41 of 47
12. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed, made
serviceable, and be accepted by the Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal
prior to beginning construction. They shall be maintained accessible.
13. The Fire Code Official is authorized to enforce the fire safety during construction
requirements of Chapter 33. (CFC Chapter 33 & CBC Chapter 33)
14. Prior to construction, all traffic calming designs/devices must be approved by the
Fire Marshal and City Engineer. These conditions are preliminary; further review
will occur upon receipt of building plans. Additional conditions may be necessary
at that time.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 318
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 42 of 47
Section V:
Riverside County
Environmental Health
Conditions of Approval
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 319
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 43 of 47
General Conditions
1. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Service. A “General Condition” shall be
placed on the project indicating that the subject property is proposing to receive
potable water service and sanitary sewer service from Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD). It is the responsibility of this facility to ensure that all requirements
to obtain potable water and sanitary sewer service are met with EMWD, as well
as, all other applicable agencies.
2. Environmental Cleanup Programs. As part of the services offered to Contract
Cities, the Department of Environmental Health Environmental Cleanup Programs
(ECP) conducts environmental reviews on planning projects to ensure that existing
site conditions will not negatively affect human health or the environment. The
objective of the environmental reviews is: to determine if there are potential
sources of environmental and/or human exposures associated with the project,
identify the significance of potential adverse effects from the contaminants, and
evaluate the adequacy of mitigation measures for minimizing exposures and
potential adverse effects from existing contamination and/or hazardous substance
handling.
For this project, the City of Menifee is taking on the responsibility to review the
above aspects of the project.
3. LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (LEA). The applicant shall contact the County
of Riverside, LEA at (951) 955-8980 for any plan check and/or permitting
requirements.
Any persons engaged in the business or performance of tattooing, body
piercing, branding and the application of permanent cosmetics as defined in
Health and Safety Code 119300 et sec. must obtain approval from the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health LEA. Contact the County of
Riverside LEA at (951)955-8980 for any plan check and/or permitting
requirements.
4. DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (DES). Prior to issuance of any
Building and Safety permit(s) or operation of any food facility, plans will require
review by DES to ensure compliance with applicable California Health and Safety
Codes. An annual operating permit for the food facility will be required. Please
contact the Hemet DES office at (951)766-2824.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 320
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 44 of 47
End of Conditions
The undersigned warrants that he/she is an authorized representative of the project
referenced above, that I am specifically authorized to consent to all of the foregoing
conditions, and that I so consent as of the date set out below.
_______________________________________________ ___________________
Signed Date
_______________________________________________ ___________________
Name (please print) Title (please print)
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 321
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 45 of 47
AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS
This Agreement to Indemnify and Hold Harmless (“Agreement”) is entered into,
effective as of June 24, 2020, by and between the CITY OF MENIFEE, a municipal
corporation, on the one hand, (“City”), and Jimmie P. Nelson and Laura M. Nelson, as
Trustees of the Nelson Family Trust dated April 13, 1995, (“Indemnitor” or
“Indemnitors”), on the other. The City and Indemnitor(s) are herein referred to collectively
as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for various discretionary approvals
including a project for the development of the “JPN Subdivision” consisting of a six lot
subdivision of 37.06 gross acres (the “Project”) located on the northeast corner of Haun
and Holland Roads. (the “Property”); and
Whereas, in connection with the consideration of the above-mentioned
discretionary approvals, Indemnitor(s) has offered to, and hereby agrees that it will,
indemnify and hold the City harmless from any challenges arising from or related to the
discretionary approvals, the Property or the Project as more fully set forth in this
Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for full and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, and based upon the foregoing recitals, and the terms,
conditions, covenants, and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are an integral part of this
Agreement, and are fully incorporated herein.
2. Indemnitors’ Indemnification Obligations. Indemnitor(s) shall indemnify,
defend, and hold harmless the City of Menifee and its elected city council,
appointed boards, commissions, committees, officials, employees, volunteers,
contractors, consultants (which may include the County of Riverside and its
employees, officers, officials, and agents), and agents (herein, collectively, the
“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines,
penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and
attorney’s fees, arising out of either (i) the City’s approval of the Project or actions
related to the Property, including without limitation any judicial or administrative
proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity
or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the Project, any
condition of approval imposed by the City on such permit or approval, and any
finding or determination made and any other action taken by any of the Indemnitees
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 322
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 46 of 47
in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action
taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or (ii) the
acts, omissions, or operations of the Indemnitor(s) and the directors, officers,
members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each
person or entity comprising the Indemnitor(s) with respect to the ownership,
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the Project and the Property for
which the Project is being approved. The City shall notify the Indemnitor(s) of any
claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an “Action”)
within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the Indemnitor(s)
defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the
Indemnitor(s) fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the
obligation to do so with counsel of their own choosing, with no right of approval
by Indemnitor(s) and, if they do, the Indemnitor(s) shall promptly pay the City’s
full cost thereof, with payments made at least on a monthly basis. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (i) of the first sentence of this
condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct
or the sole active negligence of the City. This Agreement shall survive any final
action on the Project, and shall survive and be independent of any Project approvals,
even if such Project approvals are invalidated in whole or part.
3. Entire Agreement; Amendments and Waivers. This Agreement contains the
entire agreement between the City and Indemnitor(s) with respect to the subject
matter set forth herein and supersedes any prior discussions, negotiations, and
agreements with respect thereto. This Agreement may be amended or modified
only by a written agreement executed by both Parties. No waiver of any of the
terms of this Agreement shall be effective or binding unless in writing and executed
by an authorized representative of the Party waiving its rights hereunder.
4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, transferees, and assigns of the Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement to
be effective as of the date first written above.
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 323
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 2016-185 (TPM 37121)
June 24, 2020
Page 47 of 47
Dated: , 2020
“CITY”
CITY OF MENIFEE, a California
Municipal Corporation
By:
Its: _____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
_________________________________
Attorneys for the City of Menifee
Dated: , 2020
Dated: , 2020
“INDEMNITOR”
Jimmie P. Nelson, as Trustee of the
Nelson Family Trust dated April 13, 1995
By:
Print
Name:__________________________
Laura M. Nelson as Trustee of the Nelson
Family Trust dated April 13, 1995
By:
Print
Name:__________________________
9.1.f
Packet Pg. 324
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
A
-
T
P
M
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Δ
Δ WEBB
N
W E
S
°
°
°
9.1.g
Packet Pg. 325
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
℄
℄
℄
9.1.g
Packet Pg. 326
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
WEBB
N
W E
S
9.1.g
Packet Pg. 327
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
WEBB N
W
E
S
9.1.g
Packet Pg. 328
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND
INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter.
DATE OF HEARING: June 24, 2020
PLACE OF HEARING: MENIFEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS VIA:
https://meetings.ringcentral.com/j/1496375960 OR
By calling (623) 404-9000, ID #149 637 5960
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled, pursuant to the City of Menifee Municipal Code, before the
CITY OF MENIFEE PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the project shown below:
Project Title: “Haun and Holland Mixed
Use Center” Tentative Parcel Map
No.37121 (Planning Application No.
2016-135)
Project Location: The project site is
bound by Interstate 215 (I-215) to the
east, Haun Road to the west, Holland
Road to the south, and Piedra Road to
the North (APN 360-130-003), within the
City of Menifee, County of Riverside,
State of California.
Project Proposal: Tentative Parcel Map
No. 37121 proposes to subdivide the
approximately 37 acre site into six (6)
parcels for the potential future
development of commercial, office, retail
and/or industrial uses and dedicates a
portion of the parcels to public streets. As the site lies within the General Plan land use designation of
Economic Development Corridor – Community Core (EDC-CC), it must comply with the EDC zoning in
accordance with Menifee Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 9.140 and include a Conceptual Master Plan
(CMP). The CMP identifies anticipated future uses for the Project and how they relate to existing or
proposed development on adjacent properties. CMP’s are reviewed on an administrative level by the
City’s Community Development Director and are not formally approved or adopted. For this project, the
CMP is being utilized to establish uses and intensities for the impact analysis. Only the tentative parcel
map would be formally approved.
Project Data: General Plan Land Use: Economic Development Corridor-Community Corridor (EDC-
CC). Zoning: Economic Development Corridor-Community Corridor (EDC-CC).
Environmental Information: A Notice of Availability of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (DMND) was published in the Press Enterprise on May 19, 2020 and mailed to surrounding
property owners within 700 feet, stating that copies of the IS/MND were
available for public review at the City of Menifee City Hall, the Sun City Library and Paloma Valley Library.
The public review period was for the State-mandated 30 days, from May 19, 2020, through June 18,
2020. The City of Menifee Community Development Department has determined that the above project
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 329
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
will not have a significant effect on the environment and has recommended adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND). The Menifee Planning Commission will consider the proposed project and
the proposed IS/MND at the public hearing.
In addition, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control list of various
hazardous sites). The IS/MND can be found at the following web address:
http://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents.
Any person wishing to comment on the proposed project may do so in writing between the date
of this notice and the public hearing and be heard at the time and place noted above. All
comments must be received prior to the time of public hearing. All such comments will be
submitted to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission will consider such
comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project.
If this project is challenged in court, the issues may be limited to those raised at the public
hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that as a result of public hearings and
comment, the Planning Commission may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project.
Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any
properties or lands within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other
than specifically proposed.
For further information regarding this project, please contact Jason Moquin, at (951) 462-7353 or e-mail
jmoquin@rinconconsultants.com, or go to the City of Menifee’s agenda web page at
http://www.cityofmenifee.us. To the view the case file electronically for the proposed project contact the
Community Development Office at (951) 672-6777 Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Please send all written correspondence to:
CITY OF MENIFEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Attn: Jason Moquin, Contract Planner
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 330
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Property Owner List Certification
,. N(tq rMr [\,,i L,' "ertiffthaon Mrutl [3 , -'0..tr
(Printname) ----l-- tr*l
the attached propertv owner(s) list was prepared by
(Print rane)
Pursuant to the noticing requirements of the City of Menifee Community Departmort - Planning Division. Said list is a
complAe compilationofowne(s)ofthesubjectproperfyandallotherpropertyownerswithinaT00'footradius ofthe exterior
baundaries ofthe subject property and is based upon the latest equalized assessment rolls.
i declare under penalty of perjury thx the information is true and correct to the best cf my knowledge; I understand that
infbrmatian
t
for rejection or dEnial af the applica/rian.
LJ
(Sig.nature)
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 331
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Source: Riverside Co. GIS, Jan. 2020.
HAUN RD
SHERMAN RD
ANTELOPE RD
HOLLAND RD
LA PIEDRA RD
ALBION LN
ASPENWOODWAY
HOLLAND RD
I- 215
LA PIEDRA RD
WILLOW
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
364070031
360130003
360110020
360130016
364070048
360230009
360230007360230001
360110007
360230008
360130013
360130014
360230002
360110008
360110004 360110006
360110009
360110017
360130011
360230006
360230010360230011
360230003
372011013372011012372011015
372011010372012003
372011005
372011008372011007
372011016
372012004
372011014
372011011
372011006
372011009372012002
LEGEND
Project Site
Parcels to be Notified
Remaining Parcels
G:\2017\17-0196\GIS\parcels_700.mxd; Map revised 25 Feb 2020
Haun and Holland Mixed Use CenterI
0 500 1,000 1,500Feet
Parcel/Owner Notifications, 700-ft. Radius
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 332
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Governor’s Office of Planning
& Research
State Clearinghouse & Planning Unit
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Riverside County Flood Control &
Water Conservation District
Deborah de Chambeau, PE, QSD/P
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission
4080 Lemon St, 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Josh Thiel-Tract Supervisor
Southern California Edison
24487 Prielipp Road
Wildomar CA 92595
Verizon California
9 South 4th Street
Redlands, CA 92373
Destiny Colocho
Rincon Cultural Resources Department
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA 92082
California Department of
Transportation – District 8
Attn: Rosa Clark
464 West 4th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Eastern Municipal Water District
Attn: Maroun El-Hage
P.O. Box 8300
Perris, CA 92572-8300
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Ebru Ozdil, Cultural Analyst
P.O. Box 2183, Temecula, CA 92593
Riverside County Waste
Management Department
14310 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Riverside County Dept. of
Environmental Health
3880 Lemon St. 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Riverside County Planning
Department
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502-1629
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board
3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501-3339
California Department of Forestry
210 W. San Jacinto Boulevard
Perris, CA 92570
Riverside Transit Agency
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
1825 3rd Street
Riverside, CA 92507
Patricia Garcia
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Riverside County Fire Department
Attn: Strategic Plng. – Adria
Reinertson
2300 Market St.
Riverside, CA 92501
Riverside County Fire Department
Attn: Steve Swarthout
2300 Market Street, Suite 150
Riverside, CA 92501
Riverside County Environmental
Programs Department
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 12 floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Teresa Harness
Mindi De La Torre
Southern California Edison
26100 Menifee Rd.
Menifee, CA 92585
Southern California Edison
Third Party Environmental Review
2244 Walnut Grove Ave, GO-1, Quad 2C
Rosemead, CA 91770
Lt. Scott Forbes
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
137 N. Perris Blvd, Ste A
Perris, CA 92570
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
Attn: Project Development Director
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
California Department of Fish &
Wildlife
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
State of California
Native American Heritage
Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Perris Union High School District
155 East Fourth Street
Perris, CA 92570
Attn: Candace Raines
Menifee Union School District
29775 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Attn: James Seller
Romoland School District
25900 Leon Road
Homeland, CA 92548
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 333
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite
208
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Southern California Association of
Governments
818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Western Riverside Council of
Governments
3390 University Avenue, Suite 450
Riverside, CA 92501
City of Wildomar
Planning Division
23873 Clinton Keith Road, #111
Wildomar, CA 92595
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Menifee Valley Historical Association
33751 Zeiders Road
Menifee, CA 92584
City of Canyon Lake
Planning Division
31516 Railroad Canyon Road
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
City of Hemet
Planning Department
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority
3403 Tenth Street, Suite 320
Riverside, CA 92501
City of Perris
Planning Division
135 North “D” Street
Perris , CA 92570
City of Murrieta – City Hall
Planning Division
1 Town Square
24601 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562
The Gas Company
527 N. San Jacinto Street
Hemet, CA 92548
Menifee Planning Commissioners
(5)
Menifee City Council (5)
Riverside County Transportation
Dept.
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502-1629
CA Department of Toxic Substances
Control
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Clerk of the Board
Valley-Wide Recreation and Park
District
P.O. Box 907
San Jacinto, CA 92581
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Attn: Corice J. Farrar, Chief of Orange
and Riverside Co. Section
915 Wilshire Blvd Suite 930
Los CA 90017-3401
ATTN: CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area
Sources
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 334
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
372011015
WADE BARTOSH
31023 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011008
DAN BUDRIK
31079 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
364070048
CANTABRIA DEVELOPMENT
21250 DEERING CT
CANOGA PARK CA 91304
372011014
CHARLES CAREY
225 TRIUNFO CANYON RD APT
WESTLAKE VILLAGE CA 91361
360230001-003&006
MARTIN COLE
436 CHEYENNE PL
PLACENTIA CA 92870
372011010
BARBARA COOK
31063 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011009
DARLENE FINAI
31071 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011006
ANGEL GASPAR
31095 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011012
BRYAN HENERY
31047 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372012002
STEVE JOHNSON
31014 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
360230010-011
SHUMEI KAM
857 N GAINSBOROUGH DR
PASADENA CA 91107
372012003
JOEL KLIMCZYK
1436 JETHROW WAY
EL CAJON CA 92020
360230008
MANSLAND DEV
26100 NEWPORT RD NO A12
MENIFEE CA 92584
360230009
MENIFEE
C/O STRATEGIC PROPERTY MGMT
2055 3RD AVE STE 200
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
360230007
MENIFEE STORAGE
2055 3RD AVE STE 200
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
372011013
THERESE MORALES
C/O STEVE ROLLINS
31039 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372012004
JUSTIN MORRILL
31070 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
364070031
MT SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DIST
1499 N STATE ST
SAN JACINTO CA 92583
360130003
JIMMIE NELSON
PO BOX 27240
SAN DIEGO CA 92198
360110007&004
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS
C/O PECHANG DEV CORP
45000 PECHANGA PARKWAY
TEMECULA CA 92592
360110006
PECHANGA DEV CORP
C/O JANICE WILLIAMS
45000 PECHANGA PKY BLDG F
TEMECULA CA 92592
360110008-009
RASTOGI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O ROSENTHAL & EXCELL
1600 E FLORIDA AV NO 110
HEMET CA 92544
360130011&017
RIV CO FLOOD CONTROL & WATER
CONSERV DIST
1995 MARKET ST
RIVERSIDE CA 92501
360110020
SANTA ROSA ACADEMY
C/O DAVID GRAVES
27587 LA PIEDRA RD
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011011
GARY SNYDER
31055 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
360130013-014&016
STARK MENIFEE LAND
735 N WATER ST STE 790
MILWAUKEE WI 53202
372011005
JUSTIN VIDAL
31103 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
372011016
SAMUEL WONG
51 ANDREWS
IRVINE CA 92618
372011007
SANDRA ZAPATA
31087 LARCHWOOD ST
MENIFEE CA 92584
Stacey Oborne
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
9.1.h
Packet Pg. 335
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
N
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
c
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
9.1.i
Packet Pg. 336
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
r
o
o
f
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)
9.1.i
Packet Pg. 337
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
r
o
o
f
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
4
9
5
:
2
0
1
6
-
1
8
5
(
T
P
M
3
7
1
2
1
)
H
a
u
n
/
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
M
a
p
)