The URL can be used to link to this page

20-919 Exhibit A Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Legado Specific Plan City of Menifee, California Specific Plan No. 2017-187 (SP 2017-187) Change of Zone No. 2017-188 (CZ 2017-188) Tentative Tract Map No. 37391 (TTM 37391) Tentative Tract Map No. 37408 (TTM 37408) Tentative Tract Map No. 37409 (TTM 37409) Development Agreement No. 2018-277 (DA 2018-277) SCH #2009091118 Lead Agency City of Menifee Planning Division 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92780 Project Applicant BLC Fleming LLC 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240 Newport Beach, CA 92602 May 6, 2020 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 1 1.0 Background and Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Public Involvement and EIR Scoping ................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Final EIR Certification and Project Approval Process ....................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Findings Required Under CEQA ................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 2 1.3.3 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ........................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Certification of the Final EIR and Adoption of Findings ............................................................... 3 1.3.5 No Recirculation Required ............................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Scope of Physical Disturbance ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Scope of Operational Characteristics ............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 General Findings on Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 6 3.1 Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.0 Environmental Findings ......................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Areas Determined to Have No Significant Impact ............................................................................. 7 4.1.1 Agriculture and Forest Resources .................................................................................................. 8 4.1.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.3 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 11 4.1.5 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.1.6 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 12 4.1.7 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 13 4.2 Findings Regarding Less-than-Significant Impacts Identified in the EIR ....................................... 14 4.2.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.3 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.4 Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 2 4.2.5 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 18 4.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 19 4.2.8 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 22 4.2.9 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 22 4.2.10 Public Services ............................................................................................................................. 23 4.2.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.12 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.13 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................... 26 4.2.14 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................ 28 4.3 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to Level of Less-than- Significant .................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 30 4.3.3 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................ 42 4.3.5 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 57 4.3.6 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 62 4.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 63 4.3.8 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................ 64 4.4 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant .......................................................................................................................................................... 65 4.4.1 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 65 4.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................................... 67 4.4.3 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 70 4.5 Findings Regarding Alternatives to the Project ............................................................................. 106 4.5.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated .................................................................................... 106 4.5.2 Alternatives Selected For Analysis ............................................................................................ 107 4.5.3 No Project/No Development Alternative ................................................................................... 108 4.5.4 No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative (GPLUA) ........................................................ 109 4.5.5 Reduced Project Alternative (RPA) ........................................................................................... 120 4.5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................................... 131 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 3 5.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................................................................................ 132 5.1 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects ............................................................................ 132 5.2 Overriding Considerations ............................................................................................................. 136 6.0 Certification of the Final EIR ............................................................................................................. 138 6.1 Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 138 6.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 139 7.0 Adoption of Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) ........................................... 139 8.0 Location and Custodian of Record ..................................................................................................... 139 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 1 1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Menifee (City) has completed an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”; State Clearinghouse Number 2009091118) for the proposed Legado Specific Plan and associated applications (hereafter, the “Project”). The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of preparing and certifying this EIR pursuant to sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Legado Specific Plan Project, which consists of applications for Specific Plan No. 2017-187 (SP 2017-187), Change of Zone (CZ 2017-188), Development Agreement (DA 2018-277), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37391), Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37408), and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37409). In compliance with CEQA Public Resources Code section 21001.1 and 15002 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as Lead Agency, has prepared an EIR in order to (1) provide information to the general public, the local community, responsible and interested public agencies and the City’s decision-making bodies and other organizations, entities, and interested persons of the potential environmental effects of the Project, feasible measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects of the proposed Project, (2) enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the proposed Project, and (3) to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EIR SCOPING This document complies with the provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.) and the City’s Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines. In compliance with CEQA, the City has solicited and considered comments from Responsible and Trustee Agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties during the proposed Project’s various environmental review processes:  In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. The NOP was distributed on November 14, 2017.  In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c), a public Scoping Meeting was held at Hans Christensen Middle School on November 30, 2017.  Comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the NOP and during the public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of the EIR prepared for the Project. In January 2020, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA regulations and guidelines. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period on January 9, 2020. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), Responsible and Trustee agencies, and all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Six (6) comments were received by the City during this 45-day review period. These comments were evaluated and responses to the comment letters were prepared and are included in the Final EIR in accordance with section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 2 1.3 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS 1.3.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA The City Council (the decision-making body) of the City of Menifee (CEQA Lead Agency) certifies the Final EIR as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR, as required by State CEQA Guidelines sections 15089 and 15132, consists of the Draft EIR (“DEIR”); comments and recommendations received on the DEIR; the responses of the City as “Lead Agency” to significant environmental points raised in the review, comments, and recommendations received on the DEIR; the list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the DEIR; and all other information added by the City. Since the DEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts, the City Council must also prepare “findings” as part of its action to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the proposed Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. 1.3.2 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The DEIR identified several significant environmental effects (or “impacts”) resulting from implementation of the Project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided/mitigated through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City Council is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the proposed Project. The State CEQA Guidelines at section 15093(a) provide that if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” As indicated in DEIR Subsection 5.1, Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects, certain environmental effects of the Project cannot be reduced to less-than-significant levels by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. Project-level and cumulative Air Quality, cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Project-level and cumulative Transportation impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable and require the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 5.0, below, describes those effects and outlines the City’s findings with respect to the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 3 1.3.3 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM A Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Project. The MMRP will be adopted by the City Council concurrently with these findings, and will be implemented by the City during the Project’s implementation phase. To the extent that these findings conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect as a result of the City Council’s formal approval of the proposed Project. 1.3.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS The Menifee City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as submissions from public officials, public agencies, and the general public. Prior to considering Project approval, the City Council shall certify that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Having considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City Council makes the following findings required pursuant to CEQA section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council adopts the Findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the Project. 1.3.5 NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED The City Council finds that none of the circumstances that trigger the requirement for recirculation of the EIR under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have occurred. Specifically, there was no significant new information (as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15088.5(a)) added to the EIR after the public review period. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following public review of the DEIR, nor was there a substantial increase in the severity of any of the Project’s environmental impacts. There were no feasible alternatives to the Project identified in comments received in response to the DEIR’s public review period, and the Final EIR incorporates feasible mitigation measures recommended by Responsible Agencies as part of comments on the DEIR in order to further reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects. Additionally, the City Council finds that the DEIR was fundamentally and basically adequate, all findings reached in the DEIR are based on substantial evidence, and the findings of the DEIR reflect the City’s independent judgment. As such, the City Council finds that recirculation of the DEIR for additional public review period is unwarranted. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Menifee is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County, and the Project is located in the northern portion of the City of Menifee. Specifically, the Project site is located east of I-215 and Encanto Drive, south of Rouse Road, west of the future extension of Antelope Road, and generally north of Chambers Avenue. Located to the north of the Project site are residential uses and commercial land uses along Encanto Drive. To the east of the Project site is vacant land that is part of approved Tentative Tract Maps that would allow for the future development of residential uses. To the south of the Project site is a mixture of undeveloped land, residential uses, the Hans Christensen Middle School, a mobile home community, a convalescent facility (Life Care Center), commercial retail, and a motel. To the west of the Project site is I-215, beyond which is an existing residential community, a mobile home community, and a golf course (North Golf Course). The Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 4 Project site comprises approximately 331.0 acres and encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 333- 020-009, 333-020-010 (partial), 333-030-012, 333-030-013, 333-030-021, and 333-030-022 (partial). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would involve development of the 331.0-acre Project site with up to 1,061 dwelling units on lot sizes ranging from 5,000 square feet (s.f.) to 30,000 s.f., up to 225,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial uses, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, a 1.9-acre private recreation center, and 7.9 acres of recreational uses. DEIR Figure 3-1 depicts the land uses proposed as part of the Legado Specific Plan. Discretionary approvals associated with the Project include the following:  Specific Plan No. 2017-187 (SP 2017-187; “Legado Specific Plan”) proposes the development of the 331.0-acre Project site with up to 1,061 residential homes on approximately 216.9 acres, freeway- oriented commercial land uses on 20.1 acres, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, a 1.9- acre private recreation center, paseos/neighborhood parks on 7.9 acres, conserved open space on 6.3 acres, detention/water quality basins on 26.4 acres, and roadways on 38.6 acres.  Change of Zone No. 2017-188 (CZ No. 2017-188) proposes to modify the zoning name on the Project site to reflect the Legado Specific Plan for the approximately 331.0-acre Project site. At the time the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review (2017), the Project’s zoning designations were C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and CZ 2017-188 proposed to change the site’s existing zoning to “Specific Plan Zone (SP).” However, on December 18, 2019, the City of Menifee adopted a new zoning map that went into effect on January 18, 2020. Pursuant to this adopted zoning map, the Project site’s zoning designation is SP “Fleming Ranch Specific Plan Zone.” Thus, CZ No. 2017-188 would change the site’s updated existing zoning designation from “Fleming Ranch Specific Plan Zone” to “Legado Specific Plan Zone.” The zone change would also include updating the text of Title 9, Article 3 “Zones”, Chapter 9.155.020 “Adopted Specific Plans”, from “Fleming Ranch (in process)” to “Legado Specific Plan.” It should be noted the description of CZ No. 2017-188 was updated as compared to the description in the DEIR; however, the updated language does not change or alter the analysis or conclusions of the DEIR.  Tentative Tract Map No. 37391 (TTM 37391) proposes a large-lot subdivision map for conveyance purposes and would establish lots corresponding to the Planning Area boundaries as proposed by SP 2017-187. A majority of backbone roadway dedications would occur as part of the large-lot subdivision. TTM 37391 would establish a subdivision of 26 lots proposed for 263.5 acres of residential, recreation center, paseos/neighborhood parks and water quality basin uses, 20.1 acres of commercial uses, 12.9 acres of park uses, 6.3 acres of open space uses, while the remaining 28.2 acres are proposed for internal public roadways.  Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 37408 (TTM 37408) proposes to subdivide the Project area west of Sherman Road (excluding the proposed commercial areas) into individual planning areas to allow for the development of a residential community. TTM 37408 would establish a subdivision of 475 residential lots (totaling 79.5 acres of residential uses) while the remaining lots (totaling 75.7 acres) are proposed for community park/community center uses, open space/recreation/landscape uses, water quality/detention basins, internal public roadways, park uses, and recreation center uses.  Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 37409 (TTM 37409) proposes to subdivide the Project area east of Sherman Road into individual planning areas to allow for the development of a residential community. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 5 TTM 37409 would establish a subdivision of 547 residential lots (totaling 85.4 acres of residential uses) while the remaining lots (totaling 73.7 acres) are proposed for open space/recreational uses, open space/conservation uses, water quality/detention basins, park uses, and internal public roadways.  Development Agreement No. 2018-277 (DA 2018-277) proposes the establishment of provisions for development of the Project such as, but not limited to, timing and extent of infrastructure improvements, park benefits, vesting of development rights, and timing of public improvements. 2.2.1 SCOPE OF PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE As indicated in DEIR Subsection 3.3.1 and shown on DEIR Figure 3-19, the Project proposes to grade 324.7 acres of the Project site. In addition, the Project would result in off-site disturbances associated with surrounding roadways (Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, and Antelope Road). Off-site improvements also are proposed as needed to connect proposed sewer lines to an existing sewer line located approximately 1,250 feet north of the Project site. Proposed off-site sewer lines would be constructed within existing roadways. No other on- or off-site physical impacts are anticipated from Project implementation. 2.2.2 SCOPE OF OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The Project would operate as a residential community that includes freeway-oriented commercial and recreational uses. As such, typical operational characteristics would include resident, employee, and visitor travel to and from the Project site; delivery trucks servicing the commercial areas; recreational activities associated with the community park/community center and paseos/neighborhood parks; and general maintenance within residential neighborhoods, the commercial areas, and the parks. Low levels of noise and a moderate level of exterior lighting typical of residential uses are expected. Slightly higher levels of noise and lighting would occur in association with the proposed commercial land uses and the community park/community center. Additionally, the proposed community park/community center would include field lighting elements, while the commercial site would feature lighting typical of freeway-oriented commercial land uses. All future lighting plans would be subject to review and approval by the City of Menifee and all lighting elements would be required to comply with all City of Menifee requirements. The Project proposes a maximum of 1,061 single-family homes, which would yield a future population of 2,971 persons (1,061 household x 2.8 persons/household = 2,971 persons). For purposes of analysis within the DEIR, the Menifee General Plan Housing Element persons per household (pph) rate of 2.8 was utilized to disclose Project population-related impacts, except in Section 4.13, Recreation. The Project site is subject to the provisions of City of Menifee Municipal Code and City Council Resolution No. 15-143, which utilizes a separate population generation rate to calculate parkland demand, and utilizes a different population generation rate from the City’s General Plan Housing Element. According to City Council Resolution No. 15-143, the average number of pph for single-family homes is 3.164 pph (Menifee, 2015b). For purposes of analysis of the Project’s population demand for parkland in DEIR Section 4.13, Recreation, the Project would yield a future population of 3,357 persons (1,061 homes x 3.164 persons/household = 3,357 persons). Based on Table II-B of the Employment Density Study Summary Report prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Riverside County averages approximately 629 s.f. of retail space per employee. The Project proposes up to 225,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial; thus, the Project would result in approximately 358 employees (225,000 s.f. ÷ 629 s.f./employee = 358 employees). (SCAG, 2001) Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 6 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by the Project Applicant. The objectives assist in developing the range of proposed Project alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The underlying purposes of the Project are to develop a single-family residential community with freeway-oriented commercial retail areas in order to implement the City of Menifee General Plan, as well as comply to the greatest feasible extent with applicable City of Menifee standards, codes, and policies. The following is a list of specific objectives that the Project intends to achieve. A. To efficiently develop an underutilized property with a complementary mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. B. Establish a master-planned community in a manner that is sensitive to the environment as well as visually and functionally compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses. C. To develop a mixed-use community with a design that takes topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints into consideration to minimize alterations to natural landforms, where practical. D. To increase the available housing supply within the region by providing detached single-family homes in traditional subdivision layouts that will be marketable within the evolving economic profile of the City of Menifee and surrounding communities. E. To provide a system of public and community facilities, including a public community park/community center, paseos/neighborhood parks, bike lanes, and trails to support development in an efficient and timely manner and meet the needs of project residents and residents of surrounding communities. F. To require project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatments, and other similar design features that would ensure the community is developed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing. G. To establish development phasing that results in logical coordinated growth. H. To provide public benefits such as community recreation facilities, as well as long-term planning certainty for the City of Menifee and the Project Applicant. I. To establish a land use plan that is consistent with the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies related to maximum building height and residential density. 3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS ON MITIGATION MEASURES In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 7 mitigation measures. Any minor revisions are to improve clarity or to better define the intended purpose of the mitigation and are not designed to substantively alter the purpose of such mitigation. 3.1 FINDINGS Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, it is the City’s intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS This Subsection discloses the Project’s potential impacts to the environment. Subsection 4.1 summarizes those issues that were identified either by the Project’s Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) or by the DEIR to result in no impacts to the environment. Subsection 4.2 summarizes those issue areas that were determined to be less than significant as part of the DEIR. Subsection 4.3 identifies those impacts which were determined by the DEIR to be potentially significant, but for which mitigation measures have been identified and imposed on the proposed Project to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. Subsection 4.4 summarizes those issue areas for which impacts were determined to be potentially significant, but for which no mitigation measures are available to fully reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels, thereby requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council. Where the discussion below cites a reference source, please refer to Subsection 7.0 of the DEIR, which identifies the reference materials and where the reference materials may be available for public review, if not available at the City of Menifee Community Development Department, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. 4.1 AREAS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The City, through the Initial Study (IS) process, determined the Project has the potential to cause or result in significant environmental impacts, and warranted further analysis, public review, and disclosure through the preparation of an EIR. The IS and associated EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated November 14, 2017, were forwarded to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), State Clearinghouse (SCH), and County Clerk, and were circulated for public review and comment. The State Clearinghouse established the public comment period for the IS/NOP as November 14, 2017 through December 14, 2017. The IS/NOP concluded that no impacts would occur under the issue areas of Agriculture and Forest Resources, Mineral Resources, and Population and Housing. The Project’s DEIR also incorporated analyses of certain issue areas that were identified as potentially significant in the IS/NOP, but which were determined to result in no impacts as part of the analysis contained in the DEIR. The following discussion summarizes the environmental impacts that were determined in the IS/NOP, DEIR, and public review processes to pose no potentially significant impacts. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 8 4.1.1 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES A. Farmland Conversion 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC), the majority of the Project site is classified as “Farmland of Local Importance,” while the knoll located in the northeast part of the site is classified as “Other Lands.” “Farmland of Local Importance” is either currently producing crops, has the capability of production, or is used for the production of confined livestock. “Farmland of Local Importance” is land other than “Prime Farmland,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” or “Unique Farmland.” This land may be important to the local economy due to its productivity or value. Lands classified as “Other Lands” include areas that are not included in any of the other mapping categories, such as roadways, rural residential uses, etc. There are no portions of the Project site or surrounding area that are classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (“Farmland”). (CDC, 2016a) Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly convert Farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.1. B. Agricultural Zoning 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding At the time the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review (2017), the Project’s existing zoning designations were C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-1 (One-Family Dwellings). However, on December 18, 2019 the City of Menifee adopted a new zoning map that went into effect on January 18, 2020. Pursuant to the new zoning map, the Project site’s zoning designation is now “Fleming Ranch Specific Plan Zone (SP Zone).” The C-P-S, R-1, and SP Zone zoning classifications are not agricultural zoning designations. No areas surrounding the Project site are zoned for agricultural use. Additionally, according to mapping information available from the CDC, the Project site and surrounding areas are not subject to Williamson Act contracts (CDC, 2016b). Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with an existing Williamson Act contract. As such, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.1. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 9 C. Forestland Zoning 1. Threshold Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project site is not designated as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. The Project site and surrounding areas are zoned for residential, commercial, and recreational land uses. Accordingly, the Project would not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). As such, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.1. D. Loss of Forest Land 1. Threshold Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project site and surrounding areas are not part of a forest. The Project site is located in a portion of City of Menifee that is developed and developing, with medium-density residential and commercial developments that contain only ornamental and shade trees. (Google Earth, 2016) Accordingly, the Project would not have the potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.1. E. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding There are no “Farmland” designations applied to land within the Project site or surrounding areas. Dry land farming activities historically occurred on-site; however, operations ceased in 2016. Aside from the elimination of historic dryland farming area on-site, the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. (CDC, 2016a; Google Earth, 2016). Additionally, there are no forest lands in the Project vicinity, and conversion of forest land to non-forest use would not occur. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.1. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 10 4.1.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Wildlife Movement 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project site lacks migratory wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites, and does not occur within any Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Cores or Linkages. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5. B. Conflict with Local Polices or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, as applied to the Project by City Regulation and Design Requirements (CRDR) 4.3-1 through CRDR 4.3-4. Accordingly, no impact due to a conflict with such local policies or ordinances would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5. 4.1.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems 1. Threshold Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project would not install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems or eliminate any existing septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with soil compatibility for wastewater disposal systems. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 and 4.6.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 11 4.1.4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Hazardous Materials Site 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. B. Emergency Response Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency facilities exist on the Project site, and the site does not serve as an emergency evacuation route. Thus, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. 4.1.5 MINERAL RESOURCES A. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources 1. Threshold Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding According to mapping available from the CDC, the Project site is located within Mineral Resources Zone 3, which is defined as “areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data” (CDC, n.d., Plate 7.24). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.2. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 12 B. Locally-Important Mineral Resources 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The City of Menifee General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources recovery sites. There are no other land use plans applicable to the Project area that identify the Project site or surrounding areas as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.2. 4.1.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING A. Population Growth 1. Threshold Would the Project 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)? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Implementation of the Project would provide up to 1,061 residential units which would potentially result in the addition of up to 2,971 new residents to the area. Exhibit LU-4, Land Use Buildout Summary, of the City of Menifee General Plan identifies the estimated future population for the City. As shown, the General Plan assumes that the Project site would be developed with up to 1,588 dwelling units, resulting in a future population of approximately 4,108 persons. Thus, the Project would not exceed the population growth assumptions contained in the City’s General Plan. Likewise, Exhibit LU-4 indicates the Project site would be developed with up to 231,476 s.f. of non-residential uses (commercial and non-commercial uses). The Project proposes to provide for a total of 225,000 s.f. of commercial retail space; thus, the Project also would not exceed the future employment forecasts based on the City’s adopted General Plan. Moreover, SCAG also produces future population and employment estimates, but such estimates are based on input from local jurisdictions, including local general plans; thus, because the Project would not exceed the growth forecasts of the City of Menifee General Plan, the Project also would not exceed the growth forecasts produced by SCAG, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the Project would install infrastructural improvements such as paved roads and access to improved and expanded water and sewer lines which could indirectly induce growth in the local area. However, off-site improvements would merely upgrade existing facilities as needed to support development of the site, and would not accommodate any new growth in the area beyond what is already accommodated by existing facilities. In addition, the majority of surrounding properties are either developed with residential and commercial uses, are entitled for development, or are under construction, and there is no component of the Project that would increase the rate of development on surrounding lands. Thus, the potential for the Project to induce substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.3. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 13 B. Displacement of People or Housing 1. Threshold Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Under existing conditions, no housing units are located on the Project site. As such, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Additionally, development of the Project would increase the number of available housing units in City of Menifee. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsection 5.4.3. 4.1.7 TRANSPORTATION A. Conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 2. Finding/Facts to Support Finding CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) includes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using a “vehicle miles traveled” (VMTs) measure, instead of evaluating impacts based on LOS criteria, as required by California Senate Bill (SB) 743. LOS has been used as the basis for determining the significance of traffic impacts as standard practice in CEQA documents for decades. In 2013, SB 743 was passed, which is intended to balance the need for LOS for traffic planning with the need to build infill housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes-competing needs. At full implementation of SB 743, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is expected to replace LOS as the metric against which traffic impacts are evaluated, with a metric based on VMTs. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(c) provides that a lead agency “may elect to be governed by the provisions” of the section immediately; otherwise, the section’s provisions do not apply to local lead agencies until July 1, 2020. At the time the EIR was released for public review (January 2020), the City of Menifee had not elected to implement section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, but will be required to do so for projects anticipated to be approved subsequent to July 1, 2020. Accordingly, an analysis of VMTs is not required at this time under CEQA to determine whether the Project would have a significant transportation impact. Refer instead to the discussion and analysis of Threshold a., above. Although the analysis of VMTs is not required, it should be noted that the Project’s proposed residential and commercial mixed-use component; proximity to existing and planned transit facilities; proximity to major thoroughfares (i.e., I-215); and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and NEV facilities that include the construction of pedestrian trails, bicycle lanes, NEV lanes, and sidewalks throughout the Project site would help reduce VMT-related impacts. Although the City does not currently have an approved methodology for evaluating impacts due to VMTs, WRCOG indicates that VMT impacts would be less than significant if a project’s daily VMT per capita is 15% below the daily VMT average per capita for the project’s jurisdiction (i.e., the City of Menifee) (WRCOG, Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 14 2020). According to the City of Menifee General Plan EIR, people who live or work within the City of Menifee travel, on average, 57 miles per day (e.g., average commute trip length is greater than 28 miles one-way) (Menifee, 2013b, p. 5.7-30). Thus, in order to achieve a 15% reduction in VMT below the City’s average, development projects in the City would need to achieve VMTs that are 48.45 miles per day per capita or less (0.85 x 57 average miles per day = 48.45 miles per day). It is estimated that the Project would generate approximately 17,330 annual VMT per capita or 47.45 daily VMT per capita (based on mitigated VMT), based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) v2016.3.2 (Urban Crossroads, 2019b, Appendix 3.2). Thus, the Project’s daily VMT per capita (47.45 VMT) would be below the WRCOG VMT per capita threshold (48.45 VMT) for the City of Menifee. Additionally, although the Project’s Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) indicated that an analysis would be conducted of Project impacts to Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities, an analysis of the Project’s impacts to CMP facilities are instead provided under the analysis of Threshold a. (refer to Table 4.14-57 through Table 4.14-62, which indicate which study area facilities are CMP facilities and whether the Project would result in direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts to CMP facilities). Accordingly, because the provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 are not applicable to the Project, the Project would result in no impact due to a conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.14.6 through 4.14.8. 4.2 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR The DEIR completed in January 2020 found that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact without the imposition of mitigation with respect to a number of environmental topic areas. The less-than-significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the DEIR. 4.2.1 AESTHETICS A. Scenic Vista 1. Threshold Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project would not result in damage to any scenic resources on-site that are visually prominent from off- site locations. The Project also would not obstruct distant views of hills and mountains that frame the Project’s viewshed. Additionally, future development on-site would be required to comply with the Design Guidelines of the proposed Legado Specific Plan, which have been crafted specifically to ensure future development on- site is not aesthetically offensive. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. B. Damage Scenic Resources Within a Scenic Highway 1. Threshold Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 15 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project site is not located within the viewshed of any officially designated scenic highways, and would not be visually prominent from any County-Eligible facilities. Impacts to scenic highways corridors would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. C. Conflict with Regulations Governing Scenic Quality 1. Threshold In non-urbanized areas, would the Project 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, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project were to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding City Regulation and Design Requirement (CRDR) 4.1-1 requires mandatory compliance with the Design Guidelines of the Legado Specific Plan, which would ensure that the Project does not degrade the visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings. The Project would not be visually offensive either on-site or within the context of surrounding uses and planned development. There are no components of the Project that would result in the substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of public views of the Project site and surrounding areas. Accordingly, impacts due to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. 4.2.2 AIR QUALITY A. Expose Sensitive Receptors 1. Threshold Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Without mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project’s localized construction emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of PM10. City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.2-1 memorializes the Project’s obligation to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust,” which requires the implementation of dust control measures during construction. Mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would ensure that the Project’s localized emissions during construction do not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds for any criteria pollutant, including PM10, and as such mitigation measures are not required. Thus, with mandatory compliance to SCAQMD Rule 403, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 16 B. Odors 1. Threshold Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during either construction or long-term operation. In addition, the Project would be subject to City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.2-4, which requires compliance with SCAQMD 402, that would prevent occurrences of public nuisances and would be required to store refuse within covered containers. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5. 4.2.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Historical Resource Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 15064.5? 2. Findings/Facts in Support of Findings The Project site would not alter or destroy a historic site, nor cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CCR section 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.4.4 through 4.4.8. 4.2.4 ENERGY A. Energy Use Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy-producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within the State of California. As such, Project impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, would be less than significant requiring no mitigation. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 17 B. Conflict with Energy Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding The Project would implement energy-saving features and operational measures as discussed above under the analysis of energy use impacts. Notably, the Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Menifee. The Project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the Project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other residential, commercial, or recreational uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. 4.2.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Soil Erosion 1. Threshold Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 2. Findings/Facts in Support of the Finding Soils on-site would be particularly prone to water and wind erosion during grading and site development. With application of City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.6-3 and CRDR 4.6-4, which include the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post-development, a future Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction, and compliance with applicable City ordinances, erosion impacts on- and off-site during construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Following Project buildout, the site’s potential for erosion would be minimized, as the disturbance areas would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces, and drainages would be controlled by a storm drain system. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with a WQMP that identifies post- development measures to ensure on-going protection against erosion hazards. Accordingly, with the application of mandatory regulatory requirements, including the preparation and implementation of a WQMP for post-development, a future SWPPP during construction, and compliance with applicable City ordinances, erosion impacts on- and off-site would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 and 4.6.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 18 4.2.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials 1. Threshold Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Under existing conditions, no hazards were found on the Project site. During Project construction and operation, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that the Project as proposed would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. B. Release of Hazardous Materials Into the Environment 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding During Project construction and operation there would not be a significant safety risk due to the release of hazards into the environment. The residential, commercial, and recreational uses proposed by the Project would not routinely use hazardous materials at significant levels. Thus, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. C. Hazardous Materials Near Schools 1. Threshold Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is located immediately adjacent to the Hans Christensen Middle School. However, the Project consists of a proposal to allow for future development of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. These uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 19 D. Airport Safety Hazards 1. Threshold 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the March Air Reserve Base (MARB). The Project was reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on October 26, 2017, which found that the Project would not conflict with the MARB Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), subject to several standard conditions of approval that would be enforced by the City as part of City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.8-1. Because the ALUCP is intended to preclude safety hazards with airport operations, and because the Project is fully consistent with the ALUCP, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area associated with the MARB, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. E. Wildland Fires 1. Threshold Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding According to the City of Menifee General Plan EIR, the northeastern portion of the Project site is located within a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” while the rest of the Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Zone. The Project would be surrounded by improved roadways. Antelope Road and Rouse Road would provide in excess of 100 feet of buffer area within the right-of-way, while Chambers Avenue would provide a 104-foot buffer consisting of 94 feet of improved right-of-way and a 10-foot landscape buffer. A buffer distance of 100 feet as provided by these roads would reduce the site’s potential for fire hazards to below a level of significance. In addition, the Project would be subject to mandatory compliance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 695 as adopted by the City of Menifee, which requires the abatement of hazardous vegetation. Furthermore, the Project site would be developed in a manner consistent with jurisdictional requirements for fire protection and would generally decrease the fire hazard in the local area. As such, impacts regarding wildland fires would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. 4.2.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A. Violate Water Quality Standards 1. Threshold Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 20 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding With implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the SWPPP during construction and the Project-specific WQMP during Project operation, included as City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.9-1, as well as implementation of the Project’s drainage plan that includes three (3) water quality/detention basins, included as City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.9-2, the Project would result in less- than-significant impacts with respect to water quality. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.9.4 and 4.9.5. B. Groundwater Supplies 1. Threshold Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project has a reliable source of domestic water and does not propose any new potable water wells that would directly extract groundwater. Groundwater recharge would occur in on-site detention basins and landscaped areas, and water conveyed off-site would have the ability to percolate into the groundwater table. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and the impact would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.9.4 and 4.9.5. C. Alter Existing Drainage Patterns 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the BMPs from the Project-specific SWPPP during construction and the on-site water quality/detention basins, included as City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.9-1 and CRDR 4.9- 2, respectively, would ensure that construction and operation of the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site; contribute runoff storm water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems; or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 21 or redirect flood flows. Accordingly, the Project’s impacts with respect to drainage patterns, erosion, flooding and flood flows, and water quality would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.9.4 and 4.9.5. D. Inundation in Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones 1. Threshold In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which depict areas subject to flood hazards, do not depict the Project site as being located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual flood (100-year flood). Additionally, according to Riverside County GIS, the Project site is not depicted within an area of flood sensitivity. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Figure S-10 of the Riverside County General Plan depicts the western portion of the Project site as being located within a dam inundation zone. Compliance with the City of Menifee General Plan “Implementation Actions” applicable to dam inundation included as City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.9-3 as well as the construction of the three (3) storm water quality/detention basins on- site included as City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.9-2 would ensure that any potential dam inundation hazards associated with future development would be less than significant. Based on the 4.5-mile distance between Canyon Lake (the nearest large body of water) from the Project site, the Project would not be subject to inundation by seiches associated with Canyon Lake. Impacts associated with inundation by seiche would be less than significant. Additionally, due to the approximately 33-mile distance of the Project site from the Pacific Ocean, there is no potential for a tsunami to affect the Project site, and no impact would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.9.4 and 4.9.5. E. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. In addition, the Project is located within the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, with all Project runoff ultimately discharging to the receiving waters listed in DEIR Table 4.9-1 following treatment, where groundwater recharge would continue to occur. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.9.4 and 4.9.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 22 4.2.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING A. Divide an Established Community 1. Threshold Would the Project physically divide an established community? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would not physically disrupt or divide any established communities, as the Project would accommodate publicly-accessible trails and sidewalks throughout the proposed community. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.10.3 and 4.10.4 B. Conflict with Land Use Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project cause a significant environmental effect due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Although the Project would change the site’s existing General Plan land use designations and zoning classifications, the Project would not result in a significant environmental effect due to an inconsistency with the site’s existing or proposed zoning or General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan, SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals, and MARB ALUCP. As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.8, the Project would be subject to ALUC conditions of approval, as applied to the Project through City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.8-10, which would ensure the Project complies with the MARB Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Project would conflict with the 2016 AQMP, however impacts are fully addressed separately in EIR Subsection 4.2. Impacts due to a conflict with the land use designations and policies of the General Plan and other planning documents would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.10.3 and 4.10.4 4.2.9 NOISE A. Airport Noise 1. Threshold Would the Project be 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Perris Valley Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Project site and the MARB is located approximately 9.7 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is located within the AIA for the MARB. The Project site is located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour boundaries of the Perris Valley Airport and outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundaries of the MARB. As such, the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 23 Project land uses are considered “normally acceptable” and “clearly acceptable” uses, respectively, per the Riverside County ALUCP. Therefore, the Project’s impacts due to exposure of people to excessive noise levels associated with airports would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.11.4 and 4.11.5. 4.2.10 PUBLIC SERVICES A. Fire Protection Services Impact 1. Threshold 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 Fire Protection Services? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding With conformance with all mandatory local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, and standards relating to fire safety and payment of mandatory Development Impact Fee (DIF) fees as required by City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.12-1 and CRDR 4.12-2, respectively, the Project’s potential direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the Project would not result in or require the construction of new fire protection facilities that could result in a significant impact to the environment. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 B. Police Protection Services Impact 1. Threshold 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 Police Protection Services? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding With payment of mandatory DIF fees as enforced for the Project by City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.12-3, the Project’s potential direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the Project would not result in or require the construction of new police protection facilities that could result in a significant impact to the environment. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 24 C. Schools Impact 1. Threshold 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 Schools? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would generate approximately 600 students. A new high school is being planned in the unincorporated Winchester area that could accommodate the 113 high school students that the Project would generate. Although the Project would result in potential adverse effects associated with the demand for new or expanded school services, the payment of mandatory school impact fees, as will be enforced for the Project by City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.12-4, would ensure that the Project would not result in significant direct or cumulative impacts to the ability of the Menifee Union School District (MUSD) and Perris Union High School District (PUHSD) to provide for school services. The Project would not require the construction of new school facilities that could result in a significant impact to the environment. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 D. Parks Impact 1. Threshold 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 Parks? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding With construction of public parkland on-site as required by City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.12-6, as well as compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 and City Council Resolution No. 15-143 (included as City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.12-5), the Project’s direct and cumulatively- considerable park impacts to the City of Menifee would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the Project would not result in or require the construction of new parkland that could result in a significant impact to the environment. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 E. Other Public Facilities Impact 1. Threshold 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 Other public facilities? Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 25 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Although the Project would contribute to a need for new or expanded library facilities, it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with such new or expanded library facilities until a specific proposal and design for such facilities are prepared by the Riverside County Public Library System. Accordingly, impacts due to the construction of new or expanded library facilities are too speculative for evaluation in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15145). Environmental effects of such library facilities and associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded library facilities. With payment of mandatory DIF fees as enforced for the Project by City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.12-7, the Project’s direct and cumulatively- considerable library impacts to library facilities would be reduced to less-than-significant levels on both a direct and cumulative basis. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 4.2.11 RECREATION A. Deterioration of Recreational Facilities 1. Threshold Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would provide a total of 20.8 acres of public parkland on-site, while only 16.8 acres are required by the Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 and City Council Resolution No. 15-143 (compliance with which is required pursuant to City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.13-1); thus, the Project would exceed the City of Menifee parkland requirement by 4.0 acres (refer to City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.13-2). Given the excess amount of parkland planned within the Project area, it is unlikely that future Project residents would utilize parkland resources outside of the Project boundaries to the point that physical deterioration of such facilities would occur or would be accelerated. Moreover, it is likely that any incremental increase in the use of existing recreational uses as a result of the Project would be off-site by existing City residents utilizing proposed recreational facilities on-site. Thus, the Project’s impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities in the region would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.13.4 and 4.13.5 B. Impacts Due to Recreational Facilities 1. Threshold Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding A 12.9-acre community park/community center, 7.9 acres of paseos/neighborhood parks, and trails per the City’s Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation (PTOSR) Master Plan are proposed on the Project site, and are required pursuant to City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.13-2. Effects associated with the physical construction of these facilities are addressed under the relevant issue areas identified within the DEIR (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources etc.). As concluded throughout the DEIR, the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 26 Project’s direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with construction of the Project would be less than significant, or would be reduced to the maximum feasible extent with the implementation of mitigation measures. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.13.4 and 4.13.5 4.2.12 TRANSPORTATION A. Hazards due to Geometric Design Feature 1. Threshold Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 2. Finding/Facts to Support Finding All roadway improvements planned as part of the Project have been designed to City of Menifee standards, and there are no sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other potential safety hazards that would result from roadway improvements planned by the Project. Additionally, the Project site occurs in an area that has largely been developed with residential and commercial land uses, and there are no disparate uses, such as agricultural uses, that could potentially create safety hazards. Accordingly, Project impacts due to hazards from design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.14.6 through 4.14.8. 4.2.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS A. Construction of Expanded Utilities Facilities 1. Threshold Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Water and wastewater would be conveyed to the site through a combination of existing and proposed water, recycled water, and sewer lines within the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) service area. Improvements proposed by the Project would take place in existing roadways during the Project’s construction phase. The installation of water, recycled water, and sewer lines as well as stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of the Project’s DEIR. The Project would not require the installation of any additional water facilities that could result in significant impact other than what is discussed throughout the respective issue areas of the DEIR. Construction of the proposed storm drainage improvements also is an integral component of the Project’s construction phase, impacts for which have been evaluated throughout the DEIR. In each case, impacts are found to be less than significant, or would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation identified throughout the DEIR. The installation of local water, recycled water, and sewer lines, as well as stormwater drainage facilities to service the Project would not result in any environmental effects not already addressed in relevant sections of the DEIR; thus, Project impacts due to the construction or expansion of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 27 Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.16.4 and 4.16.5 B. Water Supplies 1. Threshold Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Potable water supplies would be provided to the Project site from the EMWD. As documented in the Project- specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and WSA Update Letter (Technical Appendix L1 and Technical Appendix L2, respectively), and the EMWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), there are sufficient water supplies available to service the Project during normal and dry water conditions. The Project would not cause an impact due to insufficient water supplies. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.16.4 and 4.16.5 C. Wastewater Capacity 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Wastewater would be collected on the Project site by the on-site sewer system installed during the Project’s construction. As shown in the EMWD UWMP, the Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) has sufficient capacity for the Project’s wastewater flows in addition to existing commitments. Thus, a less-than-significant would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.16.4 and 4.16.5 D. Solid Waste 1. Threshold Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity or local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding There is adequate capacity available at the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and Badlands Landfill to accept the Project’s solid wastes during both construction and long-term operation. These landfills are required to operate in accordance with all applicable State and local standards and requirements. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Riverside County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) as noted as a City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.16-1. Landfill capacity would not be exceeded as a result of the Project. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 28 Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.16.4 and 4.16.5 E. Solid Waste Regulations 1. Threshold Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal, reduction, and, recycling as required by City the Regulations and Design Requirements. The Project would not conflict with any applicable solid waste regulations. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.16.4 and 4.16.5 4.2.14 WILDFIRE A. Expose Project Occupants to Pollutants from a Wildfire 1. Threshold Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.17.4 and 4.17.5. B. Require Installation or maintenance of Infrastructure 1. Threshold Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.17.4 and 4.17.5. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 29 C. Expose People or Structures to Landslides, Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding The Project would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.17.4 and 4.17.5. 4.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO LEVEL OF LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT Environmental impacts identified in the DEIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. 4.3.1 AESTHETICS A. Light/Glare 1. Threshold Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to result in light or glare impacts adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure: MM 4.1-1 Prior to approval of any improvement plans for the 12.9-acre community park/community center on site that propose sports field lighting exceeding 25 feet in height, the Project Applicant shall prepare and the City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall approve a Lighting Impact Study (LIS). The required LIS shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting elements would not expose adjacent residential structures or the adjacent Life Care Center building to lighting levels exceeding 0.8 foot-candles during pre-curfew hours (before 11:00 pm) or 0.2 foot-candles during post-curfew hours (after 11:00 pm to dusk) as measured on both the vertical and horizontal planes. If necessary, the required LIS shall identify modifications to the design of the proposed lighting elements and/or shall impose operational constraints on the use of the lighting elements (e.g., requiring that all lighting elements be extinguished prior to 11:00 pm) to ensure that the nearby residential and Life Care Center structures are not exposed to lighting levels exceeding 0.8 foot-candles during pre-curfew hours (before 11:00 pm) or 0.2 foot-candles during post-curfew hours (after 11:00 pm to dusk). Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 30 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project has the potential to create a new source of substantial light which would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.1-1 and CRDR 4.1-2 require mandatory compliance with the Project’s Specific Plan design guidelines related to lighting, as well as mandatory compliance with the lighting provisions provided in Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, which would ensure that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Nonetheless an adverse effect to daytime and nighttime views in the area would occur and impacts would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 would ensure that appropriate measures are incorporated into the design of the proposed sports field lighting fixtures so as not to expose the nearby residential and Life Care Center buildings to lighting levels exceeding the levels recommended by the ILE and EPRI for pre-curfew or post-curfew hours (EPRI, 2000; ILE, 1997). Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.2.4 through 4.2.8. 4.3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Sensitive Species 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls and nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.3-2 In accordance with MSHCP Objective 6, prior to issuance of grading permits or other permits authorizing ground disturbance or discing, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a subsequent pre-grading burrowing owl survey unrelated to the previous burrowing owl surveys conducted for the Project site. The subsequent pre-grading burrowing owl survey shall occur between dawn and 12 p.m. at all potentially suitable habitat sites within the Project’s limits of disturbance within 30 days prior to Project commencement of any ground-disturbing activities at the Project site. If no owls and/or sign are detected at the time of the subsequent burrowing owl survey, then a pre-construction survey as detailed below shall be implemented. If only burrowing owl sign is detected, and it cannot be discerned whether the species is still occupying the site, either (a) additional visit(s) will be performed until it can be determined whether burrowing owl occupies the site or not or (b) assume occupation and implement a Burrowing Owl Management Plan (see below). If additional site visits determine the species is absent, then the pre-construction survey provided below shall only be required; Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 31 alternatively, if the burrowing owl is confirmed present on-site during the subsequent pre- grading survey, then a Burrowing Owl Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. • Pre-Construction Survey: The pre-construction survey shall be required in the event the subsequent pre-grading surveys confirm the burrowing owl is absent from the Project site and off-site disturbance areas. The survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist that will survey the site for the presence/absence of burrowing owls within 30 days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities at the Project site. If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the pre-construction survey, the owls shall be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, and subject to the approval of the RCA and Wildlife Agencies [i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]. • Burrowing Owl Management Plan: In the event that the burrowing owl is determined to be present during the subsequent pre-grading survey, or in the event that an assumption is made that the burrowing owl occurs on-site, a burrowing owl management plan shall be prepared and implemented in coordination with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and CDFW that shall detail the acceptable protocol for relocation of owls from the Project site, passively and/or actively. Per the MSHCP, passive relocation may include use of one-way doors or collapse of burrows when owls are present outside of the nesting season; and active relocation may include translocation with translocation sites located in the MSHCP Conservation Area in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. Per the requirements of the MSHCP translocation sites shall be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied Habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies, and effects to other MSHCP Covered Species. Furthermore, a Biological Monitoring Work Plan will be submitted to the City of Menifee and approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Work Plan will outline the details of the daily biological monitoring schedule, BMPs, and the timeline for completing the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If additional site visits determine the species is absent, then the pre- construction survey (as discussed above) shall instead be implemented. A copy of the results of the pre-construction survey (and all additional surveys), as well as copies of the Burrowing Owl Management Plan, if required, shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department for review and approval (in the case of the Burrowing Owl Management Plan) prior to any vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities. MM 4.3-3 Vegetation clearing of each phase of Project construction shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within seven (7) days prior to any ground disturbance, including discing, demolition activities, and grading. The nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City of Menifee for review and approval prior to any vegetation clearing and ground disturbing activities during nesting season. If active nests of native species are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Typically established buffers are greater for raptors than songbirds and depend upon the species, the nesting stage, and type of construction activity proposed. The buffer should be 300 feet for raptors and 150 feet for songbirds, unless Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 32 specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project has the potential to result in significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to biological resources. Specifically, the Project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat, which requires mitigation to ensure impacts do not occur to nesting burrowing owls. Additionally, the Project also has the potential to impact active native bird nests protected by the MBTA if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Implementation of City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.3-1 through CRDR 4.3-3, would require payment of fees and compliance with the MSHCP. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted to determine the presence of burrowing owl on-site or within the off-site improvement areas, and to implement appropriate avoidance/relocation measures to preclude significant impacts to this species. With implementation of the required mitigation, Project impacts with respect to burrowing owl would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would preclude potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the MBTA. Compliance with the required mitigation would ensure that the Project’s impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species are mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. B. Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community 1. Threshold Would the Project 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in impacts to riparian habitats; however, the impacts will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure: MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Menifee Planning Division that impacts to 0.68 acre of MSCHP riparian/riverine resources , potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site MSHCP riparian/riverine resources (if such impacts would occur), and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool resources are mitigated through compensatory preservation at a minimum 3:1 (mitigation: impact) ratio. Mitigation shall occur through one of the following methods: off-site mitigation, targeting in-lieu fee mitigation with a local Resource Conservation District; or payment to another approved mitigation bank. In the event that appropriate mitigation credits are unavailable from an authorized mitigation bank, anywhere locally at the time of purchase, the Project Applicant shall submit a revised DBESP that proposes an alternate mitigation strategy. The alternate mitigation strategy may Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 33 include an applicant-responsible mitigation in the same watershed. The proposed alternate mitigation would require Wildlife Agency concurrence before impacts to the 0.68 acre of riparian/riverine resources and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool resources could occur. Additionally, if potential impacts to the 0.02 acre of off-site riparian/riverine resources were to occur, the proposed alternate mitigation would require Wildlife Agency concurrence before potential impacts to the 0.02 acre of riparian/riverine resources could occur. Evidence of compliance with this requirement shall be provided prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would impact 0.68 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine features and a 0.12-acre vernal pool and may potentially impact 0.02 acre of off-site MSHCP riparian/riverine features. Additionally, the Project contains a man-made drainage ditch that drains runoff from an adjacent residential development. Impacts regarding riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS would be significant on both a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. Implementation of City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.3-1 through CRDR 4.3-3, would require payment of fees and compliance with the MSHCP. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, requires implementation of the Project’s Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (“DBESP”; see DEIR Technical Appendix C3), which identifies mitigation for impacts to 0.68 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool areas at a 3:1 (mitigation: impact) ratio, and provides acceptable mitigation methods. The DBESP determined that Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 would result in a biologically equivalent or superior condition within the MSHCP Plan Area compared with the existing on-site and existing potential off- site MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool resources, and Project impacts to 0.68 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool areas would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.68 acre of on-site riparian/riverine resources and potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site riparian/riverine areas would be mitigated at a minimum 3:1 ratio (mitigation:impact) through off-site mitigation by targeting in-lieu fee mitigation with a local Resource Conservation District (RCD) or other approved mitigation bank. The Project Applicant intends to mitigate through the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. However, if mitigation credits are not yet available at the Mitigation Bank, then the Project Applicant would pursue alternate mitigation opportunities on conservation lands managed by the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). With implementation of the required mitigation, Project impacts with respect to riparian/riverine resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 34 C. Wetlands Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 2. Mitigation The Project would impact 0.68 acre of Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters, of which 0.11 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands, and may potentially impact 0.02 acre of off-site ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. The impacts will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure: MM 4.3-4 Impacts to 0.68 acre of on-site ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction and potential impacts to 0.02 acre of potential off-site ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction (if such impacts would occur) shall be mitigated at a minimum 3:1 ratio through off-site mitigation, targeting in-lieu fee mitigation with a local Resource Conservation District (RCD), or other approved mitigation bank. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would result in direct impacts to 0.68 acre of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters, of which 0.11 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands, and also would result in potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on State- and federally-protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and impacts are evaluated as significant on both a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. The Project also contains two depression features that would not be considered vernal pools; therefore, impacts regarding the two depression features would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.68 acre of on-site federally protected wetland habitat and potential impacts to 0.02 acre of off-site federally protected wetland habitat would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (mitigation:impact) through off-site mitigation by targeting in-lieu fee mitigation with a local RCD or other approved mitigation bank. The Project Applicant intends to mitigate through the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. However, if mitigation credits are not yet available at the Mitigation Bank, then the Project Applicant would pursue alternate mitigation opportunities on conservation lands managed by the RCA. With implementation of the required mitigation, Project impacts with respect to state- and federally-protected wetlands would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 35 D. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.3-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and a Section 401 Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for impacts to 0.68 acre of ACOE and RWQCB jurisdictional areas on-site and potential impacts to 0.02 acre of potential ACOE and RWQCB jurisdictional areas off-site (if such impacts would occur). MM 4.3-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW for impacts to 0.68 acre of CDFW jurisdictional areas on-site and potential impacts to 0.02 acre of potential CDFW jurisdictional areas off-site (if such impacts would occur). 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would result in direct impacts to 0.68 acre of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction, and may potentially impact 0.02 acre of off-site ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction including 0.68 acre of riverine habitat and potentially 0.02 acre of riverine habitat under the MSHCP, as well as a 0.12-acre vernal pool, requiring mitigation. Additionally, the Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls. During focused surveys, a pair of burrowing owls with juveniles were detected on-site. Impacts to nesting owls would represent a significant impact due to a conflict with MSHCP policies related to the burrowing owl, and mitigation is required. Impacts due to a conflict with the MSHCP’s adjacency guidelines would be less than significant, although mitigation is nonetheless proposed to ensure all provisions of the MSHCP are complied with during construction and operation of the Project. Implementation of City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.3-1 through CRDR 4.3-3 would require payment of fees and compliance with the MSHCP. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, requires implementation of the Project’s DBESP (see DEIR Technical Appendix C3,) which provides for the mitigation for impacts to 0.68 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, 0.02-acre of off-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, and 0.12 acre of on-site vernal pool areas at a 3:1 (mitigation: impact) ratio, and provides acceptable mitigation methods in accordance with MSHCP requirements. The DBESP determined that Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 would result in a biologically equivalent or superior condition within the MSHCP Plan Area compared with the existing on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the MSHCP and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted to determine the presence of burrowing owl on-site or within the off-site improvement areas, and to implement avoidance/ Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 36 relocation measures in accordance with MSHCP requirements. Mandatory compliance with the Applicable City Regulations and Design Requirements would ensure that the Project Applicant contributes fees in accordance with County Ordinance No. 810, as adopted by the City of Menifee, which would provide funding for the establishment of the MSHCP Reserve System, and County Ordinance No. 663, as adopted by the City of Menifee, which would provide funding pursuant to the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-4, MM 4.3-5, and MM 4.3-6 would ensure that the Project’s impacts to jurisdictional areas are appropriately permitted in accordance with the Clean Water Act, and mitigated in accordance with MSHCP requirements for riparian/riverine areas. With implementation of the required mitigation, Project impacts with respect to consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the SKR HCP would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. 4.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Archeological Resource Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to impact subsurface archaeological resources; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.4-1 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). i. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the Project Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, the Tribal Representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. ii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the Tribal Representative(s) and the Project 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. iii. 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. iv. 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 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 37 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. v. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. vi. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant 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.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Menifee upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. MM 4.4-2 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 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 38 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. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Menifee upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. MM 4.4-3 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 Project Applicant 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 AB 52 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 AB 52 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 AB 52. 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 Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 39 Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis; c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project Archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. MM 4.4-4 Tribal Monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified Tribal Monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above-mentioned Tribe and the Project Applicant for the monitoring of the Project to the City of Menifee 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. MM 4.4-5 Tribal Monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified Tribal Monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above-mentioned Tribe and the Project Applicant for the monitoring of the Project to the City of Menifee 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. MM 4.4-6 Prior to final inspection, the Project Applicant 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). MM 4.4-7 Prior to any grading in the associated areas, the Project Applicant shall meet with the Project Archaeologist and the Consulting Tribe(s) in order to assess CA-RIV 9288 and CA-RIV-9289 to determine the suitability for relocation to a permanent open space area. The Consulting Tribe(s) shall work with the Project Archaeologist, Project Applicant, and the grading contractor or appropriate personnel to ensure that every effort is made to relocate the Features safely and to discuss the most appropriate methods for relocation. Using professional archaeological methods, the milling slicks and ringing stone artifacts associated with Sites RIV-9288 and Site RIV-9289 shall be relocated to the planned open space area in the northeastern portion of the Project site. Furthermore, the rock art site associated with Site P- Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 40 33-028165 shall be preserved in place within the planned open space area in the northeastern portion of the Project site. Before construction activities may resume in the affected area, any visible artifacts shall be recovered and recorded and the features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The current Department of Parks and Recreation forms for the sites shall be updated, detailing which features were relocated, the process taken, and updated maps using sub meter GIS technology to document the new location of each feature. The relocation information shall be included in a Phase IV Monitoring Report. The site record should clearly indicate that the Features are not in their original location and why they were relocated. MM 4.4-8 Sites CA-RIV-9288 and CA-RIV-9289 will be impacted during grading and construction activities and the soils surrounding them will be disturbed. Prior to any grading in the associated areas, the Project Applicant, the Pechanga Tribe, and the City will formalize a written agreement to identify the area that will be subject to “Controlled Grading” during construction of the Project. The Pechanga Tribe, the Project Applicant, and the City will develop an exhibit that outlines the area subject to controlled grading, and that area will be highlighted on the rough grading plans, precise grading plans or other off-site improvement plans that may impact this site. “Controlled Grading” shall include, without limitation, the slow and deliberate excavation and removal of soils employing the smallest reasonable cuts in certain areas using light scrapers (for example Caterpillar 623 or 627), dozers (for example D6- D8), front end loaders, excavators, skip loaders, dump trucks, and motor graders. A controlled grading plan will be monitored by the Project Archeologist and Pechanga Tribal Monitor(s) to ensure the systematic removal of the ground surface surrounding these features are monitored to allow for the identification of resources. Results of all controlled grading activities shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. 3. Findings/Facts in Support of Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would not cause a substantial change in the significance of any known archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. However, there is a potential that archaeological resources may be buried beneath the surface and unearthed during the Project’s construction activities. Potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources would be significant on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-6 and MM 4.4-8 would ensure any prehistoric archeological resources that may be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other ground- disturbing activities are appropriately recorded and treated. Although Site RIV-9288, Site RIV-9289, and Site P-33-028165 do not meet the criteria to be considered significant prehistoric resources under CEQA, they have been determined to be significant Tribal Cultural Resources; thus, Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 would be applied to the Project to ensure that these resources are preserved on-site within planned open space. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to surface and subsurface prehistoric archeological resources to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.4.4 through 4.4.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 41 B. Human Remains Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to disturb human remains during Project construction; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure: MM 4.4-9 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. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if human remains are found, shall be provided to the City of Menifee upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. 3. Findings/Facts in Support of Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project site does not contain known human remains. However, there are known human remains identified within the vicinity of the Project. Potential impacts to buried human remains during grading and ground-disturbing activities would be significant on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. As required by Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9, in the event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq. and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254(r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- 9 would reduce the Project’s impacts to human remains to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.4.4 through 4.4.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 42 4.3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Earthquake Faults, Seismic Ground Shaking, Liquefaction, and Landslides 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to result in impacts due to seismic ground shaking hazards, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides; however, the impacts will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure: MM 4.6-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Director of Public Works and Engineering for the City of Menifee (or his/her designee) shall verify that all of the recommendations given in the Project’s March 16, 2017 (revised November 30, 2017) “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Approximately 331 Acre “Fleming Ranch” Development, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California” by LGC, are incorporated into the construction and grading plans. The recommendations shall include, but not be limited to the following: Site Earthwork Earthwork on-site shall be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2016 CBC/City of Menifee grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E of the Geotechnical Evaluation. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix E of the Geotechnical Evaluation. The following recommendations shall be considered preliminary and may be revised within the future grading plan review report or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading. Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas shall be cleared of existing asphalt, surface obstructions, and demolition debris. Vegetation and debris shall be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, shall be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. If cesspools or septic systems are encountered they shall be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavation shall be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools may be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells shall be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 43 conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical shall observe and accept the site prior to further grading. Removal Depths and Limits In order to provide relatively uniform bearing conditions for the planned improvements, a minimum removal depth of approximately 2 to 6 feet below existing grade, or 1-foot below the deepest footing, whichever is deeper shall be adhered to. Where practical, the envelope for removals shall extend laterally a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements. Refer to the Geotechnical Map, Sheet 1, for details. For retaining walls, free-standing walls, and screen walls, removals shall extend at least 2 feet beneath the existing grade or 1-foot beneath the base of foundations, whichever is deeper. Within pavement and hardscape areas, removals shall extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grades. Removals within areas of design cut (relative to pavement subgrade) shall be performed to a depth that is a minimum of 2 feet below existing grades or 1-foot below pavement subgrade, whichever is deeper. In general, the envelope for over- excavation shall extend laterally a minimum distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements. Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional removals beyond the above-noted minimums in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Several methods will be utilized in determining the suitability of the material observed in the removal bottom excavations. Visual observation of material, how it performs as the construction equipment passes over it, probing and occasional field density testing of the removal bottoms will be performed by our field technician and/or field geologist. When field density test data is utilized for approval of native material, an in-place relative compaction of 85 percent or greater and a degree of saturation of 85 percent or greater will be considered suitable. Removal areas shall be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations shall be performed in accordance with Project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations shall be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. During the field evaluation conducted by LGC, the majority of the site soils upper approximate 5 feet are anticipated to be OSHA Type “C” soils (refer to the attached boring logs included in the Geotechnical Evaluation). Soil conditions shall be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Sandy soils are present and shall be considered susceptible to caving. Close coordination with the Geotechnical Consultant shall be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 44 Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage shall be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation. Once an excavation has been initiated, it shall be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations shall be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain. It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameters shall be provided. Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation Removal bottoms shall consist of dense alluvial fan deposit or competent bedrock. In general, removal bottom areas and any areas to receive compacted fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition, and re- compacted per project recommendations. Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill shall be observed and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Material for Fill From a geotechnical perspective, the on-site soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension). Generation of oversize material should be anticipated. For fill depths less than 10 feet below proposed finish grade, oversize material shall be removed from site fills and/or crushed into smaller pieces (less than 8 inches in greatest dimension) and well-blended into fill soils. As an alternative, a deeper excavation may be performed in order to create an area with fill deeper than 10 feet for disposal of oversize material in accordance with Appendix E of the Geotechnical Evaluation. Additionally, oversize material may be placed in “non-structural” areas such as proposed passive park areas. Oversize material placed in nonstructural areas shall be clearly delineated as “non-structural” and potential long-term settlement shall be anticipated in these areas. From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) shall consist of clean, granular soils of “Very Low” to “Low” expansion potential (expansion index 50 or less based on ASTM D 4829), and generally free of organic materials, construction debris and material greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension. Import for required retaining wall backfill shall meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples shall be provided to the Geotechnical Consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to planned importation. Retaining wall backfill shall consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils shall also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The site may contain soils that are not suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content or due to oversize materials, therefore select grading and stockpiling or import may be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 45 Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) shall conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. Placement and Compaction of Fills Material to be placed as fill shall be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally between optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Significant moisture conditioning of on-site soils shall be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill shall be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift shall be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill shall be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. During backfill of excavations, the fill shall be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts. Aggregate base material shall be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The on-site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of material greater than 6 inches in diameter, and organic matter. If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE), per Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 217, of 30 or greater may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. Subsequent trench backfill shall be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least the recommended minimum relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Retaining wall backfill shall consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section, Material for Fill. The limits of select sandy backfill shall extend at minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater (Refer to Figure 2, of the Geotechnical Evaluation). Retaining wall backfill soils shall be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials shall not be permitted. A representative from LGC Geotechnical shall observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the Project recommendations. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 46 Shrinkage and Bulking Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated on-site earth materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. Table 3 of the Geotechnical Evaluation depicts an estimate of shrinkage and bulking factors for the various geologic units found on-site. Subsidence due to earthwork equipment is expected to be on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 feet. It shall be stressed that these values are only estimates and that actual shrinkage factors are extremely difficult to predict. The effective shrinkage of on-site soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment and method of compaction used on-site by the contractor. Additionally, the on-site geology is very complex; the above estimates are generalized groupings of similar lithologies and shall be expected to vary across the site and with depth. The above shrinkage estimates are intended as an aid for others in determining preliminary earthwork quantities. However, these estimates shall be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies shall be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soil is not considered feasible or economical, a balance area shall be designated on-site that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. The balance area, if needed, shall be able to accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Preliminary conventional and post-tensioned foundation measures are provided in the following sections. Please note that the following foundation measures are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of Project plans (i.e., foundation, grading and site layout plans) as well as completion of earthwork. At the completion of grading, if soils with a different expansion potential (EI greater than 50) are encountered, updated geotechnical foundation recommendations shall be provided. Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Conventional foundations may be designed in accordance with Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) procedure for slab-on-ground foundations per Section 1808 of the 2016 CBC to resist expansive soils. The following preliminary soil parameters may be used:  Effective Plasticity Index: 20  Climatic Rating: Cw = 15  Reinforcement: Per structural designer.  Minimum Perimeter Footing Depth: 15 inches below lowest adjacent grade.  Moisture condition (presoak) slab subgrade to 100% of optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching. The recommended moisture content shall be maintained up to the time of concrete placement. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 47 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The geotechnical parameters provided in Table 4 of the Geotechnical Evaluation may be used for post-tensioned slab foundations. These parameters have been determined in general accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Standard Requirements for Design of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils referenced in Chapter 18 of the 2016 CBC. In utilizing these parameters, the Foundation Engineer shall design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes and the requirements of the structural designer/architect. Other types of stiff slabs may be used in place of the CBC post-tensioned slab design provided that, in the opinion of the Foundation Structural Designer, the alternative type of slab is at least as stiff and strong as that designed by the CBC/PTI method to resist expansive soils. The design parameters are recommended based on the anticipated nature of the soil (with respect to expansion potential). Please note that implementation of the design parameters will not eliminate foundation movement (and related distress) should the moisture content of the subgrade soils fluctuate. It is the intent of these recommendations to help maintain the integrity of the proposed structures and reduce (not eliminate) movement, based upon the anticipated site soil conditions. Should future owners not properly maintain the areas surrounding the foundation, for example by overwatering, then highly expansive soils are anticipated at the maximum differential movement of the perimeter of the foundation to the center of the foundation to be on the order of a couple of inches. Soils of lower expansion potential are anticipated to show less movement. Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance Moisture conditioning of the subgrade soils shall be required prior to trenching the foundation. The recommendations specific to the anticipated site soil conditions are presented herein. The subgrade moisture condition of the building pad soils shall be maintained at near-optimum moisture content up to the time of concrete placement. This moisture content shall be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the slab during construction and up to occupancy of the homes. The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Mitigation Measures herein do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants shall only be provided with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation, shall either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters. In addition to the factors mentioned above, future homeowners shall be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future homeowners (and the owner’s landscape architect) shall not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the house foundation. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 48 It is the homeowner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soils from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future homeowners shall be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The homeowners shall be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder shall provide these recommendations to future homeowners. Slab Underlayment Guidelines Post-construction moisture migration shall be expected below the foundation. The Foundation Engineer/Architect shall determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer), in conjunction with the vapor retarder, is necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) shall also be determined by the Foundation Engineer/Architect. Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance Provided the provisions of the earthwork-related provisions of the Mitigation Measure are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 15 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface. This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 400 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity, and provided the earthwork- related provisions of the Mitigation Measure are implemented, foundation settlement due to static loads is anticipated to be 1 inch. Differential settlement may be taken as ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 270 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,700 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 360 pcf (maximum of 3,600 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. The upper foot of passive resistance shall be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. Foundation Setback from Top-of-Slope and Bottom-of-Slope Foundations shall have adequate setback from top and bottom of slopes. Per the 2016 CBC, the minimum top-of-slope setback shall be H/3, with a maximum required setback of 40 feet, where H is the total height of the slope. This distance is measured horizontally from Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 49 the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. As an alternative to moving the building footprint, setback requirements may be accomplished by deepened footings or deep foundations. The minimum bottom-of-slope setback shall be H/2, with a maximum required setback of 15 feet. Refer to Chapter 18 of the 2016 CBC. Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls The following lateral earth pressures may be used for the preliminary design of the subject site retaining walls up to approximately 6 feet in height. Lateral earth pressures for approved sandy soils which meet indicated Project requirements are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety; thus, the retaining wall designer shall apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 125 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing. The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 5 of the Geotechnical Evaluation for approved granular soils a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D1140) and an Expansion Index of 20 or less per ASTM D4829. The retaining wall designer shall clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required sandy soil backfill. It should be noted that select grading and/or import will be required for the Project. The lateral earth pressures provided above may be increased by a factor of 1.5 for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill condition. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This shall include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls shall be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values shall be provided on an individual-case basis by the Geotechnical Engineer. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures shall be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf due to normal street vehicle traffic, if applicable. The retaining wall designer shall contact the Geotechnical Engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating surcharge loads. If required, the retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 5 pcf. This increment shall be applied in addition to the provided static lateral earth pressure using a triangular distribution with the resultant acting at H/3 in relation to the base of the retaining structure (where H is the retained height). Per Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC, the seismic lateral earth pressure is applicable to structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D through F for retaining wall structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height. This seismic lateral earth pressure is estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 50 Retaining wall structures shall be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1-foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe shall be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe shall be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, and where feasible, retaining wall outlet pipes shall not be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information shall be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical retaining wall drainage is illustrated in Figure 2 of the Geotechnical Evaluation. It shall be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls shall be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Mitigation Section, Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Mitigation Section, Site Earthwork, and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections. Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control From a geotechnical perspective, compacted finished grade soils adjacent to proposed residences shall be sloped away from the proposed residence and towards an approved drainage device or unobstructed swale, where feasible. Drainage swales, wherever feasible, shall not be constructed within 5 feet of buildings. Where lot and building geometry necessitates that the side yard drainage swales be routed closer than 5 feet to structural foundations, the use of area drains together with drainage swales shall be used, if feasible. Drainage swales used in conjunction with area drains shall be designed by the Project Civil Engineer so that a properly constructed and maintained system will prevent ponding within 5 feet of the foundation. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings shall be avoided. Planters shall not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. Subsurface Water Infiltration Regulatory requirements mandate that storm water be infiltrated below grade rather than collected in a conventional storm drain system. Typically, a combination of methods are implemented to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration including; permeable pavements/pavers for roadways and walkways, directing surface water runoff to grass- lined swales, retention areas, and/or drywells, etc. It shall be noted that collecting and concentrating surface water for the purpose of intentionally infiltrating below grade conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from slopes, structures and other improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, surface water shall not be intentionally infiltrated into the subsurface soils. The developed Project site will consist of compacted fill over dense formational Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 51 materials. As such, surface water shall not be intentionally infiltrated into subsurface soils on the Project site. Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections Preliminary testing of the Project site indicated an R-Value of 57. The following provisional minimum asphalt concrete (AC) street sections are provided in Table 6 of the Geotechnical Evaluation based on an assumed R-Value of 40 for Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.5 (or less) and 6.0. These mitigation measures shall be confirmed with R-Value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections shall be confirmed by the Project Civil Engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. Due to anticipated construction traffic prior to the completion of the Project, if feasible, the total thickness (base course and capping course) of asphalt concrete shall be placed at essentially the same time. Construction traffic loading on only the base course of the asphalt concrete will increase the potential for pavement distress. It shall be noted that construction traffic such as concrete trucks will likely exceed traffic loading after completion of construction. An alternative (i.e., placement of the asphalt concrete capping course at the completion of construction) is to increase the total asphalt concrete thickness indicated above by 1-inch. The thicknesses indicated in this Mitigation Measure are for minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above measures are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Mitigation Section, Site Earthwork. Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, patio slabs, etc.) have a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. If feasible and desired, to reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete shall be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 7 of the Geotechnical Evaluation. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. Pre-Construction Documentation and Construction Monitoring A program of documentation and monitoring shall be drafted and considered before the onset of any earthwork. The documentation and monitoring shall include detailed documentation of the existing improvements, buildings, and utilities around the area of proposed grading, with particular attention to any distress that is already present prior to the start of work. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 52 Geotechnical Plan Review When available, grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify the geotechnical Mitigation Measures are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional field work may be necessary. Grading, foundation, any other improvement plans, and final Project drawings shall be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical prior to construction to verify that the geotechnical recommendations, provided herein as Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1, have been appropriately incorporated. Additional or modified geotechnical recommendations may be required based on the proposed design. Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation, incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions shall be verified in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and/or testing shall be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:  During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc);  During utility trench and retaining wall backfill and compaction;  After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;  Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base;  After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing reinforcement and/or concrete; and  When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a County Fault Hazard Zone. Although the Project site is located in a seismically active area of southern California, this risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (“CBC”; Title 24) and the City of Menifee Building Code in accordance with City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.6-1 and CRDR 4.6-2. The CBC and the City of Menifee Building Code have been designed to attenuate the risk to life or property to less than significant levels. Nonetheless, the Project’s site-specific Geotechnical Study (DEIR Technical Appendix F1) identifies a number of design recommendations to attenuate the potential for seismic ground shaking hazards, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides. The Project’s potential to directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, as a result of strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides is evaluated as a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 53 Implementation of City Regulations and Design Requirements CRDR 4.6-1 and CRDR 4.6-2 would ensure the Project adheres to the California Building Code and City of Menifee Building Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 would ensure that the Project implements the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Study (Technical Appendix F1), which would ensure measures are implemented to address potential impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential impacts including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 through 4.6.8. B. Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to result in impacts due to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse; however, the impacts will be mitigated with implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM 4.6- 1, listed above. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project site is relatively flat under existing conditions and does not contain any topographic features that could become unstable and subject to a landslide. In addition, impacts due to lateral spreading and liquefaction is considered low. However, there is a remote chance the Project could be subject to hazards associated with landslides, lateral spreading, or liquefaction. This is evaluated as a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. Impacts due to subsidence would be low, however, due to the unpredictability of ground subsidence factors, impacts were considered significant. Additionally, the Project has a slight potential for hydro-collapse, and would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 would ensure that the Project implements the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Study (DEIR Technical Appendix F1), which would ensure measures are implemented to address potential impacts associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse. With implementation of the required mitigation, substantial adverse effects associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 through 4.6.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 54 C. Expansive Soils 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Mitigation The Project site contains expansive soils; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1, listed above. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project site’s soils vary in expansion potential from very low to medium. However, it is anticipated that the majority of materials fall into the very low to low range. Nonetheless, a potentially significant impact would occur if the Project were to fail to implement the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Study (Technical Appendix F1) to attenuate hazards associated with expansive soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-1 would ensure that the Project implements the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Study (Technical Appendix F1), which would ensure measures are implemented to address potential impacts due to expansive soils. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential substantial adverse effects due to the Project being located on expansive soil would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 through 4.6.8. D. Paleontological Resources 1. Threshold Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The following information shall be provided at a minimum in the PRIMP, in addition to other industry standards and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards: I) Description of the proposed site and planned grading operations; II) Description of the level of monitoring required for all earth-moving activities; Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 55 III) Identification and qualifications of the qualified paleontological monitor to be employed for grading operations monitoring; IV) Identification of personnel with authority and responsibility to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for recovery of large specimens; V) Direction for any fossil discoveries to be immediately reported to the property owner who in turn will immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery; VI) Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays; VII) Sampling of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates; VIII) Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens; IX) Fossil identification and curation procedures to be employed; X) Identification of the permanent repository to receive any recovered fossil material; XI) All pertinent exhibits, maps and references; XII) Procedures for reporting of findings; and XIII) Identification and acknowledgement of the developer for the content of the PRIMP as well as acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting and curation fees. The property owner and/or applicant on whose land the paleontological fossils are discovered shall provide appropriate funding for monitoring, reporting, delivery and curating the fossils at the institution where the fossils will be placed, and will provide confirmation to the City that such funding has been paid to the institution. All reports shall be signed by the Project Paleontologist and all other professionals responsible for the report’s content (e.g. Professional Geologist), as appropriate. One original signed copy of the report(s) shall be submitted to the office of the Community Development Department along with a copy of this Mitigation Measure and the grading plan for appropriate case processing and tracking. MM 4.6-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified Project Paleontologist or Paleontological Monitor to manage and oversee mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as having a “high” sensitivity to contain paleontological resources. Monitoring shall occur in accordance with the approved PRIMP required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1. Monitoring shall be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed surficial exposures of Old and Very Old Alluvial Deposits, as shown on Figure 2 (Geology Map) of the Project’s Paleontological Resources Assessment (Technical Appendix F3). Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to minimize construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Ground-disturbing activities in rocks with no paleontological sensitivity (the Granodiorite to Tonalite of the Domenigoni Valley Pluton, Gabbro, or Intermixed Mesozoic Schist and Cretaceous Granitic Rocks) do not require paleontological monitoring. The Project Applicant shall provide written verification that a City of Menifee-certified Paleontologist or Paleontological Monitor has been retained to manage and oversee mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as having a “high” sensitivity to contain paleontological resources. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the Paleontologist or Paleontological Monitor to the City of Menifee Planning Division. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 56 MM 4.6-4 In the event that a previously unidentified paleontological resource is discovered on the Project site, the Paleontological Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a Paleontological Monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a Paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. Any and all fossils encountered during Project grading activities will be deposited at a museum repository, such as the Western Science Center Museum on Searl Parkway in Hemet, Riverside County, California. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the Project Applicant. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a paleontological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Menifee prior the issuance of any certificate of occupancy if such resources are found on-site. MM 4.6-5 If any paleontological material is discovered on the property, all paleontological material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections at the Western Science Center, or other approved museum repository. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation, Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Menifee Planning Division in the form of a report of findings by the Project Paleontologist to document the results of the monitoring program and indicate the curation facility received the paleontological materials and that all fees have been paid. MM 4.6-6 Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, in the event any resources are found on-site during construction activities, a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance documenting the field and analysis results, and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context, shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee. The report shall include (at a minimum) the following: lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location. A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. A final copy of the report shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Division and the Project Applicant. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would not impact any known paleontological resources or unique geological features. However, the majority of the Project site contains sensitive Alluvial soils, which have “High” sensitivity for paleontological resources. Implementation of the Project has the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 57 potential to unearth and adversely impact paleontological resources that may be buried beneath the ground surface and discovered during Project-related grading and excavation activities within the areas containing Alluvial soils. This is a potentially significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impact on paleontological resources for which mitigation would be required. Implementation of Regulatory Requirements would ensure compliance with Public Resources Codes that prohibit the removal, destruction, injury, and defacing of pre-historic resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2 through MM 4.6-6 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2 through MM 4.6-6, the Project’s direct and cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less- than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.6.4 through 4.6.8. 4.3.5 NOISE A. Increase in Ambient Noise Above Established Standards 1. Threshold Would the Project result in 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? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in impacts due to noise; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.11-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, the City of Menifee shall review grading and building plans to ensure the following notes are included on the plans. Project contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and maintain written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of Menifee upon request. a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractors shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. b) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located such that the greatest distance is maintained between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site (i.e., to the center) during all Project construction. c) The construction contractor shall design a haul route exhibit that includes delivery routes that minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck- related noise. The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June to September, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from October to May, with no activity allowed on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays). Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 58 MM 4.11-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that final building plans require the construction of minimum six-foot tall noise barriers between the outdoor living areas (backyards) along the Project’s perimeter and Antelope Road, Sherman Road, Chambers Avenue, Rouse Road, and/or the planned commercial and detention basin uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19. The noise barriers shall adhere to the following design requirements: a) The recommended noise control barriers shall be constructed so that the top of each wall extends to the recommended height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding. When the road is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height above the highest point between the residential home and the road. b) The barriers shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. c) Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials: • Masonry block; • Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or one-inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; • Glass (1/4-inch-thick), or other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot • capable of providing a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA; • Earthen berm; or • Any combination of these construction materials. During the final building inspection, the City of Menifee Building Inspector shall ensure that the sound barriers were constructed to adhere to the requirements stated herein, as well as the design specifications shown on the final approved building plans. MM 4.11-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential uses, the City of Menifee shall verify that final building plans require the following: • First- and second-story windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 be installed at all residential homes adjacent to I-215, Encanto Drive, Sherman Road, Antelope Road, Rouse Road, and Chambers Avenue. • All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 25. • Any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. • Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or well-sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. • Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 59 • A forced air circulation system (e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. During final building inspection, the City of Menifee Building Inspector shall ensure that the above-listed requirements have been met. MM 4.11-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial and/or community recreation center uses, the City of Menifee shall verify that final building plans require the following for commercial uses within Planning Areas 16 and 17 and for the community recreation center within Planning Area 18 of the Legado Specific Plan: • First- and second-story windows with a minimum STC rating of 32 be installed at commercial buildings facing I-215. • All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 25. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Roof sheathing shall be per manufacturer’s specification. Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification. Ceiling/roof Insulation, if required under manufacturer’s specification, shall have a minimum rating of R-19. • A forced air circulation system (e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. During final building inspection, the City of Menifee Building Inspector shall ensure that the above-listed requirements have been met. MM 4.11-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for proposed residential, commercial, and community recreation center uses, the Project Applicant shall prepare a final noise study to verify that proposed building elements would meet the interior noise level standards for residential (45 dBA CNEL) and commercial/community recreation center (50 dBA CNEL) land uses. If necessary, additional measures may be included as necessary to meet the applicable interior noise standards. MM 4.11-6 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, the City of Menifee shall review grading and building plans to ensure the plans prohibit the use of large construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, scrapers) within 200 feet of nearby occupied sensitive uses. Large construction equipment includes equipment capable of generating noise levels in excess of 68 dBA Leq (10-minute) at 50 feet and vibration levels of 80 VdB at sensitive receiver locations. However, such large construction equipment may be allowed within 200 feet of nearby sensitive receptors if it can be demonstrated that specific pieces of large construction equipment can demonstrate compliance with the 68 dBA Leq (10-minute) at 50 feet criteria and will generate vibration levels at adjacent sensitive uses which remain below 80 VdB. For any such equipment, the contractor shall maintain a record demonstrating Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 60 that the equipment would not generate noise or vibration standards specified herein, which shall be made available for inspection by the City of Menifee upon request. MM 4.11-7 Prior to issuance of any grading and building permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that the Project’s grading and building plans include the installation of temporary construction noise barriers at the following locations: a) A minimum 8-foot high temporary construction noise barrier at the Project’s site boundaries adjacent to sensitive receiver locations R7 (western property line of Hans Christensen Middle School); b) A minimum 8-foot high temporary barrier adjacent to sensitive receiver location R9 (northern property line of Bell Air Mobile Estates); and c) A minimum 8-foot high temporary barrier adjacent to sensitive receiver location R10 (north and east property lines of Life Care Center). The temporary noise barriers shall remain on the Project site for the duration of Project construction. The noise barriers shall adhere to the following design requirements: a) The temporary noise barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom; b) The temporary noise barriers shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; and c) The noise barrier must be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. Project contractors shall be required to comply with this requirement and maintain records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of Menifee upon request. The Project contractor shall also be required to adhere to the noise barrier design specifications stated herein. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would result in noise impacts during the construction phase. Although construction noise would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) construction noise standard of 85 dBA Leq, the Project would contribute unmitigated, worst-case construction noise level increases between 0.2 to 24.3 dBA Leq at the adjacent sensitive receiver locations during the daytime hours. Since the worst- case temporary noise level increase of up to 24.3 dBA Leq during Project construction would exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold at receiver locations R1, R3, R6, R7, R9, and R10, the unmitigated construction noise level increases are considered potentially significant temporary noise impacts for which mitigation would be required. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 61 The Project would not cause off-site traffic-related noise increases in excess of the significance criteria identified in Table 4.11-7 under Opening Year Cumulative 2020 With Project Phase 1 conditions, Opening Year Cumulative 2023 With Project Phase 2 conditions, Opening Year Cumulative 2025 With Project Buildout conditions, or Horizon Year 2040 conditions. However, The on-site traffic noise level impacts indicate that the Planning Areas adjacent to I-215, Encanto Drive, Sherman Road, Antelope Road, Rouse Road, and Chambers Avenue would experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 58.7 to 76.0 dBA CNEL, which would exceed the City of Menifee 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard at all of the residential Planning Areas on-site. Thus, exterior noise level impacts would be significant at the proposed residential Planning Areas (Planning Areas 1 through 15) on-site. Proposed residential, commercial, and community recreation center uses all would be exposed to interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standards of 45 dBA CNEL for residential and 50 dBA CNEL for the commercial uses and the community recreation center; thus, interior noise impacts would be significant prior to mitigation. The operational noise levels associated with the proposed commercial, community park, and open space uses on-site would not exceed the City of Menifee exterior noise level standards of 65 dBA CNEL during daytime hours and 45 dBA CNEL during nighttime hours at the nearby sensitive receivers in the City of Menifee. Therefore, Project-related operational noise level impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Project- related operational noise level contributions of up to 0.3 dBA would not exceed the significance criteria shown in DEIR Table 4.11-7. Therefore, the Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise due to Project- related operational noise, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of City Regulation and Design Requirements CRDR 4.11-1 and CRDR 4.11-2 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1, MM 4.11-6, and MM 4.11-7 would reduce the potential for nuisance noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive residential uses during construction, as summarized in DEIR Table 4.11-26, Mitigated Construction Equipment Noise Levels. Additionally, implementation of City Regulation and Design Requirements CRDR 4.11-1 and CRDR 4.11-2 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1, MM 4.11-6, and MM 4.11-7 would reduce the Project’s construction- related noise level increases to below 12 dBA Leq at all receiver locations, as summarized in DEIR Table 4.11- 27, Mitigated Construction Temporary Noise Level Increases (dBA Leq). Therefore, with implementation of the City Regulation and Design Requirements and mitigation measures, the Project’s construction-related noise level increases would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-2 would require construction of noise barriers at the outdoor living areas (backyards) of all residential uses in Planning Areas 1 through 15, which would reduce on-site exterior traffic-related noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-3 requires the installation of windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 at all windows on the first- and second-floors of residential homes adjacent to I-215, Encanto Drive, Sherman Road, Antelope Road, Rouse Road, and Chambers Avenue, along with other requirements for doors, exterior walls, roofs, ceilings, insulation, and forced air circulation. Similarly, Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-4 requires the installation of windows with a minimum STC rating of 32 at all windows on the first- and second floors of all commercial buildings adjacent to I-215, along with other requirements for doors, exterior walls, roofs, ceilings, insulation, and forced air circulation. Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-5 requires a final noise study to be prepared prior to building permit issuance to ensure that proposed structures meet the City’s interior noise level standards for residential (45 dBA CNEL) and commercial/community recreation center (50 dBA CNEL) land uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-2 through MM 4.11-5 would reduce on-site interior traffic-related noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts due to a Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 62 substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.11.4 through 4.11.8. B. Vibration Impacts 1. Threshold Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in construction-related vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors; however, the impact will be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-6, listed above. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that at distances ranging from 30 to 2,499 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to range from 27.0 to 84.6 VdB. Based on the FTA vibration standard of 80 VdB for annoyance, the Project’s construction activities would exceed the standard at receiver locations R1 and R9 (refer to DEIR Figure 4.11-3). Therefore, Project-related vibration impacts at locations R1 and R9 represent a temporary significant impact during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-6 would prohibit the use of large construction equipment capable of generating vibration levels in excess of 80 VdB within 200 feet of nearby sensitive receptors during Project construction. As summarized in DEIR Table 4.11-28, Mitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-6 would reduce the Project’s vibration impacts to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.11.4 through 4.11.8. 4.3.6 TRANSPORTATION A. Inadequate Emergency Access 1. Threshold Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to result in near-term impacts to emergency access during construction; however, the impacts will be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1, listed below in Subsection 4.4.3. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 63 3. Finding/Facts to Support Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access during long-term operation of the Project. Impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. However, during construction of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with a temporary traffic control plan that meets the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Although it is anticipated a less-than-significant impact would occur with the requirement to implement a temporary traffic control plan, out of an abundance of caution, a significant impact is identified. Accordingly, impacts would be significant prior to mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 would ensure that the Project Applicant complies with a temporary traffic control plan that meets the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s impacts to access during Project construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. References: DEIR Subsections 4.14.6 through 4.14.10. 4.3.7 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts 1. Threshold 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: i) 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)? ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth is subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? 2. Mitigation The impact will be mitigated with implementation Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9, which are presented in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, would apply. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-6 and MM 4.4-8 would ensure any tribal cultural resources that may be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other ground-disturbing activities are appropriately assessed, recorded, and treated. As Site RIV-9289 and Site P-33-028165 are significant tribal cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 and MM 4.4-8 would ensure that the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 64 existing tribal cultural resources on the Project site are preserved on-site. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to surface and subsurface tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels. In the event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq. as applied to the Project as Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9 and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254(r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9 and applicable regulatory requirements would reduce the Project’s impacts to human remains to less-than-significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.15.4 through 4.15.8. 4.3.8 WILDFIRE A. Impair an Emergency Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan 1. Threshold Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2. Mitigation The Project has the potential to adversely affect emergency access in the local area during the construction of frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road; however, the impacts will be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1, listed in Subsection 4.4.3, Transportation. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project has the potential to adversely affect emergency access in the local area during the construction of frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road. Impacts would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Implementation of EIR Mitigation Measure 4.14-1, presented in EIR Subsection 4.14, Transportation, requires the preparation and implementation of a temporary traffic control plan. Implementation of the required temporary traffic control plan would reduce the Project’s near-term impacts to emergency access to less-than- significant levels. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.17.4 through 4.17.8. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 65 4.4 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS- THAN-SIGNIFICANT Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this Subsection. The applicable environmental issue areas include Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. 4.4.1 AIR QUALITY A. Air Quality Plan Conflict 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2. Mitigation The Project’s emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during long-term operations represent a significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impact due to a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.2-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed building components would surpass by a minimum of 5% the 2019 Title 24 performance standards or shall comply with the Title 24 requirements in effect at the time, whichever is more stringent, established under the Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards). MM 4.2-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed roofs of the buildings are designed to accommodate maximally sized photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays taking into consideration limitations imposed by other rooftop equipment, roof warranties, building and fire code requirements, and other physical or legal limitations. The Project shall develop each Project building with the necessary electrical system and other infrastructure to accommodate maximally sized PV arrays in the future. The electrical system and infrastructure shall be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage which informs future tenant/purchasers of the existence of this infrastructure. MM 4.2-3 Prior to approval of implementing commercial plot plan(s) within Planning Area 16 of the Legado Specific Plan, the City of Menifee Planning Division shall ensure that the plot plan(s) include a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. The electric-vehicle charging stations also shall be depicted on building plans for implementing development within Planning Area 16. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed commercial land uses within Planning Area 16, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall ensure that a minimum of three electric-vehicle charging stations have been installed on-site. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 66 3. Findings of Fact/Findings in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Project could conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the AQMP and this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Although the Project’s construction and operational characteristics would not exceed the growth assumptions of the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, air quality emissions during operation would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD’s Regional Thresholds. As such, the Project’s emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during long-term operations represents a significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impact due to a conflict with the AQMP. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s operational emissions of CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would be reduced to below the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for these pollutants; however, operational- related emissions of VOCs and NOX would still exceed the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds even with implementation of the required mitigation. It is important to note that the majority of VOC emissions are derived from consumer products. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control consumer products via mitigation and no feasible mitigation measure exists that would reduce this impact to less-than- significant levels. Additionally, a majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Since the Project Applicant does not have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce NOX emissions to levels that are less than significant. The Project’s unmitigable emissions of VOCs and NOX under long-term operation represent a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Although the Project would not exceed the regional growth forecasts, the Project’s impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP is a significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impact of the Project that cannot be reduced to a level below significant. References: DEIR Subsections 4.2.4 through 4.2.8. B. Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants 1. Threshold Would the Project 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? 2. Mitigation The Project would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during long-term operations. The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, listed above. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding As shown in DEIR Table 4.2-12, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary (With Mitigation), implementation of Regulatory Requirements CRDR 4.2-1 through CRDR 4.2-5, Design Requirements CRDR 4.2-6 and CRDR 4.2-7, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, would reduce the Project’s operational exceedances of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to below the Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 67 thresholds for these pollutants. However, implementation of CRDRs and Mitigation Measures would reduce, but would not eliminate, the Project’s operational exceedances of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for VOCs and NOX. No feasible mitigation measures or CRDRs beyond those already identified exist that would reduce emissions of NOX and VOCs to levels that are less than significant. It is important to note that the majority of VOC emissions are derived from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control consumer products via mitigation; thus, VOC emissions are considered significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measure exists that would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels. Additionally, a majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Since the Project Applicant does not have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce NOX emissions to levels that are less than significant. Accordingly, the following impacts associated with Project operations would remain significant and unavoidable: a) the Project’s direct and cumulatively-considerable impact due to a violation of the applicable air quality standards for VOCs and NOX; and b) the Project’s emissions of VOCs and NOX that would contribute to the region’s non-attainment status under both State and federal designations for ozone. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.2.4 through 4.2.9. 4.4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS A. Generation of Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1. Threshold Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts due to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, and to reduce water demands and associated energy use, prior to approval of landscaping plans associated with future implementing development permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare, and the City of Menifee shall approve, a Water Conservation Strategy that demonstrates a minimum 20% reduction in outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy). Planning Area 18 of the Legado Specific Plan shall not be subject to the minimum 20% reduction in outdoor water usage requirement. In addition, the City shall review building permit applications to ensure the following requirements are implemented: o The City shall review landscaping plans to verify that the landscaping palette emphasizes drought-tolerant plants consistent with provisions of the City of Menifee requirements including but not limited to, Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 (Landscape Water Use Efficiency Requirements) and Chapter 8.04 (Building Code); and o The City shall review proposed irrigation plans to ensure the installation of water-efficient irrigation techniques consistent with City of Menifee requirements including but not Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 68 limited to, Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 (Landscape Water Use Efficiency Requirements) and Chapter 8.04 (Building Code). MM 4.7-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, and to reduce water consumption and the associated energy usage, the Project shall be required to be designed to comply with the mandatory reductions in indoor water usage contained in the incumbent CalGreen Code and any mandated reduction in outdoor water usage contained in the City’s water efficient landscape requirements. In addition, the City shall review building permit applications to ensure the following requirement is implemented: o The City shall review building plans to require that all faucets, high-efficiency toilets (HETs), and other plumbing fixtures are EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent. MM 4.7-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed building components would surpass by a minimum of 5% the 2019 Title 24 performance standards or shall comply with the Title 24 requirements in effect at the time, whichever is more stringent, established under the Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards). MM 4.7-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed roofs of the buildings are designed to accommodate maximally sized photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays taking into consideration limitations imposed by other rooftop equipment, roof warranties, building and fire code requirements, and other physical or legal limitations. The Project shall develop each Project building with the necessary electrical system and other infrastructure to accommodate maximally sized PV arrays in the future. The electrical system and infrastructure shall be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage which informs future tenant/purchasers of the existence of this infrastructure. MM 4.7-5 Prior to approval of implementing commercial plot plan(s) within Planning Area 16 of the Legado Specific Plan, the City of Menifee Planning Division shall ensure that the plot plan(s) include a minimum of three (3) electric-vehicle charging stations. The electric-vehicle charging stations also shall be depicted on building plans for implementing development within Planning Area 16. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed commercial land uses within Planning Area 16, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall ensure that a minimum of three electric-vehicle charging stations have been installed on-site. MM 4.7-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions, prior to approval of building permits associated with future implementing development permits, the City shall review building permit applications to ensure the following requirements are provided:  Energy-related:  Install programmable thermostat timers;  Establish on-site renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power for the residential uses; Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 69  Limit outdoor lighting requirements in accordance with City of Menifee lighting requirements;  Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the house of operation of outdoor lighting through use of photocell sensor technology on lighting; and  Provide education on energy efficient to residents, customers, and/or tenants as part of the closing package. Additionally, provide information on energy management services of large energy users.  Transportation-related:  Provide EV parking; and  Provide bicycle parking near transit.  Water-related:  Plant native and drought-resistant trees and vegetation.  Project Design Features:  Install formaldehyde-free insultation; and  Use recycled-content gypsum board.  Commercial Use related:  Increase in insultation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized;  Limit air leakable through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system;  Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; and  Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed. 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding As shown in DEIR Table 4.7-9, Total Project GHG Emissions (Annual – With CRDRs and Mitigation), with implementation of Regulatory Requirements, Design Requirements CRDR 4.7-1 through CRDR 4.7-3, and Project-specific mitigation measures, the Project’s Service Population Ratio would be reduced to 8.32 MTCO2e per Service Population, which would still exceed the threshold of 3.84 MTCO2e per Service Population. Additional feasible mitigation is not available to further reduce the Project’s level of GHG emissions. Thus, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impacts due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.7.4 through 4.7.9. B. Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulations 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2. Mitigation The Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts due to a conflict with the GHG reduction target established by SB 32 and General Plan Policy OCS-10.2. The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-6, listed above. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 70 3. Finding/Facts in Support of Finding As shown in DEIR Table 4.7-9, with implementation of Regulatory Requirements, Design Requirements CRDR 4.7-1 through CRDR 4.7-3, and Project-specific mitigation measures, the Project’s Service Population Ratio would be reduced to 8.32 MTCO2e per Service Population, which would still exceed the threshold of 3.84 MTCO2e per Service Population. Additional feasible mitigation is not available to further reduce the Project’s level of GHG emissions. Thus, the Project’s impacts due to a conflict with the GHG reduction target established by SB 32 and General Plan Policy OCS-10.2, which requires compliance with the GHG reduction target established by SB 32, would remain significant and unavoidable following mitigation. Reference: DEIR Subsections 4.7.4 through 4.7.9. 4.4.3 TRANSPORTATION A. Conflict with Circulation Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy 1. Threshold Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 2. Mitigation The proposed Project would result in direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to study area transportation facilities under each phase of the proposed Project. The Project also has the potential to adversely affect traffic during Project construction activities. The impacts will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation for Construction-Related Impacts MM 4.14-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or improvement plans affecting Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, or Antelope Road, the Project Applicant shall prepare and the City of Menifee shall approve a temporary traffic control plan. The temporary traffic control plan shall comply with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. A requirement to comply with the temporary traffic control plan shall be noted on all grading and improvement plans affecting Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, or Antelope Road and also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. Mitigation for Phase 1 Direct Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-2 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct a traffic signal and an eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of Encanto Drive and Ethanac Road (Intersection #15). Mitigation for Phase 1 Cumulatively-Considerable Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2): • Construct a northbound left turn lane. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 71 The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for this improvement and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing this improvement. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvement for Phase 1 of the Project is 6.8%. MM 4.14-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements at the intersection of Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7): • Construct a second westbound left turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 20.2%. MM 4.14-5 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Encanto Drive and Ethanac Road (Intersection #15): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 13.5%. MM 4.14-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33): • Construct a third westbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 19.7%. MM 4.14-7 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40): • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 72 improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 11.0%. MM 4.14-8 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at Pinacate Road (SR-74) (Intersection #42): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct a southbound left turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to protect the northbound and southbound left turn movements. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 2 of the Project is 3.1%. MM 4.14-9 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane (the de facto northbound right turn lane shall be eliminated in order to accommodate the second northbound left turn lane); • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 7.3%. MM 4.14-10 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of McCall Boulevard from Bradley Road to I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 17.0%. MM 4.14-11 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of McCall Boulevard from I-215 Freeway to Encanto Drive (Roadway Segment #22): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 73 The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 18.1%. MM 4.14-12 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of McCall Boulevard from Encanto Drive to Sherman Road (Roadway Segment #23): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 15.7%. MM 4.14-13 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Menifee Road from Biscayne Avenue to Rouse Road (Roadway Segment #43): • Widen the roadway to four lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 1 of the Project is 11.0%. Mitigation for Phase 2 Direct Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-14 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct the following improvements to the intersection of Encanto Drive at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #20): • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; • Construct a southbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the southbound right turn lane. MM 4.14-15 The following improvements shall only be required if the improvements have not been constructed by others prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall implement the following improvements to the intersection of Antelope Road at Rouse Road (South) (Intersection #38): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct a northbound through lane; and • Construct a southbound shared through-right turn lane. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 74 In the event the improvements listed below have been constructed by others, this Mitigation Measure shall no longer apply. Mitigation for Phase 2 Cumulatively-Considerable Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-16 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2): • Construct a northbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for this improvement and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing this improvement. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvement for Phase 2 of the Project is 6.8%. MM 4.14-17 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at Pinacate Road (SR-74) (Intersection #42): • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the northbound right turn lane; and • Construct an eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 2 of the Project is 3.2%. MM 4.14-18 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to make a monetary contribution to the City of Perris, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from Case Road to I- 215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #5): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Perris shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 2 of the Project is 9.0%. MM 4.14-19 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of McCall Boulevard from Sherman Road to Antelope Road (Roadway Segment #24): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 75 The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 2 of the Project is 9.3%. MM 4.14-20 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of McCall Boulevard from Antelope Road to Menifee Road (Roadway Segment #25): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 2 of the Project is 9.5%. Mitigation for Project Buildout Direct Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-21 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Bradley Road at Cherry Hills Boulevard (Intersection #8), with potential appropriate fee credits. MM 4.14-22 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Encanto Drive and McLaughlin Road (Intersection #16). MM 4.14-23 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct the following improvements at the intersection of Encanto Drive at Shadel Road (Intersection #19): • Install a traffic signal; and • Construct a southbound left turn lane. MM 4.14-24 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct the following improvements at the intersection of Encanto Drive at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #20): • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and • Construct a westbound right turn lane. MM 4.14-25 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall construct a third eastbound through lane at the intersection of Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33). Mitigation for Project Buildout Cumulatively-Considerable Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-26 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project (Project buildout), the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, to be Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 76 held in trust by the City of Menifee, for the following improvements to the intersection of Goetz Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #1): • Construct a second southbound left turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the northbound and westbound right turn lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.0%. MM 4.14-27 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2): • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; and • Restripe to provide a southbound left and southbound through/right turn lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 7.1%. MM 4.14-28 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at Pinacate Road (SR-74) (Intersection #42): • Construct a second westbound left turn lane; and • Construct a southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.6%. MM 4.14-29 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44): • Construct a southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for this improvement and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing this improvement. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 8.8%. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 77 MM 4.14-30 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Encanto Drive from Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road (Roadway Segment #27): • Widen the roadway to four lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 51.1%. Mitigation for Horizon Year (2040) Cumulatively-Considerable Traffic Impacts MM 4.14-31 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project (Project buildout), the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Goetz Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #1): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane; • Construct a third eastbound through lane; • Construct a third westbound through lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 1.6%. MM 4.14-32 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2): • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; • Construct a third eastbound through lane; • Construct a second westbound left turn lane; and • Construct a third westbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.8%. MM 4.14-33 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Murrieta Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #3): Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 78 • Modify the traffic signal to protect the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.0%. MM 4.14-34 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sun City Boulevard at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #4): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct first and second southbound left turn lanes; • Construct a second westbound left turn lane; and • Construct a westbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.6%. MM 4.14-35 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Barnett Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #5): • Construct a third westbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvement for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.9%. MM 4.14-36 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to make a fair-share monetary contribution to the City of Perris, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Case Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #6): • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the southbound and westbound right turn lanes; • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and • Construct a third eastbound through lane. The City of Perris shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.3%. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 79 MM 4.14-37 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7): • Construct a second northbound right turn lane; • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.3%. MM 4.14-38 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to make a fair-share monetary contribution to the City of Perris, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of I-215 Southbound Ramps at Bonnie Drive (Intersection #9): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane. The City of Perris shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.5%. MM 4.14-39 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Encanto Drive and Ethanac Road (Intersection #15): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane; • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the northbound right turn lane; • Construct a third eastbound through lane; and • Construct a third westbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 7.5%. MM 4.14-40 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Encanto Drive and McLaughlin Road (Intersection #16): • Construct a second southbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 80 improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 23.4%. MM 4.14-41 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Encanto Drive at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #20): • Restripe the southbound left as a southbound shared left-through lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing on the southbound and eastbound right turn lanes; and split phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 10.3%. MM 4.14-42 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Trumble Road at SR-74 (Intersection #21): • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 5.4%. MM 4.14-43 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Trumble Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #22): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Restripe southbound approach with left turn lane and shared through-right turn lane; • Construct an eastbound shared through-right turn lane; and • Construct a westbound shared through-right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 6.3%. MM 4.14-44 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sherman Road at SR-74 (Intersection #26): • Construct a southbound left turn lane; Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 81 • Construct a third eastbound through lane; • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; • Construct a second westbound left turn lane; • Construct a third westbound through lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on the northbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.5%. MM 4.14-45 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sherman Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #27): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct a second northbound left turn lane; • Construct a northbound right turn lane; • Construct a southbound left turn lane; • Construct a southbound right turn lane; • Construct two eastbound left turn lanes; • Construct a third eastbound through lane; • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; • Construct a westbound left turn lane; • Construct a third westbound through lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 8.6%. MM 4.14-46 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sherman Road at McLaughlin Road (Intersection #28): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct a southbound left turn lane; • Construct an eastbound left turn lane; and • Construct a westbound left turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 19.5%. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 82 MM 4.14-47 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements at the intersection of Sherman Road at Rouse Road (Intersection #29). • Construct a second southbound through lane; and • Construct an eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 35.3%. MM 4.14-48 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33): • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; • Construct a westbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 8.9%. MM 4.14-49 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Antelope Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #36): • Install a traffic signal; • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Restripe northbound shared left-through-right turn lane as a through lane; • Construct two southbound left turn lanes; • Construct second southbound through lane; • Construct southbound right turn lane; • Construct two eastbound left turn lanes; • Restripe eastbound right turn as a shared through-right turn lane; • Construct two westbound left turn lanes; • Construct a third westbound through lane; • Construct a westbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the westbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.2%. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 83 MM 4.14-50 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Antelope Road at Rouse Road (North) (Intersection #37): • Construct a northbound left turn lane; • Construct a southbound left turn lane; • Construct a second eastbound through lane; and • Construct a second westbound through lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 5.2%. MM 4.14-51 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the intersection of Antelope Road at Rouse Road (South) (Intersection #38): • Construct a southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvement for Phase 3 of the Project is 12.7%. MM 4.14-52 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40): • Construct a southbound left turn lane; and • Construct a southbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.9%. MM 4.14-53 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Palomar Road at SR-74 (Intersection #41): • Construct a second northbound through lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the northbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 84 improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.8%. MM 4.14-54 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at Pinacate Road (SR-74) (Intersection #42): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane; • Construct a third northbound through lane; • Construct a second southbound left turn lane; • Construct a third southbound through lane; • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 1.7%. MM 4.14-55 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road/Rouse Road/Turtle Point Drive (Intersection #43): • Construct a second northbound left turn lane; • Construct a third northbound through lane; • Construct a third southbound through lane; • Construct an eastbound left turn lane; • Construct an eastbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn lane. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.5%. MM 4.14-56 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvements to the intersection of Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44): • Construct a northbound right turn lane; • Construct a second southbound left turn lane; • Construct a third southbound through lane; • Construct a third westbound through lane; • Construct a second westbound right turn lane; and • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for the northbound, southbound, and westbound right turn lanes. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 85 The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.0%. MM 4.14-57 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from Goetz Road to Murrieta Road (Roadway Segment #3): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.0%. MM 4.14-58 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road Murrieta Road to Barnett Road (Roadway Segment #4): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.5%. MM 4.14-59 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to make a monetary contribution to the City of Perris, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from I-215 Freeway to Encanto Drive (Roadway Segment #6): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Perris shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 6.9%. MM 4.14-60 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall use reasonable efforts to make a monetary contribution to the City of Perris, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from Encanto Drive to Trumble Road (Roadway Segment #7): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 86 The City of Perris shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.1%. MM 4.14-61 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from Trumble Road to Sherman Road (Roadway Segment #8): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 4.4%. MM 4.14-62 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Ethanac Road from Sherman Road to Antelope Road (Roadway Segment #9): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.0%. MM 4.14-63 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Rouse Road from Antelope Road (North) to Menifee Road (Roadway Segment #15): • Widen the roadway to four lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 5.3%. MM 4.14-64 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Menifee Road from SR-74 to Biscayne Avenue (Roadway Segment #42): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. Legado Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Environmental Impact Report Statement of Overriding Considerations Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 87 The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 3.6%. MM 4.14-65 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3 of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the City of Menifee, to be held in trust, for the following improvement to the roadway segment of Menifee Road from Biscayne Avenue to Rouse Road (Roadway Segment #43): • Widen the roadway to six lanes. The City of Menifee shall establish a fair-share funding program for these improvements and shall only use the funds paid by the Project Applicant for the purpose of implementing these improvements. The Project’s fair share of the above-listed improvements for Phase 3 of the Project is 2.3%. 3. Finding/Facts to Support Finding Provided below is a summary of the Project’s impacts that cannot be reduced to less-than-significant levels even following the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project would result in direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to study area facilities under each phase of the proposed Project. Table 4-1, Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Transportation Facilities, provides a summary of the Project’s direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, traffic signal warrants, off-ramp queuing locations, freeway segments, and freeway junction merge/diverge locations for each study scenario.  Existing + Project (E+P) Conditions As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-63, with implementation of the improvements listed in Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-8 the LOS at the following intersection would improve to acceptable levels under E+P conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under E+P conditions until the required improvements are in place: 1. Intersections  Menifee Road at SR-74 (Intersection #42) 2. Roadway Segments As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-72, Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis for E+P (Project Buildout) Conditions With Improvements, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segments to acceptable levels under E+P conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under E+P conditions until the required improvements are in place: Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 88 Table 4-1 Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Transportation Facilities # FACILITY CMP FACILITY? EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) HORIZON YEAR (2040) INTERSECTIONS 1 Goetz Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- C* C* 2 Murrieta Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- C* C* C* 3 Murrieta Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- -- -- -- C* 4 Sun City Bl. / McCall Bl. No -- -- -- -- C* 5 Barnett Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 6 Case Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 7 Bradley Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- C C C C* 8 Bradley Rd. / Cherry Hills Bl. No -- -- -- D -- 9 I-215 SB Ramps / Bonnie Dr. Yes -- -- -- -- C* 10 I-215 SB Ramps / Ethanac Rd. Yes -- D* C* C* C* 11 I-215 SB Ramps / McCall Bl.† Yes -- C* D* D* C* 12 I-215 NB Ramps / SR-74 Yes -- -- -- -- C* 13 I-215 NB Ramps / Ethanac Rd.† Yes -- D* C* C* C* 14 I-215 NB Ramps / McCall Bl. Yes -- -- -- D C* 15 Encanto Dr. / Ethanac Rd. No D C* C* C* C* 16 Encanto Dr. / McLaughlin Rd. No -- -- -- D C* 17 Encanto Dr. / Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 18 Encanto Dr. / Chambers Av. – Future Intersection No -- -- -- -- C* 19 Encanto Dr. / Shadel Rd. No -- -- -- D C* 20 Encanto Dr. / McCall Bl. No -- -- D D C* 21 Trumble Rd. / SR-74 No -- -- -- -- C* 22 Trumble Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- -- 26 Sherman Rd. / SR-74 No -- -- -- -- C* 27 Sherman Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 28 Sherman Rd. / McLaughlin Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 89 # FACILITY CMP FACILITY? EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) HORIZON YEAR (2040) 29 Sherman Rd. / Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 30 Sherman Rd. / St. B No -- -- -- -- -- 31 Sherman Rd. / Chambers Av. No -- -- -- -- C* 32 Sherman Rd. / Shadel Rd. No -- -- -- -- -- 33 Sherman Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- C* C* D C* 34 Dawson Rd./Street C & Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- -- -- 35 Street C/Concord Ln. & Chambers Av. No -- -- -- -- -- 36 Antelope Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 37 Antelope Rd. / Rouse Rd. (North) No -- -- -- -- C* 38 Antelope Rd. / Rouse Rd. (South) No -- -- -- -- C* 39 Antelope Rd. / Chambers Av. No -- -- -- -- C* 40 Antelope Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- C* C* C* C* 41 Palomar Rd. / SR-74 No -- -- -- -- D* 42 Menifee Rd. / SR-74 Yes C* -- C* C* C* 43 Menifee Rd. / Rouse Rd./Turtle Point Dr. No -- -- -- -- C* 44 Menifee Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- C* C* C* C* ROADWAY SEGMENTS 1 SR-74, Bonnie Dr. to I-215 NB Ramps Yes -- -- -- -- C* 2 SR-74, I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Rd. Yes -- -- -- -- C* 3 Ethanac Rd., Goetz Rd. to Murrieta Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 4 Ethanac Rd., Murrieta Rd. to Barnett Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 5 Ethanac Rd., Case Rd. to I-215 Freeway No -- -- D* C* C* 6 Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. No C* C* C* C* C* 7 Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. No C* C* C* C* C* 8 Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. No -- -- C* C* C* 9 Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. No -- C* D* C* C* 10 SR-74, Antelope Rd. to Palomar Rd. Yes -- -- -- -- C* 15 Rouse Rd., Antelope Rd. (N) to Menifee Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 20 McCall Bl., Sun City Bl. to Bradley Rd. No -- -- -- D* C* Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 90 # FACILITY CMP FACILITY? EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) HORIZON YEAR (2040) 21 McCall Bl., Bradley Rd. to the I-215 Freeway No D* C* C* C* C* 22 McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. No D* C* C* C* C* 23 McCall Bl., Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. No -- D* D* C* C* 24 McCall Bl., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. No -- -- D* C* C* 25 McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. No C* C* C* C* C* 27 Encanto Dr., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. No -- -- -- D* C* 28 Encanto Dr., McLaughlin Rd. to Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- D* D* 29 Ethanac Rd., Murrieta Rd. to Barnett Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 30 Encanto Dr., Chambers Dr. to Shadel Rd. No -- -- -- D* C* 31 Encanto Dr., Shadel Rd. to McCall Bl. No -- -- -- D C* 32 Sherman Rd., SR-74 to Ethnac Rd. No -- -- -- D* C* 33 Sherman Rd., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. No -- C* C* C* C* 34 Sherman Rd., McLaughlin Rd. to Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 42 Menifee Rd., SR-74 to Biscayne Av. No -- -- -- -- C* 43 Menifee Rd., Biscayne Av. To Rouse Rd. No D* C* C* C* C* 44 Menifee Rd., Rouse Rd. to McCall Bl. No -- -- -- -- C* INTERSECTIONS THAT MEET TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 8 Bradley Rd. / Cherry Hills Bl. No -- -- -- D -- 15 Encanto Dr. / Ethanac Rd. No D C C C C 27 Sherman Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 28 Sherman Rd. / McLaughlin Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 29 Sherman Rd. / Rouse Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 31 Sherman Rd. / Chambers Av. No -- -- -- -- C 36 Antelope Rd. / Ethanac Rd. No -- -- -- -- C* 37 Antelope Rd. / Rouse Rd. (North) No -- -- -- -- C* 38 Antelope Rd. / Rouse Rd. (South) No -- -- -- -- C* 40 Antelope Rd. / McCall Bl. No -- C* C* C* C* Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 91 # FACILITY CMP FACILITY? EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) HORIZON YEAR (2040) FREEWAY SEGMENTS 1 I-215 Freeway Southbound, Case Rd. to Ethanac Rd. Yes -- C± C± C± 2 I-215 Freeway Southbound, Ethanac Rd. to McCall Bl. Yes -- C± C± C± C± 3 I-215 Freeway Southbound, McCall Bl. to Newport Rd. Yes -- C± C± C± D± FREEWAY JUNCTION MERGE/DIVERGE LOCATIONS 1 I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road Yes C± C± C± C± C± 2 I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at Ethanac Rd. Yes -- C± C± C* 3 I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard Yes C± C* C± C* C± 4 I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at McCall Bl. Yes -- C± C± C± C± 6 I-215 Freeway Northbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Rd. Yes -- -- -- -- C± 8 I-215 Freeway Northbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Bl Yes -- -- -- C± C± Notes: “D” = Direct Impact; “C” = Cumulatively-Considerable Impact; “--" = No Impact/Less-than-Significant Impact. * = Although mitigation is proposed in the form of fair-share contributions or fee payments to TUMF or DIF, the timing of required improvements is unknown; thus, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to the development phase shown above, and impacts would therefore be significant and unavoidable. ± = At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments and impacts would therefore be significant and unavoidable. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 92  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-72, the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-10, MM 4.14- 11, and MM 4.14-16 would improve the LOS at the following roadway segments to acceptable levels under E+P conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under E+P conditions until the required improvements are in place:  McCall Bl., between Bradley Rd. and the I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., between the I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  Menifee Rd., from Biscayne Ave to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #43) 3. Traffic Signal Warrants Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-2 requires the installation of a traffic signal at the following location, which would reduce the Project’s impacts due to signal warrants to less-than-significant levels:  Encanto Dr. at Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #15) 4. Freeway Merge/Diverge As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-30, Table 4.14-31, and Table 4.14-32, the Project would result in cumulatively- considerable impacts to the following merge/diverge analysis locations under all phases of the Project under E+P conditions:  I-215 Freeway – Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #1)  I-215 Freeway – Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard (Merge/Diverge Location #3) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the State Highway System (SHS) roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway merge/diverge locations would be significant and unavoidable under E+P conditions.  Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions – Phase 1 1. Intersections – Phase 1 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-64, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions until the required improvements are in place: Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 93  I-215 SB Ramps / Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #10)  I-215 SB Ramps / McCall Bl. (Intersection #11)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #13) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-64, improvements identified as part of DIF would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following intersections would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 1 traffic conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-64, implementation of the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-3, MM 4.14-4, MM 4.14-5, MM 4.14-6, MM 4.14-7, and MM 4.14-9 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2)  Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7)  Encanto Drive and Ethanac Road (Intersection #15)  Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33)  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40)  Menifee Road at SR-74 (Intersection #42)  Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44) 2. Roadway Segments – Phase 1 As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-73, Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions With Improvements, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #8)  Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #9)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-73, improvements identified as part of DIF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segment to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 94 improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following roadway segment would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 1 traffic conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Sherman Rd., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #33) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-73, the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-10, MM 4.14- 11, MM 4.14-12, and MM 4.14-16 would improve the LOS at the following roadway segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  McCall Bl., between Bradley Rd. and the I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., between the I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  McCall Bl., Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #23)  Menifee Rd., from Biscayne Ave to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #43) 3. Traffic Signal Warrants – Phase 1 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-64, payment of DIF fees, including the installation of a traffic signal, would improve the LOS at the intersection of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40) to an acceptable LOS C during both peak hours. Fair share payment for the traffic signal improvement for this intersection would be in accordance with City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.14-2, which requires payment of appropriate DIF fees. Although the Project Applicant would be required to pay appropriate DIF fees, it cannot be assured that the improvement would be in place at the time of occupancy for Phase 1 of the Project. Accordingly, Project impacts due to the signal warrant at the intersections of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard would remain significant and unavoidable on a cumulative basis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-2 requires the installation of a traffic signal at the following location, which would reduce the Project’s impacts due to signal warrants to less-than-significant levels:  Encanto Dr. at Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #15) 4. Basic Freeway Operations – Phase 1 As shown on DEIR Table 4.14-37, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts at the following freeway segments under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Case Rd. to Ethanac Rd. (Freeway Segment #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Ethanac Rd. to McCall Bl. (Freeway Segment #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, McCall Bl. to Newport Rd. (Freeway Segment #3) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway segment locations would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 95 5. Freeway Merge/Diverge – Phase 1 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-38, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to the following merge/diverge ramp locations a under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard (Merge/Diverge Location #3)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #4) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway merge/diverge locations would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions.  Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Conditions – Phase 2 1. Intersections – Phase 2 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-65, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  I-215 Southbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #10)  I-215 Southbound Ramps at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #11)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #13) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-65, improvements identified as part of DIF, TUMF, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-5, MM 4.14-7, and MM 4.14-8 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following intersection would represent near- term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 2 conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Encanto Drive and Ethanac Road (Intersection #15)  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40)  Menifee Road at SR-74 (Intersection #42) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-65, with implementation of the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-3, MM 4.14-4, MM 4.14-6, MM 4.14-8, MM 4.14-9, MM 4.14-14, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-17 and with planned improvements by DIF and/or TUMF (as applicable), the LOS at the following intersections would improve to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 96 therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road (Intersection #2)  Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7)  Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33)  Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44) 2. Roadway Segments – Phase 2 As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-74, Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Conditions With Improvements, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #8)  Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #9)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-74, improvements identified as part of DIF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segment to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following roadway segment would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 2 conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Sherman Rd., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #33) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-74, the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-10, MM 4.14- 11, MM 4.14-12, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-18, MM 4.14-19, and MM 4.14-20 would improve the LOS at the following roadway segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 2 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., Goetz Rd. to Murrieta Rd. (Roadway Segment #5)  McCall Bl., Bradley Rd. to the I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  McCall Bl., from Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #23)  McCall Bl., from Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #24)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 97  Menifee Rd., from Biscayne Ave to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #43) 3. Traffic Signal Warrants – Phase 2 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-65, payment of DIF fees, which would fund the installation of a traffic signal, would improve the LOS at the intersections of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40) to an acceptable LOS C during both peak hours. Fair share payment for the traffic signal improvement would be in accordance with City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.14-2, which requires payment of appropriate DIF fees. Although the Project Applicant would be required to pay appropriate DIF fees, it cannot be assured that the improvement would be in place at the time of occupancy for Phase 2 of the Project. Accordingly, Project impacts due to the signal warrant at the intersections of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard would remain significant and unavoidable on a cumulative basis for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-2 requires the installation of a traffic signal at the following location, which would reduce the Project’s impacts due to signal warrants to less-than-significant levels:  Encanto Dr. at Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #15) 4. Basic Freeway Operations – Phase 2 As shown on DEIR Table 4.14-43, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts at the following freeway segments under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Case Rd. to Ethanac Rd. (Freeway Segment #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Ethanac Rd. to McCall Bl. (Freeway Segment #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, McCall Bl. to Newport Rd. (Freeway Segment #3) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. 5. Freeway Merge/Diverge – Phase 2 As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-44, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to the following merge/diverge ramp locations a under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at Ethanac Rd. (Merge/Diverge Location #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard (Merge/Diverge Location #3)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #4) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway merge/diverge locations would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) conditions. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 98  Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Conditions – Project Buildout 1. Intersections – Project Buildout As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-66, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  I-215 Southbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #10)  I-215 Southbound Ramps at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #11)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #13)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #14) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-66, improvements identified as part of TUMF, DIF, and/or Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-5, MM 4.14-7, MM 4.14-8, MM 4.14-17, and MM 4.14-52 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following intersections would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 3 conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road (Intersection #15)  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40)  Menifee Road at SR-74 (Intersection #42) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-66, with implementation of the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-3, MM 4.14-4, MM 4.14-5, MM 4.14-6, MM 4.14-7, MM 4.14-9, MM 4.14-14, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-17, MM 4.14-26, MM 4.14-31, and MM 4.14-32 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near- term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Goetz Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #1)  Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2)  Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7)  Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #33)  Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44) 2. Roadway Segments – Project Buildout As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-67, the following roadway segments still are expected to operate at a deficient LOS E or F. However, the peak hour intersection analysis for the study area intersections on either end of these roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS during peak hours; thus, additional roadway segment widening is not recommended. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, roadway segment widening is Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 99 typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes. Accordingly, the Project’s significant impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under the Opening Year Cumulative (2025) scenario:  McCall Bl., Sun City Bl. to Bradley Rd. (Roadway Segment #20)  McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-67, completion of the improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #8)  Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #9)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-67, improvements identified as part of DIF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segment to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following roadway segment would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 3 conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Encanto Dr., McLaughlin Rd. to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #28)  Encanto Dr., Chambers Dr. to Shadel Rd. (Roadway Segment #30)  Encanto Dr., Shadel Rd. to McCall Bl. (Roadway Segment #31)  Sherman Rd., SR-74 to Ethanac Rd. (Roadway Segment #32)  Sherman Rd., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #33) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-67, improvements identified as part of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-10, MM 4.14-11, MM 4.14-12, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-18, MM 4.14-19, MM 4.14-20, and MM 4.14-30 would improve the LOS at the following segments to acceptable levels under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., Goetz Rd. to Murrieta Rd. (Roadway Segment #5)  McCall Bl., Bradley Rd. to the I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  McCall Bl., Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #23)  McCall Bl., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #24) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 100  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25)  Encanto Dr., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #27)  Menifee Rd., from Biscayne Ave to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #43) 3. Traffic Signal Warrants – Project Buildout As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-66, payment of DIF fees, which would fund installation of a traffic signal, would improve the LOS at the intersection of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40) to an acceptable LOS during both peak hours. Although the Project Applicant would be required to pay appropriate DIF fees, it cannot be assured that the improvements to this intersection, including a traffic signal, would be in place at the time of Project occupancy for Phase 3; accordingly, impacts to the intersection of Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard would remain significant and unavoidable on a cumulative basis under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. CRDR 4.14-4 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-2, MM 4.14-21, MM 4.14-22 and MM 4.14-23 require the installation of a traffic signal at the following locations, which would reduce the Project’s impacts due to signal warrants to less-than-significant levels:  Bradley Road at Cherry Hills Boulevard (Intersection #8)  Encanto Dr. at Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #15)  Encanto Dr. at McLaughlin Rd. (Intersection #16)  Encanto Dr. at Rouse Rd. (Intersection #17)  Encanto Dr. at Shadel Rd. (Intersection #19) 4. Basic Freeway Operations – Project Buildout As shown on DEIR Table 4.14-49, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts at the following freeway segments under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Case Rd. to Ethanac Rd. (Freeway Segment #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Ethanac Rd. to McCall Bl. (Freeway Segment #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, McCall Bl. to Newport Rd. (Freeway Segment #3) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions. 5. Freeway Merge/Diverge – Project Buildout As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-50, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to the following freeway merge/diverge locations under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at Ethanac Rd. (Merge/Diverge Location #2)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard (Merge/Diverge Location #3)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #4)  I-215 Freeway Northbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #8) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 101 At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway merge/diverge locations would be significant and unavoidable under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions.  Horizon Year (2040) Conditions 1. Intersections – Horizon Year As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-68, improvements identified as part of TUMF, in conjunction with Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-9, MM 4.14-14 , MM 4.14-17, MM 4.14-26, MM 4.14-31, MM 4.14-38, MM 4.14-24 , MM 4.14-43, MM 4.14-45, MM 4.14-48, MM 4.14-49, MM 4.14-53, MM 4.14-54, and MM 4.14-56 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Goetz Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #1)  I-215 Southbound Ramps at Bonnie Drive (Intersection #9)  I-215 Southbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #10)  I-215 Southbound Ramps at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #11)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at SR-74 (Intersection #12)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at Ethanac Road (Intersection #13)  I-215 Northbound Ramps at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #14)  Encanto Drive at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #20)  Trumble Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #22)  Sherman Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #27)  Antelope Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #36)  Palomar Rd. / SR-71 (Intersection #41)  Menifee Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #44) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-68, improvements planned as part of DIF and TUMF, in conjunction with Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-5, MM 4.14-7, MM 4.14-8, MM 4.14-17, MM 4.14-49, and MM 4.14-52 would improve the LOS at the following intersection to acceptable levels. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersection would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road (Intersection #15)  Antelope Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #36)  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40)  Menifee Road at SR-74 (Intersection #42) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-68, improvements identified as part of DIF, in conjunction with CRDR 4.14-4, CRDR 4.14-6, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-7, MM 4.14-22, MM 4.14-40, MM 4.14-23, MM 4.14-46, MM 4.14-47, , MM 4.14-50, and MM 4.14-51 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 102 acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following intersections would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Horizon Year (2040) conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Encanto Drive at McLaughlin Boulevard (Intersection #16)  Encanto Drive at Rouse Road (Intersection #17)  Encanto Drive at Chambers Avenue (Intersection #18)  Encanto Drive at Shadel Road (Intersection #19)  Sherman Road at McLaughlin Road (Intersection #28)  Sherman Road at Rouse Road (Intersection #29)  Sherman Road at Chambers Avenue (Intersection #31)  Antelope Road at Rouse Road (North) (Intersection #37)  Antelope Road at Rouse Road (South) (Intersection #38)  Antelope Road at Chambers Avenue (Intersection #39)  Antelope Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #40) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-68, with implementation of the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-4, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-32, MM 4.14-33, MM 4.14-34, MM 4.14-35, MM 4.14-36, MM 4.14-37, MM 4.14-42, MM 4.14-44, and MM 4.14-55 would improve the LOS at the following intersections to acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following intersections would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #2)  Murrieta Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #3)  Sun City Boulevard at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #4)  Barnett Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #5)  Case Road at Ethanac Road (Intersection #6)  Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard (Intersection #7)  Trumble Road at SR-74 (Intersection #21)  Sherman Road at SR-74 (Intersection #26)  Menifee Road at Rouse Road/Turtle Point Drive (Intersection #43) 2. Roadway Segments – Horizon Year As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-75, Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions With Improvements, the following roadway segments still are expected to operate at a deficient LOS E or F. However, the peak hour intersection analysis for the study area intersections on either end of these roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS during peak hours; thus, additional roadway segment widening is not recommended. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes. Because it cannot be assured that the required intersection improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project, the Project’s significant impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under the Horizon Year (2040) scenario: Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 103  SR-74, Bonnie Dr. to I-215 Northbound Ramps (Roadway Segment #1)  SR-74, I-215 Northbound Ramps to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #2)  McCall Bl., Sun City Bl. to Bradley Rd. (Roadway Segment #20)  McCall Bl., Bradley Rd. to I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  McCall Bl., Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #23) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-75, improvements identified as part of TUMF would improve the LOS at the following segments to acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  SR-74, Bonnie Dr. to I-215 NB Ramps (Roadway Segment #1)  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #8)  Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #9)  SR-74, Antelope Rd. to Palomar Rd. (Roadway Segment #10)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25) As shown in DEIR Table 4.14-75, improvements identified as part of DIF would improve the LOS at the following roadway segment to acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, Project impacts to the following roadway segment would represent near-term significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project for Phase 3 conditions prior to implementation of the required improvements:  Encanto Dr., McLaughlin Rd. to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #28)  Encanto Dr., Chambers Dr. to Shadel Rd. (Roadway Segment #30)  Encanto Dr., Shadel Rd. to McCall Bl. (Roadway Segment #31)  Sherman Rd., SR-74 to Ethanac Rd. (Roadway Segment #32)  Sherman Rd., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #33)  Sherman Rd., McLaughlin Rd. to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #34) As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-75, improvements identified as part of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-10, MM 4.14-11, MM 4.14-12, MM 4.14-16, MM 4.14-18, MM 4.14-19, MM 4.14-20, MM 4.14-57, MM 4.14- 59, MM 4.14-60, MM 4.14-61, MM 4.14-62, MM 4.14-63 , MM 4.14-30, MM 4.14-64, and MM 4.14-65 would improve the LOS at the following segments to acceptable levels under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, because the mitigation requires only fair share payments towards the cost of the improvements, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the proposed Project; therefore, near-term Project impacts to the following roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions until the required improvements are in place:  Ethanac Rd., Goetz Rd. to Murrieta Rd. (Roadway Segment #3) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 104  Ethanac Rd., Murrieta Rd. to Barnett Rd. (Roadway Segment #4)  Ethanac Rd., Goetz Rd. to Murrieta Rd. (Roadway Segment #5)  Ethanac Rd., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #6)  Ethanac Rd., Encanto Dr. to Trumble Rd. (Roadway Segment #7)  Ethanac Rd., Trumble Rd. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #8)  Ethanac Rd., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #9)  Rouse Rd., Antelope Rd. (N) to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #15)  McCall Bl., Bradley Rd. to the I-215 Freeway (Roadway Segment #21)  McCall Bl., I-215 Freeway to Encanto Dr. (Roadway Segment #22)  McCall Bl., Encanto Dr. to Sherman Rd. (Roadway Segment #23)  McCall Bl., Sherman Rd. to Antelope Rd. (Roadway Segment #24)  McCall Bl., Antelope Rd. to Menifee Rd. (Roadway Segment #25)  Encanto Dr., Ethanac Rd. to McLaughlin Rd. (Roadway Segment #27)  Menifee Rd., Ethanac Rd. to Biscayne Av. (Roadway Segment #42)  Menifee Rd., Biscayne Av. to Rouse Rd. (Roadway Segment #43)  Menifee Rd., Rouse Rd. to McCall Bl. (Roadway Segment #44)  Menifee Rd., McCall Bl. To Simpson Rd. (Roadway Segment #45) 3. Traffic Signal Warrants – Horizon Year City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.14-2 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-7 and MM 4.14- 49 include improvements requiring the installation of traffic signals at the following locations, which in conjunction with the other improvements identified in City Regulation and Design Requirement CRDR 4.14- 2 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-7 and MM 4.14-49 would ensure that the intersections listed below would operate at an acceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. However, it cannot be assured that the required improvements would be in place at the time of occupancy of Phase 3 of the Project; thus, Project impacts to the following intersections would be reduced to less-than-significant levels:  Sherman Rd. & Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #27)  Sherman Rd. & McLaughlin Rd. (Intersection #28)  Antelope Rd. & Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #36)  Antelope Rd. & Rouse Rd. (North) (Intersection #37)  Antelope Rd. & McCall Bl. (Intersection #40) Pursuant to CRDR 4.14-4, the Project Applicant would be required to signalize the Encanto Drive at Chambers Avenue (Intersection #18) as part of Phase 1 development, which would reduce impacts due to signalization to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-2, MM 4.14-21, MM 4.14-22, MM 4.14-23, and MM 4.14-47 the Project Applicant would be required to signalize the following intersections, which would reduce impacts to the following intersections due to signalization to below a level of significance.  Bradley Road at Cherry Hills Boulevard (Intersection #8)  Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road (Intersection #15)  Encanto Drive and McLaughlin Road (Intersection #16)  Encanto Drive at Shadel Road (Intersection #19) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 105  Sherman Road at Rouse Road (Intersection #29)  Sherman Road at Chambers Avenue (Intersection #31) Although no signals are proposed at the following locations that meet traffic signal warrants under Horizon Year (2040) conditions, DEIR Table 4.14-68 shows that the following intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) conditions without signalization. Notwithstanding, because the acceptable LOS relies upon fair share contributions and/or DIF payments, it cannot be assured that the required improvements needed to achieve an acceptable LOS would be in place. Therefore, Project impacts to the following intersections due to the need for signalization would be significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions:  Murrieta Rd. at Ethanac Rd. (Intersection #2)  Encanto Drive at Rouse Road (Intersection #17) 4. Basic Freeway Operations – Horizon Year As shown on DEIR Table 4.14-55, the Project would result in a direct impact at the following freeway segment under Horizon Year (2040) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, McCall Bl. to Newport Rd. (Freeway Segment #3) Additionally, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts at the following freeway segment under Horizon Year (2040) conditions:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Ethanac Rd. to McCall Bl. (Freeway Segment #2) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. 5. Freeway Merge/Diverge – Horizon Year As indicated in DEIR Table 4.14-56, the Project would result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to the following freeway merge/diverge locations:  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Road (Merge/Diverge Location #1)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Boulevard (Merge/Diverge Location #3)  I-215 Freeway Southbound, On-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #4)  I-215 Freeway Northbound, Off-Ramp at Ethanac Rd. (Merge/Diverge Location #6)  I-215 Freeway Northbound, Off-Ramp at McCall Bl. (Merge/Diverge Location #8) At this time, Caltrans has no fee programs or other improvement programs in place to address the deficiencies caused by development projects in the City of Menifee (or other neighboring jurisdictions) on the SHS roadway segments. Therefore, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impact to the above-listed freeway merge/diverge locations would be significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year (2040) conditions. References: DEIR Subsections 4.14.6 through 4.14.10. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 106 4.5 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(a)). According to the State CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6). The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(f)). CEQA also requires the feasibility of alternatives be considered. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and (when evaluating alternative project locations) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in the DEIR were identified in consideration of the following factors:  The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project;  The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project;  The feasibility of the alternative; and  The requirement of the State CEQA Guidelines to consider a “no project” alternative. 4.5.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(c)). Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, also do not need to be considered (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(f)(3)). As allowed by CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15125.6(f)(3)). CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites always be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site then this alternative should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternative site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2)). Based on a review of aerial photography, the City of Menifee General Plan Land Use Map, and a list of approved/pending development proposals within the City of Menifee, nearby portions of unincorporated Riverside County, and the City of Perris that are included in the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (EIR Technical Appendix K; refer to DEIR Table 4.0-1 for a list of cumulative developments), there are no other Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 107 available, undeveloped properties of similar size (i.e., approximately 331.0 acres) and physical characteristics that are zoned for residential development. Additionally, other undeveloped properties are not under current control of the Project Applicant, which is an additional hinderance to the feasibility of an off-site alternative. If alternative sites located within the City of Menifee not zoned for residential development are considered, there would not be any site that would allow for a master-planned residential community of the size and scope of the Project that would result in a substantial reduction of environmental impacts without creating new equivalent or more severe impacts to the environment. Development of the Project in an alternate location would have similar impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at its proposed location, with the potential for greater impacts. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, as listed above, are primarily the result of Project-generated traffic, which in turn are a result of the Project design itself, and not necessarily the physical setting or characteristics of the Project site; thus, implementing the Project at alternatives sites would not substantially reduce the Project’s impacts due to air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. On the contrary, it is likely that any alternate site location would be situated at greater distance to major transportation facilities, as the Project site is located immediately adjacent to the I-215 and would have direct access to the I-215 via Encanto Drive and McCall Boulevard. As such, developing the Project at an alternate site location likely would increase the Project’s traffic-related impacts, which in turn would exacerbate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts due to air quality and GHG emissions. Therefore, development of the Project site as proposed by the Project would result in less environmental impacts in the local area than would result from the development of another property. 4.5.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS Alternatives were selected because they would either reduce Project-related impacts or describe what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future on the Project site, and were selected for further analysis representing a reasonable range of alternatives that would be feasible from a development perspective. These alternatives include:  No Project/No Development Alternative (NDA): The No Project/No Development Alternative (NDA) considers no new development/disturbance on the Project site beyond that which occurs under existing conditions. As such, the approximately 331.0-acre Project site would continue to consist of vacant land that has been subject to regular discing as part of on-going fire abatement activities.  No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative (GPLUA): The No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative (GPLUA) considers development of the Project site in accordance with the site’s existing General Plan land use designations. Under existing conditions, the City of Menifee General Plan designates the Project site as “Specific Plan (SP)”; specifically, Exhibit LU-2, “Land Use Map,” from the Menifee General Plan shows the Project site designated as “Fleming Ranch SP” (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU-2). According to Exhibit LU-4, “Land Use Buildout Summary,” from the Menifee General Plan, the Fleming Ranch SP designation assumes the Project site would be developed with up to 1,588 dwelling units, up to 71,176 s.f. commercial retail uses, and up to 160,300 s.f. of commercial (non- retail) uses (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU-4). This Alternative assumes that the 160,300 s.f. of commercial (non-retail) uses would include 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses and 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with an 11.7-acre elementary school site; 47.6 acres of open space, and 38.4 acres of roadways in accordance with the uses shown in Menifee General Plan Exhibit LU-4, “Land Use Buildout Summary” for the Fleming Ranch SP (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU-4) Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 108  Reduced Project Alternative (RPA): The Reduced Project Alternative (RPA) would develop the Project site with a reduced number of dwelling units and commercial square footage in order to reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases, and transportation. The RPA would develop the Project site with 720 dwelling units (a reduction in the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project [1,061 dwelling units] by approximately one-third) and 180,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial land uses (a reduction in the square footage of freeway-oriented commercial land uses proposed by the Project [225,000 s.f.] by approximately 20%). As with the Project, the RPA would include 26.4 acres of water quality/detention basins, 7.9 acres of paseo/neighborhood parks, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, a 1.9-acre private recreation center, 6.3 acres of open space, and 38.6 acres of roadways. 4.5.3 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A. Description The No Project/No Development Alternative (NDA) considers no new development/disturbance on the Project site following completion of site reclamation activities beyond that which occurs under existing conditions. As such, the Project site would consist of undeveloped land that is routinely disced as part of on-going fire abatement activities. Under this Alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s roadway, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing (i.e., post-reclamation) conditions, in conformance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(B). B. Summary of Major Environmental Effects Implementation of the NDA would result in no physical environmental impacts beyond those that have historically occurred on the undeveloped property. Almost all effects of the Project would be avoided or lessened by the selection of this Alternative, although a few impacts, such as sedimentation impacts, would be increased under this Alternative. C. Feasibility Implementation of the NDA would leave the Project site in its current, undeveloped condition. Almost all effects of the proposed Project would be avoided or lessened by the selection of this Alternative, although a few impacts, such as sedimentation impacts, would be increased under this Alternative. While technically feasible, leaving the Project site in its undeveloped condition would not allow the Project Applicant to make a reasonable return on their investment in the property. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives; as such, the No Project Alternative is not a viable alternative under CEQA, although it is presented in the DEIR for disclosure purposes, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e). D. Comparative Merits The NDA would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives. This alternative would fail to make efficient use of an underutilized property and would not provide a complementary mix of land uses, including single-family residential, commercial, recreational, or open space. Furthermore, the NDA would fail to establish a master- planned community in a manner that is sensitive to the environmental as well as visually and functionally compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses. The NDA effectively takes topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints into consideration to minimize Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 109 alterations to natural landforms in a manner that is generally as effective as the Project. The NDA would not increase the available housing supply within the region and would not provide any homes in the area. The NDA would not provide a system of public or community facilities, including a public community park/community center, paseos/neighborhood parks, bike lanes, and trails to support development in an efficient and timely manner and meet the needs of project residents and residents of surrounding communities. Furthermore, the NDA would not achieve the following goals: ensure the community is developed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing, establish development phasing; or provide public benefits and long-term planning considerations because no residential community would be constructed. The NDA would fail to establish a land use plan that is consistent with the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies related to maximum building height and residential density. However, the NDA would be consistent with the provisions of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies because no structures would be located on the site. 4.5.4 NO PROJECT/GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ALTERNATIVE (GPLUA) A. Description The No Project/GPLUA considers development of the Project site in accordance with the site’s existing General Plan land use designations. Under existing conditions, the City of Menifee General Plan designates the Project site as “Specific Plan (SP);” specifically, Exhibit LU-2, “Land Use Map,” from the Menifee General Plan shows the Project site designated as “Fleming Ranch SP” (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU-2). According to Exhibit LU-4, “Land Use Buildout Summary,” from the Menifee General Plan, the Fleming Ranch SP designation assumes the Project site would be developed with up to 1,588 dwelling units, up to 71,176 s.f. commercial retail uses, and up to 160,300 s.f. of commercial (non-retail) uses (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU- 4). This Alternative assumes that the 160,300 s.f. of commercial (non-retail) uses would include 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses and 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses. This Alternative would also develop the Project site with an 11.7-acre elementary school site, 47.6 acres of open space, and 38.4 acres of roadways in accordance with the uses shown in Menifee General Plan Exhibit LU-4, “Land Use Buildout Summary” for the Fleming Ranch SP (Menifee, 2013a, Exhibit LU-4). This Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would develop the Project site in accordance with the General Plan land use designation (SP) planned for the Project site under existing conditions. Refer to DEIR Figure 2-6, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, for an illustration of the existing land use designations applicable to the Project site pursuant to the Menifee General Plan. B. Environmental Analysis 1. Aesthetics Under existing conditions, the Project site does not afford any prominent vistas or views open to the public. As such, development of the Project site with the GPLUA would result in similar less-than-significant impacts as the Project with respect to effects to scenic vistas. Under the GPLUA, the visual character and quality of the site would be changed from relatively flat, undeveloped land historically utilized for dryland farming, to that of a master-planned residential community. The Project and the GPLUA would be required to comply with the design guidelines required of the adopted specific plan, which would ensure that future development on-site is aesthetically pleasing and not offensive. The Project site is not located within the viewshed of any officially designated scenic highways, and would not be visually prominent from any County Eligible facilities. Therefore, the GPLUA would result in similar less-than-significant impacts to scenic resources or scenic vistas as compared to the Project. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 110 As with the Project, the GPLUA’s potential to create a new source of light or glare that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area assuming mandatory compliance with the lighting provisions provided in City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 6.01. Therefore, the GPLUA would result in similar impacts as compared to the Project related to the creation of a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 2. Air Quality Construction characteristics associated with the GPLUA would be similar to the Project. Additionally, the total physical disturbance area would be identical to the Project; thus, air quality impacts associated with the construction of the GPLUA would be similar to the Project, though slightly increased due to the increased number of homes, non-residential square footage, and elementary school on the site under the GPLUA. Grading would be required over the same area of the Project site (i.e., approximately 331.0 acres of physical impacts); thus, near-term grading-related air quality and odor impacts would be similar to the Project. Additionally, during construction, neither the GPLUA nor the Project would result in significant impacts due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Regardless, due to the increase in the number of dwelling units, commercial square footage, and addition of a school site at the Project site under the GPLUA, air quality impacts during construction under the GPLUA would be slightly increased in comparison to the Project. Under long-term operating conditions, the primary source of air quality pollutants from both the Project and the GPLUA would occur as a result of vehicular traffic. Due to the increase in number of dwelling units as well as non-residential building area, the GPLUA would result in increased vehicle trips in comparison to the Project and therefore increased vehicular-related air quality pollutant emissions as compared to the Project. Thus, the GPLUA would exacerbate the Project’s significant and unavoidable operational impacts due to emissions of VOCs and NOX. Additionally, due to increased operational-related emissions, the GLPUA would result in an increased impact due to a conflict with the 2016 SCAQMD AQMP, as compared to the Project. Both the Project and the GPLUA have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, and would be required to implement construction mitigation measures to reduce impacts localized emission impacts to less-than-significant levels. Odor impacts under both the GPLUA and Project would be similar, as the operation of residential and/or commercial land uses would not result in the generation of substantial amounts of odor. Construction-level odors would occur but would be less than significant under both the Project and the GPLUA. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to air quality as compared to the Project. 3. Biological Resources The GPLUA would have a similar development footprint compared to the Project and would involve similar limits of physical disturbance that could impact sensitive plant and animal species. Thus, the Project and the GPLUA would result in direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts due to the removal of burrowing owl habitat, which requires mitigation to ensure impacts do not occur to nesting burrowing owls. Additionally, the Project and the GPLUA also have the potential to impact active native bird nests protected by the MBTA if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). With mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels under both the Project and GPLUA. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 111 The Project and the No Project/ General Plan Land Use Alternative would similarly impact 0.68 acre of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters and MSHCP unvegetated riverine features on-site. Additionally, the Project may have the potential to impact 0.02 acre of ACOE/RWQCB jurisdiction associated with potential off-site improvements. As such, both development scenarios would trigger the need for a DBESP (under the Western Riverside County MSHCP) requiring a minimum 3:1 ratio through off-site mitigation, targeting in- lieu fee mitigation with a local Resource Conservation District (RCD), or other approved mitigation bank; a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); a Section 401 Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. With mitigation, impacts would be similar and less than significant. Similar to the Project, the GPLUA would result in no impacts to migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites because the Project area lacks migratory wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites, and does not occur within MSHCP Cores or Linkages. The No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative also would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, and similar to the Project, the GPLUA would have no impact with regard to such policies and ordinances. With adherence to the Applicable City Regulations and Design Requirements (including payment of Western Riverside County MSHCP fees) and required mitigation measures discussed above, the GPLUA would result in similar less-than-significant impacts to biological resources in comparison to the Project. 4. Cultural Resources As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any significant historical resources as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 15064.5. Therefore, and similar to the Project, the GPLUA would result in less-than-significant impacts to historical resources. As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any significant archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. The Project includes mitigation requiring controlled grading within the area surrounding Site CA-RIV-9288 and Site CA-RIV-9289 and mitigation to ensure the on-site resources are preserved in perpetuity. Similarly, the GPLUA would be required to implement mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significance. Site P-33-028165 would be located within designated open space and would not be subject to any impacts with Project implementation. However, under the GPLUA Site P-33-028165 would be impacted and would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource. The GPLUA would be required to reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. Potential mitigation measures would include preservation or avoidance of the resource. Under both the Project and the GPLUA, there is a high potential that archaeological resources may be present beneath the Project site’s subsurface, and may be impacted by future ground-disturbing construction activities associated with both the Project and this Alternative. As with the Project, the GPLUA would similarly be subject to mitigation measures to protect cultural resources pursuant to CEQA requirements which would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a level below significance. Potential mitigation measures would include retention of an archaeological monitor during ground disturbance activities; controlled grading in the areas surrounding existing known resources on-site; training construction workers how to recognize potential archaeological resources; development and implementation of a treatment plan for any significant archaeological resources identified during grading activities; processing and curation of significant archaeological resources encountered at the Project site; and submittal of a final archaeological report to the City of Menifee to document any significant archaeological findings. With implementation of such mitigation measures, the GPLUA would result in similarly less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources as compared to the Project. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 112 The Project site does not contain known human remains. However, there are known human remains identified within the vicinity of the Project. Both the Project and the GPLUA would have the potential to uncover human remains during construction activities. Both the Project and the GPLUA would be subject to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code, section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq., which is applied to the Project as a mitigation measure, and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254 (r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of required mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with human remains to below a level of significance. 5. Energy As with the Project, construction and operational activities under the GPLUA would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the Project and GPLUA can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. Neither the Project nor the GPLUA would cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project and GPLUA would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. As such, impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation would be less than significant requiring no mitigation for both the Project and GPLUA. Impacts would be similar. The Project and GPLUA both would implement energy-saving features and operational measures. Notably, the Project and GPLUA would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Menifee. The Project and GPLUA would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the operational activities of the Project and GPLUA would be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, neither the Project nor the GPLUA would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, and would be similar to the impacts associated with the Project. 6. Geology and Soils The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, but as with all areas of southern California, future buildings, residents, and visitors have the potential to be exposed to ground shaking. The potential impact would be the same for the Project and the GPLUA, and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to standard regulatory requirements and the mitigation presented in EIR Subsection 4.6.7. Both the Project and the GPLUA would be subject to mandatory regulatory requirements, including the preparation and implementation of a water quality management plan (WQMP) for post-development Project operation, a future SWPPP for construction activities, and compliance to applicable City ordinances, which would reduce erosion impacts on- and off-site during construction to less-than-significant levels for both the Project and the GPLUA. There is a remote chance the Project site could be subject to hazards associated with landslides, lateral spreading, or liquefaction. This is evaluated as a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation for both the Project and the GPLUA. Impacts due to subsidence would be low, however due to the unpredictability of ground subsidence factors, impacts would be considered significant for both the Project and GPLUA. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 113 Additionally, the Project site has a slight potential for hydro-collapse, and would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Mandatory compliance with standard regulatory requirements and the mitigation set forth in EIR Subsection 4.6.7 would reduce impacts due to unstable geologic units to below a level of significance. Both the Project and the GPLUA have the potential to be impacted by expansive soils, but such impacts would be similar and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in EIR Subsection 4.6.7. Similar to the Project, the GPLUA would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, nor are any such septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems present on-site under existing conditions. No impact would occur under the Project or GPLUA. Because the Project site was identified as containing paleontologically significant soils with a high potential for uncovering fossil resources and the physical disturbance area under the Project and the GPLUA would be identical, impacts to paleontological resources would be identical under the Project and the GPLUA and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the application of mitigation measures requiring monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would involve the construction of up to 1,061 single-family dwelling units, 225,000 s.f. of freeway- oriented commercial land uses, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, a 1.9-acre private recreation center, paseo/neighborhood parks on 7.9 acres, conserved open space on 6.3 acres, detention/water quality basins on 26.4 acres, and roadways on 38.6 acres. Under the GPLUA, the Project site would be developed with up to 1,588 dwelling units, up to 71,176 s.f. of commercial retail uses, up to 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses, up to 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses, an 11.7-acre elementary school site, 47.6 acres of open space, and 38.4 acres of roadways. Due to the increase in the number of proposed structures/buildings, near- term construction-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the GPLUA would be increased in comparison to the Project. Under long-term operating conditions, the GPLUA would also result in an increase of GHG emissions associated with the site in comparison to the Project because it proposes more dwelling units and commercial square footage than the Project, and thus would result in more average daily vehicular trips. Thus, when the GHG emissions associated with the GPLUA are taken into account, it is likely that the GPLUA would generate an increased amount of MTCO2e per SP as the Project, and any such emissions would still likely exceed the SCAQMD Threshold for 2025 of 4.2 MTCO2e per SP. Impacts due to GHG emissions and due to a conflict with the reduction targets of SB 32 would thus be significant and unavoidable under both the GPLUA and the Project, and the level of impact would be similar under both. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the Project. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land uses that would occur on-site under the GPLUA would have the same or similar potential to handle and store hazardous material as the Project during both construction and operation, with the exception that the 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses proposed under the GPLUA would likely entail storage and/or usage of greater quantities of hazardous materials compared to the residential and freeway-oriented commercial land uses proposed by the Project. With mandatory regulatory compliance, neither the GPLUA nor the Project would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment during construction or long-term operation. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 114 Land uses under the Project and the GPLUA generally would not expose the nearby Hans Christenson Middle School to significant risk associated with hazardous materials, although such risks would be slightly greater under the GPLUA due to the 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses proposed under the GPLUA. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5; thus, no impacts would occur under the Project or the GPLUA. The Project site is located within the AIA for the MARB, and the Project was revised by the ALUC on October 26, 2017, which found that the Project would not conflict with the MARB ALUCP, subject to several conditions that would be enforced by the City as part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project. Because the land uses under the GPLUA are similar to the Project, it also can be concluded that the GPLUA also would be consistent with the AIA for the MARB, subject to standard conditions of approval. Additionally, neither the Project nor the GPLUA would be exposed to hazards associated with private airport operations, including the Perris Valley Airport. The Project and the GPLUA would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency facilities exist on the Project site, and the site does not serve as an emergency evacuation route. Thus, no impact would occur under either the Project or the GPLUA. The northeastern portion of the Project site is located within a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” while the rest of the Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Zone. Both the Project and the GPLUA would reduce wildfire-related impacts to less-than-significant levels through mandatory compliance with fire protection requirements. Thus, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project and the GPLUA would have similar less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to hazards and hazardous materials as compared to the Project. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction and operational characteristics of the Project and the GPLUA would be similar. Thus, with implementation of the BMPs from the SWPPP for construction activities and a project-specific WQMP for post-development Project operation, as well as implementation of drainage plans that include water quality/detention basins, both the Project and GPLUA would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to water quality. Neither the Project nor the GPLUA would involve the direct extraction of groundwater. Both the Project and the GPLUA would result in similar amounts of impervious surface area; however, it is not expected that the Project or GPLUA would result in adverse impacts to groundwater recharge. Implementation of the BMPs from a Project-specific SWPPP during construction and a site-specific WQMP during post-development Project operation, as well as construction of on-site water quality/detention basins would ensure that construction and operation of the Project and GPLUA would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, contribute runoff storm water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Accordingly, impacts under the Project and the GPLUA would be similar and would be less than significant. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 115 Both the Project and the GPLUA would be required to implement storm water detention basins in order to ensure that peak storm water flow rates are reduced in comparison to existing conditions, and would reduce potential impacts associated with flooding to less-than-significant levels. The Project site is not subject to 100-year flood hazards. Thus, no impact would occur due to flood hazards under either the Project or GPLUA. The western portion of the Project site has been identified as occurring within a dam inundation zone. Both the Project and the GPLUA would be required to comply with the City of Menifee General Plan “Implementation Actions” applicable to dam inundation as well as the construction of on-site storm water quality/detention basins on-site, which would ensure that any potential dam inundation hazards associated with future development would be less than significant. Thus, impacts under the Project and GPLUA would be similar and would be less than significant. Based on the 4.5-mile distance of Canyon Lake (the nearest large body of water) from the Project site, the Project and GPLUA would not be subject to inundation by seiches associated with the body of water. Impacts associated with inundation by seiche would be less than significant for both the Project and GPLUA. Additionally, due to the approximately 33-mile distance of the Project site from the Pacific Ocean, there is no potential for a tsunami to affect the Project site, and no impact would occur under either alternative. With implementation of the BMPs from the Project-specific SWPPP during construction and a site-specific WQMP during post-development Project operation, as well as Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 (refer to EIR Subsection 4.6.7) requiring implementation of the recommendations from the Project-specific “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation” (EIR Technical Appendix F1), hazards associated with mudflows would be less than significant for the Project and GPLUA. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to hydrology and water quality as compared to the Project. 10. Land Use and Planning Neither the GPLUA nor the Project would result in the physical division of an established community; thus, impacts would be similar and would be less than significant. Both the Project and the GPLUA would entail changing the site’s existing zoning classifications. Both the Project and the GPLUA would be consistent with the Menifee General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (SP); however, the Project includes the proposed Legado Specific Plan (SP 2017-187) which would entail a different land use plan than the existing Fleming Ranch Specific Plan that pertains to the site’s General Plan land use designation of SP. The Project and the GPLUA would result in similar insignificant environmental effects due to an inconsistency or incompatibility associated with the existing or proposed zoning classifications or land use designations. Additionally, both the Project and the GPLUA would be consistent with all applicable policies of the Menifee General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Although impacts would be less than significant under the Project and the GPLUA, the GPLUA would more effectively meet the needs of the City’s affordable housing sites in the Housing Element as identified for the Project site. Under the GPLUA, 344 units would be provided to meet the City’s Very Low and Low income housing requirements and 1,384 units to meet the City’s Moderate and Above Moderate income housing requirements. The Project would provide 1,061 units to meet the City’s Moderate and Above Moderate income housing requirements and would not provide any Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 116 units to meet the City’s Very Low and Low income housing requirements. Thus, although impacts under the Project and the GPLUA would be less than significant, the GPLUA would reduce impacts as compared to the Project. 11. Noise During near-term construction, the types of construction activities conducted on the site would be similar under the GPLUA and the Project; however, given the greater development intensity proposed by the GPLUA, it would result in the construction of more building area on-site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the duration of noise impacts during the building construction and architectural coating phasing would increase under the GPLUA as compared to the Project. Regardless, the types of construction equipment used and the types of construction activities conducted on-site would be similar under the GPLUA and the Project, and the peak daily noise levels generated during the construction phase would also be similar and are expected to be less than significant. As noted, construction activities under the Project and GPLUA would be similar. Based on the FTA vibration standard of 80 VdB for annoyance, the construction activities under the Project and GPLUA would exceed the standard at receiver locations R1 and R9. Therefore, vibration impacts at locations R1 and R9 represent a temporary significant impact during construction activities under both the GPLUA and Project, and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by both the Project and the GPLUA primarily would be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, parking, landscape maintenance, barking dogs, and other amplified sounds typically found in a master-planned community. Under the Project, a total of 1,061 residential units, 225,000 s.f. of commercial retail space, and 38.6 acres of roadways would be constructed and operated, which would be less intense compared to the GPLUA which would result in the development of up to 1,588 dwelling units, 71,176 s.f. of commercial retail uses, 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses, 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses, an 11.7-acre elementary school site, and 38.4 acres of roadways. Accordingly, the Project would result in a decrease in traffic as compared to the GPLUA, and it can reasonably be assumed that long-term operational-related noise on the local roadway system under the GPLUA would be increased as compared to the Project. Both the Project and the GPLUA would contribute unmitigated, worst-case construction noise level increases resulting in significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation would be required under both the Project and GPLUA requiring the construction of temporary noise barriers adjacent to impacted receiver locations, which would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Due to the higher intensity of construction under the GPLUA, such impacts would be slightly increased in comparison to the Project. Both the Project and the GPLUA would be located within the Airport Influence Area for the March Air Reserve Base and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels; thus, a similar less-than-significant impact would occur. The Project and GPLUA are not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; thus, a similar less-than-significant impact would occur. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to noise as compared to the Project. 12. Public Services The Project proposes the development of 1,061 homes, 225,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial land uses, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, and 7.9 acres of paseos/neighborhood parks. As previously Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 117 stated, the GPLUA would develop the Project site with up to 1,588 dwelling units, up to 71,176 s.f. of commercial retail uses, up to 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses, up to 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses, and an 11.7-acre elementary school site. Thus, the GPLUA would result in increased demand for police, fire, library, school, and health services as compared to the Project. However, the GPLUA would provide an elementary school site, which would reduce the GPLUA’s demand on elementary school services and would provide a beneficial public service to the community. Although the GPLUA would provide an 11.7-acre elementary school site, the increased number of proposed dwelling units would result in a higher student population as compared to the Project. Therefore, impacts to public services under the GPLUA would be increased compared to the less-than-significant impacts that would occur under the Project due to the increased number of dwelling units, increased non-residential square footage, and the addition of the elementary school site. Thus, a greater impact to public services would occur under the GPLUA as compared to the less-than- significant impacts that would occur as a result of the Project. 13. Recreation The GPLUA would have a higher demand for recreation facilities than the Project. Based on the population rates listed in City Council Resolution No. 15-143 (3.164 persons/household), the GPLUA would result in a total future population of 5,024 persons (1,588 homes × 3.164 persons/household = persons). Specifically, the 5,024 residents that would be generated by the GPLUA would result in a demand for 25.1 acres of parkland (5,024 residents × 5.0 acres of parkland/1,000 residents = 25.1 acres of parkland), as compared to the 16.8 acres of parkland demand that would occur under the Project (as discussed in EIR Subsection 4.13, Recreation). The Project would provide 20.8 acres of parkland (exceeding the parkland requirement by 4.0 acres) and the GPLUA would provide 40.2 acres of parkland (exceeding the parkland requirement by 15.1 acres); therefore, both the Project and the GPLUA would provide adequate parkland to support the population density. Although the Project and the GPLUA would provide adequate parkland to support the population density, it should be noted that the GPLUA would provide 15.1 acres of additional parkland above the parkland requirement, whereas the Project would provide 4.0 acres of additional parkland above the parkland requirement. Based on the foregoing, the GPLUA would result in similar less-than-significant impacts as compared to the Project with respect to the topic of recreation; however, it should be noted the GPLUA would provide a greater amount of excess parkland as compared to the Project. 14. Transportation Implementation of the GPLUA would result in the construction and operation of 1,588 dwelling units, up to 71,176 s.f. of commercial retail uses, up to 108,311 s.f. of commercial office uses, up to 51,989 s.f. of light industrial uses, and an 11.7-acre elementary school site. By comparison, implementation of the Project would result in 1,061 homes, 225,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial land uses, and a 12.9-acre community park/community center. Thus, due to the greater quantity of dwelling units, non-residential square footage, and the addition of an elementary school, the GPLUA would generate more vehicle trips and thus result in more traffic compared to the Project. Because the GPLUA would result in more overall traffic as compared to the Project, it would likely result in the need for more off-site improvements than is required for the Project. As with the Project, the GPLUA would result in a number of cumulatively-considerable and unavoidable impacts to intersections, roadway segments, signal warrant locations, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge locations, although impacts under the GPLUA would be greater than the Project due to the increased intensity of use associated with the GPLUA. Neither the Project or the GPLUA would conflict with adopted policies, plan, or programs regarding alternative modes of transportation. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 118 Improvements under both the GPLUA and the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts to these issues would be similar under the GPLUA and the Project. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to transportation as compared to the Project. 15. Tribal Cultural Resources Implementation of the GPLUA would result additional areas of physical impacts as compared to the Project, including grading in the 6.8-acre area designated for open space by the Project. Two tribal cultural resources were found on-site (Site CA-RIV-9289 and Site P-33-028165), and impacts to these tribal cultural resources would be significant prior to mitigation with implementation of the Project; however, these tribal cultural resources would be preserved within the Project’s on-site open space area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 and the area surrounding the tribal cultural resources would be subject to controlled grading pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-8. However, under the GPLUA Site CA-RIV-9289 and Site P-33-028165 would be impacted and would cause a significant impact to tribal cultural resources. The GPLUA would be required to reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. Potential mitigation measures would include preservation or avoidance of the resource in consultation with Native American Tribes; and controlled grading in the areas surrounding existing known resources on-site. Although there is a high potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources that may be buried beneath the site’s surface, both the Project and the GPLUA would be required to implement mitigation measures (MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9 with implementation of the Project), which would preclude the potential for significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. In the event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the Project and the GPLUA would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq., applied to the Project as Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9, and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254(r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of required mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with human remains to below a level of significance. Accordingly, impacts would be similar under both the Project and GPLUA, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the required mitigation. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The GPLUA would result in an increased demand for water, sewer, and storm water drainage service/facilities than the Project due to the increase in the number of residences, increased non-residential square footage, and the addition of the elementary school. In addition, the GPLUA would result in an increased demand for solid waste collection and disposal services as compared to the Project. Neither the Project nor the GPLUA would result in significant direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts to utilities and service systems; however, impacts would be increased under the GPLUA due to the increased development intensity. In conclusion, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts overall to utilities and service systems as compared to the Project. 17. Wildfire Due to temporary lane closures that may occur during the construction phase of both the Project and the GPLUA, construction activities may conflict with emergency access routes and access to nearby uses during Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 119 frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road. Construction traffic would be required to comply with a temporary traffic control plan that meets the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Although it is anticipated a less-than-significant impact would occur with the requirement to implement a temporary traffic control plan during construction, out of an abundance of caution, a significant impact would occur under both the Project and GPLUA. Impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels under both the Project and the GPLUA, and the level of impact would be the same. The Project site features relatively level topography with a small knoll present in the northeastern portion of the site. Under existing conditions, the majority of the Project site is not identified as being subject to wildfires, while the northeastern corner is identified as a “high fire hazard severity zone.” With development of the Project site under either the Project or the GPLUA, the site would be developed with urban land uses. Proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with relevant fire codes, frontage improvements that would create buffers, and the property would contain irrigated landscaped elements that would have a low potential for causing or exacerbating wildfire risks. Although there is a potential for major fire events in the local area, the potential for residents and/or workers to be exposed to excessive pollutant concentrations from wildfires is no different from much of the Southern California region. Additionally, there are no components of the Project or the GPLUA that would have the potential to result in or contribute to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; on the contrary, development of the Project site as proposed under either alternative would reduce the risk of wildfire hazards in the local area. As such, impacts would be less than significant under both the GPLUA and the Project, and the level of impact would be similar. Both the Project and the GPLUA would involve frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road, and would construct local connections to infrastructure for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Additionally, neither the Project nor the GPLUA proposes or requires any fuel modification zones to address fire hazards. Proposed improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road would reduce fire risks in the local area, while all of the infrastructure connections would occur within improved roadway rights- of-way within the immediate vicinity under both the Project and the GPLUA. There are no components of the proposed infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As such, impacts under the GPLUA and the Project would be less than significant, and the level of impact would be similar. The northeastern portion of the Project site, consisting of a small knoll is located within a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” while the rest of the Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Zone. Both the Project and the GPLUA would provide buffer distance of 100 feet as provided by roadways surrounding the Project site and irrigated landscaped parkways would reduce the site’s potential for fire hazards to below a level of significance. As such, both the Project and GPLUA would result in less-than-significant impacts due to the exposure of 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, and the level of impact would be similar. E. Summary of Major Environmental Effects As compared to the Project, the GPLUA would result in increased impacts to the following issue areas: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise (long- term), public services, transportation, and utilities/service systems. The GPLUA would result in similar impacts as the Project in the following issue areas: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 120 and soils, land use and planning, noise (short-term), paleontological resources, and recreation. The GPLUA would not result in reduced impacts in comparison to the Project under any issue area. F. Feasibility Although this alternative would be less effective at meeting the Project’s objectives, the GPLUA nonetheless would be a feasible alternative to the Project. Adoption of the GPLUA would, however, generally result in similar or increased environmental effects as compared to the Project, particularly increased air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation impacts. G. Comparative Merits The GPLUA would meet some of the Project’s objectives, though in most cases less effectively than the Project. The GPLUA would efficiently develop the underutilized Project site with a complementary mix of land uses (residential, commercial, light industrial, school, and open space) that would include residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses in a manner that would be generally as effective as the Project. The GPLUA would establish a mixed-use master-planned community (residential, commercial, light industrial, school, and open space land uses) that would be visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses, and with a design that takes topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints into consideration. The GPLUA would effectively increase the available housing supply within the region by providing detached single-family homes in traditional subdivision layouts that will be marketable within the evolving economic profile of the City of Menifee and surrounding communities; however, the GPLUA would not meet the Project’s objective of providing single- family housing because it would also include high density multi-family dwelling units throughout the Project site. The GPLUA would include recreational facilities, and therefore would accomplish Project Objective E. The GPLUA would require a Specific Plan document and would thus accomplish Project Objective F requiring project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatments, and other similar design features that would ensure the community is developed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing manner as effectively as the Project. The GPLUA would likely be developed in a phased manner, thus the GPLUA would accomplish Project Objective G (to establish development phasing that results in logical coordinated growth). The GPLUA would accomplish Project Objective H as effectively as the Project, because it would provide public benefits and long-term planning considerations with implementation of the required Specific Plan document. The GPLUA would accomplish Project Objective I as effectively as the Project, because it would achieve consistency with the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies related to maximum building height and residential density since the Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of the existing mapped March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Map which does not have any restrictions on residential density, building heights, or number of people per acre. 4.5.5 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (RPA) A. Description The Reduced Project Alternative (RPA) would develop the Project site with a reduced number of dwelling units and commercial square footage in order to reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation and due to air quality and GHG emissions. The RPA would develop the Project site with 720 dwelling units (a reduction in the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project [1,061 dwelling units] by approximately one-third) and 180,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial land uses (a reduction in the square footage of freeway-oriented commercial land uses proposed by the Project [225,000 s.f.] by approximately Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 121 20%). As with the Project, the RPA would include 26.4 acres of water quality/detention basins, 7.9 acres of paseos/neighborhood parks, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, a 1.9-acre private recreation center, 6.3 acres of open space, and 38.6 acres of roadways. This Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental effects of the Project against an alternative that would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation and due to air quality GHG emissions by reducing the total number of dwelling units and commercial square footage on the Project site. B. Environmental Analysis 1. Aesthetics Similar to the Project, the RPA would not result in damage to any scenic resources on-site that are visually prominent from off-site locations. The Project and RPA also would not obstruct distant views of hills and mountains that frame the Project’s viewshed. Additionally, future development on-site under both the Project and RPA would be required to comply with the Design Guidelines of the proposed Legado Specific Plan, which have been crafted specifically to ensure future development on-site is not aesthetically offensive. Thus, under both the Project and RPA, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and similar. The Project site is not located within the viewshed of any officially designated scenic highways, and would not be visually prominent from any County Eligible facilities. Therefore, the RPA would result in similar less- than-significant impacts to scenic resources or scenic vistas as compared to the Project. Under the RPA, the visual character and quality of the site would be changed from relatively flat, undeveloped land historically utilized for dryland farming, to that of a master-planned residential community. The Project and the RPA would be required to comply with the design guidelines required of the adopted specific plan, which would ensure that future development on-site is aesthetically pleasing and not offensive. As such, impacts under the RPA would be similar to the Project and would result in less-than-significant impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Both the Project and the RPA would be subject to the lighting provisions of the City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 6.01 and the outdoor lighting design guidelines specified in the Legado Specific Plan, which would minimize effects to daytime and nighttime views in the area associated with the Project or the RPA. Light and glare impacts would be similar under the RPA and the Project and would be less than significant. 2. Air Quality Construction characteristics associated with the RPA would be similar to the Project, because the total physical disturbance area would be identical to the Project; thus, air quality impacts associated with the construction of the RPA would be similar to the Project, though slightly reduced due to the reduced number of homes and non-residential square footage on the site under the RPA. Grading would be required over the same area of the Project site (i.e., approximately 331.0 acres of physical impacts); thus, near-term grading-related air quality and odor impacts would be similar to the Project. Additionally, during construction, neither the RPA nor the Project would result in significant impacts due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Regardless, due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units and commercial square footage under the RPA, air quality impacts during construction under the RPA would be slightly reduced in comparison to the Project. Under long-term operating conditions, the primary source of air quality pollutants from both the Project and the RPA would occur as a result of vehicular traffic. Due to the decrease in number of dwelling units as well as commercial retail area, the RPA would result in a reduction in vehicle trips in comparison to the Project by Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 122 approximately 35.7%, and therefore would result in decreased vehicular-related air quality pollutant emissions as compared to the Project. Based on this level of reduction, the RPA would avoid the Project’s long-term direct and cumulatively-considerable impact due to PM10 emissions, but would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, and PM2.5. Additionally, due to decreased operational-related emissions, the RPA would result in a reduced impact due to a conflict with the 2016 SCAQMD AQMP, as compared to the Project, although impacts still would be significant and unavoidable. Both the Project and the RPA have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, and would be required to implement construction mitigation measures to reduce impacts localized emission impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, due to the reduced duration and intensity of construction activities under the RPA, impacts would be slightly reduced. Odor impacts under both the RPA and Project would be similar, as the operation of residential and/or commercial land uses would not result in the generation of substantial amounts of odor. Construction-level odors would occur but would be less than significant under both the Project and the RPA. However, due to the reduced duration and intensity of construction activities under the RPA, impacts would be slightly reduced. 3. Biological Resources The RPA would have a similar development footprint compared to the Project and would involve similar limits of physical disturbance that could impact sensitive plant and animal species. Thus, the Project and the RPA would result in direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts due to the removal of burrowing owl habitat, which requires mitigation to ensure impacts do not occur to nesting burrowing owls. Additionally, the Project and the RPA also have the potential to impact active native bird nests protected by the MBTA if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). With mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels under both the Project and RPA. The Project and the RPA would similarly impact 0.68 acre of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters and MSHCP unvegetated riverine features on-site. Additionally, the Project may have the potential to impact 0.02 acre of ACOE/RWQCB jurisdiction associated with potential off-site improvements. As such, both development scenarios would trigger the need for a DBESP (under the Western Riverside County MSHCP) requiring a minimum 3:1 ratio through off-site mitigation, targeting in-lieu fee mitigation with a local RCD, or other approved mitigation bank; a Section 404 Permit from the ACOE; a Section 401 Permit from the RWQCB; and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. With mitigation, impacts would be similar and less than significant. Similar to the Project, the RPA would result in no impacts to migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites because the Project area lacks migratory wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites, and does not occur within MSHCP Cores or Linkages. The RPA also would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, and similar to the Project, the RPA would have no impact with regard to such policies and ordinances. With adherence to the Applicable City Regulations and Design Requirements (including payment of Western Riverside County MSHCP fees) and required mitigation measures discussed above, the RPA would result in similar less-than-significant impacts to biological resources in comparison to the Project. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 123 4. Cultural Resources As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any significant historical resources as defined in CCR, section 15064.5. Therefore, and similar to the Project, the RPA would result in less-than-significant impacts to historical resources. As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any significant archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. The Project includes mitigation requiring controlled grading within the area surrounding Site CA-RIV-9288 and Site CA-RIV-9289 and mitigation to ensure the on-site resources are preserved in perpetuity. Similarly, the RPA would be required to implement mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significance. Site P-33-028165 would be located within designated open space and would not be subject to any impacts with Project implementation. Similarly, Site P-33-028165 would be located within designated open space and would not be subject to any impacts with implementation. Under both the Project and the RPA, there is a high potential that archaeological resources may be present beneath the Project site’s subsurface, and may be impacted by future ground-disturbing construction activities associated with both the Project and this Alternative. As with the Project, the RPA would similarly be subject to mitigation measures to protect cultural resources pursuant to CEQA requirements which would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a level below significance. Potential mitigation measures would include retention of an archaeological monitor during ground disturbance activities; controlled grading in the areas surrounding existing known resources on-site; training construction workers how to recognize potential archaeological resources; development and implementation of a treatment plan for any significant archaeological resources identified during grading activities; processing and curation of significant archaeological resources encountered at the Project site; and submittal of a final archaeological report to the City of Menifee to document any significant archaeological findings. With implementation of such mitigation measures, the RPA would result in similarly less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources as compared to the Project. The Project site does not contain known human remains. However, there are known human remains identified within the vicinity of the Project. Both the Project and the RPA would have the potential to uncover human remains during construction activities. Both the Project and the RPA would be subject to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code, section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq., which is applied to the Project as a mitigation measure, and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254 (r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of required mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with human remains to below a level of significance. 5. Energy The RPA proposes similar land uses as the Project, but at a reduced intensity. As with the Project, construction and operational activities under the RPA would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the Project and RPA can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. Neither the Project nor the RPA would cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project and RPA would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. As such, impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation would be less than significant requiring no mitigation for both the Project and RPA. Impacts would be slightly reduced under the RPA due to the reduction in development intensity. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 124 The Project and RPA both would implement energy-saving features and operational measures. Notably, the Project and RPA would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Menifee. The Project and RPA would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the operational activities of the Project and RPA would be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, neither the Project nor the RPA would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, although impacts would be slightly reduced under the RPA due to the reduction in development intensity. 6. Geology and Soils The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, but as with all areas of southern California, future buildings, residents, and visitors have the potential to be exposed to ground shaking. The potential impact would be the same for the Project and the RPA, and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to standard regulatory requirements and the mitigation presented in EIR Subsection 4.6.7. Both the Project and the RPA would be subject to mandatory regulatory requirements, including the preparation and implementation of a WQMP for post-development Project operation, a future SWPPP during construction, and compliance to applicable City ordinances, which would reduce erosion impacts on- and off- site during construction to less-than-significant levels for both the Project and the RPA. There is a remote chance the Project site could be subject to hazards associated with landslides, lateral spreading, or liquefaction. This is evaluated as a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation for both the Project and the RPA. Impacts due to subsidence would be low, however due to the unpredictability of ground subsidence factors, impacts would be considered significant for both the Project and RPA. Additionally, the Project site has a slight potential for hydro-collapse, and would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Mandatory compliance with standard regulatory requirements and the mitigation set forth in EIR Subsection 4.6.7 would reduce impacts due to unstable geologic units to below a level of significance. Both the Project and the RPA have the potential to be impacted by expansive soils, but such impacts would be similar and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in EIR Subsection 4.6.7. Similar to the Project, the RPA would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, nor are any such septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems present on-site under existing conditions. No impact would occur under the Project or RPA. Because the Project site was identified as containing paleontologically significant soils with a high potential for uncovering fossil resources, and the physical disturbance area under the Project and the RPA would be identical (331.0 acres), impacts to paleontological resources at the site would be identical under implementation of the Project and the RPA. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would involve the construction of up to 1,061 single-family dwelling units, 225,000 s.f. of freeway- oriented commercial land uses, and a 12.9-acre community park/community center. Under the RPA, the Project site would be developed with up to 720 dwelling units, 180,000 s.f. of freeway-oriented commercial Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 125 land uses, and a 12.9-acre community park/community center. Due to the reduction in the number of proposed structures/buildings, near-term construction-related GHGs associated with the RPA would be decreased in comparison to the Project. Under long-term operating conditions, the RPA would also result in reduced GHG emissions in comparison to the Project because it proposes fewer dwelling units and less commercial square footage than the Project, and thus would result in fewer average daily vehicular trips. Although GHG emissions would be reduced overall, it is likely that the RPA still would not achieve the SCAQMD Threshold for 2025 of 4.2 MTCO2e per Service Population. This is because while the amount of GHG emissions under the RPA would be less, the number of residents and workers (i.e., Service Population) also would be reduced. Thus, although the RPA would result in reduced GHG emissions as compared to the Project, impacts would nonetheless remain significant and unavoidable even following implementation of mitigation. Impacts due to a conflict with the reduction targets of SB 32 would also be significant and unavoidable under both the RPA and the Project, although the level of impact would be reduced under RPA. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land uses that would occur on-site under the RPA would have the same or similar potential to handle and store hazardous material as the Project during both construction and operation. With mandatory regulatory compliance, neither the RPA nor the Project would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment during construction or long-term operation. Land uses under the Project and the RPA would not expose the nearby Hans Christenson Middle School to significant risk associated with hazardous materials, and impacts under both the RPA and the Project would be less than significant. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5; thus, no impacts would occur under the Project or the RPA. The Project site is located within the AIA for the MARB, and the Project was revised by the ALUC on October 26, 2017, which found that the Project would not conflict with the MARB ALUCP, subject to several conditions that would be enforced by the City as part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project. Because the land uses under the RPA are similar to the Project, it also can be concluded that the RPA also would be consistent with the AIA for the MARB, subject to standard conditions of approval. Additionally, neither the Project nor the RPA would be exposed to hazards associated with private airport operations, including the Perris Valley Airport. The Project and the RPA would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency facilities exist on the Project site, and the site does not serve as an emergency evacuation route. Thus, no impact would occur under either the Project or the RPA. The northeastern portion of the Project site is located within a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” while the rest of the Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Zone. Both the Project and the RPA would reduce wildfire-related impacts to less-than-significant levels through mandatory compliance with fire protection requirements, although the RPA would expose fewer structures on-site to wildland fire hazards. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction and operational characteristics of the Project and the RPA would be similar. Thus, with implementation of the BMPs from the SWPPP during construction and a project-specific WQMP for post- development Project operation, as well as implementation of drainage plans that include water Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 126 quality/detention basins, both the Project and RPA would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to water quality, although impacts would be slightly reduced under the RPA due to a reduction in impervious surface area. Neither the Project nor the RPA would involve the direct extraction of groundwater. The RPA would result in a decrease in impervious surface area as compared to the Project; however, it is not expected that the Project or RPA would result in adverse impacts to groundwater recharge. Implementation of the BMPs from a project-specific SWPPP during construction and a site-specific WQMP during post-development Project operation, as well as construction of on-site water quality/detention basins would ensure that construction and operation of the Project and RPA would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, contribute runoff storm water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Accordingly, impacts under the Project and the RPA would be similar and would be less than significant. Both the Project and the RPA would be required to implement storm water detention basins in order to ensure that peak storm water flow rates are reduced in comparison to existing conditions, and would reduce potential impacts associated with flooding to less-than-significant levels. The Project site is not subject to 100-year flood hazards. Thus, no impact would occur due to flood hazards under either the Project or RPA. The western portion of the Project site has been identified as occurring within a dam inundation zone. Both the Project and the RPA would be required to comply with the City of Menifee General Plan “Implementation Actions” applicable to dam inundation as well as the construction of on-site storm water quality/detention basins on-site, which would ensure that any potential dam inundation hazards associated with future development would be less than significant. Thus, impacts under the Project and RPA would be similar and would be less than significant. Based on the 4.5-mile distance of Canyon Lake (the nearest large body of water) from the Project site, the Project and RPA would not be subject to inundation by seiches associated with the body of water. Impacts associated with inundation by seiche would be less than significant for both the Project and RPA. Additionally, due to the approximately 33-mile distance of the Project site from the Pacific Ocean, there is no potential for a tsunami to affect the Project site, and no impact would occur under either alternative. With implementation of the BMPs from the Project-specific SWPPP during construction and a site-specific WQMP during post- development Project operation, as well as Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 (refer to EIR Subsection 4.6.7) requiring implementation of the recommendations from the Project-specific “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation” (EIR Technical Appendix F1), hazards associated with mudflows would be less than significant for the Project and RPA. 10. Land Use and Planning Neither the RPA nor the Project would result in the physical division of an established community; thus, impacts would be similar and would be less than significant. Both the Project and the RPA would entail changing the site’s existing zoning classifications. Due to a reduction in the number of single-family homes and commercial area under the RPA, the RPA would not implement the Menifee General Plan land use assumptions for the property because it would not provide for Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 127 the level of residential density or commercial intensity envisioned by the General Plan. By contrast, the Project would largely implement the General Plan land use assumptions for the site, although at a slightly reduced intensity. However, in both cases, impacts due to an inconsistency or incompatibility associated with the existing or proposed zoning classifications or land use designations would be less than significant, but increased under the RPA. 11. Noise During near-term construction, the types of construction activities conducted on the site would be similar under the RPA and the Project; however, given the greater development intensity proposed by the Project as compared to the RPA, the Project would result in the construction of more building area on-site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the duration of noise impacts during the building construction and architectural coating phasing would increase under the Project as compared to the RPA. Regardless, the types of construction equipment used and the types of construction activities conducted on-site would be similar under the RPA and the Project, and the peak daily noise levels generated during the construction phase would also be similar and are expected to be less than significant. As noted, construction activities under the Project and RPA would be similar. Based on the FTA vibration standard of 80 VdB for annoyance, the construction activities under the Project and RPA would exceed the standard at receiver locations R1 and R9. Therefore, vibration impacts at locations R1 and R9 represent a temporary significant impact during construction activities under both the RPA and Project, and would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. Due to the decreased intensity of construction under the RPA, impacts would be reduced under the RPA as compared to the Project. Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by both the Project and the RPA primarily would be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, parking, landscape maintenance, barking dogs, and other amplified sounds typically found in a master-planned community. Under the Project, a total of 1,061 residential units, 225,000 s.f. of commercial retail space are proposed, which would be more intense compared to the RPA which would result in the development of up to 720 dwelling units and 180,000 s.f. of commercial retail uses. Accordingly, the RPA would result in a decrease in traffic as compared to the RPA, and it can reasonably be assumed that long-term operational-related noise on the local roadway system under the RPA would be decreased as compared to the Project, although impacts would be less than significant under the RPA and the Project. Both the Project and the RPA would contribute unmitigated, worst-case construction noise level increases resulting in significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation would be required under both the Project and RPA requiring the construction of temporary noise barriers adjacent to impacted receiver locations, which would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Due to the lower intensity of construction under the RPA, such impacts would be slightly reduced in comparison to the Project. Both the Project and the RPA would be located within the Airport Influence Area for the March Air Reserve Base and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels; thus, a similar less-than-significant impact would occur. The Project and RPA are not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; thus, a similar less-than-significant impact would occur. 12. Public Services The Project proposes development of 1,061 single-family homes and 225,000 s.f. of commercial retail space. As previously stated, the RPA would develop the Project site with up to 720 single-family homes and 180,000 Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 128 s.f. of commercial retail space. Thus, the RPA would result in decreased demand for additional police, fire, library, school, and health services as compared to the Project. Therefore, potential impacts to public services would be decreased under the RPA compared to Project due to the decreased number of dwelling units and commercial retail square footage (and thus, demand for public services), although impacts would be less than significant under both the RPA and the Project. 13. Recreation The RPA would have a lower demand for recreation facilities than the Project. Based on the population rates listed in City Council Resolution No. 15-143(3.164 persons/household), the RPA would result in a total future population of 2,278 persons (720 homes × 3.164 persons/household = 2,278 persons). Specifically, the 2,278 residents that would be generated by the RPA would result in a demand for 11.4 acres of parkland (2,278 residents × 5.0 acres of parkland/1,000 residents = 11.4 acres of parkland), as compared to the 16.8 acres of parkland demand that would occur under the Project (as discussed in EIR Subsection 4.13, Recreation). The Project and the RPA would provide 16.8 acres of parkland; therefore, both the Project and the RPA would provide adequate parkland to support the population density. Based on the foregoing, the RPA would result in decreased less-than-significant impacts as compared to the Project with respect to the topic of recreation because it would generate less residents and result in a decreased demand for recreational facilities. 14. Transportation Implementation of the RPA would result in 720 single-family residences, 180,000 s.f. of commercial retail space, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, and 38.6 acres of roadways. By comparison, implementation of the Project would result in 1,061 single-family residential units, 225,000 s.f. of commercial retail space, a 12.9-acre community park/community center, and 38.6 acres of roadways. The RPA’s approximately one-third reduction in the number of dwelling units and residents and a 20% reduction in commercial retail square footage would result in a commensurate reduction in daily trip-ends that are generated by the site. Due to the decrease in number of dwelling units as well as commercial retail area, the RPA would result in a reduction in vehicle trips in comparison to the Project and would result in decreased impacts to the surrounding vehicular system as compared to the Project. It should be noted that fewer Project residential trips would be captured internally under the RPA due to the reduction in commercial areas on site; thus, there would be more external vehicular trips generated under the RPA on a per-unit basis as compared to the Project even though total overall traffic would be reduced. As a result of the reduction in traffic, the RPA likely would avoid some of the Project’s cumulatively-considerable unavoidable impacts to intersections, roadway segments, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge locations, although impacts to some facilities likely would remain significant and unavoidable. Neither the Project or the GPLUA would conflict with adopted policies, plan, or programs regarding alternative modes of transportation Improvements under both the RPA and the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access. Nonetheless, cumulatively-considerable and unavoidable impacts to transportation would occur under both the Project and the RPA, although impacts under the RPA would be substantially lessened. Accordingly, traffic-related impacts under the RPA would be reduced as compared to the Project. 15. Tribal Cultural Resources Implementation of the RPA would result in the same areas of physical impacts as the Project. Two tribal cultural resources were found on-site (Site CA-RIV-9289 and Site P-33-028165), and impacts to these tribal cultural resources would be significant prior to mitigation with implementation of the Project and RPA; Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 129 however, these tribal cultural resources would be preserved within the on-site open space area under the Project and RPA pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-7 and the area surrounding the tribal cultural resources would be subject to controlled grading pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-8. Thus, and as with the Project, impacts to known tribal cultural resources on site under the RPA would be less than significant. Although there is a high potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources that may be buried beneath the site’s surface, both the Project and the RPA would be required to implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-9, which would preclude the potential for significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. In the event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the Project and the RPA would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code section 5097 et. seq., applied to the Project as Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-9, and applicable regulatory requirements (i.e., the exemption in California Government Code section 6254 (r) related to the withholding of public disclosure information related to reburial of Native American human remains or grave goods). Implementation of required mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with human remains to below a level of significance. Accordingly, impacts would be similar under both the Project and RPA, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the required mitigation. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The RPA would result in a reduced demand for water, sewer, and storm water drainage service/facilities than the Project due to the decrease in the number of residential homes and commercial retail square footage. In addition, the RPA would result in a decreased demand for solid waste collection and disposal services as the Project. Neither the Project nor the RPA would result in significant direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and service systems, but impacts would be decreased under the RPA due to the decrease in development intensity. 17. Wildfire Due to temporary lane closures that may occur during the construction phase of both the Project and the RPA, construction activities may conflict with emergency access routes and access to nearby uses during frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road. Construction traffic would be required to comply with a temporary traffic control plan that meets the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Although it is anticipated a less- than-significant impact would occur with the requirement to implement a temporary traffic control plan during construction, out of an abundance of caution, a significant impact would occur under both the Project and RPA. Impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels under both the Project and the RPA, and the level of impact would be the same. The Project site features relatively level topography with a small knoll present in the northeastern portion of the site. Under existing conditions, the majority of Project site is not identified as being subject to wildfires, while the northeastern corner is identified as a “high fire hazard severity zone.” With development of the Project site under either the Project or the RPA, the site would be developed with urban land uses. Proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with relevant fire codes, frontage improvements that would create buffers, and the property would contain irrigated landscaped elements that would have a low potential for causing or exacerbating wildfire risks. Although there is a potential for major fire events in the local area, the potential for residents and/or workers to be exposed to excessive pollutant concentrations from wildfires is no different from much of the Southern California region. Additionally, there are no components of the Project or the RPA that would have the potential to result in or contribute to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; on the contrary, development of the Project site as proposed under either alternative would reduce the risk of Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 130 wildfire hazards in the local area. As such, impacts would be less than significant under both the RPA and the Project, and the level of impact would be similar. Both the Project and the RPA would involve frontage improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road, and would construct local connections to infrastructure for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Additionally, neither the Project nor the RPA proposes or requires any fuel modification zones to address fire hazards. Proposed improvements along Encanto Drive, Rouse Road, Chambers Avenue, Sherman Road, and Antelope Road would reduce fire risks in the local area, while all of the infrastructure connections would occur within improved roadway rights-of-way within the immediate vicinity under both the Project and the RPA. There are no components of the proposed infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As such, impacts under the RPA and the Project would be less than significant, and the level of impact would be similar. The northeastern portion of the Project site, consisting of a small knoll is located within a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” while the rest of the Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Zone. The Project would provide buffer distance of 100 feet as provided by roadways surrounding the Project site and irrigated landscaped parkways would reduce the site’s potential for fire hazards to below a level of significance. As such, both the Project and RPA would result in less-than-significant impacts due to the exposure of 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, and the level of impact would be similar. C. Summary of Major Environmental Effects As compared to the Project, the RPA would not result in increased impacts to any of the issue areas analyzed above, and would result in similar or decreased impacts to all of the issue areas analyzed above. Specifically, as compared to the Project, the RPA would result in reduced impacts associated with air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/service systems. Impacts under the issues of aesthetics, biological resources, geology/soils, archaeological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire would be similar under the Project and the RPA. D. Feasibility The RPA would be feasible, but would be less efficient and thus less economical than the Project due to the reduction in the number of proposed residential units and in the amount of commercial building area. Additionally, this Alternative would not eliminate all of the Project’s significant environmental effects, though some effects, such as air quality and transportation, would be reduced under the RPA. Significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation still would occur, but would be reduced under the RPA as compared to the proposed Project. E. Comparative Merits The RPA would meet all of the Project’s objectives, though in most cases less effectively than the Project. As with the Project, the RPA would develop the underutilized Project site with a complementary mix of land uses (residential, commercial, and recreational open space), but would fail to utilize the Project site as efficiently as the Project since it would decrease the number of dwelling units by one-third and commercial retail square footage by 20%. Therefore, the RPA would not accomplish Project Objective A as effectively as the Project. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 131 As with the Project, the RPA would be subject to the design guidelines set forth in Section 4 of the Legado Specific Plan (SP 2017-187). Therefore, the RPA would establish a mixed-use master-planned community (residential, commercial, and recreational open space land uses) that would be visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses, and with a design that takes topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints into consideration as effectively as the Project. The RPA would effectively increase the available housing supply within the region by providing detached single-family homes in traditional subdivision layouts that would be marketable within the evolving economic profile of the City of Menifee and surrounding communities, though not as effectively as the Project because it would develop the Project site with 320 fewer homes compared to the Project. The RPA would include a system of public and community facilities identical to the Project, and therefore would accomplish Project Objective E as effectively as the Project. Because it would be subject to the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Legado Specific Plan (SP 2017-187), the RPA would accomplish Project Objective F which requires project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatments, and other similar design features that would ensure the community is developed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing manner as effectively as the Project. The RPA would accomplish Project Objective G (to establish development phasing that results in logical coordinated growth) as effectively as the Project because it would be subject to the identical conceptual phasing plan shown in DEIR Figures 3-14 through 3-16. The RPA would accomplish Project Objective H as effectively as the Project, because it would provide public benefits and long-term planning considerations with implementation of the Legado Specific Plan (SP 2017-187). The RPA would accomplish Project Objective I as effectively as the Project, because it would achieve consistency with the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies related to maximum building height and residential density; the Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of the existing mapped March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Map which does not have any restrictions on residential density, building heights, or number of people per acre. 4.5.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the No Project/No Development Alternative because no new physical environmental impacts would occur on-site. The Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped, and significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation impacts that would occur by implementation of the proposed Project would not occur. However, State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) states: The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, because the No Project/No Development Alternative has been identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA, the Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives would be the RPA, which would reduce the number of residential dwelling units and the amount of commercial building area. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 132 As previously analyzed, activity related to the RPA would be less, and consequently, overall impacts from implementation of this Alternative would be less than those of the proposed Project. The RPA would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, but would not reduce to a level below significance the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the RPA would result in the same type of significant and unavoidable impacts that would result from the Project, though to a lesser degree. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency (City) to approve the environmentally superior alternative. Conversely, CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(a)) and then the Lead Agency may elect to approve the project or any of the analyzed alternatives; in addition, the Lead Agency may also elect not to approve the project or any of its alternatives. This alternatives analysis has been prepared for the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives and also determine whether the benefits of the project or its alternatives outweigh the potential environmental impacts. Table 5-1, Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts, below provides a summary comparison of the Alternatives to the proposed Project and the proposed Alternatives ability to meet the Project objectives. The City hereby incorporates Table 6-1 from the DEIR. 5.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Legado Specific Project has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With implementation of the proposed Project including the Project mitigation measures identified for each significant impact, most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant, except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed below and in Section 4.4 of the Findings. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 133 Table 5-1 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC/OBJECTIVE PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION LEVEL OF IMPACT COMPARED TO THE PROJECT/DEGREE TO WHICH ALTERNATIVE MEETS PROJECT OBJECTIVES NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE NO PROJECT/GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ALTERNATIVE REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Aesthetics Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impacts Reduced Near-Term: Slightly Increased Long-Term: Increased Near-Term: Slightly Reduced Long-Term: Reduced Biological Resources Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Cultural Resources Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Energy Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Geology and Soils Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impacts Reduced Near-Term: Increased Long-Term: Increased Near-Term: Reduced Long-Term: Reduced Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Less-than-Significant Most Issues: Reduced Erosion/Siltation: Increased Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Slightly Increased Noise Less-than-Significant Reduced Near-Term: Slightly Increased Long-Term: Increased Near-Term: Slightly Reduced Long-Term: Reduced Paleontological Resources Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Public Services Less-than-Significant Reduced Increased Reduced Recreation Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Reduced Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impacts Reduced Increased Reduced Tribal Cultural Resources Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Utilities and Service Systems Less-than-Significant Reduced Increased Reduced Wildfire Less-than-Significant Reduced Similar Similar Objective A: To efficiently develop an underutilized property with a complementary mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. No Yes Yes, but not as effectively as the Project due to a reduction in residential units and commercial area Objective B: Establish a master-planned community in a manner that is sensitive to the environment as well as visually and functionally compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses. No Yes Yes Objective C: To develop a mixed-use community with a design that takes topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints into consideration to minimize alterations to natural landforms, where practical. No Yes Yes Objective D: To increase the available housing supply within the region by providing detached single-family homes in traditional subdivision layouts that will be marketable within the evolving economic profile of the City of Menifee and surrounding communities. No Yes, but not as effectively as the Project, because it would not include single- family housing; however, it would help Yes, but not as effectively as the Project due to the reduction in the total number of proposed dwelling units Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 134 ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC/OBJECTIVE PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION LEVEL OF IMPACT COMPARED TO THE PROJECT/DEGREE TO WHICH ALTERNATIVE MEETS PROJECT OBJECTIVES NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE NO PROJECT/GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ALTERNATIVE REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for housing supply. Objective E: To provide a system of public and community facilities, including a public community park/community center, paseos/neighborhood parks, bike lanes, and trails to support development in an efficient and timely manner and meet the needs of project residents and residents of surrounding communities. No Yes Yes Objective F: To require project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatments, and other similar design features that would ensure the community is developed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing. No No Yes Objective G: To establish development phasing that results in logical coordinated growth. No Yes Yes Objective H: To provide public benefits such as community recreation facilities, as well as long-term planning certainty for the City of Menifee and the Project Applicant. No Yes Yes Objective I: To establish a land use plan that is consistent with the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Zone policies related to maximum building height and residential density. No Yes Yes Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 135 The City has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Impacts, in these and all other cases, have been mitigated to the extent considered feasible. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. B. Air Quality  Air Quality: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact (Thresholds a and b). Implementation of Regulatory Requirements CRDR 4.2-1 through CRDR 4.2-5, Design Requirements CRDR 4.2-6 and CRDR 4.2-7, and Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, would reduce the Project’s operational exceedances of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of CRDRs and Mitigation Measures would reduce, but would not eliminate, the Project’s operational exceedances of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds for VOCs and NOX. No feasible mitigation measures or CRDRs beyond those already identified exist that would reduce emissions of NOX and VOCs to levels that are less than significant. It is important to note that the majority of VOC emissions are derived from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control consumer products via mitigation; thus, VOC emissions are considered significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measure exists that would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels. Additionally, a majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Since the Project Applicant does not have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce NOX emissions to levels that are less than significant. Accordingly, the following impacts associated with Project operations would remain significant and unavoidable: a) the Project’s direct and cumulatively-considerable impact due to a violation of the applicable air quality standards for VOCs and NOX, and b) the Project’s emissions of VOCs and NOX that would contribute to the region’s non-attainment status under both state and federal designations for ozone. C. Greenhous Gas Emissions  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Thresholds a and b): Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively- Considerable Impact. Implementation of the required Design Requirements (CRDRs), regulatory requirements, and Project-specific mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s Service Population Ratio to 8.32 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per Service Population, which would exceed the threshold of 3.84 MTCO2e per Service Population. No other feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s impacts to less that significant. Thus, the Project’s cumulatively-considerable impacts due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. D. Transportation  Transportation: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. Table 4-1, provides a summary of the significance of the Project’s impacts to transportation following implementation of the City Regulations and Design Requirements and Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-2 through MM 4.14-65 for each phase of the Project. As shown, the Project would result in a number of cumulatively- considerable impacts to transportation facilities that cannot be reduced to less than significant levels. It should be noted that aside from facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic are due to the fact that it cannot be assured that facilities to be constructed from DIF fees, TUMF fees, and/or Project fair-share payments would be in place at Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 136 the time of Project occupancy. No other feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s impacts to less that significant. Unavoidable impacts to Caltrans facilities Thus, the Project’s impacts due to a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy measuring of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system at the facilities listed in Table 4-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a), the lead agency (City of Menifee) must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the specific benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the Project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality, greenhouse gases, transportation/traffic. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts regarding air quality, greenhouse gases, and transportation/traffic are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from adoption and implementation of the Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic, and other benefits of the Project. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the DEIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceedings for the Project. The City Council finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Provided below are the benefits of implementing the Project that justify approval of the Project despite the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects.  Proposed Circulation/Mobility Improvements. The Project Applicant proposes to implement frontage improvements to Encanto Drive, Antelope Road, Chambers Avenue, and Rouse Road, and would be required to construct Sherman Road through the central portion of the Project site between the existing segments of Sherman Road located north and south of the Project site.  Reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled. The Project consists of a proposed mixed-use development that would provide for commercial uses in close proximity to proposed residential uses on site, and Project- serving recreational amenities on site. The Project also accommodates an extensive network of trails Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 137 and facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). Furthermore, the Project site is located near the McCall Boulevard on- and off-ramps at Interstate 215, providing convenient freeway access to residents. These Project design features would serve to reduce the number of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs) that would be generated by development of the site, and would thereby assist the City in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Economic Development Benefits. Under existing conditions, the 331.0-acre Project site consists of undeveloped vacant land. Thus, the property generates limited tax revenue to the City under existing conditions. With implementation of the Project, the western 20.1 acres of the Project site would be developed with up to 225,000 s.f. of commercial land uses. Development of the proposed commercial uses would generate approximately 358 recurring jobs within the City. Additionally, development of the property would increase the amount of tax revenue generated by the site. Thus, approval of the Project would represent a substantial benefit to the residents of Menifee and surrounding areas.  Expanded Housing Opportunities. As stated in the Housing Element of the Menifee General Plan, Menifee’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014‐2021 planning period has been determined to be 2,495 units for very low‐ and low‐income households and 3,750 units for moderate‐ and above moderate‐income households. The Project would result in an increase in the number of Moderate- and Above Moderate-Residential dwelling units within the City by 1,061 homes, which would assist the City in meeting its state-mandated RHNA obligations to accommodate new housing units.  Recreational Amenities. The Project is expected to generate approximately 3,357 new residents (based on the rates identified in City Council Resolution No. 15-413 for population for parkland demand) within the City. Based on the City of Menifee requirement of 5.0 acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents, the Project would generate a demand for approximately 16.8 acres of parkland. However, the Project accommodates a total of 20.8 acres of recreational opportunities on site, which would exceed the City’s parkland requirements by 4.0 acres. This parkland includes a 12.9-acre community park with community fields. The Project also would accommodate a proposed community recreation center. The community fields and community center are identified as needed facilities in the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan. Two neighborhood parks and a private recreation center with a pool are included in the Specific Plan and intended to provide recreational activities to all age groups. The overall park design, excess parkland and community recreation center accommodated by the Project would benefit the residents of Menifee as well as nearby communities.  Drainage Improvements. Under existing conditions, a majority of Encanto Drive is not improved with curbs and gutter and instead utilizes graded swales west of the road to convey storm water drainage. This existing condition is inadequate and creates seasonal flooding during large storm events along the segment of Encanto Drive that forms the western Project boundary. The Project includes improvements to address local area drainage issues, including flooding along Encanto Drive. The Project includes curb and gutter improvements to Encanto Drive, Sherman Road, Antelope Road, and Chambers along the Project’s frontage and/or within the Project’s boundaries to further mitigate flooding impacts.  Infill Development. The Project is infill development that furthers smart growth principles by avoiding sprawl, connecting the Project to existing infrastructure, and locating compatible uses (i.e., residential, commercial, and recreational uses) in close proximity to one another. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 138  Aesthetics and Community Character Enhancement. The Project enhances the aesthetics and character of the surrounding community by incorporating enhanced landscaping, improving streetscapes, and incorporating monument signage and public art.  Open Space Conservation. The Project includes the preservation of approximately 6.3 acres in the northeastern portion of the site, which would preserve an existing hillside as permanently-conserved open space which protects environmentally sensitive resources and an area landmark.  Trail Network, Parks, Public Art, and Design. The Project creates a residential community which is designed to improve the quality of life of its residents and surrounding community through the incorporation of a trail network, sidewalks, paseos, bicycle lanes, parks, public art and design. 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The City has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Project. The City Council finds that the DEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines; that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City; and that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been identified by the City after circulation of the DEIR which would require recirculation. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: 6.1 FINDINGS The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and, although all applicable and feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project, the impacts cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels: A. Air Quality The Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to conflicting with, or obstructing, implementation of, the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, which is the applicable AQMP for the Project area. The Project also would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to operational-related emissions of NOX and VOCs, which would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for these pollutants. Thus, the Project would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant (NOX and VOCs which are precursors for ozone) for which the Project region is classified as non-attainment. B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would generate 8.32 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e), which would exceed the threshold of 3.84 MTCO2e. The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 139 C. Transportation As shown in Table 4-1, the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to study area intersections and due to traffic signal warrants, and also would significantly and unavoidably impact freeway off-ramp queuing locations, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge locations. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the DEIR and will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, except for the impacts listed above and described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve most of the basic objectives of the project have been considered. Some of the alternatives were feasible but did not meet the Project objectives; others met the Project objectives but were found not to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant. Since the alternatives considered either did not serve to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts, or because the alternatives offer no feasible means of avoiding the significant effects identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the alternatives are rejected in favor of the Project. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. 7.0 ADOPTION OF MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City as the Lead Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MRMP) attached to these Findings. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program shall control. 8.0 LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of, among other documents, the following documents:  The November 14, 2017 Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the City in conjunction with the Project.  All comments and correspondence submitted by public agencies and members of the public during the NOP public review period. (November 14, 2017 to December 14, 2017)  The January 9, 2020 DEIR, including appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the January 9, 2020 DEIR.  All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public comment period on the DEIR which began on January 9, 2020.  The Final EIR  All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project and EIR during public hearings held before the City Planning Commission and City Council. Legado Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report CEQA Findings of Fact Lead Agency: City of Menifee SCH No. 2009091118 Page 140  The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (MMRP) for the Project.  All findings and resolutions adopted by the City decision makers in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein.  All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Project.  All documents and information submitted to the City by responsible, trustee, or other public agencies, or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the Project and/or the January 9, 2020 DEIR through the date the City Council approved the Project.  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.  Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above.  Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, Subdivision (e). The custodian of the record of proceedings is the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Planning Division, whose office is located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, California, 92586. The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council decision-makers as part of the City’s files generated in connection with the Project.